expository text - science

THE INTERACTION OF READING SKILLS ANDSCIENCE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE WHEN

TEACHING STRUGGLING SECONDARY STUDENTS

Linda CarnineCarnine and Associates, Eugene, Oregon, USA

Douglas CarnineNational Center to Improve Tools for Educators, Eugene,

Oregon, USA

Science content area texts are difficult for most middle school students, parti-cularly whose reading skills are below grade level. This article describes aninnovative approach to integrating the teaching of middle school science con-tent and reading skills to increase levels of student success with content areatextbooks.

For reading instruction, this approach features carefully selected vocabulary,word reading instruction, oral (including partner reading) and silent readingwith reading fluency practice as needed, and explicit instruction on compre-hension strategies, such as retelling, concept mapping, and summarization.

The teaching of the science content incorporates instructional design principlesthat have been documented to improve comprehension of science content, pro-cess skills, and higher order thinking. Six aspects of instructional design thatare discussed are the identification and teaching of big ideas, the systematicinstruction of vocabulary (including science affixes), a review and integration ofcore concepts, visual displays of how core concepts are integrated, mnemonicsfor core concepts, and structured hands-on activities.

INCREASING SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE AND READING SKILLSIN MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

Unacceptable proportions of middle school students are struggling to readand understand content area textbooks. The number of ‘‘struggling readers,’’a new category designated by the state of California, is substantial in many

Address Correspondence to Linda Carnine, PhD. EBC, 805 Lincoln St., Eugene, OR 97401.E-mail: [email protected]

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20: 203–218, 2004Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc.ISSN: 1057-3569 printDOI: 10.1080/10573560490264134

203

states. In some schools, it is common to have significant numbers of classesin which 75–80% of the students cannot successfully read textbooks.

This new class of ‘‘struggling readers’’ contains high numbers of studentswho simply cannot read (decode) text, as well as those who are able toread but lack the necessary comprehension skills to reach grade levelexpectations in the content of science and social studies. The problem withscience comprehension is not limited to schools serving at-risk students.Even though science achievement has shown a slow upward trend onnational assessments, science achievement in the United States is still lowamong the developed nations of the world.

According to the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress inscience (2003), only 29% of the nation’s 4th grade students performed at orabove Proficient, while 32% of the nation’s 8th grade students performed ator above Proficient. This is the same level of performance as evidenced bythe 1996 NAEP Science result for 4th grade and a slight increase for 8thgrade (1999). However the percentage of twelfth-graders at or above Basicdeclined between 1996 and 2000. Overall the 2000 NAEP science resultsindicate improvement in the highest performing 8th graders, but a declinein middle-performing high school students.

This article will describe a novel approach to teaching middle schoolstudents (especially struggling readers) designed to increase the level oftheir success in the content areas. The first part will address the fluentreading and reading comprehension of the materials needed for textbookcomprehension. The second part will address the instructional designneeded to teach the science content so students understand and generalizecore concepts. Six aspects of instructional design that are discussed are theidentification and teaching of big ideas, the systematic instruction ofvocabulary including science affixes, a review and integration of coreconcepts, visual displays of how core concepts are integrated, mnemonicsfor core concepts, and structured hands-on activities. Discussion alsoincludes study and writing skills instruction that are incorporated into thetexts so students are successful in reading, and understanding, retaining,and transferring the content covered.

These programs are designed for students who have mastered basicdecoding and comprehension skills. To participate successfully in theseprograms, students should be able to decode at the fifth-grade level withreasonable accuracy and moderate fluency in reading narrative material.For example, if the struggling readers have been instructed with a programsuch as the Corrective Reading series, they should have completed at leastlevel C of the Decoding track. The students need to be able to read nar-rative passages of fifth-grade readability at minimally 150 words per minutewith 98% accuracy. If students are not able to read near this level, it isrecommended that they first be taken through a remedial series such as the

204 L. Carnine and D. Carnine

Corrective Reading program before placement in the science contentmaterials. Students near but not at this level will need to receive dailyreading instruction along with all the instructional reading activities pro-vided in these programs. The readability of these materials ranges fromsixth to eighth grade due to the high concentration of multisyllabic wordsrequired by content area information.

READING SKILLS AND STRATEGIES FOR SECONDARYSTUDENTS

Oral reading fluency is highly correlated with and predictive of readingcomprehension. For students to successfully read and comprehend contentarea texts filled with multisyllabic, low-probability vocabulary, they must beable to read narrative type passages involving higher-probability vocabularywith considerable fluency and accuracy. Some students may still need tobuild more reading fluency in the content area. The fluency-buildingexercises recommended for the science material described in this approachinvolve rereading sections of previously read text in order to build fluency.Students graph their correct words per minute when they reread thepassages to realize and graphically see their improvements in reading rateover time.

Reading activities for students with fluency or decoding problems areincluded as a supplement in the science program. Many students who arestruggling readers need to build more reading fluency before they canconsistently focus on comprehending what they are reading in contentareas. The Teacher’s Guide provides reading passages taken from pre-viously read chapters for students to build fluency (See Figure 1 for asample passage for reading checkout in the Reading Strategies forUnderstanding Earth Science program [Gleason & Miller, 2001]).

The cumulative number of words read is noted in the left-hand columnso that it is simple to figure the number of words read in a one- to two-minute timing. One of the most motivational techniques for building fluencyis to have the students chart their progress as they reread the passage.

VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT

Students are often confused by the plethora of vocabulary and contentthrown at them, struggling with what are the core concepts and knowledgeforms and what are merely interesting details (Lockheed, 1990). To ensurecomprehension of the science materials, each chapter’s vocabulary words

Reading Skills and Science Content 205

FIGURE 1 Passage Reading Sample.


are carefully selected, pretaught, and reviewed. Most words are selectedbecause they are multisyllabic words struggling readers will typically havedifficulty reading.

All key vocabulary words are explicitly taught with daily exercises thatinclude pre-testing, practice, and post-testing.

In addition to preteaching key vocabulary, explicit instruction is pro-vided on affixes. The frequency of difficult multisyllabic, low-probabilitywords in science texts requires teachers to ensure that students candecode and pronounce these words. The teacher can provide a usefulmultisyllabic word reading strategy by introducing affixes (word parts thatcome at the beginning and ends of words). After introduction to the affixes,students decode words by first identifying the underlined affixes and thenreading the whole word.

Affixes common to multisyllabic textbook terms and science contenthave been identified (Gleason & Miller, 2001). For example, students aretaught the definition of common affixes such as tion to be ‘‘the act of,’’ as ininvestigation or prediction (see Figure 2). The first column of the tablerefers to the lesson in which the affix is taught; the second column is theaffix. These affixes have been selected for their utility and frequency inscientific terms. The meaning is taught (column 3), along with examples ofwords in which they can be found (column 4). Students generate themeaning of the new words, applying the affix definition. Once an affix hasbeen introduced, it is reviewed over the course of the year.

FIGURE 1 (Continued.)


A number of other reading comprehension and writing strategies areintegrated in the middle school science programs. The first of these is apartner retell activity. Partner reading with the goal of identifying main ideaand related details actively engages students in the reading process. This isa 30–60 second, face-to-face activity that students do with partners duringclass reading and discussion. Students reread a designated portion of textsilently or aloud to their partner. After reading, partners act as a ‘‘reteller’’and the other as a ‘‘listener’’. The reteller recalls the main idea of his or her

FIGURE 2 Vocabulary Words and Affixes.


partner, who listens and talks to the reteller. The teacher then restates themain idea to the class.

Next they are to look at the paragraph, find two details that tell moreabout the main idea, and then tell these important details to their partner.The teacher confirms the important details.

The teacher can then do a quick recheck by calling on one or tworeceiving partners to summarize what their partner said. The receivingpartners also use a checklist for feedback to the summarizing partner. Thiscomprehensive instruction lays the foundation for written activities such asmapping the main idea=details and writing a summary.

Writing and study skills are typically lacking in ‘‘struggling reader’’populations. Therefore, the middle school science material contain explicitinstructions on a wide array of writing and study skill applications. Forexample, instruction in setting up notebooks with dividers for vocabulary,affixes, chapter content, oral reading timings, and notes and then keepingtrack of these papers is provided. Writing skills, such as summarizing andconcept mapping skills, are taught. More extensive research-writingactivities are also included. To prepare for these longer writing assign-ments, students are directed how to answer all the comprehension ques-tions in the text by using words given in the questions.

SCIENCE CONTENT

Experts in science education have identified content (subject matter) andinstructional practices as the two priority areas for initial improvement(McCleery and Tindal, 1999). The American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, and theNational Science Foundation Education Standards all propose three com-ponents of science literacy:

1. knowledge of concepts within content discipline areas2. application of science process skills3. the use of high-level reasoning within instructions. (Cohen, 1992; Willis,

1996)

The instructional materials described herein address all three compo-nents, utilizing a unique instructional design targeted at students chal-lenged with science literacy. Along with content, these materials makesignificant changes in instructional practices for delivering the content toenhance acquisition, retention, and generalization.

There have been many criticisms of current science textbooks. Theycontain too many vocabulary concepts, present too many ideas at once


(sometimes even in a list), are unclear, and do not transmit scienceknowledge (Lloyd, 1989; Newport, 1990; Osborn, Jones, & Stein, 1985;Smith, Blakeslee, & Anderson, 1993). For example, the vocabulary load in aweek’s science unit is greater than a similar unit in a foreign language,where the new vocabulary involves only new labels for known concepts(Eylon & Linn, 1988; Grossen, Romance, & Vitale, 1994). In order toaddress some of these concerns, the following science materials have beencarefully developed, according to several important aspects of instructionaldesign (Engelmann and Carnine, 1991).

The first aspect of instructional design has to do with the analysis ofcritical content information, i.e., knowledge forms such as principles andconcepts (Tindal, Nolet, & Blake, 1992). The content analysis also includescore concepts that are derived from state standards available across thecountry in life, earth, and physical science. These key knowledge formshave been analyzed into big ideas for enhancing the retention and con-nectivity of key scientific knowledge. Research supports organizing sciencecontent around big ideas for better learning (Mayer, 1989; Muthukrisha,Carnine, Grossen, & Miller, 1993; Niedelman, 1992; Woodward, 1994).Woodward (1994) has recommended modifying the curriculum hierarchyaround these key concepts and ideas so that ‘‘explicit connections betweenkey principles and their supporting arguments’’ can be made by students.By simplifying the content and focussing instruction on big ideas, theextraneous information typically included in middle school textbooks hasbeen greatly reduced.

An example of a big idea is the concept of the convection cell, which isused for teaching many of the key principles and concepts in the earthscience curriculum. Earth science is usually divided into three topic areas:geology (the solid earth), meteorology (the atmosphere), and oceano-graphy. The principle of convection is the underlying big idea that explainsmany of the dynamic phenomena occurring in these three areas.

To gain a deeper understanding of convection, students must first graspthe interaction of density, pressure, force, and heating and cooling (Miller& Carnine, 2000). Students must first understand that heat causes a sub-stance to become less dense. The less dense substance then moves from aplace of high pressure to a place of low pressure, and so on (see illustrationat the top of Figure 3, from Miller & Carnine, 2000).

Once students learn about convection, the big idea of convection isapplied to the relevant aspects of the atmosphere, ocean, and the solidearth. Understanding the application of this and other big ideas requiresadditional knowledge. For example, students must know that the sun is theprimary source of heat, that the tilt of the earth as it orbits around the suncauses changes in the amount of heat received in different areas of theearth, and that the core of the earth is hot and that the ocean is very deep,


FIGURE 3 A Conceptual Model of the Convection Principle and its Applications.


in order to understand applications of convection. As students learn thecontent, they see the way convection ties together meteorology, oceano-graphy and geology. These relationships are illustrated in the bottom ofFigure 3. The usage of big ideas makes possible a deep understanding ofsuch concepts as plate tectonics, earthquakes, the dynamics of the atmo-sphere that causes changing weather patterns, ocean currents such as ElNino and climate in general, phenomena in the earth resulting in rock cycle,as so on.

The second aspect of instructional design of these middle school sciencecurriculum materials has been to provide sufficient review of core conceptsand integrate them into higher order concepts to ensure understanding andgeneralization. Research has repeatedly documented that students whodemonstrate successful learning of a scientific principle or concept on adaily assignment often fail to use it to solve problems on another occasion(Bransford et al., 1986, 1989, 1991; Reys et al., 1982; Schoenfeld, 1987;Smith & Good, 1984; Whitehead, 1929). Students often revert to inap-propriate pre-instructional conceptual frameworks in real life problemsolving (Mitman et al., 1987; Tobin et al., 1988).

The program is designed to facilitate retention and application of whathas been previously taught. Students are expected to retain the conceptsintroduced in these materials and will be called on to use them over andover again in the current and subsequent chapters. Each chapter beginswith activating prior knowledge through questions. To enhance under-standing and retention, imbedded questions are interspersed throughoutthe reading text. After every paragraph or important chunk of information,these imbedded questions help the student check for understanding. Theyalso indicate to the student what to attend to. There are frequent discus-sion questions also imbedded for directing classroom discussions. Resultsfrom studies using active coaching with questions that encourage thestudents to elaborate show better levels of student recall of information(Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Sullivan, 1994; Sullivan, Mastropieri, & Scruggs,1995; Wood, Pressley, & Wynne, 1990).

All answers are provided in the Teacher Edition, so that reading-skillsteachers and others can comfortably use the material with lower levelstudents without having a thorough science background. In addition toimbedded questions, there are review and application questions through-out and at the end of each chapter. These focus on state and nationalscience standard content as well as provide important cumulative review.Explicit instruction with a systematic teacher-led presentation has stu-dents stay on task and acquire information and skills (Rosenshine, 1986;Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Hodge, 1995).

An example of how core concepts are integrated is illustrated inthe teaching of life science content (Carnine, Carnine, Vachon, &


Shindledecker, 2000). The students first learn about the characteristics ofliving organisms, summarized by the mnemonic OGRRs (‘‘ogres’’). In theearly chapters of the Life Science program, the characteristics of all livingthings are summarized in four categories: Organized structure, Growth anddevelopment, Reproduction, and Response to surroundings (environment).Fire may appear to grow and develop and respond to surroundings, but itdoes not have an organized structure, nor is it capable of reproduction.

These characteristics of living things (OGRRs) are integrated into thecritical components of the parts of a cell and how it functions. The studentslearn that each cell has an organized structure that includes the followingbasic parts: cell membrane (and wall for plants), nucleus, mitochondria,chloroplasts for plants, endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes, lysosomes,vacuoles, etc. All the parts give the cells its organized structure. The cellgrows and develops using processes such as osmosis and diffusion. Thenthe cell reproduces by mitosis. The cell responds to its surroundings andwill die if it doesn’t get its needs met.

This same mnemonic (OGRRs) is used to integrate the various bodysystems of more complex organisms. Certain body systems such as skeletaland muscular systems relate to the O (Organized structure) in OGRRs.Some systems such as the digestive, excretory, circulatory and respiratorysystems relate to the Growth and development (G) of the organism. Thereproductive system corresponds to the first R in OGRRs. The nervoussystem, sense organs, endocrine and integumentary systems are involved inresponding to surroundings, the second R and s in OGRRs. Understandingand applying big ideas is a cornerstone for high level reasoning in science.The core concepts of OGRRs are introduced at a macro level of ecosys-tems=habitats, at a micro level of individual cells, and at the middle ororganism stage.

A third aspect of instructional design in the middle school scienceprograms is visual displays that enhance the connectivity of the big ideasand foster learning and retention. For example, there are graphic organi-zers=charts provided for each chapter that summarize the key conceptsintroduced in the chapter. Students also are provided a copy of the graphicorganizer with blanks so that they can practice their recall of key infor-mation. Students are explicitly taught throughout the program how to readand learn from figures, charts, and other visual displays (see Figure 4,Graphic Organizer A, from Carnine, Carnine, Vachon, & Shindledecker,2000).

A fourth aspect of the instructional design is the utilization of mne-monics to enhance retention. The characteristics of living things areremembered as ‘‘ogres’’—OGRRs. These ‘‘OGRRs’’ need their WAFLS(‘‘waffles’’) to survive. The WAFLS represent all the requirements for livingthings Water, Air, Food (nutrients), Living space, and Shelter. Mnemonic


strategies, such as in the Life Science program where ‘‘ogres need theirwaffles,’’ are used to more effectively summarize scientific terminology andconcepts. Mnemonic devices have been found to also enhance learning andretention (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1995). In physical science, students learnabout different sources of energy using the graphic organizer. (See Figure 5,

FIGURE 4 Graphic Organizer A: Characteristics of Living Things.


Steely & Carnine, 2001). One way or remember the seven forms of energyis the mnemonic MEN CHEW on 7 forms of energy: Mechanical-Electrical-Nuclear-Chemical-Heat-Em waves-mechanical Waves. In physi-cal science, students learn about the different sources of energy using the

FIGURE 5 Energy and Matter.


graphic organizer shown in Figure 5 (Sources of Energy, Steely & Carnine,2001). Graphic organizers such as this can help students learn, remember,and apply critical information and concepts. For example, in Figure 5 amnemonic for the gravitational attraction is the smaller and larger spherewith their arrows, while the memory tool for electromagnetic attraction isthe arrows between the electrons and protons within the atom. Thesefigures help in remembering the different types of energy.

The fifth aspect to the instructional design is the utilization of hands-onactivities that guide students in the application of the science method(scientific process skills). The hands-on activities include (1) well-through-out scientific experiments with explicit instruction in the scientific method,but also (2) how to write up finding using a mini Lab=DemonstrationReport form, where students state the: question, hypothesis, procedures(step-by-step), results, and conclusions. This rule-based, explicit instruc-tion in how to perform the task is particularly relevant for teaching thescientific method (Ross & Robinson, 1987 ).

CONCLUSION

Middle school students face enormous challenges in learning the contentand process skills of science. In addition to the difficulty of the content,many students are still struggling with the skills needed to be a proficientreader. These challenges to students translate into challenges to teachers.This article has enumerated several strategies for teaching both the scienceknowledge and the reading skills. But better instructional curriculum is onlyone ingredient for improved achievement and by itself is not sufficient foreither teachers or students to meet the challenges of limited reading skillsand complex, extensive content. The other ingredients are also important,though beyond the scope of this article. Some of these ingredients are:

1. professional development on pedagogy for science instruction, readinginstruction, and on the science content (for teachers who were notscience majors in particular);

2. sufficient instructional time;3. progress monitoring during the school year to determine if teachers are

covering big ideas at an adequate rate and students are learning,remembering and applying important knowledge and skills;

4. classroom and schoolwide discipline programs to maintain a safe andrespectful learning environment;

5. administrative leadership to facilitate the selection and use of appro-priate instructional materials, professional development, etc.


Bringing well-designed instructional materials together with these otheringredients would enable both teachers and students to be successful indealing with middle school science.

REFERENCES

Bransford, J., Goldman, S., & Vye, N. (1991). Making a difference in people’s abilities to think:Reflections on a decade of work and some hopes for the future. In R. J. Sternberg &L. Okagaki ( Eds.), Directors of development: Influences on the development ofchildren’s thinking ( pp. 147–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Deicios, V. R., & Littlefield, J. (1986). Computers and problemsolving. In C. K. Kinzer, R. D. Sherwood, & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Computer strategies foreducation: Foundations and content-area applications ( pp. 147–180). Columbus, OH:Merrill.

Bransford, J. D., Vye, N. J., Adams, L. T., & Perfetto, G. A. (1989). Learning skills and theacquisition of knowledge. In A. Leagold & R. Glaser ( Eds.), Foundations for a psychologyof education ( pp. 199–249). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carnine, D., Carnine, L., Vachon, V., & Shindledecker, K. (2000). Understanding life science.Eugene, OR: Carnine & Associates.

Cohen, H. G. (1992). Two teaching strategies: Their effectiveness with students of varyingcognitive abilities. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 126–132.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications.2nd ed. Eugene, OR: ADI Press.

Eylon, B. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four researchperspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251–301.

Gleason, M., & Miller, S. K. (2001). Reading strategies for understanding earth science,Eugene, OR: Carnine & Associates.

Grossen, B., Romance, N., & Vitale, M. (1994). Science: Educational tools for diverse learners.School Psychology Review, 23(3), 442–463.

Lloyd, C.V. (1989, December). The relationship between scientific literacy and high schoolbiology textbooks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Con-ference, Austin, TX.

Lockheed, J. (1990). Toward a scientific practice of mathematics education. In M. Gardner,J.G. Greeno, F. Reif, A.H. Schoenfeld, A. Disessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientificprocess of science education ( pp. 69–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1995). Teaching science to students with disabilities ingeneral education settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4), 10–13.

Mayer, R. E. (1989).Models for understanding.Review of EducationalResearch, 59(1), 43–64.McCleery, J. A., & Tindal, G. A. (1999, Jan.=Feb.). Teaching the scientific method to at-risk

students and students with learning disabilities through concept anchoring for explicitinstruction. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 7–18.

Miller, S. K., & Carnine, D. (2000). Understanding earth science. Eugene, OR: Carnine &Associates.

Mitman, A., Mergendoller, J., Marchman, V., & Packer, M. (1987). Instruction addressingthe components of scientific literacy and its relation to student outcomes. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 14, 611–623.

Muthukrishna, A., Carnine, D., Grossen, B., & Miller, S. (1993). Children’s alternative frame-works: Should they be directly addressed in science instruction? Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 30(3), 233–248.


Newport, J. F. (1990). Elementary science texts: What’s wrong with them? EducationalDigest, 59, 68–69.

Niedelman, M. (1992). Problem solving and transfer. In D. Carnine & E. Kameenui ( Eds.),Higher order thinking: Designing curriculum for mainstreamed students( pp. 137–156). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Osborn, J. H., Jones, B. F., & Stein, M. L. (1985). The case for improving textbook programs:An issue of quality. Educational Leadership, 42, 9–16.

O’Sullivan, C. Y., & Weiss, A. R. (1999). Student Work and Teacher Practices in Science,A Report on What Students Know and Can Do. U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement.

O’Sullivan, C. Y., Lauko, M. A., Grigg, W. S., Qian, J., & Zhang, J. (2003). The Nations ReportCard: Science 2000. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research andImprovement.

Reys, R. E., Rybolt, B. J., Bestgen, B. J., & Wyatt, J. W. (1982). Process used by good com-putational estimators. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 183–201.

Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leader-ship, 43, 60–69.

Ross, J. A., & Robinson, F. G. (1987). The use of rule structures in teaching experimentaldesign to secondary-school students. Science Education, 71, 571–589.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.),Cognitive science and mathematics education ( pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Sullivan, G. S. (1994). Promoting relational thinking skills:Elaborative interrogations for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 60,450–457.

Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicitteaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-per-forming students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 387–408.

Smith, E., Blakeslee, T., & Anderson, C. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with con-ceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2),111–126.

Smith, M. U., & Good, R. (1984). Problem solving and classical genetics: Successful versusunsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 895–912.

Steely, D., & Carnine, D. (2001). Understanding physical science. Eugene, OR: Carnine &Associates.

Sullivan, G. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1995). Reasoning and remembering:Coaching students with learning disabilities to think. The Journal of Special Education,29, 310–322.

Tindal, G., Nolet, V., & Blake, G. (1992). Focus on teaching and learning in content classes.Training Module No. 3. Eugene: University of Oregon, Research, Consultation, andTeaching Program.

Tobin, K., Espinet, M., Byrd, S., & Adams, D. (1988). Alternative perspectives on effectivescience teaching. Science Education, 72, 433–451.

Whitehead, A. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Wynne, P. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s

learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 741–748.Woodward, J. (1994). Effects of curriculum discourse style on eight graders’ recall and

problem solving in earth science. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 299–314.


expository text - science

Documents