Examining the Effects of Integrated Science and Literacy Instruction on Second Graders’ Reading Comprehension, Reading Motivation, and Ability to Write Science Informational Texts

References

• Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010
   Google Scholar
• Annie, E. (2010). “EARLY WARNING! Why reading by the end of third-grade matters” A KIDS COUNT special report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Avalos, M. A., Secada, W. G., Zisselsberger, M. G., & Gort, M. (2017). “Hey! Today I will tell you about the water cycle!”: Variations of language and organizational features in third-grade science explanation writing. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1086/692987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, J. (2009). Death in the classroom: Writing about love and loss. SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N. (2021). Science-literacy integration: Content-area literacy or disciplinary literacy? Language Arts, 98(6), 340–351.
   Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentchy, K. Worth, & W. Binder (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221–244). National Science Teacher Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, S. K., Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2013). Using text structures of information books to teach writing in the primary grades. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0547-4
   Google Scholar
• Clark, S. K., Judd, E., Smith, L. K., & Ahlstrom, E. (2021). Examining the effects of integrated science and literacy instruction to teach second graders to write compare and contrast informational text. Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(4), 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01106-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. K., & Neal, J. (2018). Teaching second graders to write sequential text. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 764–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1437531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. K., Smith, L. K., Judd, E., & Rosdahl, V. (2021). Using disciplinary literacy to teach children to write science informational text. Reading Psychology, 42(5), 455–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied psychological measurement, 12(4), 425–434.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis of the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Connor, C. M., Dombek, J., Crowe, E. C., Spencer, M., Tighe, E. L., Coffinger, S., Zargar, E., Wood, T., & Petscher, Y. (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Cooter, R. B. (1989). Test review: Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, levels 5/6, 7/9, and 10/12. Journal of Reading, 32(7), 656–658. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40030013
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de La Paz, S., Owen, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2000). Riding Elvis’s motorcycle: using self-regulated strategy development to plan and write for a state writing exam. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_6
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson, P., & Adams, J. (2017). Values in evaluation –the use of rubrics. Evaluation and Program Planning, 65, 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreher, M. J., & Kletzien, S. B. (2016). Have recommended book lists changed to reflect current expectations for informational text in K-3 classrooms? Reading Psychology, 37(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1055871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, Z. (2014). Writing a report: A study of preadolescents’ use of informational language. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v10.2.28556
   Google Scholar
• Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S35–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Olson, C. B., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide. NCEE 2012-4058. What Works Clearinghouse.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & Holzapfel, J. (2018). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grysko, R. A., & Zygouris‐Coe, V. V. I. (2020). Supporting disciplinary literacy and science learning in grades 3–5. The Reading Teacher, 73(4), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308203
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 387–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162604
   Google Scholar
• Helsel, L., & Greenberg, D. (2007). Helping struggling writers succeed: A self‐regulated strategy instruction program. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 752–760. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.8.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Mesite, L. M., Asher, C. A., Relyea, J. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Elmore, J. (2021). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 3–26. 10.1037/edu0000465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J. S., Relyea, J. E., Burkhauser, M. A., Scherer, E., & Rich, P. (2021). Improving elementary grade students’ science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1935–1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 223–241). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dreyer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2006). Gates- MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science education reform. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The uses of informational texts in a second grade classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 315–362. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Informational texts and the common core standards: What are we talking about, anyway? Language Arts, 90(3), 205.
   Google Scholar
• Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2011). Reading picture books and learning science: Engaging young children with informational text. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.607372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantzicopoulos, P., Patrick, H., & Samarapungavan, A. (2013). Science literacy in school and home contexts: Kindergarteners’ science achievement and motivation. Cognition and Instruction, 31(1), 62–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.742087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for Teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(8), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.43.8.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moje, E. B. (2007). Chapter 1: Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07300046001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25(3), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss, B. (2004). Teaching expository text structures through information trade book retellings. The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 710–718. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20205422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out. New York: The College Entrance Examination Board.
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Writing (2006). Writing and school reform. College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-school-reform-natl-comm-writing.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Authors.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ness, M. (2011). Teachers’ use of and attitudes toward informational text in K–5 classrooms. Reading Psychology, 32(1), 28–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903241322
   Google Scholar
• Pate, P. E., Homestead, E., & McGinnis, K. (1993). Designing rubrics for authentic assessment. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.1993.11495201
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., & Billman, A. K. (2016). Reading to learn science: A right that extends to every reader—Expert or novice. In Human rights in language and STEM education (pp. 17–34). Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre‐specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, S. (2005). First and second graders writing informational text. The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.1.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, S., Reutzel, D. R., & Fawson, P. C. (2008). Do you want to know what I learned? Using informational trade books as models to teach text structure. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(3), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0273-0
   Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. F., Valentino, R. A., & Shores, K. A. (2012). Patterns of literacy among U.S. students. In S. McLanahan (Ed.), The future of children: Vol. 22 Literacy challenges for the twenty-first century (pp. 17–37). Princeton-Brooking. 10.1353/foc.2012.0015
   Google Scholar
• Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 373–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690116738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171–183). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T. (2015). Common core state standards: A new role for writing. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/681130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smagorinsky, P. (1998). Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_2
   Google Scholar
• Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Tompkins, G. E. (1998). Language arts: Content and teaching strategies. Order Processing, Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wise, K. (2005). The importance of writing skills. Public Relations Quarterly, 50(2), 37.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, K., & Stevens, E. (2007). The Role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2017). Supporting kindergartners’ science talk in the context of an integrated science and disciplinary literacy curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 513–537. https://doi.org/10.1086/690273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, W. (2016). Schema Theory, Constructionintegration reading model and reading pedagogy. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 63 International Conference on Advances in Management, Arts and Humanities Science (AMAHS 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2012). Young children’s limited and narrow exposure to informational text. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zygouris-Coe, V. (2012). Disciplinary literacy and the common core state standards. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e31824561a2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar