Journal Article Review 1
Running head: Journal Article Review
Journal Review of
Content Area Reading and Writing
Table of Contents
Abstract ------3
Introduction ------4
How collaborative groups show a marked improvement in comprehension ------5
Writing’s impact upon comprehension ------6
New techniques may not have the impact you thought they would have ------8
Conclusion ------9
Abstract
Middle school science teachers are tasked with having to deliver a curriculum of complex and difficult concepts to students with varied learning style preferences as well as to a population of students which has a wide spectrum of reading and writing abilities. Even though this content area is not thought of as a direct instructor of reading and writing, middle school science teachers are charged with having to introduce a type of writing which has not been practiced in the earlier grade levels. The chosen articles reviewed in this paper are to be considered just a snapshot of the progression in educational research in how science teachers are to assist their students build their skills and grow and prepare for the high school level expectations soon to come.
Introduction
Ness (2007) defines reading comprehension as the ability for students to concurrently be able to build meaning while interacting with text. This process would appear to be simple for this generation’s students due to their typical ability to text, talk on the phone, listen to music, and tell their siblings where the lost game cartridge was left the last time they were playing with them. These children though, when in the school environment tend to lose their ability to focus on the goal a given single task. This is especially true for tasks that they are not interested. Secondary teachers are given the assignment of causing children to sit still and focus on a single task by an adult who they have become, stereotypically, at odds. Ness (2007) documents how 70% of students in secondary classrooms, who are having difficulty reading, are having issues with reading comprehension. Kroeger, Burton, & Preston (2009) provide evidence to show how a critical element which improves students’ comprehension, during in class reading, is their teacher’s support and enthusiasm.
Owolabi and Okebukola (2009) attempts to make connections between teacher centered classrooms and those which students have more control. These two researchers attempt to conclude that science is a class where student discussion will allow for more expression. In their study, Owolabi and Okebukola (2009) also assert how an increased teacher interaction may also inhibit student expression. The ability for teachers to be able to engage their students will allow for a classroom environment to foster positive outcomes. Gaddy, Bakken, and Fulk(2009) showed a significant increase of reading comprehension in their learning disabled student samples when a text-structure strategy was used versus the traditional teaching methods. Repeated ANOVAs demonstrated significant improvements by the experimental group.
How collaborative groups show a marked improvement in comprehension
Many articles reviewed showed results which offered major benefits for students when they were exposed to less teacher centered classrooms but those with frequent use of collaborative groups. Syh-Jong (2007) discusses how traditional science classrooms are thought to be those where teachers stand in front and spout off terms and definitions. The effect of writing and talking in collaborative groups was shown to create an environment where the students could build a more in depth understanding of the more difficult concepts found in science (Syh-Jong, 2007). Multiple studies showed a similar effect by the students working in these groups. Caulfield and Hodges Persell (2006) used a very persuasive group of statistics: Students are believed to learn-
10% of what they read
20% of what they hear
30% of what they see
50% of what they hear and see
70% of what they say
and 90% of what they say and do.
Classrooms in Caulfield and Hodges Persell (2006)’s study used more than the textbook as the tool for the information they were to obtain the answers. If they were to advance into higher educational science courses, than the students should practice social scientific reasoning (Caulfield & Hodges Persell, 2006). One article went as so far as to look into the use of drama activities as a measure of engagement and the increased understanding of science concepts. Cokadar and Yilmaz (2009) looked into drama based instruction for seventh grade science students. They found positive effects when the students were to learn ecology terms and processes. Cokadar and Yilmaz (2009) even report also reported an increase of positive attitudes by a majority of the students involved. It cannot be discounted the understanding of students who verbally and consciously shutdown when made fun of on the soccer field or in gym class. No student wants to look silly in class or during a disussion group. A teacher who conducts their class with student speeches up in front of class may cause particular students to shutdown or not participate.
Along the same line, McClune and Jarman (2010) found an increase in students’ confidence when involved in collaborative groups. The students involved where documented as engaged in how they reported facts to the group, as well as their ability to demonstrate their understanding of the concepts in a clear fashion (McClune & Jarman, 2009). Emerson, MacKay, MacKay, and Funnell (2006) went as far to connect this increase in confidence and skilled communication ability to the benefits these skills will offer the students later in life. Emerson et al. (2006) correlate the skills employers are looking for in new hires, to the successful collaborative teams which are needed in the workplace.
Writing’s impact upon comprehension
Hume (2009) investigated the ability for students to use reflective writing to increase their comprehension of content studied. The use of student journals was considered as well as reflective journals used by the teacher to increase comprehension and more effective use of time for the next time the teacher introduces the same topic. Lipson and Mosenthal (2000) researched the effect of writing in consideration of just observations or interview data to understand the efficiency of students. Student work samples and the interview data collected were looked at for consideration of how the planning, writing, and revision a student uses to build their final draft.
Akkus, Gunel, and Hand (2007) considered a specific approach to teach writing for science classrooms. A“science writing heuristic” approach (SWH) was implemented rather than the inquiry based approach typically used. The SWH was analyzed through the results and newer teacher could adapt and show results as originally considered. Teachers which had more experience appeared to be set in their ways and the results were not observed in their classrooms. Baker et al. (2008) took an approach which would tie together the language arts teacher and the content being taught in science. Lab results and observations could be conveyed more precisely with help of the language arts teacher for science lab write ups (Baker et al., 2008). This time will also cause the students to understand the terms from science class in order for the reports to be done from a critical thinking perspective (Baker et al., 2008). This type of learning will cause a greater degree of understanding of the topic. Students will have to convey a deeper understanding of the material than just the definitions and steps completed in a lab.
Oliver (2009) created an investigation in which concept mapping was used to measure the increased depth of understanding of students to particular science topics. Some of the students reported to have enjoyed the creation of the maps, but there did not seem to be significant data to back up the hopeful increase of understanding of the portion of textbook reading. Oliver (2009) did mention several studies which did show a positive correlation of an increase of understanding by the students and the creation of the maps, this study was unable. Another study, Hanrahan (2009), considered how literacy needs to be taught across all content areas. This was shown by multiple question and answer sessions being done and students and the results affirming best results are shown when practice done in each class and in each type of situation. The writing done in science class is typically not that found in language arts class (Hanrahan, 2009). Explicit techniques need to be practiced and each content area teacher should be involved in this process to bring content and literacy together. Emerson et al. (2006) communicate the need for students to refine their techniques of conveying terms and concepts verbally, but also in writing for their professional positions to be available. Job interviews these days actually have applicants complete a free writing session. This is done for professional schools as well.
New techniques may not have the impact you thought they would have
Fang and Wei (2010) considered improving sixth grade science classrooms improvement of literacy by evaluation of the impact of reading infusion. These scientists believed the age group would be best served by explicit strategy and only one assignment be assigned once a month (Fang & Wei, 2010). The teacher in one of the classrooms had 20 years experience and was later thought to have prior habits which were difficult to change and work with the new format. The classroom would experience 20 minute reading sessions twice a week, but with consideration of no text had been used in class before. The students were judged to have difficulty with the program (Fang & Wei, 2010).
Kinniburgh and Shaw (2008) utilized a question and answer format to attempt to build confidence and comprehension in science class. A special technique was used to reduce search time for facts. Strategic reading was used to understand new scientific concepts (Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2008). Viscone (2010) attempted to understand the teaching techniques and the standardized tests being given. How are the teaching styles helpful for the students when the exams which they are to be measure by are quite different? The unexpected results showed students explaining their understanding of the purpose of standardized test questions. When the student responses where analyzed, the students actually misunderstood the purpose of quite a few questions. The teaching of the content may be complete, but the teacher should also be cognizant of the type questions which they ask on their assessments and prepare their students for the standardized exams for the benchmarks or SOL exam.
Conclusion
This again goes back to the need for teaching comprehension of text. Reutzel, Smith, and Fawson (2005) utilized a simple task of having primary age students demonstrate their understanding of appropriate text of a 200 word length. Two groups of students were taught two different strategies. One group was taught single strategies consecutively while the other group was taught a set of techniques to master the 200 word text group. Reutzel et al. (2005) found convincing evidence that the group who was given multiple techniques was able to better complete or comprehend more of the text. Please consider the information form the beginning of the review. Today’s students, with the correct ambition, could handle many distractions and still complete a given task. When we speak of science concepts though, hands on work is essential for full comprehension. Bulunuz and Jarrett (2010) conducted a survey of graduate students and attempted to understand these student’s misconceptions of simple scientific principles. The students were involved in offered teaching, pre and post-tests and finally a hands on lab. It was seen how the hands on lab was the critical element which solidified the understanding of some scientific principles. Some of these principles were: reason for the change in seasons and the reason for the change in tides.
References
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an Inquiry-Based ApproachKnown as the Science Writing Heuristic to Traditional Science Teaching Practices: Are ThereDifferences? International Journal of Science Education. 29(14), 1745- 1765.Retrieved from d=0bc9e6ad-61df-45ed-a4a2-d0263263c793%40sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=12
Baker, W., Barstack, R., & Clark, D. et al. (2008). Writing-to-Learn in the Inquiry- Science Classroom: Effective Strategies from Middle School Science and Writing Teachers. Clearing House. 81(3), 105-108. Retrieved from Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt x:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Writing-to-Learn+in+the+Inquiry- Science+Classroom%3A+Effective+Strategies+from+Middle+School+Science+a nd+Writing+Teachers&rft.jtitle=Clearing+House%3A+A+Journal+of+Education al+Strategies%2C+Issues+and+Ideas&rft.au=Kraft%2C+Kaatje&rft.au=Weaver %2C+David&rft.au=Baker%2C+William+P&rft.au=Ramakrishna%2C+Pushpa& rft.au=Kook%2C+Judy&rft.au=Clark%2C+Diane&rft.au=Barstack%2C+Renee& rft.au=Lang%2C+Michael&rft.au=Shaw%2C+Jerome&rft.au=Goodman%2C+Be n&rft.au=Roberts%2C+Elisabeth&rft.au=Hull%2C+Elizabeth&rft.date=2008-02- 01&rft.pub=Heldref+Publications&rft.issn=0009- 8655&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=105&rft.epage=108&rft_id=info:doi /10.3200%2FTCHS.81.3.105- 108&rft.externalDBID=ICLH&rft.externalDocID=10_3200_TCHS_81_3_105_1 08
Bulunuz, N., & Jarrett, O. (2010). The Effects of Hands-on Learning Stations on Building American Elementary Teachers’ Understanding about Earth and Space Station Concepts. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 6(2),85-99. Retrieved from
d=0e2d05bf-779f-4e50-b952-6685380b5afe%40sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=12
Caulfield, S., & Hodges Persell, C. (2006). Teaching Social Science Reasoning and Quantitative Literacy: The Role of Collaborative Groups. Teaching Sociology. 34(1), 39-53. Retrieved from
Cokadar, H., & Yilmaz, G. (2009). Teaching Ecosystems and Matter Cycles withCreativeDrama Activities. Journal of Science Education & Technology. 19(1), 80-89.Retrieved from Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt x:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Teaching+Ecosystems+and+Matter+Cycles +with+Creative+Drama+Activities&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Science+Education+an d+Technology&rft.au=%C3%87okadar%2C+Hulusi&rft.au=Y%C4%B1lmaz%2 C+G%C3%BCl%C3%A7in+Cihan&rft.date=2010-02- 01&rft.pub=Springer+Netherlands&rft.issn=1059- 0145&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=80&rft.epage=89&rft_id=info:doi/1 0.1007%2Fs10956-009-9181- 3&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=232102210
Emerson, L, MacKay, B., MacKay, M., & Funnell, K. (2006). A Team of Equals:TeachingWriting in the Sciences. Educational Action Research. 14(1), 65-81. Retrieved from d=bcc68d93-242f-41f3-bed8-525fcd307ffa%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=12
Fang, Z. & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving Middle School Students’ Science Literacy through
Reading Infusion. Journal of Educational Research. 103(4), 262-273. Retrieved
from
d=c0c3d90f-8c16-46e2-8b5a-5c207617c704%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=10
Gaddy, S, Bakken, J, & Fulk, B. (2009). The Effects of Teaching Text-Structure
Strategies to Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities to Improve Their
Reading Comprehension on Expository Science Text Passages. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability. 20(2), 100-119. Retrieved from
Hanrahan, M. (2009). Bridging the Literacy Gap: Teaching the Skills of Reading and Writing as They Apply in School Science. EURASIA Journa of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 5(3) 289-304. Retrieved from d=fbae75e4-4525-4821-b42e-d7cccf754ae7%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=10
Hume, A. (2009). Promoting Higher Levels of Reflective Writing in Student Journals. Higher Education Research & Development. 28(3), 247-260. Retrieved from d=03002b41-de01-4784-bb51-cdcc96bf5698%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=12
Kinniburgh, L. & Shaw, E. (2008). Using Question-Answer Relationships to Build:
Reading Comprehension in Sceince. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and
Curriculum Ideas. 45(4), 19-28. Retrieved from
d=1a197c22-b8bd-462c-86d3-ebdc497172f8%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=10
Kroeger, S., Burton, C., & Preston, C. (2009). Integrating Evidence-Based Practices in Middle Science Reading. TEACHING Exceptional Children. 41(3), 6-15. Retrieved from d=51cb81e1-3cd3-4c7b-b076-405b77783d7d%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=10
Lipson, M. & Mosenthal, J. (2000). Process Writing in the Classrooms of Eleven Fifth- Grade Teachers with Different Orientations to Teaching and Learning. Elementary SchoolJournal. 101(2), 209-231. Retrieved from
Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt x:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Process+writing+in+the+classrooms+of+el even+fifth- grade+teachers+with+different+orientations+to+teaching+and+learning&rft.jtitle =The+Elementary+School+Journal&rft.au=Marjorie+Y.+Lipson&rft.au=Haley+ Woodside- Jiron&rft.au=Patricia+Daniels&rft.au=James+Mosenthal&rft.date=2000- 11- 30&rft.pub=UNIV+CHICAGO+PRESS&rft.issn=0013- 5984&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=209&rft.epage=231&rft_id=info:d oi/10.1086%2F499665&rft.externalDBID=IESJ&rft.externalDocID=10.2307_10 02343
McClune, B. & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical Reading of Science-Based News Reports: Establishing a Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes Framework. International Journalof Science Education. 32(6), 727-752. Retrieved from
d=e546d5d8-2572-4cf1-97bb-f61008958a6d%40sessionmgr15&vid=5&hid=8
Ness, M. (2009). Reading Comprehension Strategy in Secondary Content AreaClassrooms: Teacher Use of and Attitudes Towards Reading Comprehension Instruction. Reading Horizons. 49(2), 143-166. Retrieved from
d=508ca997-1960-4f4a-9bb5-0d175809a521%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=8
Oliver, K. (2009). An Investigation of Concept Mapping to Improve the ReadingComprehension of Science Texts. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 18(5), 402-414. Retrieved from d=7d57134f-969e-4159-a4db-a50d6167157e%40sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=10
Owolabi, T, & Okebukola, F. (2009). Improving the reading ability of science students
through study groups and multiple intelligences. US-China Education Review,
6(2), Retrieved from
Ramadas, J. (2009). Visual and spatial modes in science learning. International Journal of Science Education. 31(3). 301-318. doi: 10.1080/09500690802595763
Retrived from
d=6&hid=21&sid=3890fbcd-5a57-4f71-9a20-9c8181c79a6f%40sessionmgr4
Reiner, M. (2009). Sensory cues, visualization and physics learning. International
Journal of Science Education. 31(3). 343-364. doi: 10.1080/09500690802595789
Retrived from
d=4&hid=25&sid=080f3516-a7e3-4575-9e4b-64b38c9a5c20%40sessionmgr12
Reutzel, D., Smith, J., & Fawson, P. (2005). An Evaluation of Two Approaches for Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies in the Primary Years using Science Information Texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 20(3), 276-305. Retrievedfrom