Abstract
Undergraduate preservice teachers examined the Science Texts Analysis Model during a university course. The Science Texts Analysis Model is designed to support teachers as they help students prepare to engage with the arguments in science texts. The preservice teachers received instruction during class time on campus before employing the model when teaching science to elementary and middle school students in Baltimore city. This article describes how the preservice teachers applied their knowledge of the Science Texts Analysis Model within this real world context. Preservice teachers’ reactions to the methodology are examined in order to provide recommendations for future college courses.
Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.
References
Arnold, N. (2013). Comment ca marche? Moteurs et voitures. Paris: Gallimard Jeunesse
Croce, K. (2014). Assessment of Burmese refugee students’ meaning making of scientific informational texts. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14, 389-424.
Croce, K. (2015). Latino(a) and Burmese elementary school students reading scientific informational texts: The interrelationship of the language of the texts, students’ talk, and conceptual change theory. Linguistics and Education, 29, 94-106.
Croce, K. (2017). Navigating assessment with linguistically diverse learners. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing
Colman, J. & Goldston, J. (2011). What do you see? Science and Children, 49(1), 42-47.
Colman, J. & McTigue, E. (2013). Methods & Strategies: Unlocking the power of visual communication. Science and Children, 50(5), 73-77.
Cosgrove, B. (2004). Weather. New York: DK Publishing.
Dusling, J. (1998). Bugs! Bugs! Bugs! New York: DK Publishing
Fang, Z. & Coatom, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult literacy, 56, 627-632.
Gibbons, G. (1991). From seed to plant. New York: Holiday House.
Green, R. (1986). Caterpillars. New York: Mondo publishing
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press
Kress, G. (1999). Genre and the changing contexts for English language arts. Language Arts, 76, 461-469.
Mawyer and Johnson (2017). Read like a scientist. The Science Teacher, 84(10). 43-48.
Miller, D. & Czegan, D. (2016). Integrating the liberal arts and chemistry: A series of general chemistry assignments to develop science literacy. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 864-869.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Seeing students learn science: Integrating assessment and instruction in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K–12. Science education standards. Board on science education, Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards (2013). Connections to the Common Core Standards for literacy in science and technical subjects. http://static.nsta.org/ngss/AppendixM-ConnectionsToTheCCSSForLiteracy-6.12.13.pdf
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
Shore, L. (2010). How to make slime. Mankato: MN, Capstone Press.
Simon, S. (1999).Tornadoes. New York: HarperCollins Publishing.
Simon, S. (2006). Volcanoes. New York: HarperCollins Publishing.
Parsons, A. (1990). Amazing Spiders. Dorling Kindersley: London.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st Century Learning. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Wicks, M. (2016). Science Comics: Coral Reefs: Cities of the Ocean. New York: First Second.
Wiesner, D. (2006). Flotsam. New York: Clarion Books