Integrating Text Structure Instruction in Science Education: A Design-Based Study

References

• Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Beerwinkle, A. L., Wijekumar, K., Walpole, S., & Aguis, R. (2018). An analysis of the ecological components within a text structure intervention. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2041–2064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9870-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkhorst, F., Handelzalts, A., Poortman, C. L., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2015). Understanding teacher design teams–A mixed methods approach to developing a descriptive framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkhorst, F., Poortman, C. L., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2017). A qualitative analysis of teacher design teams: In-depth insights into their process and links with their outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T. M. (2023). Text structure instruction in Dutch primary education: Building bridges between research and practice [ PhD dissertation]. Utrecht University. https://doi.org/10.33540/1775
   Google Scholar
• Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T. M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2017). Inhoud en didactiek van begrijpend lezen [Content and pedagogy of reading for comprehension]. Tijdschrift Taal, 8(12), 21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T. M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2019). Teachers and researchers as co-designers? A design-based research on reading comprehension instruction in primary education. Educational Design Research, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.3.1.1399
   Google Scholar
• Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T. M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2020). A meta-analysis on the effects of text structure instruction on reading comprehension in the upper elementary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T. M., Evers-Vermeul, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2022). What textbooks offer and what teachers teach: An analysis of the Dutch reading comprehension curriculum. Reading and Writing, 35(7), 1497–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10244-4
   PubMed 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
• Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., Jaynes, C. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (2009). Increasing opportunities to acquire knowledge through reading. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 79–100). The Guilford Press.
   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. Klentschy & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science & literacy in the K-8 classroom. (pp. 221–244). NSTA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-208
   Google Scholar
• Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 286–314). International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Edelson, D. C., Reiser, B. J., McNeill, K. L., Mohan, A., Novak, M., Mohan, L., & Suárez, E. (2021). Developing research-based instructional materials to support large-scale transformation of science teaching and learning: The approach of the OpenSciEd middle school program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 780–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1877457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, X., & Gallagher, T. L. (2018). Bridging professional teacher knowledge for science and literacy integration via design-based research. Teacher Development, 22(2), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1363084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, X., & Gallagher, T. L. (2019). Science and language integration in elementary classrooms: Instructional enactments and student learning outcomes. Research in Science Education, 49(4), 959–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9850-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fick, S. J., Chiu, J. L., & McElhaney, K. W. (2022). An examination of elementary classroom dialogue: Implicit and explicit use of the NGSS crosscutting concepts in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1961974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gresnigt, H. L. L. (2018). Integrated curricula: an approach to strengthen science & technology in primary education [ PhD dissertation]. Eindhoven University of Technology. https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/104730356/20181108_GresnigtH.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gresnigt, R., Taconis, R., van Keulen, H., Gravemeijer, K., & Baartman, L. (2014). Promoting science and technology in primary education: A review of integrated curricula. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 47–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.877694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1086/461929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haas, A., Januszyk, R., Grapin, S. E., Goggins, M., Llosa, L., & Lee, O. (2021). Developing instructional materials aligned to the next generation science standards for all students, including English learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 735–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1827190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2019). Writing in science: Why, how, and for whom? A systematic literature review of 20 years of intervention research (1996–2016). Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09477-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 320–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17427.x
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, J. H., Cabell, S. Q., & Joyner, R. E. (2022). Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(3), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n10.2005
   Google Scholar
• Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: Pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–159. https://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/iwai.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Interest assessment and the content area literacy environment: Challenges for research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016680023840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, C. D., Clark, S. K., & Reutzel, D. R. (2016). Teaching text structure: Examining the affordances of children’s informational texts. The Elementary School Journal, 117(1), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1086/687812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein Tank, M. (Ed.). (2009). TULE, uitwerking van de kerndoelen in inhouden en activiteiten [TULE, translation of the core goals into contents and activities]. SLO. http://tule.slo.nl
   Google Scholar
• Kooiker den Boer, H. S., Sanders, T. J. M., & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2019). Tekststructuur in de Kennisbasis Nederlandse taal [Text structure in the knowledge base for Dutch language]. Orthopedagogiek: Onderzoek en Praktijk, 58(11–12), 291–309.
   Google Scholar
• Kooiker den Boer, H. S., Sanders, T. J. M., & Evers-Vermeul, J. (2023). Teaching text structure in science education: What opportunities do textbooks offer? Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.51751/dujal11325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Linneberg, M. S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, J. R., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). Exploring teacher design team endeavors while creating an elementary-focused STEM-integrated curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0084-1
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 110–143). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Medina, A. L., Hancock, S. D., Hathaway, J. I., Pilonieta, P., & Holshouser, K. O. (2021). The influence of sustained, school-based professional development on explicit reading comprehension strategy instruction. Reading Psychology, 42(8), 807–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1939820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J. F., & Ray, M. N. (2011). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 127–152. https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/217
   Google Scholar
• Montelongo, J., Herter, R. J., Ansaldo, R., & Hatter, N. (2010). A lesson cycle for teaching expository reading and writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(8), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.8.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013132527007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormel, B. J., Pareja Roblin, N. N., McKenney, S. E., Voogt, J. M., & Pieters, J. M. (2012). Research–practice interactions as reported in recent design studies: Still promising, still hazy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(6), 967–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9261-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, H., & Pratt, N. (2004). Integrating science and literacy instruction with a common goal of learning science content. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 395–405). International Reading Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872075192.22
   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
• Pyle, N., Vasquez, A. C., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Gillam, S. L., Reutzel, D. R., Olszewski, A., Segura, H., Hartzheim, D., Laing, W., & Pyle, D. (2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahmat, N. H., Rahman, S. A. S. A., Yunos, D. R. M., Rahman, S. S. S. A., & Rahman, A. H. A. (2022). Exploring the use of knowledge in language learning. The International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 12(2), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i2/12268
   Google Scholar
• Ray, M. N., & Meyer, B. J. (2011). Individual differences in children’s knowledge of expository text structures: A review of literature. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 67–82. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068612
   Google Scholar
• Reutzel, D. R., Jones, C. D., Clark, S. K., & Kumar, T. (2016). The informational text structure survey (ITS2): An exploration of primary grade teachers’ sensitivity to text structure in young children’s informational texts. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.918927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivet, A. E., Weiser, G., Lyu, X., Li, Y., & Rojas-Perilla, D. (2016). What are crosscutting concepts in science? Four metaphorical perspectives. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 2, pp. 970–973). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2016.149
   Google Scholar
• Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1999). Concept mapping as a tool for learning: Broadening the framework for student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 47(2), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559909595789
   Google Scholar
• Rooijackers, P. J. H. (2023). Oog voor diep begrip: Onderzoek naar het tekstbegrip van vwo-leerlingen [Focus on deep reading: Research on reading comprehension of Dutch pre-university students]. [ PhD dissertation, Utrecht University]. Cito. https://doi.org/10.33540/1643
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistic markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.04san
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., & Spooren, W. P. M. (2009). The cognition of discourse coherence. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse of course (pp. 197–212). Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. P. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M. S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341
   Google Scholar
• Smit, J., Gijsel, M., Hotze, 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 and Social Interaction, 18, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.03.006
   Web of Science ®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
• Tilson, J. L., Castek, J., & Goss, M. (2010). Exploring the influence of science writing instruction on fourth graders’ writing development. In R. T. Jimenez, V. J. Risko, M. K. Hundley, D. W. Rowe, & C. S. Keyes (Eds.), 59th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 117–134). Literacy Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K-12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 420–456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902919257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Graft, M., & Klein Tank, M. (2018). Wetenschap & technologie in het basis- en speciaal onderwijs: Richtinggevend leerplankader bij het leergebied Oriëntatie op jezelf en de wereld [Science & technology in elementary and special education: Guiding curriculum framework to the learning domain orientation to yourself and the world]. SLO.
   Google Scholar
• van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research & Evaluation, 22(3–4), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, C. S., & Coffey, D. J. (2019). Investigating elementary preservice teachers’ designs for integrated science/literacy instruction highlighting similar cognitive processes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(5), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1587569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2017). Web-based text structure strategy instruction improves seventh graders’ content area reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, K. L., Franks, A. D., Kuo, L. J., McTigue, E. M., & Serrano, J. (2016). Both theory and practice: Science literacy instruction and theories of reading. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1275–1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9661-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar