University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STATUS OF TEACHING ELEMENTARY SCIENCE
FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND
TECHNOLOGY CENTERED MAGNET SCHOOLS

by

Alyson Kim Han

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

August 2007

Copyright 2007 Alyson Kim Han

ii
DEDICATION
“Perseverance is a great element of success; if you only knock long enough
and loud enough at the gate you are sure to wake up somebody.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

This thesis is dedicated to my beloved family and friends who stood by my
side and provided me a warm shoulder to fall on when I needed one.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the
affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and to endure the
betrayal of false friends; to appreciate the beauty; to find the best in others; to leave
the world a bit better whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social
condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is
to have succeeded.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I would like to first thank my beloved family for their love and support in
making this dream possible. My nurturing parents who have always believed in me.
They install the basic principle that with hard work and dedication no dream is
impossible to accomplish. My sister and brothers, Kim, Eric, William, and Dan for
their patience, guidance, and allowing me to hog over the computer. My handsome
angelic “prince” nephew, Leyland, for always giving me hugs and kisses.
“I get the best feeling in the world when you say hi or even smile at me
because I know, even if its just for a second, that I’ve crossed your mind.”
Translated from Chinese proverb
I would also like to thanked my husband, Danny. I look forward to building
and sharing my dreams, laughter, sadness, happiness, failures, accomplishments, and
a family with you.

iv

“A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.”
Henry Adams
This thesis would not have been able to be accomplished without the wisdom
and leadership of my professors, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, Dr. William McComas, Dr.
Margo Pensavalle, and Dr. Gisele Ragusa. Thank you for providing your angelic
hands in guiding me to accomplish my lifelong academic dream! I would be
honored to followed in your footsteps in ensuring that the lifelong learning cycle will
be further supported to future generations.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ..................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ vii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM ................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ 13
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................... 80
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................ 99
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ........................ 123
REFERENCES .....................................................................................145
APPENDICES .......................................................................................154

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Language Skills Required by Science ................................................ 58

Table 2: Activities in Science Lesson for English Learners ............................. 83
Table 3: Number of Minutes Spent on Tasks During the Science Lessons .... 84
Table 4: Results of the Pilot Study ................................................................... 96
Table 5: Demographics of the Study Participants at Magnet Schools ............ 102
Table 6: How Well Prepared Teachers Were .................................................. 106
Table 7: Professional Development ................................................................. 108
Table 8: Science Instructional Practices for English Learners ………………. 110

Table 9: Average Number of Instructional Minutes Per Week ...................... 112

Table 10: Science Instructional Strategies Clusters ....................................... 114
Table 11: Classroom Instructional Activities To Support English Learners ... 117

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Continuum of Instructional Strategies 16
Figure 2: The Learning Cycle 44

viii

ABSTRACT
According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001),
one in three students speaks a language other than English. Additionally, the
Commission stated that a student is considered to be an English learner if the second
language acquisition is English. In California more than 1.4 million English learners
enter school speaking a variety of languages, and this number continues to rise.
There is an imminent need to promote instructional strategies that support this group
of diverse learners. Although this was not a California study, the results derived
from the nationwide participants’ responses provided a congruent assessment of the
basic need to provide effective science teaching strategies to all English learners.
The purpose of this study was to examine the status of elementary science
teaching practices used with English learners in kindergarten through fifth grade in
public mathematics, science, and technology-centered elementary magnet schools
throughout the country. This descriptive research was designed to provide current
information and to identify trends in the areas of curriculum and instruction for
English learners in science themed magnet schools. This report described the status
of elementary (grades K-5) school science instruction for English learners based on
the responses of 116 elementary school teachers: 59 grade K-2, and 57 grade 3-5
teachers.
Current research-based approaches support incorporating self-directed
learning strategy, expository teaching strategy, active listening strategies,

ix
questioning strategies, wait time strategy, small group strategy, peer tutoring
strategy, large group learning strategy, demonstrations strategy, formal debates
strategy, review sessions strategy, mediated conversation strategy, cooperative
learning strategy, and theme-based instruction into the curriculum to assist English
learners in science education. Science Technology Society (STS) strategy, problem-
based learning strategy, discovery learning strategy, constructivist learning strategy,
learning cycle strategy, SCALE technique strategy, conceptual change strategy,
inquiry-based strategy, cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA)
strategy, and learning from text strategy provide effective science teaching
instruction to English learners. These science instructional strategies assist
elementary science teachers by providing additional support to make science
instruction more comprehensible for English learners.

1
CHAPTER 1:
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM
According to the 2000 census, many states throughout the nation reported a
significant increase in their minority language student populations since 1990.
Arkansas had experienced a 300% growth, Texas a 100% increase, and the states of
California, Arizona and New Mexico reported doubling their English learner
population. Since 1998, the California Department of Education has reported an
increase of more than 30% in the number of English learners in the state’s urban
school districts. As reported in the California Department of Education Language
Census Report for Spring 2003, there are currently over 1.5 million K-12 English
learners and more than 2.3 million students in California’s schools speak languages
other than English. Of these English learners, the majority, 70%, are in the
elementary grades, K-6
th
, and 30% in the middle and high school categories.
According to this statistical data, in an average primary grade, K-3
rd
, classroom of 20
students, 14 students are considered to be English learners. In the upper elementary,
4
th
-6
th
, classroom of 40 students, 28 would be classified as English learners. As one
of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse states, California faces significant
challenges for K-12 educators to provide high-quality comprehensible education in
all curricula.
Rosebery, Warren, and Conant (1992) stated that education for English
learners (EL) is complex because it requires the teaching of academic content while
simultaneously developing second language knowledge and comprehension. In

2
other words, the student is learning the academic subject while learning English.
The learners of academic discourse are often “individually responsible for
constructing meanings and must rely on their own understanding of both the
language and concepts involved” (Jarret, 1999, p. 7).
Yet it is commonly understood that to learn the content of a subject the
learner must be proficient in English (Met, 1994). In order for the EL to succeed,
they must be explicitly taught to make use of the academic language. It may take
English learner students up to seven years to acquire a level of language proficiency
comparable to that of native English speakers (Chamot & O’Malley, 1986, 1996;
Cummins, 1981). At this rate, English learners will always be playing “catch up”
and will not have an opportunity to obtain optimal learning growth.
English learners will not only fall behind academically but they will also be
inhibited from fully developing English language skills. “In most English Language
Development (ELD) classes, English learners acquire basic social communication
skills but less readily acquire the complex subject-specific language skills required
for academic success” (Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002, p. 665). The
students do not have the necessary language skills and decoding skills, they have less
access to rigorous content-rich subject matter instruction (Cummins, 1981;
McGroaty, 1992).
Mainstream English speaking students form structures that allow them to
understand, conceptualize, symbolize, discuss, and read about the multiple aspects of
academic subjects. In other words, by engaging in these processes, they develop an

3
academic language. Academic languages are specialized and cognitively demanding
but they enabled students to engage in literacy development. However, English
learners lack the skill to develop an academic language because they are still learning
the English language. This dissertation is specifically concerned with teaching
elementary science.
According to Irvine and Armento (2001), teachers of elementary science
should recognize and respond to their students’ diversity, encourage rich discourse
among peer groups about science ideas, use multiple methods of assessment, and
nurture collaboration from these diverse learners. Cochran-Smith (2001) noted that,
when the curricula and instruction are consistent with the English learner’s cultural
and language background, the student has a better opportunity to learn. Fradd and
Lee (1999) suggested that, if science content instruction is appropriate, it can help
students to develop proficiency and literacy in the English language. Kang and
Pham (1995) and Latham (1998) stated that instruction that support science often
assists students in their academic performance as well as English language
development.
By definition, teachers who engaged in exemplary science teaching strategies
in their classrooms are incorporating characteristics of the current ideal teaching
strategies for English learners. Science instructional strategies are grouped into five
categories: intrapersonal, interpersonal, integrated science content, constructivist,
and academic text support. In the first group, intrapersonal, the students have been
taught to become self-regulated learners and initiate self-directed learning.

4
Elementary science teachers have modeled self help skills such as how to engage in
active listening, use different level of questioning strategies to assist the student in
facilitating their own learning of the science content, and provide adequate wait time
so that the student has the opportunity to comprehend the task or content.
In the second science instructional strategy group, interpersonal, the English
learners have the opportunity to interact with their peers in small groups, large group
learning, and demonstrations. Cooperative learning groups, formal debates, review
sessions, peer tutoring, and mediated conversation serve as excellent outlets for
students to practice their self help learning skills such as active listening.
The integrated science content approach allows the English learner to receive
additional support in other academic contents while having an extended science
learning experience as well. Theme-based instruction, Science Technology Society
(STS), problem-based learning, and discovery learning are examples of integrated
science content learning approaches. These types of science instructional strategies
place scientific knowledge in a comprehensible context that is relevant to the
students’ lives, facilitate self directed learning, and encourage peer learning
collaboration.
The fourth science instructional strategy, constructivism, postulates that
active learning is the key to learning, creating, and retaining scientific knowledge.
This type of learning is conducted through whole and collaborative learning groups
where the English language learner is able to integrate the new knowledge with what
they already know and form new cognitive structures. The learning cycle, SCALE

5
technique, conceptual change, and inquiry-based learning approach are examples of
constructivist science instructional strategy.
The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), questions
that stimulate thinking (QUEST), teaching reading in content areas (TRICA), and
inductive thinking method (ITM), provide academic language and text support for
English learners. In these reading and learning language approaches, the English
learner has the opportunity to engaged in self-directed learning, active listening,
practiced questioning strategies, and discussion with their learning peers.
In order for these teaching strategies to be implemented, elementary teachers
must understand how to establish an appropriate classroom environment as well as
the teacher’s role. Additionally, teachers must understand the dynamics of
motivation, affective, and social factors that influence children to learn science. This
study focused on whether these current science teaching strategies are evident in the
classroom by asking teachers to state the teaching methods that they used to teach
the science content to the English learners in their classroom.

Purpose of the Study
“Students who do not speak English when they enter school are at a great
disadvantage because they have at least two major educational obstacles to
overcome” (Diaz, 1994, p. 5). They not only need to learn how to communicate
effectively in English to participate in the classroom; they also need to learn the
academic content of the lessons at the same rate and level as their English-speaking

6
classmates. Cummins (1981) originally and Diaz (1994) later reiterated that the
problems related to teaching science in the classroom fall into two categories:
academic content and delivery of science instruction to the students.
The goal of science education is to provide all students with experiences that
will enable them to become scientifically literate. “A scientifically literate person is
one who has a (a) satisfactory experience with science process skills, (b) positive
attitude toward science, and (c) wealth of scientific knowledge” (Gibbons, 2003, p.
372). Such individuals will be able to become productive citizens and lifelong
learners and will be able to contribute to building and maintaining a strong and
healthy economy and democracy (Martin, Sexon, Wagner, & Gerlovich, 1997).
The purpose of this study was to examine the status of elementary science
teaching practices used with English learners in kindergarten through fifth grade in
public mathematics, science, and technology-centered elementary magnet schools
throughout the country. By expanding the research to other public schools that also
included mathematics and technology-based elementary schools in other states
increased the sampling pool. This descriptive research was designed to provide
current information and to identify trends in the areas of curriculum and instruction
for English learners in science themed magnet schools. This study described the
status of elementary (grades K-5) school science instruction for English learners
based on responses of 116 magnet elementary school teachers, 59 grade K-2, and 57
grade 3-5 teachers. This study on elementary school science teaching is organized
into four topical areas:

7
• Characteristics of the elementary school science teachers in science-themed
magnet schools throughout the country.
• Professional development of elementary science-themed magnet school
science teachers, both needs and participation.
• Elementary school science instruction for English learners, in terms of
objectives, time spent, and class activities used.
• Extended implications based on the research for generating viable strategies
for the teaching of science for English learners in all educational institutions.

Significance of the Study
In this study, educators from the mathematics, science, and technology-
centered elementary magnet schools were asked to participate voluntarily in a survey
describing science teaching strategies for English learners. The rational assumption
to include educators from the school site was that they are teaching in a specialized
educational setting and the instructional strategies to teach English learners are
already incorporated in their daily lessons. The focus on these schools was for two
reasons: 1) an existing English learner population at the school site 2) the students
are receiving academic instruction and support in mathematics, science and
technology. This study is relevant to elementary educators and school administrators
to encourage and supervise the teaching of elementary science for English learner
students. This research defined exemplary science teaching strategies for English

8
learners and investigates the status of science teaching strategies that teachers are
using to teach their English learner students.

Research Questions
Three research questions guided this investigation:
1. How do the teachers at mathematics, science, and technology-centered
elementary magnet schools define ideal practices for teaching science to K-5
th

English learner students?
2. What goals do these teachers have for science instruction for English
learners?
3. What instructional strategies do these teachers use most often to reach
their instructional goals for their English learners?

Methodological Overview
This research was quantitatively analyzed with close-ended surveys to define
science teaching strategies used by the teachers at the mathematics, science, and
technology-centered magnet schools. The purpose of this voluntarily survey was to
compare the relationship between the current ideal science teaching instructional
strategies and what pedagogical practices are actually found in the classroom.
Current ideal exemplary science teaching instructional practices are derived from
research-based classroom practices that have been shown to be effective in
facilitating science comprehension for English learners. The second purpose or

9
component of this descriptive and comparative study was a “state-of-affairs”
investigation on science teaching strategies that classroom teachers actually used in
their classrooms to facilitate science comprehension and how closely these reflected
the ideal exemplary science teaching instructional strategies.
The Science and Mathematics Education Survey developed for this study was
divided into six components: demographic information, teacher opinion, teacher
background, science instructional strategies in a particular class, and a description of
the most recent science lesson taught. Some of the format and content of the survey
was derived from the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education
generated by Horizon Research Incorporated in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The
questions were modified to adapt to the research questions for this study. The main
purpose of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education was to
provide a status of current science teaching strategies that the teachers in
kindergarten through twelve grade were utilizing with their students. Some of the
questions on the original survey that were not applicable to the elementary school
grades, nor addressed the research questions specific to this study, were omitted.
All eligible teaching faculties at the school site were asked to participate in
the survey voluntarily. The data were encoded and tabulated in a statistical software
package for the behavioral sciences, SPSS
®
Version 12. Descriptive statistics were
used to explain the correlations between the variables. This survey was based on a
Likert scale and required simple descriptive analysis such as crosstabulation and t-
test.

10
The survey was distributed to 16 participating mathematics, science, and
technology-based magnet elementary schools during the months of January and
February and the second week of March 2006. There are 16 such schools located in
California, Nevada, Illinois, Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. There
were a total of 116 surveys returned and analyzed.

Assumptions of the Study
It was assumed that the elementary school teachers participating in the study
constituted a representative sample of public, magnet, elementary school in science
and mathematics throughout the country. Additionally, it has been assumed that all
school information listed on the school district’s website is current and accurate. It
was also assumed that the teachers responded to the survey questions openly and
honestly.
Furthermore, the assumption was that the teachers at the public, mathematics,
science, and technology-based magnet schools already include instructional
strategies to teach English learners, and that such strategies are incorporated in their
daily lessons. The final assumption of this research pertains to the statistical analysis
of the data on the Likert scale using simple descriptive techniques such as
crosstabulation and t-test between the variables. Although this is often done in
practice, a t-test may be performed on Likert scale questions but this is not a
statistically valid technique because the Likert scale questions do not possess a
normal probability distribution (SPSS techniques series: Statistics on Likert scale

11
surveys, 2007). In order to provide more statistical support for the data analysis, a
cross tabulation also had to be conducted.

Limitations of the Study
This research provided a snapshot of integrating science teaching instruction
for English learner students in an urban learning environment. The listing of the
participating schools came from only one nonprofit national database, which may or
may not include a comprehensive listing of all science, mathematics, and
technology-centered elementary magnet schools. There may be more eligible public
magnet schools that were not listed in the directory. The surveys were based on a
self-reported response strategy.
The current ideal science teaching strategies listed in the close-ended surveys
may not include “new” or “undiscovered” teaching methods. The classroom
practices listed on the survey were limited to and based on what are the current ideal
research-based classroom practices and methods. In order to further provide
additional support an extended chapter on the implications of ideal science teaching
strategies for English learners. For the purposes of this study, the application of such
strategies are limited to elementary English learner students.
Another limitation in this study is in the last section of the survey. In section
E, the teachers were asked to describe their most recent science lesson for their
English learners. This section doesn’t give a wide and authentic view of the

12
teacher’s overall practices; it only provided a snapshot of what a typical lesson
would look like.

Delimitations of the Study
This study was delimited to participants teaching at the school sites. The
teachers’ responses pertained only to those who participated at the school sites. The
emphasis was delimited to English learner students in elementary school grades and
may not be applicable to English learner students in middle or high school. Only 16
of the 100 eligible schools in the Magnets School of America (2005) database
participated in the study. Therefore, it may be difficult to generalize to a bigger
population because of the limited participation by school sites. The study was
conducted in sixteen public elementary schools, so it may not be applicable
elsewhere.

13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents a review of the relevant research in the field. The
chapter begins with a review of the literature on English language development,
followed by the literature on science education for English learners. The review
concludes with a discussion of gaps and problems in the current theories.

English Language Development for English Learners
Traditional instructional techniques have generally favored the learning styles
of middle-class, English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon children. These practices do not
support the English learner student populations. According to the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001), a student is considered to be an
English learner if the second language acquisition is English. Cochran-Smith (2001)
stated that all children learn best when the academic curriculum and instruction are
consistent and reflective of their respective cultural and language backgrounds. It is
important for teachers to be aware of the diversity in their classrooms.
Irvine and Armento (2001) stated that elementary school science educators
should recognize and respond to student diversity, encourage rich discourse among
the students about scientific ideas, support collaboration, apply multiple methods of
assessment, and demand respect for diverse ideas and the skills of all learners.
According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001), 1 in 3
students speak a language other than English at home. In California more than 1.4

14
million English learners enter school speaking a variety of languages, and this
number continues to rise. There is a strong need to promote instructional strategies
that support these diverse learners.
Rivera (1994) first used the term English learners to describe students who
are less than proficient in English. Gersten and Baker (2000) stated that this term
encompasses a broader range of students, including those who are able to engage in
conversational English but are struggling with the abstract language of academic
disciplines. “The term English-language development refers to all types of
instruction that promote the development of either oral or written English-language
skills and abilities” (p. 455). This definition is intentionally broad because it
includes not only traditional instruction, such as grammar, syntax, and proper usage,
but also merges academic content instruction with developing the language. This
process is otherwise known as sheltered content instruction (Echevarria & Graves,
1998).
“The sheltered instruction (SI) classroom that integrates language and content
and infuses sociocultural awareness is an excellent place to scaffold instruction for
students learning English” (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000, p. 9). The teacher
guides English learners to construct meaning from what they read in textbooks,
engage in classroom discourse, and understand complex content concepts by
scaffolding instruction. Language and academic content objectives are integrally
woven and blended. Sheltered instruction (SI) teachers may use visual aids,
modeling, demonstrations, graphic organizers, vocabulary, previews, predictions,

15
adapted texts, cooperative learning, peer tutoring, multicultural content, hands-on
activities, and even native language support to make the content comprehensible to
the students (Echevarria et al.).
An effective ELD program should include a component that is devoted to
assisting students to learn how to use the English language while establishing the
conventions of grammar and syntax. The research currently supports self-directed
learning, expository teaching, active listening, questioning, wait time, small group,
peer tutoring, large group learning, demonstrations, formal debates, review sessions,
mediated conversation, cooperative learning, themes-based instruction, Science
Technology Society (STS), problem-based learning, discovery learning,
constructivist learning, learning cycle, SCALE technique, conceptual change,
learning from text, cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA), and
inquiry learning to provide effective science teaching instruction to English learners.

Science Instruction for English Learners
Four Commonly Used Instructional Strategies in Elementary Science Classrooms
A child’s knowledge of the world is fostered naturally by ordinary everyday
interaction with other adults and children. “Learning in the multicultural classroom,
indeed in all classrooms, should begin and end with the students” (Barba, 1998, p.
164). In other words, the instructional activities should be carefully selected to assist
their English learner students make sense of the world. The four commonly utilized

16
clusters for science instructional strategies that are used to support English learners
in elementary science classrooms are (Barba, 1998): 1) self-directed activities;
2) small group negotiations, interactions, and peer tutoring; 3) large group verbal
interactions; 4) expository sessions. The continuum of instructional strategies is
shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Continuum of Instructional Strategies
Teacher centered Child centered

Exposition Large groups Small groups Self-directed
Mediated Peer tutoring, learning
Conversations negotiation, and
interactions

Self-directed Learning Assist English Learners to Be Independent Learners
Self-directed learning is most effective when it is child initiated. It is a self-
motivated act. Teachers and parents play only supporting roles in this type of
learning. Total control and power should be relinquished to the child. Barba et. al.
have stated that “in order for self-directed learning to occur with children, there must
be (1) time for self-initiated activities, (2) resource materials for individual learning,
and (3) encouragement to pursue one’s interests” (p.166).
There should be time allocated during the instructional day for children to
engage in self-initiated activities. One common mistake that most teachers have is

17
time management. Too much “dead time” or the transitional time between
instructional activities is wasted. Students often just sit around and wait for the
teachers to give direction or to set up for the next activity. One alternative solution
to this is to provide physical resources in form of library books, mini science labs or
museums, interactive bulletin boards, computer softwares, listening library, and
study partner corner for students to take advantage of in between the transition
period. This physical set up of the classroom provided additional resources for the
student to extend their learning. Encouragement and motivation factors also
influenced children to learn science. This will be addressed later in the chapter.

Expository Instructional Strategies Mirror More Traditional Learning Approaches
Exposition or expository instructional strategies reflect more traditional
methods of science teaching. In this method, the teacher is in control of the
instructional dynamic and the transmitter of knowledge to the recipient, the student.
This type of instruction is not highly recommended for use in a science classroom for
elementary-aged English learners because it poses too many problems. The verbal
presentations and demonstrations are difficult for these students to understand,
especially given a limited attention span. Additionally, students become passive
learners, as no direct interaction or learning is taking place, thus teachers also run the
risk of building an invisible barrier between themselves and the students.

18
These obstacles may be overcome with a few modifications and additions
such as (Barba, 1998; Fraser & Walberg, 1996): 1) increasing the level of student
interactivity by incorporating note taking and active-listening activities;
2) incorporating multiple modes of knowledge presentation or visual aids;
3) presenting short and concise lectures; 4) forming small groups after lectures to
discuss and summarize main points; and 5) by conducting inductive teacher
demonstrations.

Active Listening Encourage English Learners to Listen More Attentively
“Active listening is the conscious effort to focus on what people are saying
when they speak” (Abruscato, 2001, p. 81). Some practical steps to increase active
listening in the classroom include: 1) restructure the physical setting of the classroom
to minimize any distractions; 2) encourage children to listen and look out for key
science words such as observe, classify, graph, measure, etc.; 3) challenge the
children to generate questions for the speaker; and 4) model summarizing techniques
such as paraphrasing or restating what the speaker said.
Expository teaching strategy is an excellent way for teachers to provide their
English learners access to science content knowledge that they cannot easily achieve
through inquiry-based instruction. However, the teacher must provide adequate
language support for this to be used effectively. Active listening and interacting
processes include having students write down a few words or phrases or draw
illustrations so that they can easily refer to them at a later time. “When students

19
represent their knowledge during problem-solving situations, they use real world
objects (or realia), spoken words, written words, pictures and icons” (Barba, 1998,
p.182). These are some examples of modes of knowledge or visual aids that should
be incorporated during the lectures.
The periods of lecture during an expository teaching session should be short,
concise, and to the point. Teacher demonstrations should be conducted inductively.
The student should be involved and required to engage in high-level inquiry skills.
“Well-planned inductive demonstrations provide students with a stimulus to think
and with immediate feedback from the teacher” (Fraser & Walberg, 1996, p. 81).
The feedback provides the teacher with an opportunity to engage in meaningful
classroom dialogue and probe effective questioning until the English learner
“discovers” the principles or objectives involved in the demonstration.

Questioning Strategies Assist English Learners to Develop Higher Critical
Thinking Skills
Questioning strategies is another effective way to foster science learning for
English learners. According to Abruscato (2001), the three category systems for
classifying questions are: 1) convergent questions; 2) divergent questions; and
3) evaluative questions. Convergent questions focus on basic knowledge or
comprehension such as ‘what did two-horned dinosaur eat?’ Divergent questions
challenged the children to think about alternative answers to the questions posed
such as ‘what are some ideas about what caused the Triceratops to become extinct?’

20
Evaluative questions solicit the English learners to provide answers that required
logical reasoning to support their conclusions. A sample question in this instance
may be: ‘Some people say that we would have cleaner air to breathe if we made it
illegal for families to own more than one car, what do you think about this idea?’ In
order for English learners to discover science concepts, the teacher must provide a
balance of all three types of questions in the instruction. It is strongly recommended
that the teacher begin with the convergent questions, and as the students are able to
grasp more complex science concepts, they should be challenged with divergent and
evaluative questions. One way to increase the effectiveness of questioning strategies
is to provide adequate wait time. “Wait-time simply means giving children sufficient
time to think about questions before answering them and before receiving your
response to their answers” (Abruscato, 2001, p. 80). As reported by Abruscato
(2001), the average wait time is 0.9 seconds. Abruscato believed that this was an
insufficient amount of time for a child to respond. He further suggested that an
increase in wait-time would enhance the science discovery learning for an English
learner student. The following are the important consequences of extending the wait
time beyond three seconds for an English learner: 1) the student would be more
likely to respond; 2) the number of inappropriate responses would decrease;
3) confidence would increase; 4) child-child comparisons of data would increase;
and 5) there would be an increase in student generated questions.

Wait Time Provide Additional Support for English Learners

21
One way to increase the effectiveness of questioning strategies is to provide
adequate wait time. “Wait-time simply means giving children sufficient time to
think about questions before answering them and before receiving your response to
their answers” (Abruscato, 2001, p. 80). As reported by Abruscato (2001), the
average wait time is 0.9 seconds. It was also discussed that this was an insufficient
amount of time for a child to respond. He further suggested that an increase in wait-
time will enhance science discovery learning for an English learner student. The
following important consequences of extending the wait time beyond three seconds
for English learner: 1) student will more likely to response; 2) the number of
inappropriate responses will decreased; 3) confidence will increased; 4) child-child
comparisons of data will increased; and 5) increased in student generated questions.

English Learners Thrive in Small Groups Learning
Constructivists, such as Gibbons (2003), Martin (1997), Lorsbach and Tobin
(1992), believed that learning is a social process that is based on the interactions of
teachers and students. The knowledge of science is constructed in a sociocultural
context. “Discussion, active listening, discovering differences between one’s
knowledge and the knowledge of others, justifying one’s position, and arriving at a
group consensus are all parts of the social process of constructing meaning, part of
cooperative learning” (Barba, 1998, p. 104). The benefits of cooperative learning
groups will be discussed in a later section. It should also be noted that small group
size is associated with cooperative learning groups.

22
“Small groups are environments in which negotiations, interactions, and peer
tutoring provide support for the learning of each child” (Barba, 1998, p. 166). To
many English learners, working within groups often closely resembles working with
extended family members. During group learning, according to Lev Vygotsky,
“children can perform under guidance, in groups, and in collaboration with one
another learning that which they have not mastered independently” (1978, p. 87). In
a small group, the English learner students have the opportunity to discuss their ideas
within a supportive and nurturing learning environment. There are three functions of
small group science instructional strategies: 1) negotiate meaning; 2) engage in
social interactions; and 3) give and receive peer tutoring.
In small group learning, children interact and engage in semantic negotiations
(Barba, 1998) with their peers to make sense of the world. In this collaborative
process, the speaker and listener agree to share a common ground that is composed
of a collection of meaningful information. Small group learning groups provide
places for children to develop social skills such as developing social interaction skills
(i.e. active listening and responding), build self-esteem, and foster leadership skills.
The last function is to provide an opportunity for peer tutoring.

Peer Tutoring Provide English Learners Sociocultural Learning Support
Within the literature in the field of education, researchers such as Rivard
(2002), King, Staffieri, and Adelgais (1998), and Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and
Simmons (1997) have supported the effectiveness of peer tutoring to support science

23
learning for English learners. Students are encouraged to evaluate their own work,
challenged each other’s explanations, construct their own conclusions, and openly
engage in meaningful discourse with teachers and classmates. In a study by Rivard
(2002), 154 eighth-grade students participated in an investigation regarding the
effectiveness of language-based activities for learning science. The students were
grouped into two categories: low English learner students and high-achieving native
English speakers. The results of this study suggested that the first group of students
were able to complete more problems when they were presented with the opportunity
to engage in peer discussions of explanatory tasks, compared to the high-achieving
native English speakers.
Peer tutoring often results in mutual benefits for all students involved. In
King, Staffieri, and Adelgais’ (1998) study of seventh graders learning science,
students were assigned o three different tutoring conditions: explanation only,
inquiry with explanation, and sequenced inquiry with explanation. Additionally,
students were assigned to tutoring pairs and trained to be tutors. Tutoring sessions
extended over a five week period on previously covered content in the classroom.
The researcher then measured cognitive, metacognitive, and affective variables. The
result was that, students who were tutored by others developed “more competent”
levels of thinking and knowledge in science.
Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and Simmons (1997) conducted a study in which 20
teachers participated in class wide peer tutoring with 40 classrooms in elementary
and middle schools. Half of these schools implemented class wide peer tutoring

24
groups while the other half did not. The researchers then divided the students into
three different categories: average achievers, low achievers without learning
disabilities, and low achievers with learning disabilities. Each of the groups received
three days of tutoring a week, 35 minutes a day, for 15 weeks. Stronger students
were paired up with weaker students. Each individual took turns serving in the roles
of both tutor and tutee. Each student pair worked together for four weeks then the
teachers arranged for new pairings. The researcher administered achievement tests
before and after the peer tutoring program. “Regardless of whether students were
average achievers or low achievers, and regardless of the presence or absence of
learning disabilities, students in peer tutoring classrooms achieved at higher levels
than did those in the classrooms without class wide peer tutoring” (Glasgow &
Hartman, 2002, p. 24).

Large Groups Support Verbal Interactions Among English Learners
Large group verbal interactions between teachers and English learners have
been recognized as an appropriate pedagogical technique in science instruction for
English learners. Barba et al. stated that there are five types of commonly used
verbal interactions to foster science learning for English learners in elementary
schools: 1) Socratic teaching; 2) demonstrations; 3) formal debates; 4) review
sessions; and 5) mediated conversations.
In the Socratic method of science teaching, the goal is to assist students to
develop simple concepts through a sequence of oral questioning. A simple question

25
is first proposed then the next questions assists in narrowing down and focusing the
topic. The final question in the sequence should bring the students to the desired
concept. One criticism of this method is that it “rarely produces a mediated learning
environment” (Barba, 1998, p. 170). Not enough student generated learning or
reciprocal teaching are supported by this method. Desired end points already exist
and students are often coaxed or forced to reach that pre-existed end point.

Demonstrations, Formal Debates, and Review Sessions Science Teaching Methods
In order for science demonstrations to be effective for English learners in the
classroom, these children should be allowed to ask questions and engage in review
sessions at the end of the process. Demonstrations may be used in the science
classroom as a visual enhancement model or to explain a discrepant event, which is
an event that causes cognitive dissonance.
“Formal debating is appropriate for use with culturally diverse learners only
when all students are encouraged to participate in the process” (Barba, 1998, p.173).
Students should be divided into debate teams or small groups. This ensures that each
child will have made an equal contribution to gathering and organizing for the team.
Peer learning is supported in the small learning group community. Some English
learners who have difficulties in expressing themselves in writing, may find oral
communication more comforting.
In review sessions, the teacher utilized the two types of questioning
strategies: convergent questioning and divergent questioning to assist students master

26
science concepts. It is also essential to allow students to have sufficient wait time to
respond to these questions.

Mediated Conversations Mirror Reciprocal Teaching Methods
The mediated conversation is productive in terms of fostering students’
learning. In this teaching method, both the teachers and the English learners teach
each other and learn from each other. This resembles the peer tutoring teaching
method; the teacher and student take on the roles as a tutor and tutee. “Through
questioning, the teacher redirects, guides, channels, and in general assists the
students in accommodating new information so that their internal mental structures
are more consistent with empirical data about the external world” (Barba, 1998, p.
176). The teacher’s role is that of a mediator or liaison to assist the students in
examining and forming science knowledge. Within this approach, the constructivist
learning model, learning cycle, and conceptual change model are all embedded in the
process. All these science teaching strategies for English learners will be discussed
later in the chapter.

Cooperative Learning Support Socialcultural Learning
Gersten and Baker (2000), Sutman (1993), Fathman, Quinn, and Kessler
(1992), and Fields (1988) noted the effectiveness of cooperative learning and peer
tutoring strategies to increase English language development, social skills, positive
peer relationships, and higher levels of self-esteem for students. In cooperative

27
learning environments, language development is fostered through inter-student oral
and possibly written communication (Sutman). According to Barba (1998), the
process of cooperative learning include discussing, “active listening, discovering
differences between one’s knowledge and the knowledge of others, justifying one’s
position, and arriving at a group consensus” (p.104). Learning is a product of social
interactions between groups of learners.
Science educators are excited about group learning because cooperative
learning activities conducted in small group settings support science teaching and
learning for English learners. There are seven benefits to cooperative learning
groups: 1) promote problem-solving abilities; 2) retention of knowledge; 3)
academic achievement; 4) improves attitudes toward learning; 5) self-esteem
increase; 6) improve race relation among peers; and 7) develop leadership skills
(Barba, 1998 & Richard-Amato & Snow, 1992).
According to the research teams of Rivard (2000), Stasson, Kameda, Parks,
Zimmerman, & David (1991), and Tobin (1990) cooperative learning groups greatly
improved students’ problem-solving abilities, promoted mastery and retention of
declarative and conceptual knowledge, provided students are given the opportunity
to talk about their problems and share their ideas among their learning peers. They
also engaged in active listening, another effective science teaching strategy for
English learners.
Barba et. al. stated that cooperative learning peer groups support academic
achievement and generate positive attitudes toward learning for English learners by

28
providing opportunities to engage in their native or home language while developing
their understandings of the English language.
Greenberg’s classic study (1932) of children’s goal structure concluded that
children enjoy competitive reward structures just as long as they are winning. In
other words, they enjoy winning and not so much losing. In a group learning
environment, every member is considered to be a “winner” because each individual
learner contributes regardless of language level abilities to the process. The child’s
self-esteem is supported and nurtured. The English learners have the opportunity to
take charge and develop leadership skills. Leadership skills include engaging in
active listening, empathy for others’ perspectives, social skills, and cooperation with
other members of the groups.
Fathman, Quinn, and Kessler (1992) suggested that cooperative learning
groups should be flexible, with varying degrees of English language proficiency
and/or from different language backgrounds. Each student in the group would be
assigned a specific task to assure maximum involvement of all students within the
group. The tasks should be rotated among all members from lesson to lesson so each
student will have the opportunity to contribute ideas and experiences.
Rivard (2002) also noted that it is important for educators to use a
multifaceted approach “involving differentiated instructional strategies and flexible
grouping plans” (p. 437) to meet the needs of all diverse learners in the science
classroom by ensuring that each student can make a meaningful contribution to the
group goal, regardless of level of English proficiency (Kang & Pham, 1995).

29
Cooperative learning and peer tutoring can be part of such an approach. These two
instructional strategies have elements that also reflect the constructivist approach to
teaching elementary science for English learners.

Thematic Instruction Integrate Broad Science Concepts With Other Content-Areas
Structuring science instruction in culturally and linguistically relevant
thematic units is an effective science teaching strategy for English learners (Lee,
2003; Sutman, 1993). This pedagogical approach is reinforced by Lee and Fradd
(2001), who stated that, if the teacher is able to provide science content instruction
that is culturally congruent with the students’ backgrounds, then the students can
engage in a greater scientific understanding, and thus students would also come to
understand the goals of the science content instruction. The theme-based approach
puts scientific knowledge in a comprehensible context that is relevant to the
students’ lives. Students are taught using broad science concepts and are encouraged
to discuss what they know about the concepts among their peers.
Jarret (1999) has stated that, by organizing big ideas into theme-based units,
“teachers can create extended learning experiences” (p. 15), which provide students
with more time to engage in meaningful discussion and explore larger concepts.
They are also given a hands-on experience in a cooperative learning environment.
These practices allow the students to make personal connections to what they are
learning, which increases the probability that they will continue their learning.

30
Fathman, Quinn, and Kessler (1992) have outlined eight simple steps on how
to develop science activities that supported English learners: 1) select a topic;
2) choose a science concept; 3) identify the language functions necessary for science
activities; 4) design a teacher demonstration related to the concept; 5) design one or
more student group investigations to explore the concept; 6) design individual or
paired student investigations to explore the concept; 7) plan oral exercises for
developing listening and speaking skills; and 8) plan written exercises for developing
literacy skills. Some of these suggestions incorporate the effective science teaching
strategies of cooperative learning groups, peer tutoring, and questioning strategies.

Science/Technology/Society (STS) Another Example of An Integrated
Approach
Science/technology/society (STS) is integrating social studies or social living
with science. This integrated approach (Barba, 1998): 1) prepares students to use
science to improve their own lives and to cope with an increasingly technological
world; 2) teaches students to deal responsibly with technology and societal issues;
and 3) give students the knowledge to make career choices related to science and
technology. The research team of Ramsey, Hungerford, and Volk (1990) stated that
science, technology, and societal instruction has four levels of educational goals:
1) foundation; 2) issue awareness; 3) investigation and evaluation; and 4) citizenship
responsibility. These goals are embedded into thematic teaching approaches that

31
incorporate writing, reading, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting science
concepts.
Yager (1990) has explained that STS instruction improves the minority
language learner by encouraging students to engage in inquiry learning and to view
science processes by using problem-solving strategies. Pederson (1992) found that
STS instruction impact students’ learning of science concepts and reduces anxiety
towards learning science. Pederson also concluded that when the English learners
were placed in a situation in which they studied issues that were relevant to their
daily lives, they were more likely to share the information cooperatively with other
learners and develop a group consensus about the issue in their small learning group.
This type of learning is supported by cooperative learning and inquiry-based
approach.

Problem-Based Learning Encouraged Inquiry-based Curriculum Integration
Curriculum integration could provide a conceptual framework for structuring
the science learning environment for English learners. One noteworthy integration
model is project-based or problem-based learning (PBL). Herreid (2003) has stated
that PBL incorporates essential features of the inquiry teaching approach. The
effectiveness of inquiry teaching will be addressed later in the chapter. PBL
challenges students to seek solutions to real-world (open-ended) problems by
themselves or in cooperative learning groups (Sonmez & Lee, 2003). Within such an
approach, hands-on manipulatives learning is more highly embraced than learning

32
primarily through lectures or textbooks. Such an approach allows students to
develop skills as self-directed learners.
The commonly shared ideals of cooperative learning and constructivist theory
are that problems are selected by the learner based on natural curiosity and have a
personal connection to their daily lives, and learning capability is enhanced by the
level of student engagement and the culture of the classroom. Proponents of PBL,
Herreid (2003), Barell (1998), Delisle (1997), and Gallagher (1997), have contended
that this approach allows students to take a more holistic approach to their inquiry,
be more willing to integrate new information, adapt and alternate their view points,
and collaborate among team members.
Problem-based learning instruction is “aimed at developing transferable
investigative strategies and learner dispositions and generating new knowledge bases
that cut across disciplines” (Audet & Jordan, 2005, p. 140). This type of learning is
exciting, engaging, and active. Traditionally, instruction is generally organized
around a level of hierarchical experiences in which the information is passed from
the top, the teacher, to the bottom, the student. This type of learning instruction does
not support English learners. With PBL, “knowledge and skills emerge through
attempts to solve problems or answer questions” (Audet & Jordan, 2005, 141).
Typically this is conducted in cooperative learning groups which is another effective
teaching strategy that supports English learners.
Greenwald (2000) has suggested 10 ways to implement PBL in a classroom.
The reiterated idea of a teacher as a facilitator is present in the PBL classroom. The

33
first step towards implementing PBL is to identify the problem. Second, students ask
open-ended questions in whole or cooperative group discussions. Third and fourth,
students pursue various problem-finding strategies and map problem-finding
activities and prioritize a problem. Fifth, inquiry-guided questions may be used to
help students to strategize and plan their investigations. Sixth, students are guided to
analyze their results. The seventh step is the distinguishing feature of the PBL
approach, in which learners present what they have learned to their peers. Eighth,
students generate solution ideas and recommendations. Ninth, students should have
the opportunity to communicate to the teacher as well as to others what they have
learned, based on the roles that they have played in this process. Tenth, students
should have an opportunity to engage in self-assessment. In PBL instructional
practices, students are held accountable for their own learning and the role of the
teacher is to serve as mentor and facilitator in the classroom.
Problem based learning is an effective way to organize science learning for
English learners because of three main reasons: it enhances student learning,
motivates students, and prepares students for real world decision making and
applications (Audet & Jordan, 2005).

Discovery Learning is the Culmination of the Inquiry-based Approach
“A widely accepted claim in the science and mathematics education
community is the constructivist idea that discovery learning, as opposed to direct
instruction, is the best way to get deep and lasting understanding of scientific

34
phenomena and procedures” (Klahr & Nigam, 2004, p. 661). Learning occurs when
children, with the teacher’s guidance, increase their cognitive, psychomotor, and
affective development through self directed experiences. This type of learning is
called discovery learning. Abruscato (2001) has defined discovery learning as a
“hands-on, experiential learning that requires a teacher’s full knowledge of content,
pedagogy, and child development to create an environment in which new learning
are related to what has come before and to that which will follow” (p.38).
Exploratory learning will gradually develop into independent learning skills
(Jarret, 1999). This is particularly effective for young English-learning children.
Stohr-Hunt (1996) and Schauble (1990) have argued that children who acquire
knowledge on their own are more likely to apply, extend, and retain that knowledge
than those who just receive direct instruction from an external source.
Discovery is the culmination of the inquiry approach. Inquiry and discovery
learning should be the heart of science instruction for all learners, especially English
learners (Richard-Amato & Snow, 1992). Studying science through abstract
concepts or context-reduced language is not an effective way to begin science
instruction for language minority students. Science instruction should provide
language opportunities that encourage students to take risks in exploring real life
experiences and discuss them meaningfully.
In a discovery learning environment, English learner students have the
opportunity to find the answers to self-derived questions. They develop their English
language comprehension skills by articulating problems to peers. The use of

35
classroom dialogue in language acquisition and learning is based on the theoretical
frameworks of Vygotsky (1962) and Freire (1970). This process has very similar
characteristics to peer tutoring, cooperative learning groups, and inquiry-based
approaches. Discovery learning and classroom dialogue teaching strategies
emphasize student-centered learning with some teacher-assisted instruction.
By understanding the learning cycle, teachers will be able to effectively plan
for a good discovery learning science environment for their English learners. The
three stages associated in this cycle are: exploration, concept introduction, and
concept application (Abruscato et. al). This cycle will be further discussed in the
learning cycle section.
Instructional approaches such as discovery learning provide an alternative to
direct instruction and may aid students in going from their naïve conceptions to a
more scientifically refined accurate concept. Klahr and Nigam (2004), Stohr-Hunt
(1996), and Schauble (1990) have affirmed the effectiveness of discovery learning.
It is highly recommended that teachers identify the learning strategies that their
students are already using in science and then use these as a base upon which to
build.

Constructivism and Behavioral Principles in the Science Classroom
Martin et al. (1997) have argued that constructivist learning is considered the
most effective theory in elementary science teaching and learning. The
constructivist learning theory is constructed from integration of the learning theories

36
of Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, Lev Vygotsky, and John Dewey. According to this
theory, when learners are actively engaged in learning rather than passively receiving
knowledge from the experts or a classroom teacher, they demonstrate conceptual
understanding, which indicates a greater level of content comprehension (Martin et
al.).
The two theories that have attempted to explain how children actually learn
are behavioral theory and cognitive theory. “The effective teacher must use elements
of both theories to create an environment that stimulates sound thinking and acting
and continually challenges, changes, and enriches a child’s previous knowledge and
perceptions” (Abruscato, 2001, p.20).
In the behaviorist approach, what a child does and learns greatly depends on
the child’s behavior. If the children enjoy their science experiences, receive praise
from their peers and teachers, and are successful, then they will learn the desired
skill and develop a positive attitude. They will continue to work hard in order to have
more experiences and receive more praise. The teacher’s job is to create a science
learning classroom in which certain behaviors and the acquisition of concepts are
increased and reinforced.
There are three ways to apply behavioral principles in the science classroom
(Abruscato, 2001). First, reinforce positive behavior with tangible reinforcers such
as certificates and prizes and intangible reinforcers which include recognizing good
work and praise from peers and parents. Secondly, reinforce effort; the teacher
should thank the children for trying to answer questions during large group

37
discussions instead of chastising the children for not answering correctly. Finally,
after a behavior has been established, reinforce the behavior at irregular intervals
such as surprising the class with special classroom visitors or an unexpected field
trip.
“Cognitive theorists believe that what children learn depends on their mental
processes and what they perceive about the world around them” (Abruscato, 2001, p.
21). Learning depends on how children think, how they perceive things, and through
their thought pattern interaction. Jean Piaget’s theories on how children learn led
him to propose that children progress through stages of cognitive development. This
is one of the theories used to lay the foundation of constructivist learning in a science
classroom for all learners including language minority students. Another effective
science teaching strategy, the learning cycle, is derived from Piaget’s four stages of
cognitive development.
The four learning stages in Piaget’s learning theory are: 1) sensory motor
knowledge (0 to 2 years); 2) preoperational knowledge (2 to 7 years); 3) concrete
operations (7 to 11 years); and 4) formal operations (12 to adulthood). During the
sensorimotor stage, anything outside the child’s perceptual field does not exist. In
the classroom, teachers should provide a stimulating environment that includes eye-
catching displays so that the infant is motivated to interact with the people and things
in their perceptual field. The ability to use symbols is generated in the second stage.
The classroom should consist of natural objects such as stones and twigs for the child
to manipulate. It is essential that towards the end of this stage, the children should

38
be provided with opportunities for them to listen to other children’s stories or words.
This will set up for the third stage and provide early cooperative group learning and
peer to peer interactions and discussions.
In the third stage, the child is able to categorize and classify objects through
appropriate logical reasoning. Science activities should include observing,
collecting, and sorting objects and more abstract concepts such as space and time
should be introduced. During the last stage, the child is able to think abstractly.
Science discovery learning activities at this time should include more of predicting
and forming hypotheses.
Within a constructivist perspective, the fundamental role of the classroom
teacher is to help the students generate connections between what they are supposed
to learn and what they already know or believe. The effective teacher’s role is to
structure learning experiences that facilitate active learning (Gibbons, 2003). The
center of learning is focused on the student, and the teacher serves more as a
classroom facilitator. The teacher guides the student, stimulates, and provokes the
learner’s critical thinking, synthesis, and analysis throughout the learning journey.
There are three principles in the theory of constructivism (Abuscrato et. al.):
1) a person never really knows the world as it is; each person constructs beliefs about
what is real; 2) what a person already believes, what a person brings to new
situations, filters out or changes the information that the person’s senses deliver; and
3) people create a reality based on their previous beliefs, their own abilities to
reason, and their desire to reconcile what they believe and what they actually

39
observe. These three principles assist in forming the foundation for another effective
science teaching strategy for all learners including language diverse learners, the
conceptual change model.
The first principle of the conceptual change model is based on naïve
conception. Naïve conception is an idea that does not fit reality when it validity is
checked. This is aligned with the term, misconception. “Children and adults have
many naïve conceptions, and it is extremely difficult for a teacher to help a child
construct new understandings if the child’s naïve conceptions filter out new
experiences” (Abruscato, 2001, p.30). Grandma Pat has told John many times to
wear a pair of warm mittens on a cool day. As a result, the belief that John has is
that the mittens are warm—this is a common example of a naïve conception.
The last two principles of the conceptual change model are linked to concepts
of assimilation and accommodation. This is best illustrated by the following
classroom scenario: Jane already believes that sunlight and plant growth are related
because of her past experiences with helping her mom grow flowers in their family
garden. Her teacher provides her with two firsthand observations. In the first
experience, Jane observes that depriving plants of light is detrimental to their growth
and health. Jane does not have any problems absorbing this new knowledge and
quickly assimilates the concept.
In the second experience, Jane’s teacher has the class plant seeds in two
containers. One of the containers is exposed to sunlight while the second one is kept
in the darkness. To Jane’s surprised, both containers produced tiny, healthy plants

40
with small green leaves. With the teacher’s guidance, Jane was able to accommodate
this strange observation by broadening her beliefs about plant growth and possibly
construct alternative explanations to why this happened. “The conceptions and naïve
conceptions that the child has before an experiment make a very real difference in
what the child will learn” (Abruscato, 2001, p. 31).
Active learning is the key to constructivist learning. In active learning, the
student is able to construct knowledge through various challenging mental and
physical activities, such as engaging in situational and experiential encounters.
Through these experiences in whole and collaborative learning groups, the student is
able to balance preexisting views, connect to prior understanding, and then integrate
the gained knowledge to form new cognitive structures (Gibbons, 2003).
“From a constructivist viewpoint, conceptual knowledge of science is
constructed 1) gradually over time, 2) by the learners within a social context, 3)
through a series of interactions with the content, 4) when new information is
integrated with old information, and 5) so that the result is an awareness of what is
being learned” (Barba, 1998, p. 20). Some of the characteristics of the constructivist
learning theory can be found in problem-based learning, peer tutoring, learning
cycle, conceptual change, discovery learning, and inquiry-based learning.

41
Learning Cycle Approach Assist English Learners Acquire New Scientific
Knowledge
Another effective elementary science teaching strategy is called the learning
cycle designed by Karplus and Atkin in 1962. This traditional educational
philosophy believes that students come into the classroom as empty vessels is not
supported by this learning approach. All students, including EL students, have prior
knowledge or experiences that will serve as valuable learning tools to assist them in
acquiring new scientific knowledge. In this approach there is great emphasis on
students engaging in active learning. The learning cycle model of instruction is
based on Piaget’s theory and it involves a constructivist approach to science teaching
(Hartman, 2001). The learning cycle incorporates the four elements of Jean Piaget’s
theory of cognitive development: (a) physical experience, (b) social interaction,
(c) physical maturation, and (d) self-regulation (Barman & Allard, 1993).
Physical experience is derived from the physical manipulation of materials
and objects. During this time, the learner is sharing ideas and engaging in social
interaction with classmates in cooperative learning groups. The second element of
social interaction is also supported by Sutman (1993). The peer interaction provides
support for the learner.
“Physical maturation . . . refers to the biological growth of the central
nervous system” (Barman & Allard, 1993, p. 5). Cognitive theorists such as Piaget
held that intellectual growth is characterized by four stages of physical maturation
(L. M. Gallagher & Reid, 1981). The first two stages, sensorimotor and

42
preoperational, occur during early childhood. Until the child reaches the concrete
operational stage, he or she is unable to engage in abstract thinking. It is not until the
learner has reached the fourth stage, formal operational, that he or she is able to think
abstractly. The intellectual shift is a gradual process.
Piaget and other cognitive theorists posited that, for a child to understand
specific abstract concepts, he or she must be taught using concrete teaching methods
that are reinforced by the opportunity for group discussion among peers and the
classroom facilitator. This notion is supported by Barman and Allard (1993),
Gibbons (2003), Sonmez and Lee (2003), and Sutman (1993). The last element of
physical maturation, self-regulation, is the active mental process of forming
concepts. During this process there is an interaction between the learner and his or
her physical experiences and social environment.
When the learner is presented with new information, if the learner’s mental
activity is stable, then the new information will be integrated into the learner’s
current conceptual framework regarding the specific concept or thought (Barman &
Allard, 1993; Gallagher & Reid, 1981). In other words, there is no dissonance
between the prior knowledge and belief about the specific concept; therefore, the
learner will most likely accept this information. In contrast, mental dissonance or
disequilibrium occurs when the new information presented does not fit in the
learner’s current conceptual framework. In such cases the learner is faced with the
decision to either reject the discrepancy or modify or accommodate his or her
conceptual framework (Barman & Allard). This self-regulation characteristic is one

43
of the underlying key principles to another effective science teaching strategy, called
the conceptual change framework. This is discussed later in the paper.
The learning cycle, as presented in Figure 2, includes three phases:
(a) exploration, (b) concept introduction, and (c) concept application (Barman &
Allard, 1993). It is important to note that this is a continuous cycle. During the
exploration stage English learners are engaged in solving an open-ended challenge or
task. The goal of this phase is to engage learners in a motivating and thought-
provoking activity that allows them to have physical and social experiences. This
opportunity will provide a basis for the development of scientific concepts and
vocabulary. Learners are enabled to explore their curiosity about the natural world,
and the classroom facilitator may assist with misconceptions that may arise during
the exploration.
During the second phase, concept introduction, the mentor gathers
information derived from the student’s exploration experience and incorporates this
into the introduction of the main concept(s) of the lesson, and explains vocabulary
related to the concept(s). The facilitator may use a variety of instructional aids, such
as textbooks, audiovisual aids, realia, and demonstrations. The third stage, concept
application is “an opportunity for the students to study additional examples of the
main concept(s) of the lesson or to be challenged with a new task which can be
solved on the basis of the previous exploration activity and concept introduction”
(Barman & Allard, 1993, p. 8).

44

Figure 2. The learning cycle. Unidirectional arrows indicate the relationship
between the phases of the learning cycle or how one phase leads to the next one.
Ideally, the concept application phase of one lesson can lead to the exploration phase
of a new lesson. The bidirectional arrows indicate that evaluation and discussion can
be integrated into any part of the cycle. There are three phases in the learning cycle:
(a) exploration, (b) concept introduction, and (c) concept application. In phase one
the student explores materials; during phase two the learner forms concepts based on
exploration; and in phase three the learner applies the new knowledge to a new
situation.

45
One major challenge to successfully implementing the learning cycle is the
restructuring of class time. Researchers such as Barman and Allard (1993) and
Stepans, Dyche, and Beiswenger (1988) have suggested that a way to do this is to
have the learning cycle lessons flow from one complete lesson to another and the
sequence of the lessons integrated with other curriculum. Lee (2003) and Sutman
(1993) have also supported the incorporation of thematic-related instruction.
Stepans et al. (1988) have argued that the learning cycle was a greater vehicle
for EL in bringing about conceptual change and understanding than a more
traditional lecture approach. They also pointed out that, for the learning cycle to take
place, the student’s learning environment must be nonthreatening so that students
can exchange ideas without fear of retaliation from the teacher or peers. In
reviewing the literature regarding the learning cycle, research has shown that
activities linked to this effective science teaching strategy: 1) increases students’
opportunities for social interaction (Hykle, 1992); 2) facilitates students’
development of problem-solving strategies (Barba, 1998); and 3) helps students to
build mental images of new ideas (Hykle et. al.).

Science Content and Language Expansion (SCALE) Model for English Learners
SCALE is a highly modified form of the learning cycle approach to science
teaching to English learners. Like its predecessor, it also has a three-step inquiry-
based strategy: 1) activation stage; 2) actualization; and 3) application stage. Each of
the stages is interchangeable. The SCALE teaching model supports the needs of

46
English learners by providing: 1) multiple modes of declarative knowledge; 2)
opportunities for scientific processing skills; 3) a vehicle for English language
acquisition; 4) peer tutoring; 5) cooperative group learning; 6) socialization skills
among peers; 7) classroom dialogue; and 8) children demonstrate their learning in
multiple ways such as writing in journals and illustrating (Barba, 1998).
During the activation stage, students are activating their prior knowledge of
the concepts or events that are being introduced in the class. They do this by
manipulating the realia provided to them. In the actualization stage, the teacher’s
role is to assist students in building their vocabularies and utilizing the formal
language of science. Student will take “ownership” of the new knowledge and
construct their personal rendition of the new science concept.
This stage will naturally lead itself to reciprocal teaching where the students
shared what they have learned with their teacher and the teacher shared the formal
terminology of science with the students. The application stage is important because
the science concept is extended to new settings and environments. It allowed the
students to relate it to their own personal lives.

Conceptual Change Model Aid in Addressing Misconceptions
The conceptual change model has the learning cycle and constructivist theory
embedded in it. According to Suping (2003), Finley & Jensen (1997), Pressley &
McCormick (1995), Schneps & Sadler (1992), the conceptual change model has been

47
widely accepted among science educators to be an effective science teaching
strategies for all learners. It is considered to be the central to learning in science.
The conceptual change model has its roots in Piaget’s constructivist theory,
the learning cycle, and Kuhn’s conceptual change theory (1970). These theorists
shared a belief that students do not enter the classroom as a “blank slate” but rather
with preexisting ideas about many subjects or concepts. Their interpretations about
the world around them serve as a mechanism for learning new knowledge. However,
these naïve theories may interfere with their learning process. The challenge for the
teacher or facilitator is to use these naïve theories or misconceptions as valuable
learning tools for the students.
Concepts are the simplest form of mental representations of sets of ideas.
Concepts serve as building blocks that students use as the basis for any other
knowledge that they may acquire. Misconceptions are concepts or premature beliefs
that disagree with the current understanding of the natural world. There are six
common types of misconceptions: (a) innate knowledge, (b) personal experience,
(c) grounding arguments and dynamic concepts, (d) Aristotelian and impetus
thinking, (e) astute and bizarre models, and (f) emotionally loaded alternate models
(Posner, Strike, & Gertzog, 1982).
In typical cases learners pick up “wisdom” or factual knowledge from more
educated people with whom they come into contact. An example of a misconception
based on personal experience is based on the student’s direct observations and
experiences. For example, the concept of gravity, based on personal experience,

48
may include the belief that objects fall and never ascend. This will become an
“intuitive” response or knowledge.
Some observations may be remembered in retrospect. An experience may
appear to be unimportant but the student may form judgments based on it. This is an
aspect of Aristotelian or impetus thinking, which refers to alternative frameworks or
oversimplified ideas. Misconceptions are formed by erroneous understandings and
based on incomplete personal observations or inadequate analysis. Some learners, to
justify their reasoning, form their own explanations for certain occurrences, events,
or concepts. This is the fifth misconception: astute and bizarre models. They begin
to use this type of reasoning as the basis for their understanding and thus wind up
deepening the misunderstanding. Emotionally loaded misconceptions are based on
religious beliefs or very personal experiences. The individual will hold to his or her
beliefs, no matter what.
Posner et al. (1982) stated that there are four essential conditions for
conceptual change: (a) dissatisfaction with one’s current conception, followed by
the degree to which the conception is rejected; (b) intelligible; (c) plausible; and 4)
fruitful. As stated earlier, Piaget’s constructivism and the concept of disequilibrium
or conceptual conflict is what propels the student to gain new knowledge.
Kuhn (1970) in referring to how new knowledge is acquired, noted that
thelearner must first realize that there are some inconsistencies in his or her personal
ways of thinking. However, the dissatisfaction with prior knowledge alone does not
solve the current dilemma. Posner et al. (1982) indicated that, for the learner to

49
accommodate a new concept, he or she must agree with it intellectually. The
concept not only should make sense to the learner; the learner must be able to
reiterate the argument and explain it to classmates.
The new concept must make more sense than the previous concept. Students
should have the opportunity to decide on their own how this new concept fits into
their ways of thinking and where it could be applied. Finally, for this new concept to
be accommodated, the concept should have the potential to be extended to other
incidences and be able to generate new inquiries.
According to Hewson and Hewson (1992), conceptual change does not
necessarily mean erasing or eliminating students’ conceptions totally, for the
following reasons: First, these conceptions have been found to be valuable and
helpful in future specific situations. Second, it is impossible to eliminate these
misconceptions therefore, it would be appropriate for them to coexist.
“A critical component of teaching for conceptual change is the teacher’s
creation of situations that stimulate students to modify their prior knowledge into
more scientifically valid forms” (Hartman & Glasgow, 2002, p.10). The teacher
should first begin the activity by assessing the students’ prior knowledge. Scholars
like Hartman & Glasgow et. al., Minstrell (1989), and Nussbaum & Novick (1982)
believe students are more likely to overcome their misconceptions by first
recognizing them, differentiating between their personal beliefs and those of the
scientists, and integrating their ideas into conceptual beliefs similar to those of
scientists. It is also suggested that students can be taught active processing strategies

50
such as identifying and correcting their misconceptions. As suggested by McDermott
(1991), direct hands-on experience may assist students to develop models of
concepts based on their own observations, thus this will enable them to make more
accurate postulations and explanations.
In the previous example about Jane’s learning experience with two set of
plants, one was placed in the sun and the other was placed in the dark. Based on
Jane’s prior knowledge, she believed that plants needed sunlight to grow but to her
surprise, both of the plants grew. Jane underwent a conceptual change in her ways of
thinking. In order for her to accept this new knowledge, she had to make
modifications to her thinking by providing alternate plausible explanations such as
perhaps at the beginning of the plant growth cycle, plants do not need as much
sunlight to grow.
Jane participated in an inquiry-based science learning process. Inquiry is any
activity aimed at extracting meaning from experience. It is commonly associated
with science, “inquiry includes and overarching set of principles, process skills, and
a comprehensive information base that is relevant for thinking about effective
classroom practice in all fields of study” (Audet & Jordan, 2005, p. 6). Inquiry-
based teaching and learning is effective for all learners including language minority
students.

51
An Inquiry-Based Approach to Science Teaching
The National Science Foundation (2000) and the National Science Teachers
Association (1991) claimed that inquiry instruction lies at the heart of science
teaching. The central focus of inquiry teaching is to develop the learner’s
intellectual autonomy. The use of inquiry activities has been shown to enhance
culturally and linguistically diverse students’ interests in science.
“An inquiry approach to learning is a process whereby students explore,
investigate, search for information, discover, and seek solutions without much
guidance from the teacher in an open classroom environment” (Otieno, 1999, p. 4).
Inquiry teaching can take place both inside and outside the classroom. Zenger and
Zenger (1985) have suggested that the main purpose of inquiry teaching is to teach
students the process of investigating and seeking answers to their own questions or
problems.
The learner’s prior knowledge and experiences play a major role in the
process of inquiry. They form the student’s frame of reference and shape the
student’s inquiry process. “The general goal of the inquiry approach is to help
students develop the intellectual discipline and skills necessary to raise questions and
search out answers stemming from their curiosity” (Otieno, 1999, p. 9).
There are two forms of inquiry method: (a) open inquiry, in which the
learner identifies his or her own problems or questions; and (b) closed inquiry, in
which the teacher selects the problem for the learner to understand or investigate,

52
guides the selection of materials, and then engages the learner in the inquiry process.
Conceptual conflict is used to drive the inquiry along.
According to Beyer (1979), the five steps in the process of inquiry are
(a) defining the task, (b) developing a tentative answer or hypothesizing, (c) testing
the tentative answer or forming a hypothesis, (d) drawing conclusions, and
(e) applying the conclusions to new data and then generalizing. One of the
misconception of inquiry teaching is commonly referred to as the scientific method
(Hunt & Colander (1999), NRC (1996), & AAAS (1989).)
Arguably the most widely recognized effective science teaching strategy is
the inquiry continuum developed by Bonnstetter (1998). The inquiry continuum is a
well-designed graphic organizer with enormous explanatory power. There are five
categories of science learning activities in the inquiry continuum ranging from the
traditional hands-on, to structured, guided, student-directed, and student research
inquiry. An activity is distinguished in terms of inquiry by the amount of teacher
input versus student input and control. Bonnstetter’s model can be easily applied to
any science activity and the continuum framework allows the teacher to move the
lesson toward a higher level of student exploration. English learners generally thrive
on student and group explorations.
Fathman & Quinn (1989) have also outlined a model for teaching science to
English learners. This includes examining science concepts through three types of
inquiry-based activities: a teacher demonstration, a group investigation, and a
student led investigation. The sequencing of activities from teacher-directed to

53
group-centered and student-initiated activities allows English learners to progress
naturally through the various stages of language learning – from observing to
solving, listening to speaking, interacting to self-initiated learning.
The teacher should first begin by assessing the student’s prior knowledge.
The benefits of this would include introducing the concept, stimulating students’
interest in the topic, identify any misconceptions, and allow the students to engage in
active listening and observation in large group or expository learning. During the
demonstration, the teacher should guide the students in a higher level of questioning
strategies and ample wait time should be provided for students to respond. Students
are encouraged to take notes during the demonstration.
After the demonstration, the students should be divided into cooperative
learning groups. The peer interactions further enhance exploration of science
concepts and comprehension and production skills. English learners thrive
academically in small group learning situations. An independent investigative
activity should follow up the group activity. This allows students to further explore
the science concept at their own learning pace and thus fosters self-directed learning.
Hampton & Rodriguez (2001) designed a research project to determine the value of
implementing an inquiry science curriculum in 62 classrooms where elementary
school children were also English learners. These students were taught by interns
from the University of Texas at El Paso in three public elementary schools in the El
Paso public school districts. Half of the academic instruction was taught in Spanish
and the other half in English. All the intern teachers and in-service teachers were

54
required to report evidence of their student’s concept development. An attitude
survey and written assessments were given to 107 fifth grade students at the
elementary schools.
The data collected from this study indicated that there was a strong positive
feeling about the benefits of an inquiry-based science teaching approach to increase
the students’ language skills in their primary and English languages, new science
concepts and skills increased, and there was very little academic difference between
the English learner and mainstream English speaking student population if both
groups were taught using the inquiry-based approach.
There are several reasons why inquiry-based science teaching is especially
well-suited for English learners. First, the activities are hands-on and highly
interactive. The science concepts are built through manipulating the realia or
materials, prior knowledge is activated, and students engage in verbal and written
communications with their peers. Third, the foundation for many science terms has a
Latin root base, and its vocabulary is often similar to Spanish. Finally, an inquiry
approach is inclusive rather than exclusive. It’s very fluid and dynamic and can be
easily adapted to the learner’s needs.
The teacher is the facilitator in this process and “the objective is to develop a
group, including the teacher, into a community of learners” (Otieno, 1999, p. 14).
The inquiry program relies heavily on an intrinsic rather than an extrinsic motivation
model to facilitate learning. Students should feel safe to ask questions, have time to
think and ask questions, have appropriate feedback, and feel free to make mistakes.

55
The establishment of this learning environment depends greatly on the teacher’s
belief and perceptions of science instruction.
In order to further support inquiry learning in the science classroom, the role
of the textbook should also be taken into consideration. Problem-centered or
problem-based learning has roots in the foundations of constructivism, learning
cycle, and inquiry teaching. The three components of this are: tasks, groups, and
sharing (Wheatley, 1991). Reading in the science classroom especially for English
learners should be a problem-centered activity. Reading is a form of inquiry
learning.

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA)
There are three areas to be addressed for the linguistic needs of the English
learners in the science classroom: 1) the role of the textbook; 2) the means by which
children construct meaning from the textbook; and 3) the role of the teacher (Barba
et al.). The role of the textbook should be to assist the student in “constructing
declarative knowledge of science facts, concepts, and rules and principles (Barba,
1998, p.318). Historically, science textbooks often bombard the student with facts
while often lacking in concepts, present information that is inaccurate, and the
textbook is poorly organized. Science teachers rely heavily on textbooks as both
pedagogical guides and subject matter authorities. Fradd, Sutman, Lee, and Saxton’s
(2001) study has suggested that the literacy requirement for English learners to
comprehend the concepts found in a textbook was far too complex for English

56
learners. Wheatley (1991) has proposed that all teachers should use more friendly
texts to assist all learners. English learners will greatly benefit from more user-
friendly texts because the learner incorporates prior background knowledge,
interconnecting ideas between the learning units, derive inferences and draw
conclusions from the readings.
The classroom teacher is responsible for guiding the process of learning.
“Science talk” is integral to constructing scientific knowledge in the multicultural
science classroom. One effective instructional approach is CALLA. Students who
are acquiring English may face language-related difficulties in science classes at all
grade levels due to the introduction of extensive new vocabulary and the complexity
of the discourse, grammatical structures, language functions, and study skills
required. Furthermore, students are expected not just to listen and understand, but to
follow directions and to perform reasonably complex procedures. (Chamot &
O’Malley, 1994, p. 195)
One of the most highly recommended methods for “science language” that
can be used by the teacher is CALLA, created by Chamot and O’Malley (1994).
This approach incorporates three categories of learning strategies: (a) metacognitive,
a purposeful monitoring thinking process; (b) cognitive, individual learning tasks;
and (c) socio/affective, social and affective influences on learning. Chamot and
O’Malley have suggested teaching guidelines for CALLA in a multicultural science
classroom: (a) using the science thematic approach, (b) accessing prior knowledge,
(c) engaging in hands-on activities, (d) developing academic language, (e) dispelling

57
student misconception(s), (f) integrating learning strategy instruction, and (g) using
the five phases of the CALLA instructional sequence. As noted by Sutman (1993)
and Lee (2003), the thematic instruction approach assists students in understanding
science related principles and processes that can be related and connected to other
subject matters.
Table 1 summarizes all language skills that are typically required in science
instruction (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). English learners are required to multitask
at a much higher level and faster pace than their English-speaking classmates.
Students need to understand the instruction of the task prior to executing the task.
They need to understand the content of the task. They must be able to accomplish
both of these highly demanding skills.
Many elementary school science textbooks are not written for English
learners. This may be the reason that many English learners are bored when they
read science textbooks. Newport (1990) reported that about 50% of students were
“turned off to” or reacted negatively toward science by nine years of age. The
students were often confused by learning the definitions of vocabulary words and
just “talking about” abstract ideas.
New concepts are introduced in science texts by expository discourse. The
arrangement or format of the text may be confusing to the English learner. The
textbook is organized into sections that are marked by a heading in dark, bold, or
large print. Within these sections, important vocabulary words are in italics,
followed by a definition. A series of related facts or information typically follows.

58
Table 1

Language Skills Required by Science for Students in Grades 1-12

Area School grades
Skill 1-3 4-6 7-12
Listening
1. Understand explanations without concrete referents. L P M
2. Understand demonstrations. M M M
3. Follow directions for experiments. M M L
4. Listen for specific information. L P M
5. Work with a partner on an experiment. P M M
Reading
1. Understand specialized vocabulary. L P M
2. Understand information in textbook. L P M
3. Find information from graphs, charts, and tables. L P M
4. Follow directions for experiments. L P M
5. Find information in reference materials. L P M
Speaking
1. Answer questions. M M M
2. Ask for clarification. M M M
3. Participate in discussions. M M P
4. Explain and demonstrate a process. L P M
5. Work with a partner on an experiment. P M M
Writing
1. Write answers to questions. L P M
2. Note observations. L L M
3. Describe experiments. L L M
4. Write reports. L L M

Note. L= less emphasis, P = partial emphasis, M = more emphasis.

59
The student is required to make inferences from these key vocabulary words to
formulate hypotheses and conclusions. This type of discourse format may be quite
different from the style to which the English learner student is accustomed.
Grammatical forms and words structures, such as the use of passive voice,
multiple embeddings, if-then constructions, and so forth in science textbooks become
increasingly complex as the student progresses into higher grades. In science
classes, all four language skills are utilized: listening, speaking, reading, and
writing. The constructivist theory, learning cycle, and other student-centered
learning approaches support the needs of the English learner in learning science, but
the language of science must be taught along with content (Gerber, 1995; Marek &
Cavallo, 1997). The students would use oral communication skills to engage in
experiential learning, receptive language skills to understand information presented
orally or by the textbook and productive skills (oral and written) to participate in the
activities, such as making predictions and classifying categories.
After selecting relevant appropriate themes, similar to the theme-based
approach, teachers should assess the students’ prior knowledge in order to select the
content for development in the science units. This reflects Piaget’s theory about a
child not being essentially a blank slate when entering the classroom. Students
should also identify their own prior knowledge about the concepts. Then the
teacher’s task is to create experiences that will challenge misconceptions and refine
their understanding. Challenging misconception is similar to characteristics of the
conceptual change theory supported by Kuhn (1970) and Posner et al. (1982).

60
Some activities in a CALLA science class may include “demonstrations,
observations, structured discussions, exploration of scientific phenomena, gathering
and organizing information, and hands-on manipulation” (Chamot & O’Malley,
1994, p. 200). The purpose is to have the students experience science through an
inquiry-based, active learning approach. Academic language support should be
provided for English learners, and they should be encouraged to listen and take
notes, describe their observations by writing and discuss it with their peers, use
mnemonics (a memory system involving visualization or acronyms), survey or scan
the text, generate questions, make predictions, “get the gist” of the text, engage in
rehearsal strategies, make graphic organizers (e.g., Venn diagrams, timelines, flow
charts, semantic maps), and use comprehension strategies (e.g., verbally scaffolding
or paraphrasing the text). Peer tutoring and cooperative learning groups are two
effective science teaching strategies for English learners.
Spiegel and Barufaldi (1994) and Cook and Mayer (1988) found that
students, especially English learners had difficulty “sorting text into the categories of
classification, comparison/contrast, enumeration, sequence, and generalization”
(Hartman & Glasgow, 2002, p. 63). They were not competent readers and the top-
down reading structure in the scientific textbook was not supporting their learning
needs. Teachers may assist students by teaching them to illustrate major concepts of
the scientific ideas by organizing their ideas in graphic organizers.
The seventh guideline for CALLA science in a multicultural classroom is the
useful framework outlined in five guidelines. In guideline one, preparation, the

61
teacher and the students identify existing schemas about the selected topic. This can
be done by brainstorming or generating graphic organizers. In the next phase,
presentation, the teacher provides a demonstration that causes students to confront
their prior knowledge. At this point, students are highly interested and engaged in
the concept because the observation contradicts what they already believe. This has
characteristics similar to the conceptual change theory.
Sometimes selections in the science textbooks may contain misconceptions
that may contribute to the student’s knowledge of the science concept. Abimbola
and Baba (1996) have identified some common misconceptions in science textbook.
Their analysis of one textbook, STAN Biology, found 117 misconceptions and 37
alternative conceptions or explanations distributed in 18 of the 22 chapters. The first
type of misconception involved the use of inaccurate or out-of-date concepts.
Another type of misconception is derived from statements that are wrong. The role
of teacher is to thoroughly scan these textbooks and to choose books that contain the
fewest misconceptions and alternative conceptions.
The learning wheels have been set in motion for the third guidelines. In this
stage the students are ready to explore a phenomenon by conducting their own
experiments or engaged in discovery learning. “These explorations provide students
with practice in using various science processes, such as observing, classifying,
measuring, communicating, predicting, and inferring” (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994,
p. 208). These inquiries are self-initiated and will be followed by discussions with

62
peers. The work of Otieno (1999), Sutman (1993), and Zenger and Zenger (1985)
support this approach.
Students record their observations as a means to evaluate and examine
explanations for the phenomenon. During the last phase, expansion, students use the
scientific method to undergo a self-evaluation of their understanding. They may
choose to broaden their schemas by further exploration of the phenomenon. Overall,
the CALLA approach has been shown to be an effective tool in providing science
instruction to English learners by providing academic language support along with
integrating the theories of Piaget, Kuhn, and Vygotsky.
Barba et al. have stated that teachers can additionally support their English
learners by actively engaging students in applying the three-tiered study guides,
QUEST (QUEstions that Stimulate Thinking) techniques, or by utilizing inductive
thinking methods (ITM).

QUEstions That Stimulates Thinking (QUEST), Inductive Thinking Method (ITM),
and Teaching Reading in Content Areas (TRICA) Language Support for English
Learners
Singer and Simonsen (1989) proposed two reading language approaches to
support English learners, questions that stimulate thinking (QUEST) and inductive
thinking method (ITM). QUEST guides students in constructing meaning from oral
informational sources. This technique attempts to raise the questioning levels from
the inferential, interpretive, to the applied and evaluative levels of thinking. It has

63
similar characteristics like the questioning strategy technique. The teacher begins
with a focus question on the topic then an extending question allows the students to
interpret the concept by themselves. The final step is to ask a lifting question
focused on applying and evaluating what they have learned.
According to Badham (1996), the questioning technique may also be
extended to mathematical and scientific thinking in open-ended tasks through four
steps: starter questions, questions to stimulate scientific thinking, assessment
questions, and final discussion questions. Starter questions are open-ended questions
which focus the children's thinking in a general direction and give them a starting
point. The second step, assists children in focusing on particular strategies and to see
patterns and relationships between the concepts. This builds the formation of a
strong conceptual network. The questions serve as a prompt when children become
'stuck'. Some teachers are often tempted to turn these questions into instructions.
However, it should be noted that this type of instruction does not necessarily
stimulate thinking and removes responsibility for investigating from the child.
Assessment questions ask children to explain what they are doing or how they
arrived at a solution. These types of questions allow the teacher to see how the
children are thinking, what they understand and what level they are operating at.
The last step, draws together the efforts of the class and prompts sharing and
comparison of strategies and solutions. This is a vital phase in the mathematical and
scientific thinking processes. It provides further opportunity for reflection and

64
realization of mathematical and scientific ideas and relationships. It encourages
children to evaluate their work.
In the ITM language support approach, the teacher asks a series of
hierarchically arranged questions. The nine stages of the ITM are (Barba et al.):
1) enumeration and listing; 2) grouping; 3) labeling and categorizing; 4) identifying
points; 5) explaining items of identified information; 6) making inferences; 7)
predicting consequences and hypothesizing; 8) explaining and/or supporting the
prediction; and 9) verifying the prediction.
The inductive model is a straightforward but powerful strategy designed to
assist students in acquiring a deep and thorough understanding of the topics they are
studying (Eggen, 2001). Eggen further documented that teachers will need to present
information that illustrates the topics and then guides the English learners as they
search for relationships in the information. The model is grounded in the view that
learners construct their own understanding of the world rather than recording it in an
already organized form. The inductive model reflects the constructivist principles.
Additionally, Eggen et. al. have further explained that the inductive thinking model
requires teachers to be skilled in questioning and to guide students thinking and is
highly effective in promoting students’ involvement and motivation. The goals for
the inductive model are: to assist students in acquiring a deep and thorough
understanding of specific topics and to put students in an active role in the learning
process of constructing their own understanding (Eggen).

65
Another way to categorize questions is according to the level of thinking they
are likely to stimulate, using a hierarchy such as Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1956).
Bloom classified thinking into six levels: Memory (the least rigorous),
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation (requiring the
highest level of thinking). Sanders (1966) separated the Comprehension level into
two categories, Translation and Interpretation, to create a seven level taxonomy
which is quite useful in mathematics and science. This hierarchy is compatible with
the different categories of questions already discussed.
1. Memory: The student recalls or memorizes information
2. Translation: The student changes information into a different symbolic
form or language
3. Interpretation: The student discovers relationships among facts,
generalizations, definitions, values and skills
4. Application: The student solves a life-like problem that requires
identification of the issue and selection and use of appropriate generalizations
and skills
5. Analysis: The student solves a problem in the light of conscious knowledge
of the parts of the form of thinking.
6. Synthesis: The student solves a problem that requires original, creative
thinking
7. Evaluation: The student makes a judgement of good or bad, right or
wrong, according to the standards he/she values.

66
Herber’s (1978), teaching reading in content areas, TRICA, is one of the most
widely used reflective reading techniques. This three-tiered, literal, interpretive, and
applied, study guide has the cooperative learning model and reciprocal teaching
methods embedded in it. Students are grouped in their cooperative learning groups.
At the literal level, teachers ask the students to literally explain what the author of
the textbook is saying. At the interpretative level, teachers ask the students to
interpret what the text means. At the last stage, teachers encourage students to
reflect on what they have learned. All three language approaches have
commonalities in that they solicit the students to think from a non-linear or top-down
learning approach. The text is broken down to manageable steps that can be easily
guided by the teacher.
The incorporation of reading instruction into the science content classroom
may be applied into three comprehension-building steps: before reading, during
reading, and after reading (Teaching Today, September 2006). The first step
activates knowledge and sets a purpose for reading. These strategies include
brainstorming, predicting, skimming, assessing prior knowledge, previewing
headings, and learning crucial vocabulary. During the reading process, students are
allowed to measure comprehension, clarify, visualize, and build connections. The
English learner will reread, confirm predictions, summarize, synthesize, reflect, and
question the content in the last two steps. In the after reading process, the English
learner will expand prior knowledge, build connections, and deepen his/her
understanding of the concept.

67
2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education Questionnaire
The 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education, a
nationally recognized survey, designed by researchers at Horizon Research Inc.,
under a grant commissioned by the National Science Foundation, to provide up-to-
date information and to identify trends in the areas of mathematics and science
curriculum and instruction, teacher background and experience, and the availability
and use of instructional resources at the school sites. Within this national sampling
framework, there are four surveys: science program questionnaire, science teacher
questionnaire, mathematics program questionnaire, and mathematics teacher
questionnaire.
A total of 5,728 mathematics and science educators in grades K-12 in the 50
states and the District of Columbia participated in this survey. There was a response
rate of 74 percent. The national probability sample was designed to allow national
estimates of mathematics and science course offerings and enrollment in K-12
schools; teacher background preparation; textbook usage; instructional strategies;
and the availability and use of mathematics and science facilities and equipment
(Fulp, 2002). “Technical detail on the survey sample design, as well as data
collection and analysis procedures, is included in the Report of the 2000 National
Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Weiss, Banilower, McMahon, Smith,
2001) (Fulp, 2002, p. 1).”

68
The survey used in this national probability sample is based on a Likert scale.
Likert scaling is a unidimensional scaling method commonly used in social research
Trochin (2006). In other words, a likert scale measures the extent to which an
individual agrees or disagrees with the focus question. Typically the scale ranges
from values of one to five. One would indicate that the individual strongly disagrees
with the focus question. A value of two would be equivalent to the individual
disagreeing with the focus question. A score of three would reflect the individual is
not sure how he/she feels about the focus question. The individual will circle or
mark the number four if he/she agrees with the focus question. And lastly, a value of
five would indicate that the individual strongly agrees with the focus question. A
common statistical software program such as the Statistical Program Social Sciences,
SPSS, is often used to conduct a t-test comparison and provide descriptive statistics
between the compared targeted groups.

69
“Moving toward state and national standards-based instruction is a priority in
many classrooms today” (Blank & Hill, 2004, p. 54). As educators and school
leaders continue to incorporate standards-based instruction, they will need a
systematic way to evaluate the current status of science instruction to determine what
necessary changes and improvements are needed to provide a solid learning
foundation for all learners. Informative and valuable data from Weiss (2001) Report
of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education have assisted
Blank, Porter, and Smithson (2001) to derive a new approach to analyze and improve
science and mathematics education in K-12 entitled “Surveys of Enacted Curriculum
(SEC).
This effective evaluative tool has allowed science educators to compare their
instruction with other teaching colleagues, schools, or districts and determine how
much of their instruction is in alignment with state standards and assessments. The
comparable science instructional data from the surveys systems have been used in
guiding professional development workshops and discussions between teaching
colleagues on best strategies for improving science instruction.

70
The 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education provided a
powerful national sampling of the current science and mathematics educational
trends but there are flaws to this design. One critique of this design was that there
was not a section of questions targeted to the English learner population. According
to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001), one in three students
speaks a language other than English in California’s schools. Additionally, the
Commission stated that a student is considered to be an English learner if the second
language acquisition is English. In California more than 1.4 million English learners
entered school speaking a variety of languages, and this number continues to rise.
There is an imminent need to promote instructional strategies that support this group
of diverse learners. The nationwide survey should also provide data and trends of
effective science teaching strategies for English learners. The sampling population
for this nationwide survey was for the grades of K-12. In order to support the
intended purpose of this research paper, it was necessary for some of the questions to
be adapted and modified. Some of the questions that were derived for middle and
high school single-subjected matter educators were eliminated. This reduced the
survey considerably and made it more manageable for the targeted sampling
population, K-5 educators in public mathematics, science, and technology-based
magnet schools, who were the subjects of this research paper. Additionally
discussion of the rationale of this modification will be further discussed in Chapter 3.

71
Motivation Factors Affecting English Learners in the Science Classroom
A broad definition of motivation is a student’s intent or desire to learn. Ogbu
(1992) and Gay (1988) have stated that motivation plays a significant role in all
children’s learning, particularly English learners. It is vital for elementary science
teachers to have knowledge of motivational factors that influence a language
minority student’s learning. This will assist the elementary science teacher in
implementing appropriate science lesson plans to foster and develop scientific
understanding. The six factors that have been shown to increase the English
learner’s effort and desire to learn (Barba, 1998) are: 1) level of concern; 2) feeling
tone; 3) success; 4) interest; 5) status; and 6) knowledge of results.
Weiner’s (1980) attribution theory and Bandura’s (1977) social learning
theory helped to define the student’s level of concern about achieving in the
classroom. The classroom activities or task developed by the teacher should be
feasible and reflect their ability to “do the work.” It should be challenging enough to
encourage new learning. Wheatley (1991) has encouraged the teacher to give rich
educational activities. These tasks should 1) be accessible to all learners at the start;
2) invite students to make decisions; 3) encourage students to ask “what if”
questions; 4) encourage students to use their own methods; 5) stimulate discussion
and communication between learners; 6) lead somewhere; 7) have an element of
surprise; 8) be enjoyable and interesting; and 9) may be extended to other content
areas.

72
The overall learning environment or feeling tone established by the teacher
greatly impacts how much the English learners actually learn in the classroom.
These group of students view schools as places of learning when they are allowed to
bring their home language and culture into the setting and then apply that to their
new learning. In culturally affirming classrooms, teachers incorporate culturally
familiar analogies and themes into the instructional program. This will assist the
students in making linkages between their real world experiences and abstract
science concepts.
Success, the third motivation theory, is grounded in the affiliative drive and
ego-enhancement components of achievement motivation theory as proposed by
McClelland (1965) and Atkinson (1964). There are two competing needs in this
theory: the need to achieve success and the need to avoid failure. Teachers should
provide assistance in goal setting and minimize academic failure by (Barba et al.):
1) breaking large tasks into more manageable tasks; 2) provide ample reinforcement
for success; 3) avoid public recognition or acknowledgement of the children’s
mistakes or failures; and 4) provide supportive environments such as creating
cooperative or familial small learning groups.
Teachers should also capture the student’s interest or curiosity by using
discrepant events. This moves the English learners from a state of cognitive
equilibrium to a state of cognitive dissonance or disequlibrium, as a result, it
motivates the students to learn. This is similar to the conceptual change model
approach.

73
The fifth factor may be defined as the need to belong or the need for self-
esteem. Cohen’s (1991) study has reported that when teachers orally “confer status”
on students through the use of praise. Teachers may increase participation of
English learners in the “classroom activities through the verbal feedback that they
provide to students” (Barba, 1998, p. 38).
The final motivational factor is knowledge of results. Schimmel (1988) has
pointed out that feedback is a powerful factor that has both motivational and
cognitive effects on students’ learning. There are three types of feedback:
1) confirmatory feedback, provides students with information as to the correctness of
an answer; 2) corrective feedback, provides the students not only with a knowledge
of whether an answer is right or wrong but also with the correct answer to the
question; and 3) explanatory feedback, provide students with a knowledge of the
accuracy of their answer, the correct answer, and an explanation why it is correct or
wrong. This is the most reflective and corrective type of feedback.
The use of these six motivational factors will most likely increase the science
classrooms to become more culturally supportive for English learners and encourage
them to become lifelong learners.

Gaps in and Problems With the Literature
For teachers to provide effective science instruction for students with diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, they should take into account the students’
various learning styles (Lee, 2003). Some teachers may need training in how to do

74
this. Sutman & Guzman (2005), have stated that there are three major deterrents to
offering quality science instruction: a) the limited preparation in science related
subjects; b) the tendency of teachers just to merely embrace the concept of reform
without really modifying their practice; and c) a lack of long term in-class
experiences related to effective implementation of reformed pedagogical approaches.
Damnjanovic (1999) conducted a survey of 73 preservice and 90 in-service
middle school science teachers to determine their attitudes toward the learning and
teaching of science through inquiry. The results indicated that the in-service teachers
held more positive views toward the process of inquiry and inquiry teaching than did
the preservice teachers. Teachers’ positive attitudes toward the process were largely
due to the fact that they were practicing the process in their classrooms and that they
had a better understanding of both contemporary science and science teaching
methods than did the teachers in the preservice group.
It is not enough that the elementary science teachers shared similar cultural
backgrounds with their English language learners but they also needed to integrate
effective science instructional strategies in their academic instruction. Lee (2002)
examined “patterns of change in beliefs and practices in elementary teachers who
shared elements of the language and culture of their students, as they learned to
relate to their students’ background experiences while promoting English language
and literacy development” (p. 66). The six elementary teachers who participated in
that study had been born in Cuba, had come to the United States at different ages,
and spoke Spanish as their first language. The results indicated that even teachers

75
with cultural backgrounds similar to those of their students still had to integrate the
academic disciplines with the students’ linguistic and cultural experiences to make
the academic information meaningful, relevant, and accessible to the students.
The science-integration rubric described by Stoddart et al. (2002) was the
result of experienced teachers in central California who participated in LASERS
(Language Acquisition through Science Education in Rural Schools). Before
participation, the teachers had viewed themselves as well prepared in either science
or language but not both. After their professional development, they all reported that
they had improved their understanding of instructional methods. This change was
the result of a shift from a restricted view of understanding the connection between
science and language to integrating science and language through inquiry teaching.
Research by Damnjanovic (1999), Lee (2002), and Stoddart et al. (2002)
demonstrated a strong need to rethink staff development activities and science
teacher education. The preparation programs for teachers to teach science must
include a component that includes instruction of language minority students.

Summary and Implication for the Study
In today’s increasingly diverse classrooms teachers will need to use various
instructional strategies to teach science content to their English learner students.
They should assist students to learn how to use the English language, including
conventions of grammar and syntax. Current ideal science teaching strategies
include self-directed learning, expository teaching, active listening, questioning, wait

76
time, small group, peer tutoring, large group learning, demonstrations, formal
debates, review sessions, mediated conversation, cooperative learning, theme-based
instruction, Science Technology Society (STS), problem-based learning, discovery
learning, constructivist learning, learning cycle, SCALE technique, conceptual
change, learning from text, cognitive academic language learning approach
(CALLA), and inquiry provide effective science teaching strategies for English
learners.
Self-directed learning is most effective when it is child initiated. It is a self-
motivated act. Expository or exposition instructional strategies reflect more
traditional methods of science teaching. It is not highly recommended for this type
of instruction to be used in a science classroom for elementary-aged English learners
because this group of learners may have problems comprehending verbal
presentations and demonstrations. These obstacles may be overcome with a few
modifications and additions such as engaging in active listening, note taking, visual
aids, short and concise lectures, and forming small groups after lectures to discuss
and summarize main points.
Questioning strategies assist English learners to develop higher critical
thinking skills. Teachers are encouraged to begin with convergent questions, basic
knowledge, and as soon as children grasp more important science concepts, they
should be challenged with divergent and evaluative questions. Divergent questions
challenged the students to think about other alternative answers to the questions
being posed. Evaluative questions solicit the English learners to provide answers that

77
require logical reasoning to support their point of view. When asking questions,
teachers should give adequate wait time for their students to respond and think.
English learners thrive in small group learning situations. In this type of
setting, children interact and engage in semantic negotiations with their peers to
make sense of the world, develop social interaction skills, build self esteem, self
directed learning, foster leadership skills, and last but not least provide an
opportunity for peer tutoring. In peer tutoring, students are encouraged to evaluate
their own work, challenged each other’s explanations, construct their own
conclusions, and openly engage in a meaningful discourse with teachers and
classmates. Peer tutoring often results in mutual benefits for all students involved.
Large group verbal interactions between teachers and English learners have
been recognized as an appropriate pedagogical technique in science instruction for
English learners. Questioning strategies are used to support this type of instruction.
Mediated conversation is similar to reciprocal teaching methods. In this case both
the teacher and student learn from and teach each other.
Science educators are excited about cooperative small group learning for
English learners because it promotes problem solving abilities, retention of
knowledge, academic achievement, improved attitudes toward learning, increased
self-esteem, improved race relations among peers, and developed leadership skills.
By using theme-based or integrated curriculum instruction such as the
science/technology/society (STS), students are provided with the big ideas or broader
concepts that can be connected to other academic subjects. Students have the

78
opportunity to engage in academic discourse and provide equal contribution in their
cooperative learning groups, regardless of language proficiency levels.
Constructivist learning encompasses the instructional methods of problem-based
learning, learning cycle, conceptual change, discovery learning, and inquiry learning
for teaching science. These teaching strategies embraced the idea of the teacher
functioning more as a facilitator so that the student is in control of his/her own
learning process. This includes initiating the question, designing or experimenting
with different ways of resolving the question, and finally formalizing conclusions
about the discovery.
What is powerful about the conceptual change model is the conflict between
the learner’s pre-existing knowledge or idea about the concept or question and the
result of the experimentation. The learner is left with two alternatives: (a) to dismiss
the result of the experimentation, or (b) to reevaluate his/her own concept and accept
the newly discovered idea. The struggle propels the science learning process.
“Learning the vocabulary of English can become particularly complicated for
language-minority students when words are not translatable between English and
their home language” (Jarret, 1999, p. 21). Therefore, teachers must provide
students with science academic language support by using CALLA guidelines.
Two reading language approaches that support English learners are questions
that stimulate thinking (QUEST), inductive thinking method (ITM), and teaching
reading in content areas (TRICA). Active listening and varying levels of questioning
strategies are incorporated in the QUEST and ITM. QUEST guides students in

79
constructing meaning from oral informational sources. In the ITM language support,
the teacher asks a series of hierarchical arranged questions. TRICA is a three-tiered,
literal, interpretive, and applied, study guide that has the cooperative learning model
and reciprocal teaching methods embedded in it.
Teachers should also be aware of their role as a guide and a mentor in the
student’s learning process. It is essential that the student should take the lead in
order to foster self directed learning. The overall learning environment or tone
established by the teacher greatly impacts how much the English learner’s will learn
in the classroom. In culturally affirming classrooms, teachers incorporate culturally
familiar analogies and themes into the instructional program. This assists the
students in making viable connections between their real world experiences and
abstract science concepts.

80

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methodology used in this study. The goal
of the study was to examine the status of elementary science teaching practices used
with English learners in kindergarten through fifth grade in public mathematics,
science, and technology-centered elementary magnet schools throughout the country.
This is a descriptive research study which was designed to provide current
information and identify trends in the areas of instruction for English learners in
science themed magnet schools. Current exemplary science teaching practices are
derived from research-based methods that have been shown to assist in facilitating
science comprehension to English learners (Lee & Fradd, 2001).
The purpose of the survey was to examine the relationship between current
proposed ideal science teaching instructional practices and the actual teaching
practices used in the classroom. The second component or purpose of this
descriptive study is an investigation of instructional strategies regarding the teaching
of science that classroom teachers are using in their classrooms to facilitate science
comprehension and how closely these reflect the current ideal science teaching
practices.

81
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this investigation:
1. How do the teachers at mathematics, science, technology-centered
elementary magnet schools define ideal teaching science practices for K-5
th
English
learner students?
2. What goals do these teachers have for science instruction for English
learners?
3. What instructional strategies do these teachers use most often to reach
their instructional goals for their English learners?

Research Design
Quantitative data were obtained via the surveys collected from magnet
schools throughout the nation. The questions on the surveys were primarily close-
ended, but there were three open-ended questions. The close-ended questions were
modified from Weiss et al. 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics
Education to support the three research questions for this descriptive study. The
rationale and justification for the modified questions will be discussed in greater
detail later in this chapter.
“The power of statistical sampling depends on selecting a truly random and
representative sample which will permit confident generalization from the sample of
a larger population. The power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-
rich cases for study in depth” (Patton, 1987, p. 51). One such strategy is the use of a

82
heterogeneous sample, in which participants are selected from a nonprofit
nationwide directory of public magnet schools: Magnet Schools of America (2005).
The voluntarily subjects in the sampling pool shared the common factor that they
were all elementary teachers in a science themed magnet schools throughout the
country.
The focus on the mathematics, science, and technology-based schools was for
two reasons: 1) an existing English learner population at the school site 2) the
students were receiving academic instruction and support in mathematics, science
and technology. As previously discussed, one of the assumptions of this study was
that the incorporation of educators from the school sites was due to the fact that they
were teaching in a specialized educational setting and the instructional strategies to
teach English learners were already incorporated in their daily lessons.
The three questions in section E asked the elementary science teachers to
reflect upon their most recent science lesson. The purpose of this section was to
provide data analysis on different activities that occurred during the science lesson
and the number of minutes spent on certain tasks during the lesson. This data is
summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. The data in these two tables were analyzed
threefold: First as a whole group then in their respective grade levels, primary
grades (K-2
nd
) and upper grades (3
rd
-5
th
). The first column for each group lists the
cumulative percentage, next is the mean or average, and finally the standard
deviation.

83

Table 2

Activities in Science Lesson for English Learners

Overall
(%)

Lower
(%)

Upper
(%)

Activity Yes No Mean SD Yes No Mean SD Yes No Mean SD
Lecture 54 46 1.46 .501 30 70 1.23 .547 32 68 1.19 .343
Completing
textbook/
worksheet
problem
41 59 1.58 .496 61 39 1.39 .340 71 29 1.34 .422
Hands-on
laboratory
activities
72 28 1.45 1.925 41 59 1.24 1.825 42 58 1.39 1.529
Read about
science
44 56 1.56 .499 66 34 1.69 .399 70 30 1.46 .377
Discussion 90 10 1.11 .312 52 48 1.25 .213 51 49 1.31 .412
Work in
small groups
69 31 1.32 .467 36 64 1.13 .457 43 57 1.47 .310
Use
calculators
9 91 1.90 .300 45 55 1.80 .200 51 49 1.75 .260
Use
computers
15 85 1.86 .343 49 51 1.76 .322 49 51 1.79 .290
Test or quiz 12 88 1.88 .323 47 53 1.66 .312 52 48 1.78 .330
Other 14 86 1.86 .353 52 48 1.66 .333 49 51 1.77 .453

84
Table 3

Number of Minutes Spent on Certain Tasks During the Science Lesson

Activity
Overall
(min) Mean SD
Lower
(min) Mean SD
Upper
(min) Mean SD
Daily routines,
interruptions, and
other noninstructional
activities
5 4.83 4.329 5 4.79 4.30 10 4.22 4.44
Whole class lectures
or discussion
10 10.32 7.442 10 9.20 7.22 10 9.00 6.99
Individual students
reading textbooks,
completing
worksheets
5 5.76 4.949 5 4.55 3.90 10 3.34 4.80
Working with
manipulatives
10 9.75 6.59 10 7.76 5.98 20 8.67 4.99
Small group 15 3.94 7.827 10 3.99 6.87 15 3.12 5.99
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

85
The elementary science teachers were provided with an opportunity to describe or
list any other science instructional strategies that they used in their science
instruction lessons. The data captured the reliability of the teachers’ experiences and
how closely they relate to current ideal exemplary methods of teaching science to
English learners. The results for Tables 8 and 9 will be further discussed in detail in
Chapter 4.

Instrument
The sampling instrument in Appendix A, Science and Mathematics
Education Survey, for this research paper was derived from Weiss et. al 2000
National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education Questionnaire developed by
the Horizon-Research Company. There have been predecessors to this nationally
recognized survey. In 2000, the National Science Foundation decided to continue
their support for the fourth series of surveys through a grant to Horizon Research,
Inc. “The first survey was conducted in 1977 as part of a major assessment of
science and mathematics education consisting of a comprehensive review of the
literature; case studies of 11 districts throughout the United States; and a national
survey of teachers, principals, and district and state personnel. A second survey of
teachers and principals was conducted in 1985–86 to identify trends since 1977, and
a third survey was conducted in 1993” (Weiss et al., p. 16).

86
The main purpose of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics
Education in Appendix B was to provide up-to-date information and to identify
trends in the areas of mathematics and science curriculum and instruction, teacher
background and experience, and the availability and use of instructional resources at
the school sites. As stated earlier, only the science teacher survey was examined in
this research. The other three surveys do not pertain to this study. A total of 5,728
mathematics and science educators in grades K-12 in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia participated in this survey. There was a response rate of 74 percent. The
national probability sample was designed to allow national estimates of mathematics
and science course offerings and enrollment in K-12 schools; teacher background
preparation; textbook usage; instructional strategies; and the availability and use of
mathematics and science facilities and equipment (Fulp, 2002).
The 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education provided a
powerful national sampling of the current science and mathematics educational
trends but there are flaws to this design. One major critique of this instrument was
that there was not a section of questions targeted to the English learner population.
According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001),
one in three students speaks a language other than English in California’s schools.
Additionally, the Commission stated that a student is considered to be an English
learner if the second language acquisition is English.

87
In California more than 1.4 million English learners entered school speaking
a variety of languages, and this number continues to rise. There is an imminent need
to promote instructional strategies that support this group of diverse learners. The
nationwide survey should also provide data and trends of effective science teaching
strategies for English learners. Dobb (2004) has stated that the science instructional
strategies that are used for English learners may also be effective for the mainstream
English speaking student population.
In order for the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education
to identify national trends in science and mathematics education, the sampling
population must include grades K – 12
th
. Some of the questions originally listed in
Appendix B, was targeted for middle and high school science and mathematics
educators. It was unnecessary to include these questions for this research study
because the targeted sampling population was for K-5
th
elementary educators.
The close-ended questions on the survey are intended to identify, compare,
and contrast actual teaching practices and “ideal” teaching practices.
Weiss et. al’s 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education
Science Questionnaire is composed of five categories: (a) teacher opinions, (b)
teacher background, (c) your science teaching a particular class, (d) your most recent
science lesson in this class, and (e) demographic information. These categories are
replicated in the Science and Mathematics Education Survey Appendix A with the
exception of the order that the information was presented in: (a) demographic

88
information, (b) teacher opinions, (c) teacher background, (d) science teaching in a
particular class, and (e) most recent science lessons.
In the demographic information section of the Weiss et. al. survey, the
teachers were asked to state their ethnicity, year of birth, provide their e-mail
addresses, and completion date of the survey. This information was irrelevant to this
research because it was important to recruit a diverse group of educators which
included beginning and seasoned teachers teaching at all the different grade levels.
Therefore the participants were simply asked to state their gender, grade level, how
many years they had taught at what grade level, and total years of teaching
experience.
Only Question 2 in the teacher opinion section was omitted from the Weiss
et. al. survey, the remainder of the questions were applicable and provided data
analysis for this study. In Section B, Appendix A, the teachers were asked to state
how they felt about their science teaching curriculum and collaboration at their
school site.
In the teacher background category, some of the questions in the Weiss et. al.
survey was combined into one question because this alleviated the time constraints
for the teachers to complete the survey. Questions 4b to 7 was merged to form
question 3 in section C, Appendix A. The voluntarily participants were just asked to
state the degrees that they hold and in what subject their degree was in. Questions 9
and 11 were not incorporated into the survey in Appendix A because it focused on
the participants’ leadership abilities and single subject matter teachers, respectively.

89
These two areas do not pertain to this research study. Although Questions 10a to 10c
were targeted for self contained classrooms, only Question 10c was applicable to this
study. The previous question, Question 10c, was used as in Question 5, section C,
Appendix A. The two original Questions 3 and 8 in the Weiss et. al survey was
regenerated to form Questions 2 and 4 section C, Appendix A, respectively. In these
two sets of questions, the teachers were asked to rank how well they felt about their
science instruction for their English learners and how many hours of professional
development they had experienced.
The following questions were not incorporated from the Weiss et. al survey,
Questions 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 a-b, and 27 a-c because they were
irrelevant to the purpose of this study and these questions pertain mostly to single
subject matter classrooms. Questions 14a remained the same and was used as
Questions 6a in Appendix A. It was unnecessary to have an ethnic breakdown of the
classroom for this study, therefore, the elementary teachers were asked only to
provide the percentage of females, non-Caucasian, and LEP students in their
classroom as reflected in Question 6b in Appendix A. This question combined
Questions 14b and 18 from the Weiss’s et. al. survey. Questions 19, 20 and 21 in the
Weiss et. al. survey, was regenerated as Questions 7, 8, and 9 section D, Appendix A
with an emphasis on student objectives for English learners. These set of questions
were suited perfectly for the purpose of this research study.
There was also some modifications necessary to the final section of Science
and Mathematics Education Survey Appendix A, your most recent science lesson, in

90
order to support the research questions for this study. Questions 10 to 12 restated the
original questions to the Weiss’ et. al. survey Appendix B, Questions 28 a-b and 29,
with an emphasis on English learner. The elementary science teachers were asked to
reflect upon the last science class they conducted with their English learner students.
The purposes of the second and third sections, teacher opinions and teacher
background, provided insights on how the elementary science teachers’ personal
opinions may or may not have affected their teaching content of the science subject.
While the goals for section D, science teaching in a particular class, and section E,
most recent science lesson, asked the teachers to reflect on the amount of time
allocated for certain English learner instructional strategies. This data provided
insight into whether the current “ideal” teaching strategies for English learners are
present in their particular classrooms and, if so, which are most used. The last
question in the fifth section permitted the teacher to provide examples of
instructional strategies for English learners that they use in the classroom.

Research Procedure
The nationwide directory of nonprofit public magnet schools, Magnet
Schools of America (2005), served as the database to recruit participating schools.
This database had a comprehensive list of magnet or theme-based public schools
with their corresponding school or county districts’ websites or contact numbers
throughout the nation. Using the school district website, the researcher was able to
further verify that all information provided by the database was accurate by cross

91
referencing the school’s address, contact numbers, principal, school curriculum,
faculty, student body population, and public school status. After all information was
verified for accuracy, and found to be current, the researcher then sent 100 interest
letters by facsimile to all public mathematics, science, and technology-based magnet
schools.
All eligible public mathematics, science, and technology magnet school
districts with a significant number of English learners were recruited for the study.
The “significant number” reference was established at ten percent or more of the
student population being classified as English learners. This data was obtained from
the school district web sites.
The schools solicited to participate in the study had at least 10% of their
student population as English learners so that the results from the surveys provided
enough data to form generalizations to support the purpose of the study. The small
number of school sites was a delimiting factor of this study. In this case, the 16
schools contained an average of 35% of the student populations in K-5 as English
learners. This significant percentage of English learners provided a rich data source
to generalize the results. The teachers at the school sites contained knowledge of
how to teach science content to English learners. The 16 schools were
geographically dispersed throughout the nation. There was at least one school
located in the western states, central states, eastern states, and southern states. This
caused the data pool to be randomized and more generalizable. The significant

92
average percentage of English learners in the classroom comprised the small
sampling pool.
A list of schools with at least ten percent of the student population English
learners were sent an interest letter containing information about the purpose of the
study, procedures for the survey, and a small gift certificate for all participants in the
amount of $1 to McDonalds
®
, regardless of whether or not they returned the survey.
The investigator followed up via telephone with the school principals to clarify
questions about the study, ask for the number of teaching faculty at the school site,
and obtain permission letters from the school sites. All teaching faculty were
eligible to participate in the study.
An information sheet, the Science and Mathematics Education Survey, the
University Institutional Review Board approval letter, the one-time gift certificate, a
letter of informed consent (Appendix B), and a return-addressed stamped envelope
was provided in a sealed envelope for each participant at the school site. This sealed
package was mailed via U.S. Postal Service and distributed by the designated person
at the participating school site.

Time Line
The researcher sent 100 interest letters by facsimile to all public mathematics,
science, and technology-based magnet elementary schools listed in the Magnet
Schools of America (2005) database in the months of December 2005 and January
and February 2006. Then the investigator followed up via telephone discussions

93
with the school principals to clarify questions, discuss survey protocols, gather data
on number of teaching faculty, and request a school permission interest letter. Only
16 out of 100 schools responded to the interest letters and telephone discussions.
Upon receiving clearance from the university Institutional Review Board, the
investigator contacted the principals to establish a distribution date for the survey.
The survey was distributed in late February 2006 and the second week of March
2006. Data were transcribed in the third week of March 2006, and a statistical
analysis performed using computer statistical software during the fourth week of
March 2006 to the third week of April 2006.

Data Reduction and Analysis
A simple descriptive analysis of the data such as the t-test, standard deviation
(SD), mean, and percentage for the three categories: as a whole group, primary or
lower grades K-2, and upper grades 3-5, was sufficient to support the three research
questions of this study.
The purpose of section A was to provide basic information about the teacher
and served as a reference guide. Using this basic information, the researcher
analyzed the teachers’ opinions about their science teaching curriculum and their
methods of instruction. These data were collected in the second and third sections of
the survey. Data in the fourth and fifth sections were analyzed to determine whether
the current “ideal” teaching strategies were actually present in the classrooms.

94
The data from the survey were manually encoded by the researcher in a
fashion recommended by the SPSS
®
Version 12 manual. Each set of questions was
categorized by determining whether it was a nominal or ordinal variable. This
information was used to obtain simple descriptive statistics such as a t-test. The
measuring instrument for this study is based on a Likert scale. As stated in Chapter
1, one of the assumptions of this research pertained to the statistical analysis of the
data on the Likert scale. Although this is done often in practice, a t-test may be
performed on Likert scale questions but this is not a statistically valid technique
because the Likert scale questions do not possess a normal probability distribution
(SPSS techniques series: Statistics on Likert scale surveys, 2007). In order to
provide more statistical support of the data analysis, crosstabulation, mean, standard
deviation (SD), and percentage of the three variables: as a whole group, lower or
primary grades K-2, and upper grades 3-5, have also been conducted. The
frequencies for each variable were first obtained. Then the cross tabulation function
was used to compare the variables as a whole group and by grade levels and by
upper and lower elementary grades.
The data was analyzed and discussed in three components: as an entire group,
lower grades (K-2
nd
), and upper grades (3
rd
-5
th
). The whole group analysis provided
basic information or generalizable trends. While the grade level group analysis
provided information on whether contrasting trends, believes, or practices may exist
between the two groups. This served to indicate future research implications if there
was a significant difference between the groups.

95
Validity and Reliability
The sampling pool was originally targeted to be open to all mathematics,
science, and technology-based public magnet schools throughout the nation. It was
more efficient to use an existing database, Magnet Schools of America (2005), to
recruit and solicit all eligible schools. This database contained a significant number
of public mathematics, science, and technology-based magnet elementary schools.
The results from the surveys were collected from this sampling pool.
In order to preserve the validity of the sampling pool, all schools with at least
10% English learners were asked to participate. This allowed the data pool to be
randomly selected to avoid biases in the sampling. This was done to counteract and
compensate for the low number of participating schools. The fact was that the
average percentage of English learners in K-5 was about 35%; the average
percentage in primary grades K-2 was 32%, and the average percentage in grade 3-5
was 29%. This significant amount allowed the researcher to predict trends and
generalize the results.

Results of the Pilot Study
Two public mathematics, science, and technology-based centered elementary
magnet schools in the Los Angeles County participated in the pilot study. The
researcher followed the same recruitment procedures as previously discussed to
obtain the results to the pilot study. The main purpose for the pilot study was to
examine whether the three research questions may be carried out in a mock trial

96
setting. The survey questions in Appendix A were easily understood by the
voluntarily participants. It was sufficient to examine the data as a whole or entire
group analysis using simple descriptive statistics such as the t-test, crosstabulation,
mean, standard deviation (SD), and percentage results. Table 4 summarizes the
results of the pilot study.

Table 4

Results of the Pilot Study

Overall (%) Mean SD
Male 17
Female 83
Years of teaching experience over 10 years 60
Limited English Proficiency 25 30.45 16.87
Well prepared to teach English learners 32 3.5 .76
Work in cooperative learning groups 38 3.48 .66
To learn science process/inquiry skills 40 3.12 .716
Pose open-ended questions 35 3.89 .824
Students learn at their own pace 48 3.98 1.11

There was an average of about 25% of the student population who were
identified as English learners at both schools in Southern California. Thirty teachers
participated in the voluntarily study. Twenty of these teachers were female and five
were male. Sixty percent of the teachers have ten or more years of teaching
experience. This provided basic demographic information congruent to Section A
Appendix A.

97
The next two sets of data analysis supported questions in Section C,
Appendix A. Overall of 32% of the teachers felt that they were adequately well
prepared to teach English learners. Thirty-two percent of all the participating
teachers reported that their students worked in cooperative learning groups during
their science lesson. Cooperative learning groups are supported by current literature
as a means to provide effective science teaching instruction to English learners. It
has been concluded from this pilot study that the teachers at the school sites have
knowledge of one current ideal science instructional strategy for English learners.
This also supported the final assumption that the teachers at the public mathematics,
science, and technology-based centered magnet schools already include instructional
strategies to teach English language learners in their daily lessons.
As a whole group, 40% of the teachers stated that they want their students to
learn the science process through inquiry skills. This was in alignment with one of
the goal of science education according to the National Science Foundation. Lastly,
35% of all the teachers posed open-ended questions and 48% encouraged their
students to learn at their own learning pace. These two instructional strategies
encompassed the following literature-based approaches to support science
comprehension for English learners: constructivist learning, learning cycle,
discovery learning, and inquiry learning (Lee & Fradd, 2001). This section of the
analysis supported the questions formulated in Section D, Appendix A.

98
Based on the results of the pilot study, it was concluded that the survey
questions in Appendix A were able to provide data that was easily understood by the
voluntarily participants and relevant to the three research questions.

99
CHAPTER 4:
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the results of the research study. The chapter begins
with the presentation of the data followed by presentation of the descriptive analysis.
It concludes with tables and figures related to each research question.

Presentation of the Data
Sixteen mathematics, science, and technology-based magnet schools
throughout the nation participated in the study. One hundred sixteen surveys were
returned and analyzed. Of these, 100 were from female teachers and 15 from male
teachers. There were 59 primary teachers, K-2, and 57 teachers of grades 3-5.
The presentation of the statistical analysis of the data is categorized in three
sections. The first section provides basic information, including demographics of the
participants, and the number of Limited English Proficient (LEP) or English learner
(ELs) students in the class. The second section reflected teachers’ opinions about
their science teaching curriculum and their methods of instruction, including how the
teachers considered themselves adequately prepared for each task, professional
development, and instructional objectives. The third section reported the extent to
which the current “ideal” teaching strategies were present in actual classrooms,
including the subjects taught in class, most often used weekly instructional activity,
and what a typical lesson looked like.

100
In order to provide more statistical support of the data analysis other than the
t-test, crosstabulation, mean, standard deviation (SD), and percentage of the three
variables: as a whole group, lower or primary grades K-2, and upper grades 3-5, have
also been conducted. The frequencies for each variable were first obtained. Then
the cross tabulation function was used to compare the variables as a whole group and
by grade levels and by upper and lower elementary grades. The mean would provide
the direction of what the average response would be. The standard deviation would
provide an indication of the average distance from the mean. A low standard
deviation would mean that most of the responses clustered around the mean. A high
standard deviation would mean that there was a lot of variation in the responses. A
standard deviation of 0 is obtained when all the responses to a question are the same.

Presentation of the Descriptive Analysis
General Demographics
The main goal for the data collection presented in Table 5 was to provide
general demographics of the sampling population. The vital background information
of the voluntarily participants have been used to assist in answering the three
research questions. The data have been categorized into three groups: as a whole
group, primary or lower grades K-2, and upper grades 3-5.
Questions 1 to 4 in Section A, Appendix A provided the data for gender,
prior years of teaching experiences and years at grade level. Question 3 in Section C
Appendix A provided data on whether the voluntarily participants possess a master

101
degree. While Question 6 in Section D in Appendix A provides the ratio of limited
English proficient or English learners in the classroom.
The mean and standard deviation (SD) was only reported for the Limited
English Proficient or English learner student populations in the classroom because
this data sufficiently support the evidence of a group of diverse learners in the
targeted classroom. The responses from the corresponding teachers provided rich
and crucial data to assist in answering the three research questions.

102
Table 5
Demographics of the Study Participants at the 16 Science-themed Magnet Schools

Characteristic
and category
Overall
(%)
Mean SD
Lower
(%)
Mean SD
Upper
(%)
Mean SD
Gender
Male 13 5 21
Female 87 79 95
Prior
experience
(years)

0-5 18 17 20
6-10 25 25 27
11-15 13 9 18
16-20 15 12 17
21+ 29 23 33
Teaching at
grade level
(years)

0-5 52 49 56
6-10 25 21 29
11-15 11 10 13
16-20 4 4 5
21+ 7 5 8
Master’s degree
Yes 58 56 59
No 43 41 44
Limited English
Proficient
35 30.12 19.172 32 34.99 20.112 29 33.89 19.09

103
The majority of participants (29%) had over 21 years of teaching experience.
This data indicated that the teaching staff were experienced teachers. Predominantly,
the teachers were in the primary grades (K-2 = 33%). Most of these elementary
educators had spent an average of five years in the classroom at their present grade
levels.
As shown in Table 5, 35% of the students were classified as English learners
or limited English proficient. There were about four percent more English learners
in the primary grades than in the upper elementary grades. The steady concentration
of percentage of LEP students at the school site and diverse teaching experiences of
the research participants supported the purpose of this research study.

Teachers’ Opinions About Establishing Science Instructional Goals For English
Learners
Question 2 in Section C, Appendix A provides data for Table 6. In this table,
the teachers were asked if, and in what ways they considered themselves very well
prepared for certain classroom instructional tasks. There are two sets of questions
that provided data analysis for Table 7. The first three professional development
activities were derived from Question 1d to f in Section B, Appendix A. While the
data for the last professional development activity was derived from Question 4 in
Section C, Appendix A. Table 7 shows the extent of their agreement on the various
professional development activities to support effective science instruction at their
school sites.

104
Question 7 in Section D, Appendix A provides the data for Table 8. In this
table, the teachers heavily prioritized the science instructional objectives or goals for
their English learners. The whole group analysis provided basic information or
generalizable trends. The grade level group analysis provided information on
whether contrasting trends, beliefs, or practices may exist between the two groups.
This information served to indicate future research implications if there was a
significant difference between the groups.
There are three key correlations to focus on in Table 6. The first correlation
reflected how the teachers feel about their ability to teach English learner students.
The next correlation is having student work in cooperative learning groups. The last
correlation would indicate grouping these learners heterogeneously. As shown in
Table 6, 37% percent of the teachers judged themselves to be very well or adequately
prepared to teach English learners, 42% percent reported that their students work in
cooperative learning groups, and 38% percent indicated that they incorporate
heterogeneous ability grouping of their English learners in the classroom. In
Damnjanovic’s (1999) study, 73 pre-service and 90 in-service middle science
teachers were asked to determine their attitudes toward the learning and teaching of
science through inquiry, an effective research-based science teaching strategy
supported by the National Science Foundation (2000) and the National Science
Teacher Association (1999). The results from this study indicated that the in-service
teachers’ positive attitudes toward the process of inquiry were largely due to the fact
that they were already incorporating these teaching approaches in their classrooms

105
and that they have a better understanding of both the contemporary science and
science instructional methods than the did teachers in the pre-service group.
All three key standards had a response rate of over thirty-five percent. The
standard deviation was less than one standard error. This would indicate that a
majority of the teachers’ responses cluster around the mean or average response of
the score of three on the survey. A score of three on the survey indicated that the
teacher participants felt that they were fairly or adequately prepared to perform the
indicated tasks listed on the survey i.e. to teach English learners, have students work
in cooperative learning groups, and group these learners heterogeneously. This data
analysis provides support for the first research question of the study which addresses
how the mathematics, science, and technology-centered elementary magnet schools
define the ideal for teaching science practices for K-5
th
English learner students. It
was evident that the teachers believed that incorporation of inquiry science teaching
practices and grouping of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups were just two
examples of the ideal science teaching practices for K-5
th
English learner students.

106
Table 6

How Well Prepared Teachers Considered Themselves For Each Different Task

Task
Overall
(%)
Mean SD
Lower
(%)
Mean SD
Upper
(%)
Mean SD
Take students’ prior
knowledge into account
when planning
30 3.0 .915 29 3.89 .812 36 3.77 .77
Use textbook as a
resource rather than
instructional tool
27 2.94 .907 37 3.12 .66 50 3.01 .67
Have students work in
cooperative learning
groups
42 3.30 .782 32 3.0 .645 23 3.08 .73
Use heterogeneous
ability groups
38 3.17 .773 41 3.23 .70 38 3.25 .66
Teach English learners 37 3.10 .863 41 3.28 .60 32 3.20 .86

107
It was also essential to investigate whether or not professional development
was adequately provided for the teachers at the school sites. The results of Stoddart
et al. (2002) science-integration rubric had indicated that professional development
was essential for having teachers to understand the connection between science and
language, and of integrating science and language through inquiry teaching. Thirty-
eight percent of all teachers reported that they had had fewer than six hours of
professional development in the previous 12 months to further develop their
knowledge of science classroom practices for English learners.
Additionally, 33% of all the teachers reported that they collaborated with
other colleagues on the science curriculum and 31% responded they were actively
involved in making the science curriculum decisions. One explanation of this may
be due to the fact that the teachers were mandated to implement state and district
mandated science curriculums. The low percentage level suggested that, in order for
teachers to be more aware of the current “ideal” science teaching strategies for all
learners including English learners, they should be provided with more science-
related professional development. This is supported by the scholarship of
Damnjanovic (1999), Lee (2002), and Stoddart et al. (2002) all of whom have stated
that there is a strong need to rethink staff development activities and science teacher
education.

108
Table 7

Professional Development for Science Teaching Practices

Development activity
Overall
(%)
Mean SD
Lower
(%)
Mean SD
Upper
(%)
Mean SD
Colleague
collaboration on
science curriculum
33 2.66 1.164 32 2.45 1.01 34 2.33 1.23
Colleagues
observation
participation
15 2.02 1.044 20 2.22 1.14 9 2.54 1.45
Colleagues actively
making decisions
31 2.74 1.13 31 2.88 1.45 32 2.89 1.27
Hours spent in
professional
development
activities in previous
12 months

None 10 9 12
< 6 38 37 39
6-15 16 20 11
16-35 16 12 20
> 36 20 22 18
2.95 1.344

109
Question 7 in Section D Appendix A provides the data for Table 8. The
participants were provided a list of potential science instructional objectives and
asked to rate each in terms of the emphasis placed on the goal of instruction for their
English learners. By analyzing the data in Table 8, the second research question as
to what are science instructional goals the teachers at the science, mathematics, and
technology-centered magnet schools have for their English learners were addressed.
As shown in Table 8, the three key goals to focus on here are: increasing
students’ interest in science, learning basic science concepts, and most importantly
learning the science process and inquiry skills. The results to the three goals are in
alignment with the results reported in Table 6. Most of the teachers (63%) reported
that their science instructional objectives and goals were for the students to learn
basic science concepts and followed by 58% who focused on increasing students’
interest in science. Finally, as a group, 48% focused on encouraging students’
science process and inquiry skills.

110
Table 8

Science Instructional Objectives for English Learners

Objective
Overall
(%)
Mean SD
Lower
(%)
Mean SD
Upper
(%)
Mean SD
To increase students’
interest in science
58 3.50 .645 60 3.99 .644 60 3.22 .59
To learn basic science
concepts
63 3.58 .626 59 3.0 .525 68 2.88 .57
To learn scientific
terms and facts
39 3.23 .709 34 2.99 .699 43 3.43 .81
To learn science
process/inquiry skills
48 3.30 .816 46 3.26 .716 50 3.19 .75
To prepare further
study in science
31 3.05 .824 29 3.09 .724 34 3.12 .84
To learn to evaluate
arguments based on
scientific evidence
21 2.64 .961 15 2.46 .861 27 2.34 .86
To communicate
scientific ideas
31 3.04 .797 22 3.08 .597 41 3.10 .82
To apply science in
business and industry
8 2.31 .818 0 0 0 16 2.37 .83
To learn relationship
between science,
technology, and
society
17 2.70 .827 15 2.59 .777 18 2.75 .77
To learn history and
nature of science
15 2.41 .957 3 2.61 .88 27 2.61 .908
To prepare
standardized tests
2 2.69 1.143 24 2.89 1.22 43 2.39 .998

About 46% of the teachers in the lower grades (K-2) identified learning the
scientific process and inquiry skills as one of their main emphasis in science
instructional objectives for their English learners, as compared to 50% of the
teachers in the upper grades (3-5). Both groups placed a heavy emphasis (about
60%) on increasing students’ interest in science.

111
All three objectives had a response rate of over forty-five percent. The
standard deviation was less than one standard error. This would indicate that a
majority of the teachers’ responses cluster around the mean or average response of
the score of three on the survey. A score of three on the survey indicated that the
teacher participants placed heavy emphasis on the science instructional objectives for
their English learners i.e. increasing students’ interest in science, learning basic
science concepts, and learning science inquiry skills. The results regarding
instructional objectives indicated the various teaching strategies that the teachers
used to achieve these goals and whether those strategies reflected the current “ideal”
teaching strategies.

Knowledge of Ideal Strategies for Teaching Science to English Learners
Table 9 displays the average number of instructional minutes taught over a 5-
day period for mathematics, science, social studies, and reading/language arts.
Question 5 in Section C, Appendix A provided the data for the table. The mean or
average number of minutes for reading and language arts and mathematics, 450
minutes and 300 minutes, respectively, was consistent for all grade levels. Overall,
the teachers reported that they spent about 120 minutes per week in science content
instruction. There was a difference of about 30 minutes between how much time
was allocated for science between lower or primary grade levels, K-2
nd
, and upper
grade levels, 3
rd
-5
th
.

112
Table 9

Average Number of Instructional Minutes per Week

Content area
Overall
Mean
SD
Lower
Mean
SD
Upper
Mean
SD
Mathematics 300 170.633 300 165.344 300 166.980
Science 120 244.867 120 231.29 90 260.011
Social Studies 60 115.367 60 118.187 90 110.981
Reading/Language
Arts
450 340.899 450 340.899 450 340.899

Table 11 summarizes the most frequently used science instructional activities
that teachers reported using at least once a week in the classroom. Question 8 in
Section D, Appendix A provided data for the first ten listed science instructional
teaching strategies for English learners in Table 11. Question 9 in Section D,
Appendix A contained the remaining science teaching strategies data. The
remaining science teaching strategies data was composed of Question 9 in Section D,
Appendix A. The reported list of instructional strategies from the voluntarily science
elementary teachers was then transcribed to correspond to the current “ideal” science
teaching strategies for English learners from research-based instructional practices.
Some of the reported listed strategies were applicable to more than one current
“ideal” science teaching strategies. One limitation in this table was that the
researcher was unable to observe or validate the lessons or teaching practices. The
reported validation was only based on self reported testimony.
The reported classroom science instructional strategies that the teachers used
to support their English learners are classified into eight smaller clusters as shown in

113
Table 10. The first teaching cluster incorporated problem-based learning, inquiry-
based approach, constructivism, and learning cycle science teaching instructional
strategies. The second cluster included the inquiry-based approach, constructivist
learning, and learning cycle. The third cluster consisted of constructivist learning,
problem-based learning, learning cycle, discovery learning, and inquiry-based
approach. The fourth cluster was composed of thematic instruction, constructivism,
learning cycle, and discovery learning. Then the fifth cluster was derived from
thematic instruction, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, constructivist
teaching, learning cycle, and discovery learning. In the sixth cluster, expository
teaching strategies that reflect more traditional methods of science teaching were
found. The seventh cluster consisted of thematic instruction, problem-based
learning, constructivism, and learning cycle. Finally, the eighth cluster consisted of
inquiry-based learning, constructivism, and learning cycle.

114
Table 10

Science Instructional Strategies Clusters

Clusters Science Instructional Strategies
1
Problem-based learning, inquiry-based approach, constructivism,
learning cycle
2 Inquiry-based approach, constructivist learning, learning cycle
3
Constructivist learning, problem-based learning, learning cycle,
discovery learning, inquiry-based learning
4
Thematic instruction, constructivism, learning cycle, discovery
learning
5
Thematic instruction, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning,
constructivist teaching, learning cycle, discovery learning
6 Expository teaching strategies
7
Thematic instruction, problem-based learning, constructivism, learning
cycle
8 Inquiry-based learning, constructivism, learning cycle

According to Table 11, the most frequently used science instructional
strategy was to integrate science with other disciplines at a rate of about 42%. This
is the only science teaching strategy that belonged in the fourth cluster which
consisted of engaging English learners in thematic instruction, constructivist
learning, learning cycle, and discovery learning. The next most frequently used
science teaching strategy was posing open-ended questions at an average of 39%.
This was part of the first cluster which incorporated problem-based learning, inquiry
learning, constructivism, and the learning cycle. The third most frequently used
science teaching strategy was encouraging students to work at their own pace and
explain concepts to each other at an average of 34%. This is the only teaching

115
method that incorporated thematic instruction, problem-based learning, constructivist
learning, and learning cycle.
There was not much difference between how the primary and upper grade
level teachers’ responded with respect to the three frequently used science
instructional strategies. All three strategies had a response rate of over thirty-three
percent. The standard deviation was less than one standard error. This would
indicate that a majority of the teachers’ responses cluster around the mean or average
response of the score of four on the survey. A score of four on the survey indicated
that the teacher participants reported that they incorporated these instructional
strategies at least once or twice a week during their science instruction i.e. posing
open-ended questions, student working at their own pace, and understanding
connections between science and other disciplines. This data analysis provided
support for the third research question of the study which asked the teachers to
identify instructional strategies that they used most often to assist their English
learners to learn their science goals.
Researches from Abruscato (2001), Barba (1998), Chamot(1996), Vygotsky
(1978), Lee (1998), and others have supported thematic instruction, constructivist
learning, learning cycle, discovery learning, inquiry-based approach, and problem-
based learning to support science learning comprehension for English learners.
Posing open-ended questions to encourage students to investigate their own
inquiries, allowing students to work at their own pace to make new discoveries, and

116
engaging students in discussions with each other are positive teaching approaches
that facilitate learning in a multicultural science classroom.

117
Table 11

Classroom Instructional Activities Used Once a Week To Support English Learners

Activity
Overall
(%)
Mean SD
Lower
(%)
Mean SD
Upper
(%)
Mean SD
Introduce content
through formal
presentations
O.

24 3.37 .990 27 3.68 .923 21 3.23 1.04
Pose open-ended
questions
P.I.C.L

39 3.98 .924 42 4.02 .87 36 4.13 .95
Engage in whole class
discussion
P.I.C.L.

31 4.29 .867 31 4.78 .765 30 4.01 .892
Students must supply
evidence to support
their claims
I.C.L.

32 3.65 1.149 29 3.34 1.09 36 3.85 1.28
Students explain
concepts to each other
T.P.C.L.

34 3.66 1.047 29 3.20 1.01 39 3.55 .99
Students considering
alternative
explanations
I.C.L.

30 3.40 1.012 24 3.78 1.05 36 3.34 1.37
Students work at their
own pace
I.C.L.

34 3.66 1.032 29 3.78 1.11 39 3.98 1.09
Understand
connections between
science and other
disciplines
T.C.L.D.

42 3.71 1.004 37 3.91 .998 46 3.67 1.01
Assign science
homework
O.

19 2.50 1.143 10 2.56 1.23 27 2.78 1.21
Read and comment on
students’ reflections
P.I.C.L.

24 2.99 1.164 24 3.04 1.28 23 3.19 1.11
Work individually on
science assignments
P.I.C.L.

22 2.89 1.048 12 3.11 1.10 32 3.02 1.13
Engage in a laboratory
activity/experiment/
investigation
T.P.I.C.L.D.

28 3.40 1.021 27 3.27 1.11 29 3.74 1.20
Watch a teacher
demonstration
O.

24 3.23 .901 25 3.45 .789 23 3.67 1.01

118
Table 11, continued
Use computers and calculators
T.P.I.C.L.D.
20 3.06 1.021 14 3.12 .998 27 3.49 1.12
Design or implement their own
scientific investigations
P.I.C.L.D.

20 2.29 .938 11 2.83 .672 9 1.99 1.0
Read about science in
books/magazines/etc.
T.P.I.C.L.D.

23 3.14 1.057 25 3.29 1.19 20 3.01 1.29
Take notes during presentation by
teacher
O.

14 2.38 1.229 3 1.09 1.39 30 2.99 1.11
Work in learning groups
T.P.I.C.L.D.
25 3.59 1.148 22 3.82 1.29 73 3.91 1.21
Answer questions in
textbook/worksheets
O.

25 2.97 1.156 17 3.06 1.26 34 3.18 1.07
Record, present, and/or analyze data
P.I.C.L.D.

22 2.95 1.065 17 3.17 1.31 27 2.83 1.19
Write reflections
P.I.C.L.
22 2.92 1.177 17 2.76 1.09 27 3.01 1.28
Present analysis to peers/class
P.I.C.L.
23 2.61 1.130 15 2.89 1.25 18 2.45 .975
Work on extended science
presentations or projects
P.I.C.L.D.

20 2.48 .933 9 2.36 .899 18 2.20 1.02
Take field trips
P.I.C.L.D.
7 2.07 .891 5 2.18 .101 9 2.32 .96
Participate in field work
P.I.C.L.D.
11 2.37 1.159 9 2.22 1.10 14 1.059 1.21
Read from a science textbook in class
O.

16 2.71 1.115 10 2.81 1.25 21 2.66 1.20

Note. T = thematic instruction, C = constructivist learning, P = problem-based learning, L = learning
cycle, D = discovery learning, I = inquiry-based approach, O = other.

119
Seven percent of the teachers reported taking field trips and 11% reported
participating in field work. Only 14% stated that their students took notes during
presentations. There was a substantial difference between K-2 classes (3%) and
grade 3-5 classes (30%). This may be due to the fact that younger students are
learning to write and most of their note-taking skills would be limited to drawing
illustrations and labeling them.
Other differences between the two grade groups were seen in the instructional
strategies of having students work individually on science assignments (20%) and
reading from a science textbook in class (11%). The lower grade students needed
more assistance in guided reading practices and may have been limited to picture
books of scientific concepts or ideas, while the upper grade students were in the
reading-to-learn category and some may have been able to work more independently.
The instructional science strategies classified as “other” consisted of more
traditional methods of science teaching, including teachers dominating the class
discussion, formal lectures, presentations, or students answering questions from the
standardized tests. Although the current “ideal” science teaching strategies do not
discourage these methods, they are not highly encouraged because they do not
promote effective science teaching for English learners (Barba, 1998).
There was a difference of about ten percent between the lower and upper
grade teachers’ responses to incorporating more traditional methods of science
teaching. One possible alternative explanation for this difference between the two
grade groups was that the teachers in the upper grades were more effective in using

120
CALLA than the teachers in the lower grades who were utilizing the more
“traditional” approaches. During the teacher presentations, CALLA instructional
methods were used to assist in vocabulary comprehension. “Learning the vocabulary
of English can become particularly complicated for language-minority students when
words are not translatable between English and their home language” (Jarret, 1999,
p. 21). Therefore, teachers must provide students with science academic language
support using CALLA guidelines. The upper grade teachers used various learning
visual aids, such as graphic organizers, mnemonics, surveys, and rehearsal strategies
to provide academic language support for their English learners.
Question 12 in Section E, Appendix A provided the data for Table 2. Ninety
percent of the teachers reported that, in the most recent science lesson, the students
engaged in classroom discussions, 72% reported that they conducted hands-on
laboratory activities with their English learners during the lesson, and 69% reported
that the students worked in small groups. These three trends incorporated the current
“ideal” science teaching strategies of problem-based learning, constructivist learning,
learning theory, discovery learning, and inquiry-based approach. There was a
difference of about 10 percentage points between the responses of teachers in the
lower and upper grades regarding completing textbook/worksheet problems. This
difference was also presented in Table 11, regarding answering questions in
textbooks/worksheets as one of the science instructional activities that were used
once a week.

121
All three strategies had a response rate of over sixty-five percent. The
standard deviation was less than one standard error. This indicated that a majority of
the teachers’ responses cluster around the mean or average response of the score of
one on the survey. A score of one on the survey indicated that the teacher
participants reported that they incorporated the listed instructional strategies within
their most recent science lesson i.e. hands-on laboratory activities, discussion, and
work in small groups. The data analysis for Table 2 also supports answering the
third research question for this study.
Question 11 in Section E, Appendix A provided data for Table 3. Table 3
summarizes the number of minutes spent on certain tasks during the science lesson.
Students in both groups spent an average of 15 minutes in small group learning. This
data aligned with the current “ideal” science teaching strategies that the teachers
used frequently in the classroom. There was a difference of about five percentage
points between lower groups and upper grades in terms of having students complete
worksheets on their own; upper grade students spent more time doing this than lower
grade students. Both groups of students spent an average amount of time working
with manipulatives during their last science lesson. (See tables following page):

Summary

The nine tables discussed in this chapter provided crucial data that support
the purpose of this study. Table 5 discussed the demographics of the study
participants at the 16 science-themed magnet schools. There was a high steady
concentration of limited English proficient students at the school sites and diverse

122
teaching experiences by the research participants supported the purpose of this
research study.
In the next section of the study, the teachers’ opinions about establishing
science instructional goals for English learners was analyzed. Table 6 summarized
how well prepared teachers considered themselves for each listed classroom
instructional task. Table 7 provided data on what professional development
activities were necessary to support effective science instruction at their school sites.
In Table 8, the teachers was asked to heavily prioritized the science instructional
objectives or goals for their English learners.
The final section discussed the teachers’ knowledge of current ideal science
teaching strategies for English learners. The data in Table 9 provide a brief summary
of the average number of instructional minutes the teachers spent per week in
different academic content areas. Table 11 summarized the most frequently used
science instructional activities that teachers reported using at least once a week in
their classroom. The reported classroom science instructional strategies that the
teachers used to support their English learners are classified into eight smaller
clusters. These eight smaller clusters are displayed in Table 10.
Table 8 displayed the different science learning activities that the teachers
incorporate during a science lesson to support English learners. Finally, the data in
Table 3 displayed the number of minutes spent on certain tasks during the science
lesson.

123

CHAPTER 5:
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter provides a summary of the finding and discusses key results that
are relevant to the research. Theoretical and practical implications will be articulated
from the generalizable conclusions. The section will conclude with suggestions for
future research.
The changing demographics of student learners within the nation’s public
schools present teachers with new challenges. One challenge that educators have is
to provide effective science instruction for English learners. Rosebery, Warren, and
Conant (1992) have stated that content education for English learners is complex
because it requires the teaching of academic content while simultaneously
developing second language knowledge and comprehension. In order for the student
to succeed in the dual learning process, students must be explicitly taught to make
use of academic language (Met, 1994; Kang & Pham, 1995; Laplante, 1997).
Cochran-Smith (2001) and Irvine and Armento (2001) have suggested that
teachers of elementary science for English learners should recognize and respond to
their students’ diversity, encourage rich discourse among peer groups about science
ideas, use multiple methods of assessment, nurture collaboration from these diverse
learners, and develop the science curricula so it is consistent with the English
learners’ cultural and language background. This type of support would often assist

124
students in their academic performance as well as English language development
(Kang & Pham, 1995).
This study focused on whether the current ideal science teaching strategies
are evident in classrooms with EL students by asking teachers to state the teaching
methods that they used to teach the science content to the English learners in their
classroom. The purpose of this study was to examine the status of elementary
science teaching practices used with English learners in kindergarten through fifth
grade in public mathematics, science, and technology-centered elementary magnet
schools throughout the country.
Educators from these school sites were asked to participate voluntarily in a
survey. The purpose of the survey was to examine the relationship between the
current ideal science teaching strategies and what the teaching practices are in the
classroom. This quantitative approach taken in conducting this research enabled the
researcher to define exemplary science teaching strategies for English learners and
investigate the status of science teaching strategies that teachers are using to teach
their English learner students.
The results from this study suggested that the teachers at the school sites have
knowledge of the current ideal science teaching strategies for English learners. Their
goals for science education are in alignment with the goals suggested by the National
Science Foundation and Gibbons’ (2003) definition of what a scientifically literate
individual should be. There was also a strong correlation between what the
literature based scholarship has stated as “best practices” for science teaching

125
strategies for English learners and the actual strategies that are currently being used
by the teachers to support science comprehension for their English learner students.

Key Findings Linked to the Research Questions
“The power of statistical sampling depends on selecting a truly random and
representative sample which will permit confident generalization from the sample of
a larger population. The power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-
rich cases for study in depth” (Patton, 1987, p. 51). One such strategy is the use of a
heterogeneous sample, in which participants are selected from a nonprofit
nationwide directory of public magnet schools: Magnet Schools of America (2005).
According to the Magnet Schools of America (2005) directory, magnet schools have
three distinguishing characteristics: 1) distinctive curriculum or instructional
approach, 2) attract students from outside an assigned neighborhood attendance
zone, and 3) have diversity as an explicit purpose. The voluntarily subjects in the
sampling pool shared one common factor that they were all elementary teachers in
science themed magnet schools throughout the country. By design of the study, the
focus on the mathematics, science, and technology-based schools was for two
reasons: 1) an existing English learner population at the school site 2) the students
are receiving academic instruction and support in mathematics, science and
technology. The rationale of incorporating educators from the school site was that
they were teaching in specialize educational setting and the instructional strategies to
teach English learners were already incorporated in their daily lessons.

126
The Science and Mathematics Education Survey (Appendix A) was
administered to the voluntary participants at the magnet schools. The survey was
derived from the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education
(Appendix B), a nationally recognized survey, designed by researchers at the
Horizon Research Inc. under a grant commissioned by the National Science
Foundation to provide up-to-date information and to identify trends in the areas of
mathematics and science curriculum and instruction, teacher background and
experience, and the availability and use of instructional resources at the school sites.
Some of the questions were modified to adapt to the research questions for the study.
The closed-ended questions on the survey are intended to identify, compare, and
contrast actual teaching practices and how “ideal” teaching practices.
As shown in Table 5, 116 surveys were voluntarily returned and analyzed
from 16 math, science, and technology-centered elementary magnet schools in
California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and Texas. The
mean and standard deviation (SD) was only reported for the Limited English
Proficient or English learner student population in the classroom because this data
sufficiently supports the evidence of a significant group of diverse learners in the
targeted classroom.
The average percentage of English learners in the K – 5
th
was about 35.
While the average percentage in primary grades, K – 2
nd
, was at 32 percent, slightly
higher than in upper grades, 3
rd
– 5
th
, at 29 percent. This significant amount of EL

127
students in the classrooms allowed the researcher to predict trends, generalize the
results, and provided relevance for the three research questions.
What do the teachers at the mathematics, science, technology-centered elementary
magnet schools know about ideal teaching strategies practices to K – 5
th
English
learner students?
Question 2 in Section C, Appendix A provided the data for Table 6. In
providing the information for this table, the teachers were asked if they considered
themselves very well prepared, and in what ways, for their certain classroom
instructional tasks. There are three key correlations to focus on in Table 6, these are:
how the teachers feel about their ability to teach English learner students, having
students work in cooperative learning groups, and grouping these learners
heterogeneously.
As shown in Table 6, 37% percent of the teachers judged themselves to be
adequately prepared to teach English learners, 42% percent of their EL students were
in cooperative learning groups, and 38% percent of the cooperative learning groups
were based on mixed learning abilities or heterogeneous abilities. Cooperative
learning groups and inquiry learning have been supported by the work of Gersten
and Baker (2000), Sutman (1993), Fathman, Quinn, and Kessler (1992), and Fields
(1988) which provides effective science teaching instruction to English learners.
These high percentages suggested that the teachers had experience in
designing and implementing lesson plans structured for English learners. All three
key standards had a response rate of over thirty-five percent. This data analysis
provided support for the first research question of the study which addressed how the

128
mathematics, science, and technology-centered elementary magnet schools define
ideal teaching science practices for K-5
th
English learner students.

Teachers’ opinions, perceptions, and feelings affect their implementation of
science instruction (Richardson, 1996). Damnjanovic (1999) conducted a survey of
73 pre-service and 90 in-service middle school science teachers to determine their
attitudes toward the learning and teaching of science through inquiry. The inquiry
science learning method is considered to be one of the current ideal science teaching
strategies to teach English learners (Keys, 1999). The results indicated that the
teachers who were in-serviced held more positive views toward the process of
inquiry and inquiry teaching than did the pre-service teachers. The teachers’ positive
attitudes toward the process was an indication that they were practicing the process
in their own classrooms and that they had a better understanding of both the
contemporary science and science teaching methods than did the teachers in the pre-
service group.
In Table 7, most of the teachers (20%) of the teachers reported that they have
spent over thirty-six hours in professional development for science teaching
practices. This is percentage is low compared to 38% of the teachers reported that
they have spent less than six hours of professional development related to science
teaching practices. This difference may inhibit some of the teachers to received the
most current ideal science teaching strategies for English learners.

129
Sutman (1993) and Gersten and Baker (2000) have supported the effectiveness of
cooperative learning and peer tutoring strategies to increase English language
development. In cooperative learning environments, language development is
supported through interstudent oral and possibly written communications (Sutman,
1993). Students are encouraged to evaluate their own work, challenge each other’s
explanations, construct their own conclusions, and openly engage in a meaningful
discourse with teachers as well as peers.
In a study by Rivard (2002), 154 eighth-grade students participated in an
investigation regarding the effectiveness of language-based activities for learning
science. They were divided into two groups: low English learner students and high-
achieving native English speakers. The results from this study suggested that the
first group of students were able to complete more problems whey they were allowed
to engage in peer discussions of explanatory tasks, compared to the high-achieving
native English speakers. Although the subject of this study was conducted with
middle school students, the science teaching strategies was applicable to all learners
(Sutman et al.).

What goals do these teachers hold for science instruction for English learners?
The National Science Foundation stated that the goal of science education is
to provide all students with experiences that will enable them to become
scientifically literate. Gibbons (2003) defined what a scientifically literate person is,
“one who has a (a) satisfactory experience with science process skills, (b) positive

130
attitude toward science, and (c) wealth of knowledge” (p.372). Martin, Sexon,
Wagner, & Gerlovich (1997) believed that these individuals will become productive
citizens and lifelong learners and will be able to contribute to building and
maintaining a strong healthy economy and democracy.
The second principle in Integrated Activity Learning Sequence (IALS)
proposed by Sutman & Guzman (2005) stated that science content should be taught
to limited English proficient students the same as that which is taught to mainstream
English speaking students. In other words, scientific understandings and
descriptions are universal. Science content does not belong to any single culture,
ethnic group, or ability group.
Gibbons et al. (2003) criterion of a scientifically literate person was supported
by the results in Table 8. Question 7 in Section D, Appendix A provided the data for
Table 8. In this table, the teachers heavily prioritized the science instructional
objectives or goals for their English learners. As shown in Table 8, the three key
goals were: increasing students’ interest in science, learning basic science concepts,
and most importantly learning the science process and inquiry skills. The results
relating to the three goals were aligned to the results reported in Table 6.
Fifty eight percent of all the teachers believed that increasing their students’
interests in science, creating a positive influence, was one of their science
instructional objectives. As a whole group, 48 percent of the teachers stated that
they wanted their students to learn the science process through inquiry skills.
Overall, about 63 percent of the teachers reported that one of their science

131
instructional objectives was to have their students learn basic science concepts. This
represents the scaffolding for students to build a ladder to acquire a vast amount of
scientific knowledge. The teachers at these school sites were able to satisfy the goal
of science education.
All three key goals reported, as a whole group or by grade level, a high
percentage of result. The results regarding instructional objectives showed that the
various teaching strategies the teachers used to achieve these goals and if those
strategies reflected the current “ideal” teaching strategies.

What activities do these teachers use most often to reach their instructional goals for
their English learners?
The last research question is the key aspect of this study. Question 8 in
Section D, Appendix A provided data for the first ten listed science instructional
teaching strategies for English learners in Table 11. While the remaining science
teaching strategies data was related to Question 9 in Section D Appendix A.
Table 11 summarized the most frequently used science instructional activities
that teachers reported using at least once a week in the classroom. These are science
teaching strategies they used to teach their English learners. The list of instructional
strategies was derived from current “ideal” science teaching strategies for English
learners from literature-based research; some listed strategies apply to more than one
component. One limitation in this table was that the researcher was unable to

132
observe or validate the lesson or teaching practices. Such validation was only based
on self reported testimony.
As previously discussed the science teaching strategies were classified into
eight smaller clusters in Table 10. The three most frequently used science teaching
strategies were integrating science with other disciplines in the fourth cluster at 42
percent, posing open-ended questions in the first cluster at 39 percent, and lastly,
encouraging students to work at their own learning pace in the eighth cluster, and
discussing their results and findings among their peer groups in the seventh cluster at
34 percent. All three of these instructional activities encompassed the following
research based approaches to support science comprehension for English learners:
thematic-based instruction, constructivist learning, problem-based learning, learning
cycle, discovery learning, and inquiry learning, as supported in the field research by
the scholarship of Abruscato (2001), Barba (1998), Chamot(1996), Vygotsky (1978),
Lee (1998), and others.
There were differences of percentages between how the lower and upper
grade teachers responded to the three most commonly used science teaching
strategies. The three highest percentages of most commonly used science teaching
strategies for the “upper” group are understanding connections, working at their own
pace, and explaining concepts. This is different from the “lower” group which are:
posing open-ended questions, understanding connections, and engaging in whole
discussion.

133
In Table 2, the teachers were asked to indicate the actual activities that they
used in a typical science lesson. Question 12 in Section E, Appendix A provided the
data for Table 2. Nine out of the ten teachers reported that their students engaged in
group discussions. This also explained the high percentage of teachers, 69, had their
students working in small learning group. Seven out of ten teachers in both groups
stated that they used hands-on laboratory experimentation to promote science
learning. The top three instructional activities reflected the current ideal science
comprehension strategies for English learners which include problem-based learning,
constructivist learning, learning theory, discovery learning, and inquiry-based
approaches.
As mentioned earlier, one of the delimitations of this study were the choices
of instructional teaching strategies which were aligned to what the current ideal
research-based science classroom teaching practices are for English learners. The
participants were limited to these selections. In order to compensate for this factor,
the participants were asked to state any other strategies or activities that they have
used in their classroom in section E of the survey in Appendix A. Unfortunately,
there was no response written in this section. It appeared as though the listed
instructional strategies and activities were sufficient.

General Conclusions
According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001),
one in three students speaks a language other than English. Additionally, the

134
Commission stated that a student is considered to be an English learner if the second
language acquisition is English. In California more than 1.4 million English learners
enter school speaking a variety of languages, and this number continues to rise.
There is an imminent need to promote instructional strategies that support this group
of diverse learners. Although this was not a California study, results derived from
the nationwide participants’ responses provided a congruent assessment of the basic
needs to provide effective science teaching strategies to all English learners.
In a traditional science teaching setting, the English learners’ needs are not
recognized and supported. The students are challenged by learning the English
language skills simultaneously with the academic subject as supported by the
research of Rosebery et al. (1992). Teachers should assist students to learn how to
use the English language including conventions of grammar and syntax. Current
research-based approaches support incorporating self-directed learning, expository
teaching, active listening, questioning strategies, wait time, small group, peer
tutoring, large group learning, demonstrations, formal debates, review sessions, and
mediated conversation. There are also strong evidence to incorporate cooperative
learning, theme-based instruction, Science Technology Society (STS), problem-
based learning, discovery learning, constructivist learning, learning cycle, SCALE
technique, conceptual change, inquiry-based, cognitive academic language learning
approach (CALLA), and learning from text to provide effective science teaching
instruction to English learners. In order for the teaching strategies to be
implemented, these teachers must understand how to establish an appropriate

135
classroom environment, determine the teacher’s role and motivation, and take into
consideration the affective and social factors that influence children to learn science.

Practical Implications
As previously discussed in this study, teachers must incorporate various
science instruction strategies to ensure science comprehension for the English
learners. There is no specific formula that will ensure that all students fully
comprehend the content of their science courses. It must be noted that the current
ideal literature based strategies are not the only type of instructional strategies
teachers may use in their classrooms. There may be more yet to be discovered in a
future research study.
This research proposes that there are six essential elements of delivering
effective science instruction for English learners. These elements mirror what was
stated in Dobb’s (2004) work with the California Science Project. Dobb addressed
the importance of developing inquiry-based instruction, developing academic
language through instruction, affective factors, sheltering science instruction,
classroom talk, and textbook role in the classroom.

Incorporating Inquiry-Based Instruction as the First Essential Element
Some of the chief characteristics of inquiry-based science instruction for
English learners include: sharing common experiences among peers, engaging in
hands-on and minds-on activities; incorporating prior knowledge; engaging in

136
student collaboration; and having opportunities to read, listen, and talk, and write
about experiences and events. Learning may not happen for English learners in a
way that promotes both comprehension and growth because some teachers are not
aware of pedagogical engineering of planned experiences (Bravo & Garcia, 2004).
Many of today’s educators are challenged with making standards-based science
instruction comprehensible to English learners. However, if these teachers are too
rigidly focused on individual standards, they may lose sight of larger goals in science
for their English learners. For science, the larger goal for all students regardless of
their English speaking abilities is for students to be scientifically literate and capable
of building connections and appreciation among science, technology, and society.
When planning science lesson for English learners, teachers should take into
considerations the following: 1) ensure there is a connection between the science
concept and their own personal life experiences; 2) expose students to sufficient
information in order for them to support their own conclusions or explanations for
what happens; 3) allow students to self-direct and initiate learning; and 4) provide
opportunities for reciprocal teaching and peer collaboration. These guidelines will
assist students to be more engaged in science learning.
Supporting Academic Language Development Through Inquiry Activities is
the Second Essential Element

Educators play a crucial role in providing a language-rich learning
environment where English learners can create and express their thoughts and

137
understandings. English learners may possess social speaking skills but they do not
have the ability to persuade, debate, or engage in oral presentations. Their decoding
skills may mask their inability to comprehend complex scientific texts. These
students can figure out the main idea or topic of a lesson but usually fail to recognize
the important details of the scientific concept.
Academic language development can also be supported through inquiry-
based investigation or experimentation in two ways: 1) provide shared experiences in
cooperative learning groups; 2) engage in the learning cycle to expand vocabulary
and literacy skills. The shared experiences allow the students to express
“something” and this reflection process in turn adheres to their lives and becomes a
part of their identity. There is a growing effort, particularly in field of science, to
define concrete and explicit relationships between instruction and development of
academic language. By incorporating engagement in the learning cycle, a bridge is
built between these two entities.

Affective Factors in the Classroom is the Third Essential Element
Learning environmental factors are often overlooked in their impact on how
English learners perceive their abilities to learn science. These groups of students
view schools as places of learning when they are allowed to bring their home
language and culture to the learning environment and then be able to apply that to
their new learning. In culturally affirming classrooms, teachers incorporate
culturally familiar analogies and themes into the instructional program.

138
Motivation factors also affect English learners in the science classroom. A
broad definition of motivation is a student’s intent or desire to learn. Ogbu (1992)
and Gay (1988) have stated that motivation plays a significant role in all children’s
learning, particularly English learners. Self doubt questions such as the one listed
below may greatly influence how English learners assimilate, interpret, and explain
the science content:
Does the teacher know who I am?
Does the teacher care about me?
Does the teacher want me to succeed?
Does the teacher realize that I am not intellectually limited just because I am
unable to express myself fully in English?

These questions reflect the student’s need to belong and to maintain their
self-esteem. The teacher should orally “confer status” on the students through the
use of praise (Cohen, 1992). Such words of praise or positive encouragement will
ensure that the individual needs of students are recognized and that a collaborative
reciprocal teaching environment is created.

Classroom Talk is the Fourth Essential Element
Engaging, purposeful, and guided classroom discussions between the
teachers and in small peer groups is the key to build on English learner experiences
and lead them to read, write, and interpret all academic subjects (Dobbs, 2004).
Gibbons (2003), one of the pioneers in content and language scaffolding, authored a
groundbreaking study in which she demonstrated how productive conversations can
result by changing general routine classroom talk into genuine effective academic

139
discourse. In this study, Gibbons observed fourth and fifth-grade students working
on the topic of magnetism. She recorded how the teachers craftily incorporated the
students’ responses to move the dialogue toward higher levels of understanding and
discipline-appropriated language. The teacher was able to accomplish this using
various questioning strategies. The effective strategies for instructional conversation
aid in student growth both in English as a Second Language and in content
knowledge.

Examining the Textbooks Roles in the Classroom as the Fifth Essential Element
Textbooks and teachers guides must be systematically modified in order to
meet the needs of English learners. Instructors are presented with pedagogical
dilemma of determining if the same textbook or teacher guide is equally appropriate
for English-proficient students and English learners. Generally, texts assume that the
reader is proficient in academic English. The English learner cannot possibly derive
the same benefits from just reading the textbooks without the teacher’s intervention
and guidance.
Rosenthal’s (1995) study has reported that scientific writing can be dull,
impersonal, and decidedly harder to understand than narrative fiction. Textbooks
deal with unfamiliar content, new vocabulary is introduced consistently, details are
presented in general through big abstract ideas or concepts, dense passages that are
required rereading for comprehension, and the information in the textbook is seldom
repeated.

140
The following instructional strategies and approaches address challenges
presented to English learners by textbooks:
1) Apply cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA)
guidelines.

2) Provide primary language support appropriate for English learners at
various levels of proficiency development. This can be accomplished by
grouping students who have a common primary language.

3) Adopt reading comprehension activities such as previewing materials,
recognizing chapter headings, identifying introductions, understanding
visual and graphs etc. for individual students and groups.

4) Enhance vocabulary development by explaining that words have multiple
meanings.

5) Analyze discipline-specific discourse patterns to reveal the differences
between expository text and narrative.

Sheltered Instruction Strategies Level the Science Playing Field for English
Learners
“The sheltered instruction (SI) classroom that integrates language and content
and infuses sociocultural awareness is an excellent place to scaffold instruction for
students learning English” (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000, p. 9). SI strategies such
as self directed learning, expository teaching, active listening, questioning, wait time,
small group, peer tutoring, large group learning, demonstrations, formal debates,
review sessions, and mediated conversations. This also include cooperative learning
groups, themes-based instruction, Science Technology Society (STS), problem-based
learning, discovery learning, constructivist learning, learning cycle, SCALE
technique, inquiry learning, cognitive language learning approach (CALLA), and

141
learning from text make science content more comprehensible for English learners.
Academic language is particularly supported through specially designed activities
that involve CALLA and learning from the text strategies.
The discussed strategies can be used interchangeably and share common
ideals such as the constructivist learning theory and learning cycle which place the
student as the center of the learning process. The student takes control of his/her
own learning process. These teaching strategies embrace the idea of the teacher
functioning more as a facilitator.
Based on the analysis of the teachers’ responses, the current ideal science
teaching strategies are evident in the actual classrooms. There is a positive
correlation between the theory based approaches with its practical usage in the
participants’ current teaching classrooms.

Implications for Future Research
There are three suggestions for future research that have emerged from this
study. As discussed previously, the teachers’ responses in Table 6 about the amount
of time they spent in professional development provided an excellent opportunity for
further investigation. As a whole group, 38 percent of the teachers reported that they
have had fewer than six hours of professional development in the last twelve months.

142
An extended research question may be to investigate whether numbers of
hours in professional development affect the way teachers viewed themselves as well
as prepared them to be effective in science instruction methods. The science-
integration rubric as described by Stoddart et al. (2002) can be used as an effective
evaluation instrument. Research by Damnjanovic (1999), Lee (2002), and Stoddart
et al. (2002), have demonstrated a strong need to rethink staff development activities
and science teacher education. The preparation programs for teachers to teach
science must include a component that includes instruction of language minority
students.
The second extended research question is to conduct a case study on the
actual process of the conceptual change model. According to Suping (2003), the
conceptual change model has been widely accepted among science educators to be
an effective teaching strategy for all learners. It is considered to be the central to
learning in science. This case study will begin with the students’ generating his/her
own question about the scientific phenomenon. The student enters the classroom
with preexisting ideas about many subjects or concepts. Their interpretations about
the world around them serve as a mechanism for learning new knowledge. Using the
learning cycle and other constructivist approaches, the student is encouraged to
explore various approaches to resolve this phenomenon. At the end of the journey,
the pre-existing misconceptions would be challenged by the new found discovery.
The student would then have to either choose to accept the new concept or modify
his/her pre-existing knowledge to accommodate the current one. Thus, actual

143
learning has taken place. Schauble (1990) and Stohr-Hunt (1996) have argued that
children who acquired knowledge on their own are more likely to apply, extend, and
retain that knowledge than are those who just receive direct instruction.
The last extended research question would be to further investigate how
cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA) are used to support the
teaching of “science language.” A subsection in the survey could address this
question. Some activities in a CALLA science class may include “demonstrations,
observations, structured discussions” (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, p. 200).
According to Table 3, 24 percent of all the teachers reported introducing the science
content through formal presentations and had their students watch a teacher
demonstration. It would be interesting to investigate how many of these teachers
incorporate the CALLA approach while doing this.
Even though these two instructional methods mirror more traditional
approaches to science teaching strategies and not highly encouraged by current
literature, the teacher is encouraged to use various instructional strategies to ensure
all students’ learning modalities are met. Academic language support should be
provided for English learners, and they should be encouraged to listen and take
notes, describe their observations by writing and discussing it with their peers, use
mnemonics (a memory system involving visualization or acronyms), survey or scan
the text, generate questions, make predictions, “get the gist” of the text, engage in
rehearsal strategies, make graphic organizers (e.g., Venn diagrams, timelines, flow

144
charts, semantic maps), and use comprehension strategies (e.g., verbally scaffolding
or paraphrasing the text).
Investigation of the three additional research questions which emerged from
this study will further assist in increasing the knowledge of science teaching
strategies for English learners. Another suggested extended investigation to this
study would be conducting an in-depth longitudinal study or a case study of the
science teaching strategies.

145
REFERENCES
Abimbola, I. O. & Baba, S. (1996). Misconceptions and alternative conceptions in
science textbooks: The role of teachers as filters. American Biology Teacher,
58, 14-19.
Abruscato. J. (2001). Teaching children science. Discovery methods for the
elementary and middle grades. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), (1989). Science for
all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Audet, R. H., & Jordan, L. K. (Eds.). (2005). Integrating inquiry across the
curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Badham.V. (1996). Developing Mathematical Thinking Through Investigations.
PAMphlet 31. Primary Association for Mathematics (Australia)
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barba, R. H. (1998). Science in the multicultural classroom. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Barell, J. (1998). Problem based learning: An inquiry approach. Arlington Heights,
IL: SkyLight Professional Development.
Barman, C. R., & Allard, D. W. (1993). The learning cycle and college science
teaching. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the
National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching
Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 362 235)
Beyer, B. (1979). Teaching thinking in social studies. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Blank, R.K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. 2001. New tools for analyzing teaching,
curriculum, and standards: Results from the surveys of enacted curriculum.
Final project report published under a grant from National Science
Foundation/EHR/REC. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook 1: Cognitive
Domain. New York: David Mackay
Bonnstetter, R.J. (1998). Inquiry: Learning from the past with an eye on the future.
Electronic Journal of Science Education. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org.

146
Bravo, M., & Garcia, E. (2004, April). Learning to write like scientist: English
language learner’s science inquiry and writing understandings in responsive
learning contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2001). California formative
assessment and support for teachers: Guidebook. Sacramento: California
Department of Education.
California Department of Education. (1998). Number of limited English proficient
students in California public schools by language, 1993-2000. Retrieved
May 22, 2005, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/reports/statewide/leplcst.html
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing
the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996). A cognitive academic language learning
approach: An ESL content based curriculum. Wheaton, MD: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Multicultural education: Solution or problem for
American schools? Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 91-93.
Cohen, E. G. (1991). Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous
Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of
scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448-456.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority-language children. Toronto,
Canada: OISE Press.
Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences
between pre-service and in-service teachers. School Science & Mathematics,
99(2), 71-76. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org
Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Diaz, E. (1994, April). Science education of Limited English Proficient, English
Language Learners. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Dobb, F. (2004). Essential Elements of Effective Science Instruction for English
Learners (2
nd
ed.) Los Angeles: California Science Project.

147
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (1998). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching
English-language learners with diverse abilities. Des Moines, IA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for
English Language Learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Eggen, P. (2001). Strategies for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills.
Pearson Education Company.
Fathman, A. K., & Quinn, M. E. (1989). Science for language learners. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Fathman, A. K., Quinn, M.E., & Kessler, C. (1995). Teaching science to English
Learners, grades 4-8. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,
20(1). Retrieved March 10, 2005, from ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban
Education database (ED 349 844)
Fields, S. (1988). Cooperative learning: A strategy for all students. Science Scope,
12(3), 12-14.
Finley, F. N., & Jensen, M. S. (1997). Teaching evolution using a historically rich
curriculum and a paired problem solving instructional strategy. American
Biology Teacher, 55, 208-212.
Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1999, August-September). Teachers’ roles in promoting
science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds.
Educational Researcher, 14-20, 42.

Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X., & Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science
literacy with English language learners through instructional materials
development: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 1-24.

Fraser and Walberg (1996) Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1996). Improving
science education. Chicago, IL.: The National Society for the Study of
Education.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-assisted learning
strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American
Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
Fulp, S. Status of Elementary School Science Teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon
Research, Inc., December 2002.
Gagne, R. M. (1987). Instructional Technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

148
Gallagher, J. M., & Reid, D. K. (1981). The learning theory of Piaget and Inhelder.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what
does it do, and where is it going? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20,
332-362.
Gay, G. (1988). Designing relevant curricula for diverse students. Education and
Urban Society, 20(4), 327-340.
Gerber, B. (1995). These plants have potential. Science and Children, 33(1), 32-34.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional
practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454-479.
Gibbons, B. A. (2003). Supporting elementary science education for English
learners: A constructivist evaluation instrument. Journal of Educational
Research, 96, 371-382.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL
students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273.
Glasgow, N. A. & Hartman, H.J. (2002). Tips for the science teacher. Research-
based strategies to help students learn. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin
Press, Inc.
Greenberg, P.J. (1932). Competition in children: An experimental study. American
Journal of Psychology, 44, 221-248.
Greenwald, N. L. (2000). Learning from problems. The Science Teacher, 67(4),
28-32.
Hampton, E. & Rodriguez, R. (2001). Inquiry science in bilingual classrooms.
Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4). 30-49.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in science teaching and learning. In H.J.
Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research
and practice. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Herber, H. L. (1978). Teaching Reading in Content Areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Herreid, C.F. (2003). The death of problem-based learning. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 32(6), 364-366.

Hewson and Hewson (1992) Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1992). The Status of
Students' Conceptions. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.),
Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies (pp.
59-73). Germany: Institute for Science Education; University of Kiel.

149
Horizon-Research Inc. (2000). 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics
Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc., 2000.
Hunt, E., & Colander, D. (1999). Social science: An introduction to the study of
society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hykle, J. A., (1992, March). The Effect of Laboratory versus Lecture Science
Teaching Methods: A Meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Irvine, J. J., & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson
planning for elementary and middle grades. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Jarret, D. (1999, November). Teaching mathematics and science to English
language learners. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, pp. 1-47.
Kang, H., & Pham, K. T. (1995, March). From 1 to Z: Integrating math and
language. Paper presented at the 29th annual meeting of the Teachers of
English to Speaker of Other Languages, Long Beach, CA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 381 031)
Keys, C. W., & Kennedy, V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in
content: A case study of an elementary teacher. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 10, 315-333.
King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of
structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 134-152.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science
instruction. Psychological Science, 10, 661-667.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of the scientific revolution (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Latham, A. S. (1998). The advantages of bilingualism. Educational Leadership,
56(3), 79-80.
Lee, O. (2002). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy
instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41(1), 65-93.
Lee, O. (2003). Equity for linguistically and culturally diverse students in science
education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105, 465-489.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (2001). Instructional congruence to promote science
learning and literacy development for linguistically diverse students. In D. R.
Lavoie & M. W. Roth (Eds.), Models for science teacher preparation:
Bridging the gap between research and practice (pp. 109-126). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer.

150
Lorsbach, A., & Tobin, K. (1992). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching.
NARST News, 334(3), 9-11.

Magnet Schools of America. (2005). Magnet Schools of America. Retrieved
November 1, 2005, from Magnet Schools of America Web Site:
http://www.magnet.edu/modules/news
Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school
science and beyond. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Martin, R., Sexton, C., Wagner, K., & Gerlovich, J. (1997). Teaching science for all
children (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
McDermott, L. (1991). What we teach and what is learned: Closing the gap
(Millikan Lecture 1990). American Journal of Physics, 59, 301-315.
McGroaty, M. (1992). The societal context of bilingual education. Educational
Researcher, 21, 7-10.
Met, M. (1994). Teaching content through a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.),
Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole
curriculum, the whole community (pp. 159-182). Oakleigh, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. Resnick & L.
Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research
(p. 129-149). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
National Research Council. National Science Education Standards. Washington,
D.C.: National Research, Council, 1996.
National Research Council (NRC), (2000). Inquiry and the national science
education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Science Foundation. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
National Science Teachers Association. (1991). Scope, sequence, and coordination
of secondary school science. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Newport, J. F. (1990). Elementary science texts: What’s wrong with them?
Principal, 69, 22-24.
Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflicts
and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional
Science, 11, 183-200.

151
Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational
Researcher, 21(8), 5-14.
Otieno, T. N. (1999). The learner and inquiry. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from
EDRS database (ED 445947)
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of scientific
conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66,
211-227.

Pressley, M., & McCormick, C.B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for
educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: Harper Collins.

Ramsey, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Analyzing the issues of
STS. Science Teacher, 57(3), 60-63.

Richard-Amato, P. A., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.). (1992). The multicultural classroom
readings for content-area teachers. New York, NY: Longman Publishing
Group.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In
J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119).
New York: MacMillan.
Rivard, L. P. (2002). Are language-based activities in science effective for all
students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420-442.
Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? Harvard Educational Review, 64, 55-75.
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific
discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600.
Rosenthal, J. W. (1995). Teaching science to language minority students: Theory
and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sanders, N. (1966). Classroom Questions: What Kind? New York: Harper and Row.
Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and
strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 49, 31-57.

Schimmel, B. J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in courseware. In D. H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware (pp.
183-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

152
Schneps, M. H., & Sadler, P. M. (Producers). (1992). A Private universe
[Videotape]. San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Singer, H., & Simonsen, S. (1989). Comprehension and instruction in learning from
a text. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and
learning: Instructional strategies (pp. 25-35). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Sonmez, D., & Lee, H. (2003). Problem-based learning in science. Retrieved May
15, 2005, from ERIC Digest database (ED 482 724).
Spiegel, G. F., Jr., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1994). The effects of a combination of text
structure awareness and graphic post organizers on recall and retention of
science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 913-932.
Stasson, M.F., Kameda, T., Parks, C.D., Zimmerman, S.K., David, J.H. (1991).
Effects of assigned group consensus requirement on group problem solving
and group members’ learning. Social Psychology Quartey, 54(1), 25-35.
Stepans, J., Dyche, S., & Beiswenger, R. (1988). The effect of two instructional
models in bringing about a conceptual change in the understanding of science
concepts by prospective elementary teachers. Science Education, 72(2), 185-
186.
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry
science and language development for English language learners. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 39, 664-687.
Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and
science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101-109.
Suping, S. M. (2003). Conceptual change among students in science. Retrieved
June 22, 2005, from ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and
Environmental Education database (ED 482 723)
Sutman, F. X. (1993). Teaching science effectively to limited English proficient
students. ERIC/CUE Digest, 87(1). Retrieved June 22, 2005, from ERIC
Clearinghouse on Urban Education database (ED 357 113).
Sutman, F. X. & Guzman, A. Improving learning in science and basic skills among
diverse student population. ERIC, Retrieved July 10, 2005, from ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education
database (ED 390 655).
Tobin, K.G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better
questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and
Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418.
Trochin, W.M.K. (2006, October 20). Likert Scaling. Retrieved March 14, 2007,
from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.php

153
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Language and thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scibner, & E. Souberman, Eds.)
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weiner, B. (1980). The role of affect in rational (attributional) approaches to human
motivation. Educational Researcher, 9, 4-11.
Weiss, I.R., Banilower, E.R., McMahon, K.C., and Smith, P.S. 2001. Report of the
2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill,
N.C.: Horizon Research, Inc., 2001.
Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics
learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9-21.
Yager, R. E. (1990). STS: Thinking over the years. Science Teacher, 57(3), 52-55.
Zenger, S. K., & Zenger, W. F. (1985). Basic ways to teach in the 80s. Saratoga,
CA: R & E.
www.uni.edu/its/us/document/stats/spss2.html retrieved on 3/14/07 “SPSS
techniques series: Statistics on Likert scale surveys” Unknown first
published date

154

APPENDIX A

Science and Mathematics Education Survey
A. Demographic Information
1. Indicate your gender: Male Female
2. What grade level do you teach? __________
3. How many years have you taught in this grade level? ___________
4. How many years have you taught at the K-12 level prior to this school year? _______
B. Teacher Opinions
1. Please provide your opinion about each of the following statements. Mark one of the
column for each line.

Strongly
Disagree Disagree
No
Opinion Agree
Strongly
Agree
a. Students learn science best in
classes with students of similar
abilities. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
b. The testing program in my
state/district dictates what science
content I teach. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
c. I enjoy teaching science. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
d. I have time during the regular
school week to work with my
colleagues on science curriculum and
teaching. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
e. Science teachers in this school
regularly observe each other teaching
classes as part of sharing and
improving instructional strategies. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
f. Most science teachers in this school
contribute actively to making
decisions about the science
curriculum. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

155
C. Teacher Background
2. Please indicate how well prepared you currently feel to do each of the following
in your science instruction. Mark one of the column for each line.

Not
adequately
prepared
Somewhat
prepared
Fairly well
prepared
Very
well
prepared
a. Take students' prior understanding
into account when planning curriculum
and instruction. ____ ____ ____ ____
b. Have students work in cooperative
learning groups. ____ ____ ____ ____
c. Use the textbook as a resource
rather than the primary instructional
tool. ____ ____ ____ ____
d. Teach groups that heterogeneous in
ability. ____ ____ ____ ____
e. Teach English learners. ____ ____ ____ ____

3. Do you have each of the following degrees? Please indicate the subject to each of
your degrees.
Bachelors ____ Subject___________ Masters ____ Subject __________
Doctorate ____ Subject ___________
4. What is the total amount of time you have spent on professional development in
science or the teaching of science in the last 12 months? (Include attendance at
professional meetings, district or school site in-service, workshops, and
conferences.)

None
Less than 6
hours
6-15
hours
16-35
hours
More than 35
hours
In the last 12
months ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

5. How much time does your student spend studying various subjects in class? In a
typical week, how many days do you have lessons on each of the following
subjects, and how many minutes long is an average lesson? (Please indicate “0”
if you do not teach a particular subject to this class.)

156

Days Per Week Approximate Minutes Per Day
Mathematics __________ ____________________
Science __________ ____________________
Social Studies __________ ____________________
Reading/Language Arts __________ ___________________

D. Your Science Teaching in a Particular Class
6a. What is the total number of students in the class? ________
b. What is the percentage of the students are female? not Caucasian? Limited
English Proficient (LEP)? (Estimate to the nearest ten percent?
Females __________ Not Caucasian __________ LEP __________
7. Think about your plans for your English learners in the science class for the entire
course. How much emphasis will each of the following student objectives
receive? Mark one of the columns for each line.

None
Minimal
Emphasis
Moderate
Emphasis
Heavy
Emphasis
a. Increase students' interest in science. ____ ____ ____ ____
b. Learn basic science concepts. ____ ____ ____ ____
c. Learn important terms and facts of
science. ____ ____ ____ ____
d. Learn science process/inquiry skills. ____ ____ ____ ____
e. Prepare for further study in science. ____ ____ ____ ____
f. Learn to evaluate arguments based on
scientific evidence. ____ ____ ____ ____
g. Learn how to communicate ideas in
science effectively. ____ ____ ____ ____
h. Learn about the applications of
science in business and industry. ____ ____ ____ ____
i. Learn about the relationship between
science, technology, and society. ____ ____ ____ ____
j. Learn abut the history and nature of
science. ____ ____ ____ ____
k. Prepare for standardized tests. ____ ____ ____ ____

157
8. About how often do you do each of the following in your science instruction for
your English learners? Mark one of the column for each line.

Never
Rarely
(e.g., a
few times
a year)
Sometimes
(e.g., once or
twice a month)
Often
(e.g., once
or twice a
week)
All or
almost all
science
lessons
a. Introduce content through
formal presentations. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
b. Pose open-ended
questions. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
c. Engage the whole class in
discussions. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
d. Require students to supply
evidence to support their
claims. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
e. Ask students to explain
concepts to one another. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
f. Ask students to consider
alternative explanations. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
g. Allow students to work at
their own pace. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
h. Help students see
connections between science
and other disciplines. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
i. Assign science
homework. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
j. Read and comment on
their reflections students
have written, e.g., writing
journals. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

158
9. About how often do English learners in your science class take part in the
following types of activities? Mark one of the column for each line.

Never
Rarely
(e.g., a
few times
a year)
Sometimes
(e.g., once or
twice a month)
Often
(e.g., once
or twice a
week)
All or
almost all
science
lessons
a. Work individually on
science assignments. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
b. Do a laboratory activity,
investigation or experiment. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
c. Watch a teacher
demonstrations. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
d. Use computers,
calculators, or other to learn
science. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
e. Design or implement their
own scientific investigations. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
f. Read about science in
books, magazines, articles
(no textbooks). ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
g. Listen and take notes
during presentation by the
teacher. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
h. Work in learning groups. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
i. Answer questions in
textbook or worksheet. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
j. Record, present, and/or
analyze data. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
k. Write reflections. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
l. Present analysis to peers/
class. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
m. Work on extended
science investigations or
projects. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
n. Take field trips. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
o. Participate in field work. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
p. Read from a science
textbook in class. ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

159
E. Your Most Recent Science Lesson
Questions 10 to 12 refer to the last time you taught science to the class. Do not be
concerned if this lesson was not typical of instruction for this class.

10. How many minutes were allocated to the most recent science lesson?
____________
11. Of these, how many minutes were spent on the following:
(The sum of the numbers 1-6 below should equal your response to 10)

_____ 1. Daily routines, interruptions, and other non-instructional activities.
_____ 2. Whole class lecture/discussions.
_____ 3. Individual students reading textbooks, completing worksheets, etc.
_____ 4. Working with hands-on or manipulative materials.
_____ 5. Non-manipulative small group work.
_____ 6. Other
12. Which of the following activities took place during that science lesson for your
English learners?

Lecture ____ Discussion ____
Students completing
textbook/worksheet problems. ____ Students working in small groups. ____
Students doing hands-
on/laboratory activities. ____ Students using calculators. ____
Students read about science. ____ Students using computers. ____
Test or quiz. ____ Other, please explain ____
_______________________
_______________________
_______________________

By Alyson Kim Han

160

Appendix B
2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education
http://2000survey.horizon-research.com/instruments/sci_teacher.pdf

161
APPENDIX C
LETTER OF CONSENT

Dear Teaching Colleague,
My name is Alyson Han. I’m currently a Doctoral student in Education at the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. Your participation
in this survey is voluntary. This survey will take approximately forty-five minutes to
complete. The results of this survey will be used to understand and identify effective
science and math instructional teaching practices for English Learners.
If you choose to participate, no personal information will be collected.
Information that could be used to identify you or used to connect you to individual
results will not be shared with anyone at any time including staff and administrators
in your school or district. Individual respondents will never be identified in any
reports of results. The questionnaire poses no risk to you and there is no penalty for
refusal to participate.
If you do choose to participate in this survey, a small gift certificate will be
provided to you as an appreciation for your consideration to participate.
A self-addressed stamped envelope will be provided for your convenience for
the return of the survey.
If you have any questions regarding this research study, please feel contact
me as the researcher, Alyson Han, at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or e-mail addresses at
ahlucky2@aol.com or alysonha@usc.edu.

162
Thank you,
Alyson Han

Abstract (if available)

Abstract According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001), one in three students speaks a language other than English. Additionally, the Commission stated that a student is considered to be an English learner if the second language acquisition is English. In California more than 1.4 million English learners enter school speaking a variety of languages, and this number continues to rise. There is an imminent need to promote instructional strategies that support this group of diverse learners. Although this was not a California study, the results derived from the nationwide participants' responses provided a congruent assessment of the basic need to provide effective science teaching strategies to all English learners.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

PDF

Critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to middle school Chinese speaking English learners

PDF

Effective reading instruction for English learners

PDF

The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom

PDF

Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

PDF

The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners

PDF

Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Collaborative team approach to mentoring beginning teachers: a case study of a collaborative elementary school

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District

PDF

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

Asset Metadata

Creator Han, Alyson Kim (author)

Core Title Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Curriculum

Degree Conferral Date 2007-08

Publication Date 08/08/2007

Defense Date 03/15/2007

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

Tag elementary science for English Learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee chair), Pensavalle, Margo T. (committee member), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member)

Creator Email ahlucky2@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m776

Unique identifier UC1478082

Identifier etd-Han-20070808 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-538248 (legacy record id),usctheses-m776 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Han-20070808.pdf

Dmrecord 538248

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Han, Alyson Kim

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu