Bridging professional teacher knowledge for science and literary integration via design-based research

References

• Achieve Inc. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aikenhead, G. S. 2006. “Towards Decolonizing the Pan-Canadian Science Framework.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 6 (4): 387–399.10.1080/14926150609556712
   Google Scholar
• Akerson, V. L., and T. Young. 2008. “Why Research on Interdisciplinary Language Arts and Science Instruction.” In Interdisciplinary Language Arts and Science Instruction in Elementary Classrooms: Applying Research to Practice, edited by Valerie Akerson, 3–11. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T., and J. Shattuck 2012. “Design-based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research?” Educational Researcher 41 (1): 16–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 2005. “Technology and Literacies: From Print Literacy to Dialogic Literacy.” In International Handbook of Educational Policy, edited by N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, and D. Livingstone, 749–762. New York: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3201-3
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury, L. 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): 465–488.10.1007/s10972-013-9368-6
   Google Scholar
• Calandra, B., and P. J. Rich. 2014. Digital Video for Teacher Education: Research and Practice. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G., and D. P. Pearson. 2012. “Reading, Writing, and Thinking like a Scientist.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 55 (7): 580–586.10.1002/JAAL.00069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., J. Barber, R. Dorph, P. D. Pearson, and P. G. Goldschmidt. 2012. “The Impact of an Integrated Approach to Science and Literacy in Elementary School Classrooms.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49 (5): 631–658.10.1002/tea.v49.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb, P. A., J. Confrey, A. A. diSessa, R. Lehrer, and L. Schauble. 2003. “Design Experiments in Educational Research.” Educational Researcher 32 (1): 9–13.10.3102/0013189X032001009
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2012. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, B., and B. E. Smith. 2012. “Teachers as Designers: Multimodal Immersion and Strategic Reading on the Internet.” Research in the Schools 19 (1): 12–25.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education. 2015. National Curriculum in England: Science Programmes of Study. Accessed March 10, 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study
   Google Scholar
• Design-Based Research Collective. 2003. “Design-based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry.” Educational Researcher 32 (1): 5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, M. S., C. Snow, and P. Daro. 2013. “The SERP Approach to Problem-solving Research, Development, and Implementation.” National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook 112 (2): 400–425.
   Google Scholar
• Dressman, M., and S. McCarthey. 2004. “Toward a Pragmatics of Epistemology, Methodology, and Other People’s Theories in Literacy Research.” In Literacy Research Methodologies, edited by N. Duke and M. Mallette, 322–346. New York: Guildford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edelson, D. 2002. “Design Research: What We Learn When We Engage in Design.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 11 (1): 105–121. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elish-Piper, L., and S. K. L’Allier. 2010. “Exploring the Relationship between Literacy Coaching and Student Reading Achievement in Grades K–1.” Literacy Research and Instruction 49 (2): 162–174.10.1080/19388070902913289
   Google Scholar
• Fang, Z. 2006. “The Language Demands of Science Reading in Middle School.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (5): 491–520. doi:10.1080/09500690500339092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, Z., L. Lamme, R. Pringle, J. Patrick, J. Sanders, C. Zmach, S. Charbonnet, and M. Henkel. 2008. “Integrating Reading into Middle School Science: What We Did, Found and Learned.” International Journal of Science Education 30 (15): 2067–2089.10.1080/09500690701644266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, X. 2009. “Development of a Community of Science Teachers: Participation in a Collaborative Action Research Project.” School Science and Mathematics 109 (2): 95–107.10.1111/ssm.2009.109.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X., and T. L. Gallagher. 2009. “Identifying Complexity Characteristics That Support Learning in Two Teacher Development Collectives.” Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 6 (2): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, X., and T. L. Gallagher. 2014. “Morphological Development Levels of Science Content Vocabulary: Implications for Science-based Texts in Elementary Classrooms.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 12 (6): 1407–1423.10.1007/s10763-013-9470-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, X., and T. L. Gallagher. 2016. “Science and Literacy Integration in Elementary Classrooms: Instructional Enactments and Student Learning Outcomes.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Washington, DC, April 7–12.
   Google Scholar
• Fishman, B. J., W. R. Penuel, A. R. Allen, B. H. Cheng, and N. Sabelli. 2013. “Design-based Implementation Research: An Emerging Model for Transforming the Relationship of Research and Practice.” National Society for the Study of Education 112 (2): 136–156.
