Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Building bridges: using science as a

tool to teach reading and writing

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

To cite this article: Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson (2004) Building bridges: using
science as a tool to teach reading and writing, Educational Action Research, 12:2, 197-218, DOI:
10.1080/09650790400200245
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790400200245

Published online: 20 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1830

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
Educational Action Research, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004

Building Bridges: using science as a tool to

teach reading and writing

DELNA NIXON
Finley Elementary School, USA
VALARIE L. AKERSON
Indiana University, USA

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to track the development of fifth-graders’ reading
and writing skills in the context of ecosystems science content using an action research design. A
collection of students' work, a researcher journal, video-taped class sessions, student science
journals and a weekly book choice checklist were used as data sources. Student journals, guided
note taking and the PAR (Preparation-Assistance-Reflection) Lesson Framework were used for
writing activities connected to the science content, and pre-reading activities, PAR Lesson
Framework and book choice checklist were used as reading activities related to science content.
It was found that interdisciplinary instruction of reading and science offered more advantages to
reading than writing and science did to writing. In fact, the constraints of teaching various
writing structures in the context of science often outweighed any benefits to either writing or
science understanding. Implications include maintaining specific disciplinary instruction when
necessary to ensure students meet both science and language arts objectives.

Introduction
There are many reasons to consider the interdisciplinary instruction of science and language
arts. The most compelling of these reasons is the evidence showing cognitive parallels
between the two subjects (Romance & Vitale, 1992; Baker & Saul, 1994; Glynn & Muth,
1994; Rivard, 1994). However, whether there is equal developmental progress in both
disciplines concurrently is still unclear. The focus of recent research has been upon using
reading and writing to teach science (e.g. Akerson & Flanigan, 2000). The results of this
research have persuasively shown that there is a clear benefit to science comprehension when
the interdisciplinary instruction of the two subjects is done with careful planning (Romance
& Vitale, 1992; Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Glynn & Muth, 1994; Keys, 1994; Schmidt,

197
Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

1999). What has not been investigated in depth is whether reading and writing skills also
show significant development through this interdisciplinary instruction. The shortage of
adequate class time is a persuasive reason to combine subject areas, but at the foundation of
quality learning in most subjects is the ability to read and write. Moreover, if there is no
evidence that reading and writing improve while using science as a context, it is not
worthwhile to always teach in an interdisciplinary fashion. It is important to focus upon the
impact of the interdisciplinary instruction of these subject areas on the reading and writing
objectives, as well as the science objectives. Thus, the focus of this study is to track
development of reading and writing skills when taught in an interdisciplinary science unit.

Purpose
Glynn & Muth (1994) state that ‘learning to read prepares a student for reading to learn’ (p.
1060) and that ‘learning to write prepares students for writing to learn’ (p. 1064). Thus,
learning to read and write influences students’ abilities to use those skills to learn science.
The question remains as to whether students can learn to read and write successfully within
the context of informational content like science. Meaningful activities that teach writing and
reading, such as searching through science text and writing a report, can be excellent
methods for promoting language art skills, but do not necessarily engage students in actually
understanding the science concepts (Dickinson et al, 1997). The use of interactive, inquiry-
based science activities to create a reason for reading and writing could theoretically
establish a methodical approach to learning that would benefit the development of these
language arts skills and may also aid in learning science content.

Background
Casteel & Isom (1994) emphasise the interrelated connection between language arts and
science in their statement that ‘one way to ensure improved science learning is to begin with
what students know about the reading and writing processes’ (p. 538). Science can provide a
context through which students can communicate their ideas through already known
language arts skills. They can then further their language arts’ understandings by using
science as a context. Smith & Johnson (1994) believe that ‘literature can become the lens
through which content is viewed’ (p. 198) and that the interdisciplinary connections of the
curriculum set the stage for students to read, think, communicate and make decisions about
all kinds of information that they encounter.

While science and language arts may have objectives that are at times disparate
(Dickinson & Young, 1998; Akerson, 2001) there are also sub-structural elements in both
which are analogous (Romance & Vitale, 1992; Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Schmidt, 1999).
Reading, writing and science all require a combination of the utilisation of cognitive
processes and the

198
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

activation of conceptual knowledge. The cognitive strategies that are applicable to reading
and writing are comparable with the strategies used to construct science understanding
(Baker & Saul, 1994; Glynn & Muth, 1994; Rivard, 1994). A study by Keys (1994)
demonstrated a direct correlation between students’ writing for structured investigation
reports and the development of scientific reasoning skill. Casteel & Isom (1994) formulated
an illustration of the supportive nature of literacy processes to science understanding that
included predicting, organising, questioning and evaluating. The process of reading begins
with identifying the topic of the text and then using relevant background knowledge about
that topic; the initial step of experimenting in science involves identifying the problem and
making connections and observations about it. Padilla et al (1991) believe that ‘it would be
naïve to assume that a one-to-one relationship exists among all the science and reading
processes’, but they also state that ‘several critical similarities exist’ and that we can ‘use
these similarities to apply the skills taught in science to comprehension of written
assignments’ (p. 17). (See Table I for a comparison of reading and science elements.) Liu &
Akerson (2002) found that fourth grade students’ science inquiry skills improved as a result
of writing in science, but state that a need exists to explore the influence of such a curriculum
on reading and writing skills. There obviously is good reason to use language arts skills of
reading and writing to aid in science instruction, and science instruction to prompt reading
and writing. Integration of the curriculum involves the activation of conceptual knowledge
and cognitive processes that help create a meaningful connection.

Reading
Use observation of textual elements to
predict topic – format, pictures, cover
and title pages
Identifying topic of the text
Use background knowledge to make
connections
Make inferences about what is
happening in the text
Draw conclusions about what happened
in the text and why
Science
Use observation of materials and
activities to predict causes
Identifying the problem that needs
explanation
Use background knowledge to make
connections
Make inferences about observations
and interactions
Draw conclusions about what is
happening with the materials and why

Table I. Common elements between reading and science.

Research Questions
As prior research discussed above has shown, the process skills that science and language
arts have in common are making and verifying predictions, making inferences and drawing
conclusions. It seems that the use of hands-on activities, which are inherent to a good science
program, could provide a stimulating arena for the concurrent teaching of the basic

199
 Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

skills in communication. Drawing upon the parallels between the two disciplines, the
questions that drove this study were:
 How does the use of science topics during language arts instruction influence the
 development of reading and writing skills?
 Does using science to provide a purpose for reading and writing influence non fiction
science reading choices?

Procedures
Because I was interested in exploring the influence of a science context on the development
of elementary students’ language arts skills, I designed an action research project to be
carried out in my internship in a fifth grade classroom. While I was interested in what other
researchers had to say about the subject, it seemed that most researchers had studied the
influence of writing and reading skills on science knowledge. Moreover, I wanted to see the
kinds of strategies I could use, as a classroom teacher, to influence my students’ reading and
writing skills in the context of science. Thus, I decided to use an action research project
where I designed and carried out a study in my own internship placement, using Hubbard &
Power (1993) as a guide. I also worked with a university researcher for support and advice in
designing, carrying out, analysing and interpreting the data from the study.

Intervention
The setting of this study was a typical fifth grade classroom in Southeastern Washington.
There were 27 students, 16 girls and 11 boys, between the ages of 10 and 12. The school was
set in a middle-class neighborhood. The research was conducted during the solo-teaching
phase of my internship. The cooperating teacher had no special interest in science, but did
teach it on a regular basis. The science content was ecosystems, which was already selected
by my cooperating teacher. I used the National Science Resource Center (NSRC, 1996)
Science and Technology for Children Ecosystems curriculum for instruction. As is
emphasised in this curriculum, I focused on inquiry methods and hands-on investigations
during science. The student reading selections were included in the student guides. The
investigations included observing and making inferences of student-built terrariums and
aquaria under different simulated conditions, such as pollution. The inquiry and hands-on
science instruction took place during the class time allotted for science instruction.

My definition of interdisciplinary instruction was modeled after Akins

& Akerson (2002), which delineates a distinction between integrated and interdisciplinary
instruction. Integrated instruction is a kind of instruction where the distinctions between
disciplines are lost, where teachers are not making explicit when students are learning
science or when they are learning reading, for instance. I used the interdisciplinary
instruction definition, which states that students can use and see connections between

200
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

disciplines, but the disciplines still remain distinct. That is, whilst students use reading and
writing to learn science and science is used as a context for reading and writing, they still
know the distinctions between the disciplines. Thus, the language arts content was taught in
an interdisciplinary fashion with the science content.

The specific objectives for the language arts portion of the study were for students to
increase the amount of time spent reading non-fiction science trade books and appropriately
use various writing structures, such as expository, business letter format, descriptive, writing
to learn (journal) and essay. The reading and writing intervention, modeled after the PAR
Lesson Framework (Richardson & Morgan, 2000) took place during the language arts
portion of the day, and took the entire class time allotted for literacy instruction. This
framework for content-reading instruction included the following steps:

 Preparation, which considers textual features and student background knowledge;


  Assistance, where the instructional context for the lesson is provided;
 Reflection, which provides critical thinking opportunities and openings for extension
activities and enhancement (pp. 6-7).

Each of these steps included a writing segment, which focused upon the science topic that
was being investigated.
During the Preparation portion the students performed hands-on science activities and
experimentation. The reading material used for this investigation was the Ecosystems Student
Activity Books (NSRC, 1996). They completed What-I-Know-Activity (WIKA, Figure 1) and
Anticipation Guide sheets (Figure 2) to help preview and ask questions about the upcoming
reading.

What I know activity sheet: ___ Topic_________

What I know What I know What I need to What I know What I still
about ... about ... after know as I read after reading need to know
preview

Figure 1. Sample ‘What I Know Activity Sheet’.

201
Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

Anticipation Guide: (topic)

Instructions: Before reading pages ... through ... in ... place a check mark in the space to the left of
each of the statements with which you agree. Then during the reading, place a check on the right of
the ones you find to be true. BE SURE YOU ARE ABLE TO REFER BACK TO THE TEXT TO
PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST EACH STATEMENT.

True False True or false statement from text. True False

Figure 2. Sample Anticipation Guide.

The writing portion at this stage consisted of guided note taking in student science journals
(Appendix 1) during investigation activities, as well as the completion of the pre-reading
guides.
The Assistance step involved guided reading procedures that included pre- and post-
reading activities with the whole class. Through the use of Venn diagrams for comparison
and contrast, vocabulary lists, key concept clarification, and listing what the students learned
from the reading I looked for inconsistencies in their knowledge. Keeping in mind the
recommendation by Richardson & Morgan (2000) to set up a matrix for students to fill in as
they read, I provided organisational charts that assisted the students to discover comparisons
and contrasts that they completed during silent reading. These completed charts were used as
study aides and included the social aspects of learning when groups or pairs of students
finished them. The important vocabulary words were discussed and placed on a chart in the
classroom.

The Reflection phase took place when students were given the opportunity to ask
themselves what they learned and demonstrate their learning by writing a formal paper on
the topic studied. Using the notes from science journals, the organisational charts and the
Student Activity Books as informational sources the students concluded the unit with a one
page expository paper. Preparation for this final paper included writing several drafts of a
business letter, writing a descriptive paragraph, and a compare and contrast paragraph. The
first topic, ‘What We are Doing in Science’, was used to model for the whole class how to
write a letter to the principal to explain what they had been studying. This model included
two paragraphs that each had a topic sentence, supporting details and a concluding sentence.
After demonstration of the format of a business letter, each individual student wrote a letter.
A modified rubric that is based on the six writing traits was used to score the papers (Figure
3). The original rubric that inspired this version was obtained from
http://www.jerichoschools.org/seaman/classrooms/specials/reading/

202
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

writing.rubric.htm, which is published by the Jericho School District in New York. It

allowed for assessment of important science content in the writing, as well as the completion
of multiple drafts and revisions of written work.

WOW!!! YES! OK OOPS!

4 3 2 1

FOLLOWING
DIRECTIONS •Follows all •Follows most •Follows some •Follows few
Did I follow directions directions directions directions
directions?
• Shows • Show no
• Shows • Shows partial
insightful understanding
MEANING understanding understanding
Did I show understanding of most of the of important of important
understanding? of important important ideas ideas ideas (misses
Did I make clear ideas •Makes a few •Makes weak the point)
connections? •Makes strong connections and connections and •Makes no
connections connections or
and reflections reflections reflections reflections
SUPPORTING • Uses specific • Uses adequate • Uses minimal • Uses few or
DETAILS details and examples and details and no details and
Did I develop my accurate
details examples examples
writing? examples
• Shows strong
ORGANISATION organisation •Shows good • Shows no
• Shows some
Did I organise my with beginning, attempt at organisation;
organisation
writing? middle, and organisation confusing
end
•Many errors
EDITING •Some errors
Did I edit my •No errors •Few errors that that make that make
work? affect meaning meaning unclear meaning
unclear
Misspellings Misspellings on Misspellings on
Misspellings
only on some basic many basic
SPELLING make meaning
challenging grade-level grade-level
unclear
words words words
WOW!!! YES! OK OOPS!
4 3 2 1

Figure 3.Writing Rubric used to assess student samples.

Data Collection
The data collection sources included the following:
 a collection of student written work prior to intervention, during the instruction phase and
their final drafts;

203
 Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

 my daily journal in which I recorded observations and reflections of the implementation

 of writing in science activities;
 16 hours of video-taped class sessions that specifically recorded student investigations
prior to writing their papers and science and language arts instruction;

  collection of student science journals;
 a weekly checklist that recorded book choices that were made by the students during free
reading time (Figure 4).

Non-Fiction?
Student Name Book Title Yes No

Figure 4. Book choice checklist.

The student journals were not graded for conventions, sentence fluency or word choice, but
for evidence of thought and interpretation surrounding the science content. These journals
were intended to be a forum for the students to combine the interactive, inquiry-based
science activities with the information from reading into an informal written format. The
process skills that language arts and science have in common (questioning, predicting,
organising and evaluating) were all included in the Note Taking Guidelines (Appendix 1)
used as writing prompts for science journals. The timeline for data collection is shown in
Figure 5.

204
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

Week One & Two Recorded observations in journal

Video-taped during language arts and science
instruction time
Collected two book choice checklists
Week Three Recorded observations in journal
Video-taped group instruction of letter to
principal
Implemented and collected student science
journals
Week Four Recorded observations in journal
Video-taped student investigations & research
Collect student science journals
Collect two book choice list
Collected rough and final drafts of individual
letters to principal
Week Five Recorded observations in journal
Video-taped student investigations & research
Collect student science journals
Collect one book choice checklist
Collected rough and final drafts of descriptive
paragraph
Week Six, Seven & Eight Recorded observations in journal
Collect student science journals
Separated Writing and Science Collect one book choice checklist
Instruction Power Writing Instruction
Week Nine & Ten Record observation in journal
Collect and conduct student self-evaluation of
Recombined Science and Writing science journals with rubric
Instruction Collect one book choice checklist
Collected rough and final drafts of Power
Writing Compare and Contrast Paragraph and
four-paragraph Expository Science Essay

Figure 5. Timeline for data collection.

Data Analysis
I reviewed all five data sources to determine whether the use of science had influenced
students in developing their reading and writing skills. The formal expository essay was
evaluated according to the guidelines defined in the rubric and was a tool for the final
assessment of the impact of the interdisciplinary instruction of the science activities and
writing instruction. I sought patterns of change in writing samples and scores by using the
rubric to assess writing samples throughout the investigation. I noted on students’ writing
samples any change in writing and whether the writing was sharing important science
content knowledge information. Then I compared my written notes across all students’
writings, seeking patterns of change in all students’ writings.

The science journals were considered for their formative value in determining student
science content understanding. The note-taking

205
Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

guidelines provided a format to estimate whether the student was on track in their science
learning or if they need to be guided to texts that would enhance their understanding. Change
in student written responses prior to using the note-taking guidelines was noted in my own
researcher log.
Videotapes of the instructional and investigative stages of this research project were
used to verify that the interdisciplinary methods were being implemented successfully. The
videotapes were viewed with the objective of noting student use of reading materials to
satisfy a scientific inquiry. I looked for patterns in the videos that would indicate the impact
on reading once a purpose had been provided by the science investigations. Student use of
the Anticipation Guide and What I Know Activity sheets were specifically videotaped to
determine their effectiveness in assessing the students’ ability to read for comprehension.

Comparative tabulation of the book choice checklists was an assessment of whether

there was an increase in students who selected non-fiction books during free reading time.
This selection of non-fiction books would be an indication that students were reading to seek
explanation and meaning in science. Reading for a purpose has been shown to increase
comprehension (Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Keys, 1994; Schmidt, 1999).

An analysis of the student papers and their rubric writing scores, triangulated with an
investigation of the video tapes and my teaching journal, the book choice checklists and the
student science journals was used to validate whether the science topic had impacted the
students’ reading and writing skills. I also sought counter-examples in the students’ work to
ensure my interpretations were accurate and fair.

Results
An analysis of the data sources revealed that the interdisciplinary instruction of reading with
science and the interdisciplinary instruction of writing with science needed to be addressed
as two separate issues. The science and reading objectives were, to a degree, both being met
throughout the study. The writing objectives were not being met throughout the study,
though there was an improvement in writing skills by the end of the study. The integration of
the writing structures sometimes had a negative influence on the science objectives. This
section provides results of the interdisciplinary instruction of reading and writing and
science. The first sub-section illustrates results associated with reading skills and science,
and the second sub-section shares results associated with writing skills and science.

Reading Skills
From the onset there was substantial success in the interdisciplinary instruction of reading
with science. There were several indicators that the interdisciplinary instruction of reading
and science was advantageous. These indicators included:

206
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

  students using their texts as resources to answer content questions;

 student responses on the WIKA sheets.

However, the free choice reading log did not provide evidence that free reading choice of
non-fiction books changed substantially. Table II gives an overview of the successes and
challenges with using interdisciplinary science and reading instruction from this study.

Successes
Students learned to preview texts before
reading
Students gained skills on how to read to
obtain information
Reading and Science objectives of
students verifying predictions were met
The majority of the students self-
corrected misinformation.
Challenges
Students needed to be prompted to use
a text to answer questions
Self-selection of non-fiction books
showed no substantial change
A multitude of aspects related to
reading were not addressed due to the
limitations set by science objectives
(e.g. reader response, poetry, fairy
tales, etc.)

Table II. Successes and challenges of interdisciplinary reading and science instruction.

The successful achievement of science objectives using reading as a tool (Romance & Vitale,
1992) supports my prediction that there should also be a corresponding benefit to language
arts. The processes that are intrinsic to efficient science comprehension are compatible with
the processes that increase reading skills. Baker (1991) asserts that ‘one of the most
important self-regulatory skills for reading is monitoring comprehension, which involves
deciding whether we have understood (evaluation) and taken appropriate steps to correct
whatever comprehension problems are noted (regulation)’ (p. 3). Evaluation and regulation
are essential components of both science and reading. The goal was to encourage students to
utilise reading strategies in their attempt to make sense of the science topics and as a result
refine those reading skills as well.

A videotaped class session verified that students did use reading to make sense of
science topics, but that the students initially needed to be prompted by the teacher before
they thought to use the text to investigate a question. During the process of creating a Venn
diagram of the similarities and differences of aquarium and terrarium animals a question was
raised as to whether snails had eyes. There was an illustration in the text that the students had
already read, but still a very vocal debate ensued among the students. At my prompting a
student retrieved the text and read the appropriate segment aloud for the class. Thus, a desire
to understand the science content encouraged students to read for meaning. Another incident
occurred in which several students were arguing that the jelly-like masses in their ecocolumn
were snail eggs and, again, when they turned to me for verification I directed them to the
text. This incident was particularly encouraging because they read beyond the information
that they were

207
Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

seeking and added new knowledge about the reproduction of the fish, as well as the snails.

Further evidence that science and reading instruction are compatible is extracted from
the analysis of the Anticipation Guide and What I Know Activity (WIKA) sheets. The
Anticipation Guide prediction that a statement related to the science reading was true
resulted in an average of 68% correct before the reading. The fact that 68% of the students’
predictions were accurate in advance of the reading could indicate that the reading selection
may have been simple for them. However, the percentage that was correct after the text had
been read increased to 92.3%. These percentages remained generally consistent for three
separate Anticipation Guide science-reading assignments. The WIKA reading worksheets
asked the students to record what they knew before the reading, what they knew after
looking at the text with its pictures and diagrams, and what they knew after they read the
text. The final section of WIKA asked the students if there was anything that they still were
wondering. Comparative analysis of these sections gave evidence that the reading was used
to process science information during the act of reading. The first time they completed the
WIKA activity sheet, 10 students were able to correct misinformation that they had written in
the first section (that isopods are insects) after they had completed the reading (they are
related to lobsters). There were five students who did not correct their erroneous information
after reading. The second time that the students completed the WIKA assignment there were
38 incidents in which students corrected misinformation statements and six that remained
uncorrected. The relevancy of the questions that the students posed in the last section was
inconsistent, with 27 questions being posed that were relevant and 15 questions that were
either extraneous or were answerable from reading the text. The shared metacognitive skills,
in both reading and science, of posing and verifying predictions, making inferences and
drawing conclusions (Padilla et al, 1991), resulted in the data demonstrating a direct and
beneficial correlation between them. Teaching students the reading strategies of how to
preview a text and seek specific information was very compatible with science.

The evidence from the videotapes and journal entries that students needed to be
prompted to expand scientific information from a text was verified by a review of the book
choice checklists. The data collection was somewhat inhibited by the fact that there was no
classroom library and the students were only allowed to visit the school library on Friday.
Additionally, students did meet during library time on two Fridays because of snow days and
school was closed two of the Fridays because of teacher workdays. The number of non-
fiction books checked out by the students over the course of the implementation showed a
slight positive change.

A further review of the book titles revealed that there were only four out of the total
67 non-fiction books checked out that could be viewed as books that were related to our
specific science topic. (See Table III for quantities of non-fiction books checked out over the
course of the study.) Triangulation of the book checkout data with my teaching journal,
which

208
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

recorded a discussion with the school librarian requesting a display of relevant books,
revealed that the high of 12 non-fiction books checked out at the end of February was
prompted by that visual display. Previous to attending that library session students also
received verbal encouragement from me to consider those books. Thus students did not
check out more non-fiction books during the time of the study.

Number of non-fiction books checked out

Week Number
1 8
2 6
3 9
4 12
5 10
6 11
7 11

Table III. Number of non-fiction books checked out over the course of the study.

Writing Skills
The interdisciplinary instruction of writing with science became problematic during the
Preparation stage of this research. There were disadvantages that often outweighed the
advantages of using science as a context to teach writing structures. It seemed that the kinds
of writing structures to be taught did not always match the science content being taught, and
there were conflicting objectives between science and writing. For instance, the note-taking
guidelines that were set up to meet writing expectations reduced the amount and insightful
aspects of the science thinking. The magnitude of the writing errors overshadowed the
science objectives. The number of revisions necessary to meet writing objectives had the
effect of reducing student interest and involvement in science. Imposing a defined structure
for writing resulted in nearly identical paragraphs and limited science information
processing. See Table IV for a chart of advantages and disadvantages associated with
interdisciplinary science and writing instruction found in this study.

In accordance with the PAR (Preparation-Assistance-Reflection) plan the students

were given a science journal to record their hands-on activities during this initial stage. The
note taking guidelines (Appendix 1) were introduced as a guide to help students get started
taking notes, but were not a requirement; they should feel free to write whatever they
considered significant. After they had been writing in their notebooks for eight days, I
stipulated that they were now required to use the guidelines, and it had the negative effect of
reducing the amount and the insightful aspects of their writing. Following is an example of a
science journal entry (complete with grammatical and spelling errors made by the student)
without the guidelines:

209
Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

Hand Lense Investigations

In the terrarum I see lots of roots sprouting in the mustard spot, and the
Alfalfa. In the Alfalfa I think I buried it to deep. I wounder why the grass is
not sprouting, maybe I didn’t plant them well. It’s weird because not all of the
mustard seeds are growing, and most of the Alfalfa seeds are (Watered it 11
times) In the aquarium they’res buble everywere for some reason. From the
Algae the water looks more dirty. Looking through the lense the water looks
like it has little pieces of hair in it. I think the Algae is making the water smell
like its from the river. I have been woundering why they call duckweed
duckweed but it’s because ducks eat it and other animals.

After I began requiring the students to use the note taking guidelines, the same student made
this entry in her journal:
1. Today we aereated our aquarium. When we put air in it the fish swam close
to wear we were aereated also the duckweed started geting closer. 2. I think we
may have babie snails their 3. I have observed poop on some leaves. Relly
small so I’m not sure.
4. I’m not sure if anytthing is going to happen 5. Nothing really happened. 6.
Same 7. I think we are going to add duckweed again in a few weeks. 8. there is
a drawing at the top ^ 9. I’m still wondering if we have babie snails.

This example of the reduction in the quality of the processing of their science thinking was
replicated in student after student. Instead of using the guidelines as prompts to write more,
they simplified their answers to basically yes or no responses, with less detail and evidence
of thought. The impact on science, as well as the volume and quality of the writing, was
negative. Thus, using guidelines to focus their science writing was not beneficial. This
writing structure did not work well in the context of science content.

Successes
Helped students explore their own
science understandings through open-
ended journals
Helped students record and
communicate science knowledge gained
by end of unit
Allows students to summarise and
demonstrate science learning throughout
unit (in open ended journals)
Challenges
The selected writing structures often
decreased the amount of reflective
science writing in journals and other
venues
Some writing structures were not
taught due to limitations set by
science objectives
Writing structures deterred science
content exploration and enthusiasm
for science

Table IV. Successes and challenges of interdisciplinary writing and science instruction.

210
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

During the Assistance phase I modeled how to write a two-paragraph business letter to the
principal using a topic sentence, supporting details and a concluding sentence for each
paragraph. I also directed the students to use the vocabulary lists and science charts that we
had created as a class to get information for their individual letters to the principal. The first
draft that was turned in astounded me in the lack of ability in writing. I expected much more
from fifth grade students. Perhaps it is because of my inexperience in working with fifth
graders, but I seriously believed their writing skills would be stronger. While the students
seemed to enjoy the hands-on investigations, it is evident that they did not enjoy written
communication about their investigations, nor could they effectively use the writing
structure. Of the 22 letters that I received, there were only two that followed the guidelines,
which required that both paragraphs had a topic sentence, supporting details and a
concluding sentence. All of the letters contained misspelled words that were part of the
environmental print (i.e. correct spellings could easily have been found in the classroom
environment). The subsequent corrections and requirement to re-write was met with great
dismay on the part of the students. There were 10 students who had to write more than two
drafts.

The next assignment, to write a descriptive paragraph with the writing prompt
‘Imagine that you are an animal in your ecocolumn and describe a day in your life’, was
meant to simplify the task of writing one basic paragraph. The first draft of this assignment
was even more alarming in the lack of structure. Again, I expected that fifth grade students
would have much stronger writing skills, and would be able to follow directions given to
them for writing a single paragraph. It became apparent to me that these students would need
basic instruction on how to formulate a paragraph. The following is an example turned in
from a high achieving student of the rough draft of her descriptive paragraph:

Hi! My name is Manpie but there are these two girls that are big, huge hue-
hue-humans. They call me small and my partner big. We hate it. When we’re
all sound asleep they always tap our container and wake us up. By the way did
I tell you we are in this small container that bugs us. It really hurts when they
knock it over. Well I go the yans and It’s getting dark. So see you later. Bye.

The example does not show development of a main idea in the paragraph or evidence of any
science content understanding. Again, the number of times that many of the students had to
rewrite their paragraphs was discouraging to them. They quickly lost interest and enthusiasm
for the topic of science. There was clearly a gap in the objectives that needed to be achieved
in writing and the objectives that had previously been progressing well in science. I made the
decision at this point that it had become necessary to separate the two subjects to maintain
student growth in both content areas.

Within my writing instruction I began to implement a highly structured sequence of

instructions for writing called Power Writing. I was

211
Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

hoping that giving students some structure would help them improve their writing more
quickly. This teaching structure, introduced by Sparks (1982) in his book Write for Power,
assigns a number value to words, phrases and sentences. It helps keep the writer on the topic
and teaches a way to organise thinking into cohesive, logical paragraphs. There are five
stages that a student proceeds through before they are ready to write a paper. Because of the
necessity for repetition to obtain mastery I decided to allow the students to pick a topic that
interested them while they were progressing through the first four of the five stages. In spite
of high interest and involvement in the class science inquiry activities, no student chose to
write about science. This lack of science selection could indicate they saw no role for writing
in science or perhaps they were simply more interested in writing about other non-science
topics that related more to their personal lives. After 3 weeks of intensive instruction in
writing I returned to the topic of science, and assigned a paragraph that would compare and
contrast the aquarium and terrarium environments of their ecocolumns. It was encouraging to
see the average grade for the final draft increased to 92.1%. However, the impact of
imposing this very defined written structure on the science topic resulted in paragraphs that
were nearly identical and limited the science information processing. It was not clear what
their science understandings were, but it was clear that they could successfully use this
writing strategy.

The final four-paragraph essay assignment was meant to be an instrument to help

determine whether the merging of the science topic with writing requirements was successful
at the final stage of instruction. The following is two of the four paragraphs by one student of
an essay titled ‘What We Did In Science’:

In science we made an ecocolumn. We built a terrarium and an aquarium. We

did this so we could see how our world works. We also polluted our
classroom ecosystems.
The reason we did this science experiment was so we could see how
our world works. For example, we have a lamp for the sun, which evaporates
the water from the aquarium into the terrarium. It then forms clouds and
since it’s in a bottle and it’s covered, just like our world, it then rains. This
means that we don’t need to water it.

The results of this essay were much more satisfactory in their adherence to basic
grammatical structure and the actual learning that had occurred in science became more
evident.
Thus, although it is apparent that there was a struggle to attain this level of writing in
science, it is evident that, by the end of the study, students could use writing to describe
science. Some writing strategies were compatible with science instruction. Certain structures
are more amenable to science writing. Writing structures that were open-ended and did not
require revision were compatible. Science concepts seemed to lose impact and importance to
the students when they were required to re-write, re-

212
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

word and edit their papers; thus structures that required this focus were not as effective in
supporting science learning and science did not always serve as a vehicle for this writing.
Students may not self-select to write about science topics and it may be better for students to
learn to use a specific writing structure if they can select a topic that is meaningful to them.
Writing was an effective medium for my students to demonstrate and summarise their
science learning, but the instruction phase of writing needed a variety of topics to keep the
students engaged and motivated. If they were forced to use a specific writing structure they
were much less able to show their science knowledge.

There was a distinct disadvantage to science learning that resulted from the total
interdisciplinary instruction of science and writing, because certain structures inhibited the
sharing and development of science knowledge. Thus, I learned that while interdisciplinary
science and writing instruction can be beneficial, there are cautions to using it and times to
simply use separate disciplinary specific science and writing instruction. I ended up returning
to the free-writing format for science journals, and continued selecting writing structures,
such as essay and free paragraph writing, for descriptions of what students were learning. I
discontinued using formal structures, such as business letters and Power Writing structures
that required students to create multiple drafts, and perfect grammar and sentence structure.
Instead, when I wanted to teach those formal structures I allowed students to select their own
writing topics. By allowing students to select their own writing topics I enabled them to write
about what they wanted within the confines of learning a new writing structure. Thus, they
were able to focus on learning only one new objective – that of the writing structure – and
did not have to focus on meeting a science objective as well.

Implications
The results of this research will influence whether and to what degree I will use
interdisciplinary teaching for reading, writing and science in my own classroom. It seems
logical to combine reading and science because it appears to be a very effective way to teach
students the strategies for reading to obtain information. However, reading to obtain
information is only one of the objectives of reading, and there are many reading skills and
strategies, such as interpreting a poem that might be difficult to combine with science. Thus,
I recommend that science be a bridge for reading when it helps meet reading objectives, but
for teachers not to feel constrained to always use science in reading instruction.

Evidence from my research suggests that the interdisciplinary instruction of writing

instruction and science should be done in the final stages of the writing instruction after
students have mastered new writing structures. Writing in science should be used for the
purpose of exploring ideas and reporting knowledge gained. Trying to teach writing forms
within the context of science constrained science development in my study.

213
 Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

Students were capable of using new writing structures, but they could have written about
other topics, rather than being forced to use them in the context of their science content. If
they were allowed to select their own writing topic they could better focus on learning the
new writing structure, rather than learning both the new writing structure and science content
simultaneously. The complex goals and objectives of writing can have the effect of
suppressing the cognitive processing of science concepts because students are forced to
conform to conventions instead of freely interpret and report their science understandings.

The successful implementation of reading and science that is demonstrated in this

research could influence other teachers by clarifying the degree to which the interdisciplinary
instruction of the two subject areas should be cultivated. Although the existing research base
demonstrates that there is a clear benefit to science when writing and reading are combined
with it (e.g. Baker & Saul, 1994; Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Glynn & Muth, 1994; Liu &
Akerson, 2002), my study indicates that the development of reading and writing should cover
a wide range of subjects in addition to science to be effective and help students meet all
reading and writing objectives. For instance, though Glynn & Muth (1994) claim that
‘learning to write prepares students for writing to learn’ (p. 1064), my research indicates that
learning to write can interfere with writing to learn when the objectives of both disciplines do
not mesh, as when learning a business letter format did not mesh with learning or at least
exhibiting learning science content. The cognitive parallels that exist between science, and
reading and writing do not outweigh the conflicting objectives between the disciplines that
sometimes arise. This research supports the Dickinson et al’s (1997) finding that students can
be engaged in language arts activities that do not support learning of science content. From
my research, it seems important to research the kinds of writing that support learning of
science content. My research indicated that interdisciplinary instruction should be
approached with a clear idea of the objectives in all disciplines and a willingness to separate
the subjects when it is beneficial to their development. It is evident from my study that while
instruction in reading and writing are bridges to science, they should not be confined to
science alone. Additionally, science can be used as a bridge to reading and writing learning,
but only when appropriate. Appropriate times to use science as a bridge for reading and
writing development include:

 when the writing structure is familiar to the students and is being used to explore new
 science content;
 when the writing structure is open-ended so the students are not confined to a specific
 pattern;
 when reading for information is connected to students’ own questions.

Imposing a writing structure and forced integration of science and writing instruction may
not improve writing or science content knowledge, and would not serve as a bridge between
the disciplines. As a result of this action research study, I will continue using reading and
writing as tools for

214
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

science, and science as a context for reading and writing, but will not force an
interdisciplinary focus at the exclusion of other disciplinary objectives.
I believe that, through the act of researching these questions through my study, I am a
better teacher of interdisciplinary instruction. The action research project gave me a way to
systematically investigate the relationships between reading, writing and science instruction.
I recommend similar projects to other teachers. It is easy to find many articles that suggest
ways for teachers to provide interdisciplinary literacy and science instruction. Yet, as a
teacher, I wanted to base my instructional decisions on evidence that these strategies were
effective for helping my students meet both literacy and science objectives. I am fortunate
that in my school system I am free to make the connections between subjects as I see fit. This
action research study provided me with the evidence I needed for effective interdisciplinary
science and language arts instruction, coupled with a balance of disciplinary instruction. For
those in a school in which science and language arts are forced to be taught, in an integrated
fashion, the results of this study may be shared with policy makers to help them see when
disciplinary instruction may be more important.

Correspondence
Associate Professor Valarie Akerson, W.W. Wright School of Education, Room 3072,
Indiana State University, 201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006, USA
(vakerson@indiana.edu).

References
Akerson, V.L. (2001) How to Teach Science When the Principal Says ‘Teach Language Arts’, Science
and Children, 38(7), pp. 42-48.
Akerson, V.L. & Flanigan, J. (2000) Preparing Preservice Teachers to Use an Interdisciplinary
Approach to Science and Language Arts Instruction, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11,
pp. 287-313.
Akins, A. & Akerson, V. L. (2002) Connecting Science, Social Studies, and Language Arts: an
interdisciplinary approach, Educational Action Research, 10,
pp. 479-497.
Baker, L. (1991) Metacognition, Reading, and Science Education, in C.M. Santa & D.E. Alvermann
(Eds) Science Learning – Processes and Applications. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Baker, L. & Saul, W. (1994) Considering Science and Language Arts Connections: a study of teacher
cognition, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31,
pp. 1023-1038.
Casteel, C.P. & Isom, B.A. (1994) Reciprocal Processes in Science and Literacy, Reading
Teacher, 47, pp. 538-545.
Dickinson, V.L. & Young, T.A. (1998) Elementary Science and Language Arts: should we blur the
boundaries? School Science and Mathematics, 98, pp. 334-339.

215
Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

Dickinson, V.L., Burns, J., Hagen, E.R. & Locker, K.M. (1997) Becoming Better Primary
Science Teachers: a description of our journey, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8,
pp. 295-311.
Gaskins, I.W. & Guthrie, J.T. (1994) Integrating Instruction of Science, Reading, and Writing: goals,
teacher development, and assessment, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1039-
1056.
Glynn, S.M. & Muth, K.D. (1994) Reading and Writing to Learn Science: achieving scientific
literacy, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1057-1073.
Hubbard, R.S. & Power, B.M. (1993) The Art of Classroom Inquiry: a handbook for
teacher researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Keys, C.W. (1994) The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills in Conjunction with Collaborative
Writing Assignments: an interpretive study of six ninth-grade students, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1003-1022.
Liu, Z. & Akerson, V.L. (2002) Science and Language Links: a fourth grade intern’s attempt to increase
language skills through science, Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science, 1, Article 4.
Available at: http: //sweeneyhall.sjsu.edu/ejlts/ vol1-2.htm

National Science Resource Center (1996) Ecosystems Student Activity Book.

Burlington: Carolina Biological Company.
Padilla, M.J., Muth, K.D. & Lund, R.K. (1991) Science and Reading: many process skills in
common? in C.M. Santa & D.E. Alvermann (Eds) Science Learning – Processes and
Applications. Newark: International Reading Association.
Richardson, J.S. & Morgan, R.F. (2000) Reading to Learn in the Content Areas.
Florence, KY: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Rivard, L.P. (1994) A Review of Writing to Learn Science: implications for practice and research,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 969-984.
Romance, N.R. & Vitale, M.R. (1992) A Curriculum Strategy that Expands Time for In-depth
Elementary Science Instruction by Using Science-based Reading Strategies: effects of a year-long
study in grade four, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, pp. 545-554.

Schmidt, P.R. (1999) KWLO: inquiry and literacy learning in science, Reading Teacher, 52,
pp. 789-792.
Smith, J.L. & Johnson, H. (1994) Models for Implementing Literature in Content Studies,
Reading Teacher, 48, pp. 198-209.
Sparks, J.E. (1982) Write for Power. Los Angeles: Communication Associates.

216
 USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

APPENDIX 1
Note Taking Guidelines for Student Science Journals
1. What did you do? What things did you notice when you did it?
2. What changes were made?
3. What are some things that you have observed?
4. Describe what you thought would happen.
5. What actually did happen?
6. Why do you think that it happened like that?
7. What do you predict will happen next? What do you want to make sure that you record
accurately so that you can notice changes?
8. Is there a drawing or diagram that will help demonstrate what happened?

9. Are there some things that you are still wondering about? Where can you find more
information about this?

217
 Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

Theory and Practice in Action Research

some international perspectives
Edited by CHRISTOPHER DAY, JOHN ELLIOTT,
BRIDGET SOMEKH & RICHARD WINTER
This book contains 16 articles from across the professions and from different
countries which explore and examine the nature, purposes, processes and
outcomes of action research, its importance to professional growth and the
challenges of collaboration and change. Written by practitioners from schools
and universities, health and social services, it provides a comprehensive yet
focused critical appraisal which we believe is essential reading by all for
whom lifelong learning is a key component of being and sustaining
themselves as professionals.

Part 1. Conceptualisations of Action Research Introduction; Susan

Noffke Action Research: towards the next generation; Richard
Winter Managers, Spectators and Citizens: where does ‘theory’
come from in action research? Colin Biott Latency in Action
Research: changing perspectives on occupational and researcher
identities; Maggie MacLure Postmodernism: a postscript
Part 2. Praxis and Partnership in Action Research Introduction;
Christine O’Hanlon Reflection and Action in Research: is there a
moral responsibility to act? Jean-Claude Couture Dracula as Action
Researcher; Kath Green Defining the Field of Literature in Action
Research: a personal approach; Bridget Somekh Inhabiting Each
Other’s Castles: towards knowledge and mutual growth through
collaboration Part 3. Action Research for Change Introduction; Melanie
Walker Subaltern Professionals: acting in pursuit of social justice;
Victor Valla Popular Education and Knowledge: popular surveillance
of health and education services in Brasilian metropolitan areas; Peter
Posch Changes in the Culture of Teaching and Learning and
Implications for Action Research; Arphorn Chuaprapaisilip Thai
Buddhist Philosophy and the Action Research Process Part 4. Action
Research in Practice Settings Introduction; Belinda Watts & Shirley
Jones Inter-professional Practice and Action Research: commonalties
and parallels; Carol Munn-Giddings ‘A Different Way of Knowing’:
social care values, practitioner research and action research;
Pete Strauss No Easy Answers: the dilemmas and challenges of
teacher research; Angie Titchen & Alison Binnie A Unified
Action Research Strategy in Nursing
2002 paperback 244 pages $38.00 (£24.00) ISBN 1 873927 44 4

SYMPOSIUM BOOKS
PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford OX11 9ZQ, United Kingdom
orders@symposium-books.co.uk www.symposium-books.co.uk

218