A Longitudinal Study of Middle and Secondary

Level Science Textbook Vocabulary Loads

Fred H. Groves
Missouri State University

Middle and secondary science textbooks have long been a primary support for instruction, often leading to heavy
emphasis on domain-specific vocabulary. A longitudinal study was conducted to compare vocabulary loads of science
textbooks published since 2010 to results of two previous studies going back to 1983. In each study, textbooks chosen
represent convenience samples of commonly used middle and secondary science textbooks. Vocabulary emphasis in
science textbooks remains high, and may present a problem for struggling readers and English language learners (ELL).
Some vocabulary loads were found to approach or even exceed recommended limits for vocabulary instruction in modern
foreign language courses. Also, science vocabulary can present an additional challenge for native English speakers and
ELLs since many terms have no common colloquial English or native language equivalents. Recommendations for how to
promote effective science vocabulary development are provided. Overall, over three decades there has been little change
in heavy emphasis on vocabulary in middle and secondary science textbooks.

Science textbooks have long been used as a foundation
for instruction in middle- and secondary-level science
courses, and this has led to a heavy focus on science
vocabulary (Groves, 1995; Harms & Yager, 1981; Yager,
1983); a focus which may have serious consequences for
native English speakers, especially disadvantaged native
speakers, as well as English language learners (ELLs)
(Casteel & Isom, 2009; Snow & Uccelli, 2009). However,
vocabulary acquisition is very important in academic
studies. In fact, Wilkins (as cited in Folse, 2011, p. 366)
said “while without grammar very little can be conveyed,
without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed.” Manzo,
Manzo, and Thomas (2006) point out that educators must
find ways to help students learn the low frequency words,
of which science terms are examples. And, they warn that
“inadequate vocabulary knowledge is a major contributing
factor to the impoverished learning of disadvantaged
students” (p. 613).
This was a replication study to compare vocabulary loads
of recent middle and secondary science textbooks with
estimates of such loads found in two earlier studies by
Yager (1983) and Groves (1995) to see what changes, if
any, had occurred. Science instruction is treated here as
analogous to foreign language instruction because of the
emphasis on vocabulary, especially the emphasis on low
frequency academic terms. Also, science may seem to be
quite literally a foreign language for many students.
Two questions influenced this study. First, have the
levels of vocabulary in middle and secondary level science
textbooks over the past 30 years changed? Second, how do
320
the vocabulary loads of the science textbooks compare with
current thinking on vocabulary needs of struggling readers
and ELLs?
In 1983, Robert Yager suggested that one problem with
science education is an overload of vocabulary caused, in
part, by a heavy emphasis on memorization, and this study
was later replicated by Groves (1995) using a more
nuanced approach that supported Yager’s findings.
Wandersee (1988), in discussion of problems with
terminology in biology, observed that “terminology can
actually be a barrier to further learning in biology if it’s not
taught properly” (p. 99) and Brown and Concannon (2014)
noted that “science courses are all too often taught as a
litany of facts leading many students to focus on rote
memorization of terminologies instead of developing deep
conceptual understanding” (p. 197). Songer and Linn
(1991) argued that, if students see science as a set of facts
listed in textbooks, they may incorrectly conclude that
mere memorization is a logical way to study science. They
further argued that this idea of how to study science can
lead to “static beliefs” about science rather than “dynamic
beliefs,” and that holding static beliefs can lead to negative
attitudes toward science. Csikszentmihalyi (1990),
regarding attitudes, points out “. . . the obstacles that stand
in the way of learning are primarily motivational, not
cognitive in nature” (p. 118). Thus, while emphasis on
vocabulary is important, an over-emphasis on science
vocabulary may actually impede effective science
instruction. However, a strong vocabulary is necessary for
understanding both spoken and written language (Johnson
Volume 116 (6)
 Science Vocabulary
& Pearson, 1984), but even over 75 years ago Curtis
(1938) pointed out that science textbook authors
overestimated the vocabulary comprehension of students.
Science vocabulary is an important factor in content
literacy, also known as academic vocabulary, academic
domain knowledge, or content-specific words (Bauman &
Graves, 2010; Nassaju, 2006; O’Brien, Stewart & Moje,
1995). Language Standard 6 in the Common Core State
Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010)
calls for both general academic and domain-specific
vocabulary acquisition. This can present problems for
struggling readers who are especially vulnerable to failure
with content (Brozo & Flynt, 2007). Jetton and Alexander
(2004) state “students who do not become fluent in the
‘language’ of academic domains are unlikely to achieve
competence” (p. 17). Further, Piercey (1982) said
“probably the most difficult of all of the languages in the
upper grade curriculum are those of the various sciences,
botany, biology, chemistry, and physics” (p. 484), and she
goes on to say “For those who elect the course known as
general science, the language barriers are sometimes
unsurmountable” (p. 484). In a study of urban middle
schools, Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, and Faller (2010) found
that academic vocabulary “is a particular source of
difficulty for students who struggle with comprehension”
(p. 5), and this also applies to ELLs and disadvantaged
native speakers who are struggling readers. They point out
that such readers tend to be “word callers,” which are
students who can read print but without understanding what
they are reading. So, Piercey’s point made over 30 years
ago is still very pertinent. Also, science has been viewed by
both teachers and students as a set of facts to be memorized
(Groves, 1995; Duschl, 1990). As Kelly-Jackson and
Jackson (2011) state “in many science classrooms, students
are taught that science is acultural and void of any
connections to cultural and social identities and
communities” (p. 411). This idea of science clashes with
discourse theories that argue that language exists within
context (Gee, 2008). Karlberg (2012) notes that western
science “had tended to view language merely as a neutral or
transparent medium of thought and communication” (p. 1),
and says that “language, and language use, do not merely
reflect or represent our social and mental realities, but they
actually help construct or constitute these realities” (p. 1).
In this context, science classrooms can be viewed as a type
of discourse community with its own language that is
heavily mediated by textbooks, and this can present further
hindrances for struggling readers, including ELLs who can
represent other such communities. Findings such as these
School Science and Mathematics
beg the question do science textbooks continue to
emphasize academic vocabulary too much? Also, overly
high and difficult vocabulary demands may lead to science
avoidance and disinterest, thus contributing to the
noticeable drop in student interest in science that begins in
the middle school years (Groves, 1995; Sturtevant & Kim,
2009). Indeed, according to expectancy value theory
(Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), students may have low
motivation if they see the reading and vocabulary tasks as
either not worthwhile or too difficult.
Yager’s 1983 analysis of science textbook vocabulary
loads resulted in estimates which were much higher than
what is recommended for a year-long foreign language
course (Rivers, 1975; Valette & Valette, 1985). The
sampling procedures for the 1983 study seemed weak, so
another study was conducted on the textbooks examined in
that study (Groves, 1995) that used more structured
sampling procedures, and this resulted in some estimates
that were still as high as, or higher than, what was
recommended for foreign language textbooks. However,
the results of this study are considerably lower than what
was found in the earlier studies. Results show that
vocabulary loads in recent (2010–2012) science textbooks
are still high, with some books still higher than what has
been recommended for foreign language courses. However,
the recent textbooks include efforts to provide assistance for
ELL, something that was not noted in the two earlier
studies.
Methodology
The textbooks chosen for this study represent a
convenience sample of middle and secondary science
textbooks used by a major local school district with over
24,000 students (Table 1). Because this was a replication
study, analysis followed the procedures in Yager’s 1983
study and Groves’s 1995 study to maintain conformity with
those studies. Only pages with narration were used to assess
total vocabulary loads to keep in line with Yager’s study.
Pages which had one half or more of narration were
counted as full pages, while pages with less than one half
page of narration were counted as one half page. Diagrams,
pictures and other visual images were not included in these
measurements as they were not included in the previous
two studies and because, according to Abadzi (2008), such
multimedia “pertains to higher-order reasoning of people
who are already automatic readers and is in some respects a
misnomer” (p. 597). Also not included were vignettes with
special topics such as famous scientists across history,
examples of scientific research outside of the standard
textbook narration, and activity guidelines, again because
321
 Science Vocabulary
Table 1
Science Textbooks Included in Study
Textbook
Pearson 6th Grade Interactive Science, 2011
Pearson Interactive Science, 2011, 7th Grade Life Science Emphasis
Pearson Interactive Science, 2011, 8th Grade
McGraw-Hill (i)Science—Earth & Space Science 2.0, Vol 1 and 2, 2012
McGraw-Hill (i) Science—Physical Science Vol. 1 and 2, 2012
McGraw-Hill Integrated (i) Science, 2012†
McGraw-Hill Integrated (i) Science, 2012‡
Pearson Biology, 2010
Pearson Chemistry, 2012
Holt McDougal Earth Science, 2010
Introductory pages, laboratory pages, appendices, glossaries, indexes were not counted.
†
Life Science emphasis.
‡
Earth Science emphasis.
this also was not done in the first two studies. As a result,
the estimated number of pages of narration was much lower
than that estimated from simply checking book page
numbers. Then, a sample set of pages was identified by
counting every fifth page, and these pages were analyzed
for domain specific terms that are largely limited to
scientific concepts and settings such as isomer, nucleic
acid, helicase, ionosphere, and regolith. A list of all science
terms on the sample pages was then created for each
textbook.
The total number of terms in each book’s glossary was
noted as a comparison to the estimated total science terms
for the book and, in each case, the estimated total was
noticeably higher than the glossary count (Table 1).
To estimate the total number of science terms in a
textbook, the procedure used in the two earlier studies was
followed. The total estimated number of pages in the book
was divided by the total number of pages in the sample to
produce a ratio. This ratio was then multiplied by the
number of terms found in the sampled pages to determine
the estimated total for the book. Also, the individual
modules in the Pearson Integrated Science series for middle
school were analyzed for further detail.
Results
As was found in the earlier studies (Groves, 1995; Yager,
1983), vocabulary loads for some science textbooks are still
near the 1,475 words per year maximum for foreign French
and Spanish courses suggested 40 years ago by Rivers
(1975). Textbooks used in the two studies are not the same
so direct comparisons cannot be made. However, the
general pattern for the textbooks used in this study shows
322
Total No. Glossary
of Count
Text Pages
687 473
927 661
490 115
855 360
736 305
782 244
508 366
1,023 737
895 479
871 391
higher estimates than was the case for those in the previous
study. The 2012 Biology textbook’s estimate is 2,974 terms
whereas that for the 1980’s BSCS Green Biology textbook
was 1,899 terms. The Earth Science textbook used in the
first study was estimated to have 992 terms, while the 2012
Earth Science textbook’s estimate is 1,725, which is much
higher than in the earlier textbook. But, the 1980s Modern
Chemistry textbook used in the first study had an estimated
2,950 terms while the 2012 Chemistry textbook had only
1,438 terms which may indicate an effort to reduce
vocabulary load. The 2012 Physical Science textbook had
the lowest estimate at 946 terms and also had the lowest
average number of terms at 3.27 per page among the
current series of textbooks. The Grade 6 Interactive Science
textbook had 1,387 terms with an average of 6.07 terms per
page, while the 2012 Integrated Science textbook
(emphasis on Life Science) with 7.67 terms per page, was
the highest per page estimate of all of the textbooks in this
study (Table 2). Also, the variation in terms per page was
noticeable for the Pearson middle school science modules,
with a low of 2.73 for the Grade 7 Ecology & Environment
module to a high of 6.71 for the Grade 6 Earth’s Surface
module (Table 3).
Discussion
That middle and secondary level science textbooks have
vocabulary loads similar to, or even higher than, that for
first and second year foreign language courses (Rivers,
1975; Valette & Valette, 1985) is a potential problem. More
recently, research on vocabulary load and acquisition has
produced various results. Nation (2001) said that 2,000
words is reasonable for a 1,000 clock hour program in
Volume 116 (6)
 Science Vocabulary

Table 2 Science textbook vocabulary loads can also present a

Page and Science Term Estimates
double challenge for native English-speaking students and
Textbook Total Terms Estimated Average ELLs as many, if not most, science terms in modern
Counted Terms Terms/Page textbooks have no common colloquial English or native
Pearson 6th Gr. 273 1,387 6.07 language equivalents. Further, many of these terms also
Pearson 7th Gr. 303 1,599 4.98 lack semantic transparency which means the inability to
Pearson 8th Gr. 174 823 4.97
McGraw-Hill detect meaning from the structure of a word or term. Also,
Integrated Science* 368 1,914 6.33 Wandersee, 1988), in pointing out the problem of
McGraw-Hill multivalent terms described by Ryan (1985), stated
Integrated Science† 253 1,404 7.67
Holt Earth Science 314 1,564 3.83
McGraw-Hill The term “cell”, for example, has different meanings in
Earth Science 331 1,725 5.97 biology, meteorology, chemistry, mathematics and
McGraw-Hill nucleonics. She asserts that if we fail to make a
Physical Science 190 946 3.27
Pearson Biology 626 2,974 5.60 conscious effort to point out such conflicting meanings,
Pearson Chemistry 336 1,438 4.25 we shouldn’t be surprised if many students become
confused and think science is too difficult for them.
*Earth Science emphasis.
†
Life Science emphasis. (p. 99)

Thus, both native English speakers and ELLs can be

faced with added cognitive demands when trying to learn
English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. Laufer (1992),
science terms. Greene (2013) points out that
focusing on reading ability, suggests 3,000 words as a basic
threshold for reading ability in English, and Milton (2006),
English Language Learners (ELLs) face the double
in a study of English learners of French, found the
challenge of learning academic content as well as the
vocabulary knowledge gains over a seven-year period were
language in which it is presented. Teachers have
about 300 words or lower per year. This suggests that the
traditionally treated language learning as a process of
maximum gain over the seven-year period was less than
imparting words and structures or rules to students,
2,100 words. In comparison, in one year the Pearson
separate from the process of teaching content
Biology textbook potentially introduces over 2,900 science
knowledge. This approach has left ELLs especially
terms, and the McGraw-Hill Interactive Science textbook
unprepared to work with the complex texts and the
has over 1,900 words (Table 2). However, data like this still
academic types of language that are required to engage
may not provide science teachers with a clear guide as to
in content area practices.
how many science terms are effective and how many are
too much. Overturf, Montgomery and Smith (2015), Table 3
referring to Tier 3 words which are equivalent to “domain- Pearson Integrated Science Modules
specific” language in Common Core, suggest that middle Textbook Total Estimated Average
level teachers focus on five to seven words for deep study Terms Terms Terms/
per two-week vocabulary study cycle. If one assumes that Counted Page
there are 36 weeks in a school year, this would lead to Grade 6
about 90–125 word per year; far less than the results for all Forces and Energy 71 347 5.07
of the textbooks in this study. Folse (2011) in a discussion Water and Atmosphere 80 454 6.39
Earth’s Surface 57 285 6.71
of how long it takes to learn our own native language (over Earth’s Structure 65 302 6.49
a period of years), quotes Cobb (1999) who said “Students Grade 7
typically need to know words measured in thousands, not Diversity of Life 111 612 6.00
Cells and Heredity 57 316 5.18
hundreds, but receive language instruction measured in Ecology and Environment 45 206 2.73
months, not years” (p. 345). From these studies, it seems Human body 90 464 5.62
evident that science teachers need to select a comparatively Grade 8
Astronomy and Space Science 47 220 4.27
small list of essential domain-specific terms from their Sound and Light 45 222 5.62
textbooks for students to work with both intensively and Introduction To Chemistry 82 382 5.13
extensively.
School Science and Mathematics 323
 Science Vocabulary
Further, science vocabulary increases the cognitive
demands on students since it represents predominantly
domain-specific language, rather than general academic
language. And, even though all of the textbooks examined in
this study include Glossary definitions of science terms in
Spanish, this still involves Spanish domain-specific and
academic language that can mitigate effectiveness. Also, such
glossaries do little for native speakers of other languages.
Recommendations
We need to keep in mind that science learners are not
just learning new concepts in science; they are also
learning a new language with many terms having few
equivalents in colloquial English. Wandersee (1985)
reminds us “not every term in a textbook, for instance, is of
equal conceptual weight” (p. 346). But all science students
can benefit from continuous exposure to carefully selected
essential science terms (Kelley et al., 2010). Examples
of selected science terms are predict, infer, model,
demonstrate, tentative, evidence, and observe/observation.
Also, key high-use science terms such as acid, base,
ecosystem, metamorphic, protein, conservation, force,
inertia, reaction, and adaptation should be emphasized.
For struggling students, including ELLs, we should employ
word-learning strategies (Kelley et.al, 2010), and multiple
coordinated reading comprehension strategies (Torgeson
et al., 2007). They also recommend focusing on students’
prior knowledge, such as through building on science
learning gained in previous grades.
Greene (2013) recommends use of heterogeneous
grouping and scaffolding instruction, such as graphic
organizers and other visual aids, to assist ELLs with
vocabulary development—approaches that also help native
English speakers with low reading skills. Goldenberg (2013)
states that ELLs need sheltered instruction strategies and
provides a useful list of specific approaches for helping
these students develop and maintain adequate vocabulary
and reading comprehension through middle school and
high school. Hyland and Tse (2007), when discussing
the usefulness of teaching students general academic
vocabulary, pointed out “that the different practices and
discourses of disciplinary communities undermine the
usefulness of such lists and recommend that teachers help
students develop a more restricted, discipline-based lexical
repertoire” (p. 235). They found that a focus on academic
vocabulary lists, such as Coxhead’s Academic Word List
(2000), may not help students because the meaning of many
terms can differ across academic disciplines. Instead, they
recommend helping students develop more restricted
discipline-based vocabularies, which puts the onus on us as
324
science teachers to identify which terms are truly important
for our students to know in order to grasp major science
concepts. Also, to avoid reliance on rote memorization,
Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, and Gamoran (2013)
recommend discussion-based approaches that require
students to use science terms in class discussions to promote
vocabulary development and literacy performance. Finally,
Manzo et al. (2006) state “Professional literature reviews
have repeatedly reported that most any attention to words
and their (often multiple, variable, and shifting) meanings
increases vocabulary acquisition” (p. 614).
We science educators need to become more knowledgeable
and skilled in the use of content reading strategies. To this
end, it is important that we coordinate these efforts with
content reading specialists. For students with low reading
skills and weak vocabulary, which can include both native
English speakers and ELLs, science can be a foreign language
in which the textbooks they use may present vocabulary
loads equal to or higher than those recommended for foreign
language study. Also, research on second language
acquisition suggests that students with strong first language
(L1) skills will be more successful learning a second
language (L2) than those with lesser L1 skills. Thus, viewing
learning science as analogous in some ways to L2 acquisition
can inform our understanding of how to help student learn
science vocabulary. Dixon et al. (2012) remind us that
strong English skills do make a difference in science
vocabulary acquisition. Terms that are essential to promote
understanding of major science concepts and principles
should be the focus of science vocabulary development—not
the development of vocabulary as an end in itself. Kelley
et al. (2010) state that “vocabulary instruction should focus
on deeply understanding a relatively small number of
words, their elements, and related words in rich contexts.”
Through this, students can develop a deeper understanding
and appreciation of what science really is, plus a better
understanding of the natural world around us.
References
Abadzi, H. (2008). Efficient learning for the poor: new insights into literacy
acquisition for children. International Review of Education, 54(5/6), 581–
604.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2013). Discussion-
based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and
student performance in middle and high school English. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
Bauman, J., & Graves, M. (2010). What is academic vocabulary? Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 4–12.
Brown, P., & Concannon, J. (2014). Investigating student perceptions of
vocabulary and learning in middle school science. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 1(3), 196–206.
Brozo, W., & Flynt, S. (2007). Content literacy: Fundamental toolkit
elements. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 192–194.
Volume 116 (6)
 Science Vocabulary
Casteel, C., & Isom, B. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy
learning. The Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538–545.
Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on
concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12, 345–360.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2),
213–238.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus,
119(2), 115–140.
Curtis, F. (1938). Investigations of vocabulary in textbooks of science for
secondary schools. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J., Wu, S., Su, J., Burgess-Brigham, R., . . ., Snow
C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis
from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5–60.
Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of
theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Folse, K. (2011). Applying L2 lexical research findings in ESL teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 362–369.
Gee, J. (2008). What video games have to teach us about learning and
literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greene, R. (2013). 5 key strategies for ELL instruction. Retrieved from https://
teachingchannel.org/blog/2013/10/25/strategies-for-ell-instruction/
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners. American
Educator, Summer, 4–38.
Groves, F. (1995). An analysis of science vocabulary load presented in
selected secondary textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5),
231–235.
Harms, N., & Yager, R. (1981). What research says to the science teacher
(Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Hyland, & Tse. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly,
41(2), 235–253.
Jetton, T., & Alexander, P. (2004). Domains, teaching, and literacy. In T.
Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 15–
39). New York: Guilford.
Johnson, D., & Pearson, P. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary (2nd ed.). Ft.
Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Karlberg, M. (2012). Discourse theory and peace. In D. Christie (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of peace psychology (pp. 1–5). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
Kelley, J., Lesaux, N., Kiefer, M., & Faller, S. (2010). Effective academic
vocabulary instruction in the urban middle school. The Reading Teacher,
64(1), 5–14.
Kelly-Jackson, C., & Jackson, T. (2011). Meeting their fullest potential: The
beliefs and teaching of a culturally relevant science teacher. Creative
Education, 2(4), 408–413.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension?
In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics.
London: Macmillan.
Manzo, A., Manzo, U., & Thomas, M. (2006). Rationale for systematic
vocabulary development: Antidote for state mandates. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(7), 610–619.
School Science and Mathematics
Milton, J. (2006). Language lite: Learning French vocabulary in school.
Journal of French Language Studies 16(2), 187–205.
Nassaju, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge
and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern
Language Journal, 90(3), 387–401.
Nation, ISP. (2001). How many high frequency words are there in English? In
M. Gill, A. Johnson, L. Koski, R. Sell, & B. Warvik (Eds.), Language,
learning and literature: Studies presented to Hakan Ringbom. Abo: Abo
Academi.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards. Washington,
DC: Authors.
O’Brien, D., Stewart, R., & Moje, E. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult
to infuse into the secondary: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and
school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 442–463.
Overturf, B., Montgomery, L., & Smith, M. (2015). Vocabularians:
Integrated word study in the middle grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Piercey, D. (1982). Reading activities in content areas: An idea-book for
middle and secondary schools (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rivers, W. (1975). A practical guide to the teaching of French. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Ryan, J. (1985). The language gap: Common words with technical meanings.
Journal of Chemical Education, 62(12), 1098–1099.
Snow, C., & Ucelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In
D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy
(pp. 112–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Songer, N., & Linn, M. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence
knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 749–
784.
Sturtevant, E., & Kim, G. (2009). Literacy motivation and school/non-school
literacies among students enrolled in a middle-school ESOL program.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 49: 68–85.
Torgeson, J., Houston, D., Rissman, L., Decker, S., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S.,
. . ., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A
guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://
www.centeroninstruction.org/academic-literacy-instruction-for-adolescents-
a-guidance-document-from-the-center-on-instruction
Valette, J., & Valette, R. (1985). French for fluency. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath and Company.
Wandersee, J. (1985). Are there too many terms to learn in biology? The
American Biology Teacher, 47(6), 346–347.
Wandersee, J. (1988). The terminology problem in biology education: A
reconnaissance. The American Biology Teacher, 50(2), 97–100.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold.
Yager, R. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577–588.
325