   Google Scholar
• Gay, L., G. Mills, and P. Airasian. 2012. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. 1997. “Thinking, Learning, and Reading: The Situated Sociocultural Mind.” In Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives, edited by D. Kirshner and J. A. Whitson, 235–260. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, P. 2010. Evaluation of Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading: Effective Tools for Developing Literacy through Science in the Early Grades. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Accessed June 17, 2013. https://www.scienceandliteracy.org/sites/scienceandliteracy.org/files/biblio/seeds_eval_in_cresst_deliv_fm_060210_pdf_21403.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. 2011. Looking to the Future: Building a Curriculum for Social Activism. Rotterdam: Sense.10.1007/978-94-6091-472-0
   Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J. S., and L. M. Sutherland. 2010. “Supporting Students in Developing Literacy in Science.” Science 328 (5977): 456–459.10.1126/science.1182593
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. 2004. “The Literacies of Science.” In Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice, edited by J. Saul, 33–47. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
   Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., L. Zawilinski, J. Castek, M. Banerjee, B. C. Housand, Y. Liu, and M. O’Neil. 2007. “What is New about the New Literacies of Online Reading Comprehension?” In Secondary School Literacy: What Research Reveals for Classroom Practices, edited by L. Rush, J. Eakle, and A. Berger, 37–68. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzoni, S. A., and L. Gambrell. 2003. “Principles of Best Practice: Finding the Common Ground.” In Best Practices in Literacy Instruction. 2nd ed., edited by L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 9–21. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., and T. Reeves. 2012. Conducting Educational Design Research. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education, Ontario. 2006. The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1–8: Language. Accessed August 31, 2015. https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language.html
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education, Ontario. 2007. The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1–8: Science and Technology. Accessed June 19, 2017. https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec.html
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, A.-M. 2013. “‘Proof of Concept’: Beginning to Use Design-based Research to Improve Science Literacies for Middle Years Learners.” Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 36 (1): 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P., and L. M. Phillips. 2003. “How Literacy in Its Fundamental Sense is Central to Scientific Literacy.” Science Education 87 (2): 224–240. doi:10.1002/sce.10066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick, H., P. Mantzicopoulos, and A. Samarapungavan. 2009. “Motivation for Learning Science in Kindergarten: Is There a Gender Gap and Does Integrated Inquiry and Literacy Instruction Make a Difference.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (2): 166–191.10.1002/tea.v46:2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, D. P., E. Moje, and C. Greenleaf. 2010. “Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other.” Science 328 (6130): 459–463. doi:10.1126/science.1182595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., B. J. Fishman, B. Haugan Cheng, and N. Sabelli. 2011. “Organizing Research and Development at the Intersection of Learning, Implementation, and Design.” Educational Researcher 40 (7): 331–337. doi:10.3102/0013189X11421826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purao, S., M. K. Sein, M. Rossi, and R. Cole. 2005. “Being Proactive: Where Action Research Meets Design Research.” In ICIS International Conference on Information Systems, Las Vegas, USA, December 11-14, 2005, edited by D. Avison, D. Galletta, and J. I. DeGross, 325–335. Las Vegas, NV: Association for Information Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Reinking, D., and B. A. Bradley. 2008. Formative and Design Experiments. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saul, W. E. 2004. Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., and C. Shanahan. 2008. “Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content-area Literacy.” Harvard Educational Review 78 (1): 40–59.10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svihla, V. 2014. “Advances in Design-based Research.” Frontline Learning Research 2 (4): 35–45.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Akker, J., R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, and T. Plomp. 2012. Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Vitale, M. R., and N. R. Romance. 2012. “Using In-depth Science Instruction to Accelerate Student Achievement in Science and Reading Comprehension in Grades 1–2.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 10 (2): 457–472.10.1007/s10763-011-9326-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, S. M. 2013. “Professional Development for Science Teachers.” Science 340 (6130): 310–313.10.1126/science.1230725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yore, L., G. Bisanz, and B. Hand. 2003. “Examining the Literacy Component of Science Literacy: 25 Years of Language Arts and Science Research.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (6): 689–725.10.1080/09500690305018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar