Integrated Language and Science & Technology Instruction: A Cognitive Task Analysis of the Required Teacher Expertise

References

• Allen, M. H., Matthews, C. E., & Parsons, S. A. (2013). A second-grade teacher’s adaptive teaching during an integrated science-literacy unit. Teaching & Teacher Education, 35, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023666618800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradbury, L. U. (2014). Linking science and language arts: A review of the literature which compares integrated versus non-integrated approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 465–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9368-6
   Google Scholar
• Carrejo, D. J., & Reinhartz, J. (2012). Exploring the synergy between science literacy and language literacy with English language learners: Lessons learned within a sustained professional development program. SRATE Journal, 21(2), 33–38.
   Google Scholar
• Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G., Pearson, P., Bravo, M., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221–244). NSTA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheuk, T. (2016). Discourse practices in the new standards: The role of argumentation in common core-era next generation science standards classrooms for English language learners. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 92–111.
   Google Scholar
• Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, A., Klein, V., & Hershberger, S. (2015). Success, difficulty, and instructional strategy to enact an argument-based inquiry approach: Experiences of elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 991–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9525-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christie, F. (2017). Genres and institutions: Functional perspectives on educational discourse. In S. Wortham, D. Kim, & S. May (Eds.), Discourse and education (3rd ed. pp. 29–40). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7_2
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R., Feldon, D., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed. pp. 577–593). Macmillan/Gale.
   Google Scholar
• Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bagley, E. (2013). Science in writing: Learning scientific argument in principle and practice. E-Learning & Digital Media, 10(4), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2013.10.4.420
   Google Scholar
• Costa, J. M., Miranda, G. L., & Melo, M. (2022). Four-component instructional design (4C/ID) model: A meta-analysis on use and effect. Learning Environments Research, 25(2), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09373-y
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J.-Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Some useful models and implications for teachers’ training. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 60(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/14.60.79
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Content area vocabulary learning. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 594–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishman, E. J., Borko, H., Osborne, J., Gomez, F., Rafanelli, S., Reigh, E., Tseng, A., Million, S., & Berson, E. (2017). A practice-based professional development program to support scientific argumentation from evidence in the elementary classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 222–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1302727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, D. J. (2004). Scaffolding preservice teachers’ evaluation of children’s science literature: Attention to science-focused genres and use. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000044868.38737.88
   Google Scholar
• Frerejean, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Condron, C., Strauch, U., & Eppich, W. (2023). Critical design choices in healthcare simulation education: A 4C/ID perspective on design that leads to transfer. Advances in Simulation, 8(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00242-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glen, N. J., & Dotger, S. (2013). Writing like a scientist: Exploring elementary teachers’ understandings and practices of writing in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9348-x
   Google Scholar
• Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2011). Towards characterising design-based learning in engineering education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.565116
   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
• Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: Reforming science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science, 53(3), 12–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hackling, M., Smith, P., & Murcia, K. (2010). Talking science: Developing a discourse of inquiry. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(1), 17–22.
   Google Scholar
• Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2014). From words to concepts: Focusing on word knowledge when teaching for conceptual understanding within an inquiry-based science setting. Research in Science Education, 44(5), 777–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9402-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.604684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x13480524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2003). Formative research on the heuristic task analysis process. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. IMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920410001689689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meutstege, K., Vrielink, M., van Geel, M., & Visscher, A. J. (2023). A cognitive task analysis of the teacher skills and knowledge required for differentiated instruction in secondary education [Original Research]. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1171554
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortelmans, D. (2013). Handbook for qualitative research methods. Acco.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, J. (1993). Action research through stimulated recall. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357063
   Google Scholar
• O’Hallaron, C. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Reading science: Using systemic functional linguistics to support critical language awareness. Linguistics & Education, 32, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappas, C. C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2003). Dialogic inquiry around information texts: The role of intertextuality in constructing scientific understandings in urban primary classrooms. Linguistics & Education, 13(4), 435–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(03)00004-4
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P., 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
• Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<566:AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (2000). Introduction to cognitive task analysis. In S. F. Chipman, J. M. Schraagen, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 3–23). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link‐making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
   Google Scholar
• Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smit, J., Gijsel, M., Hoze, A., & Bakker, A. (2018). Scaffolding primary teachers in designing and enacting language-oriented science lessons: Is handing over to independence a fata morgana? Learning, Culture & Social Interaction, 18, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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(8), 664–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoller, F. (2008). Content‐based instruction. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1163–1174). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_89
   Google Scholar
• Tofel-Grehl, C., & Feldon, D. F. (2013). Cognitive task analysis–based training: A meta-analysis of studies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343412474821
   Google Scholar
• van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Driel, S., Slot, E., & Bakker, A. (2018). A primary teacher learning to use scaffolding strategies to support pupils’ scientific language development. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3115
   Google Scholar
• van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2008). Broadening perspectives about vocabulary instruction: Implications for classroom practice. New England Reading Association Journal, 44(1), 15.
   Google Scholar
• Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2011). Adaptation of a knowledge-based instructional intervention to accelerate student learning in science and early literacy in grades 1 and 2. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.2011.v5n2p79-93
   Google Scholar
• Ward, C. (2013). Disciplinary literacy. ELIS Research Digest, 1(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yore, L. D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In W. E. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 71–94). NSTA Press.
   Google Scholar