28 minute read
Adam Brieske Ulenski and Nicole Glen
RE-ENVISIONING PRESERVICE TEACHER PREPARATION:
Advertisement
ADAM BRIESKE-ULENSKI AND NICOLE J. GLEN
Introduction
As two university professors, literacy and science education, at Bridgewater State University, we noticed overlap between the content and practices we were teaching to preservice teachers (PSTs). The science education professor invited the literacy professor to discuss this overlap, which resulted in the two of us working together to build connections between our courses for our shared PSTs. During our discussions, we talked about our own disciplinary knowledge, including our appreciation for subject integration. We realized that within our shared understandings, there could be numerous ways to maximize PST learning opportunities for content knowledge integration and the pedagogical practices aligned with each discipline. We achieved this by building upon each other’s disciplinary teaching in specific and meaningful ways across the semester.
Our collaboration resulted in redesigning our two courses to support each other with the goal of developing PST knowledge of how to plan and teach science content with integrated disciplinary literacy practices. Through co-planning, we mapped out a curriculum, where each course individually prepared PSTs to teach in that discipline for the first half of the semester. Together, we utilized the second half of the semester to co-teach lessons that helped the PSTs develop an integrated unit that taught science content through inquiry, while incorporating disciplinary literacy instruction and practices for students. Throughout the article, we use the initials PSTs to refer to elementary teacher candidates or elementary preservice teachers. We use the term “student” to refer to the elementary-age children with whom the PSTs worked during their prepracticum field placements. In this article, we discuss the design of our courses, our rationale for teaching an integrated unit, and the anticipated effects on the PSTs and their students.
Problem of Practice
Time spent on teaching and learning science in elementary classrooms tends to be significantly less than time spent on literacy, in terms of minutes per day (20 minutes on average for science versus 87 minutes on average for literacy) and days per week (with most teachers reporting teaching science three or fewer days per week or some weeks not at all)
Time spent on teaching
(Plumley, 2019). Furthermore, teachers will often and learning science in try to apply general reading and writing to disciplinary teaching of science, only strategies to find that elementary classrooms tends students do not learn the content area as well as to be significantly less than they would have hoped (Siffrinn & Lew, 2018). This time spent on literacy, in can be remedied by preparing future teachers to use terms of minutes per day disciplinary and writing literacy practices that needs of each specific reflect the discipline. reading This (20 minutes on average for requires teacher preparation programs to deliver science versus 87 minutes on linguistic and language instruction that supports average for literacy) and days PSTs in understanding the unique literacy practices per week (with most teachers within each discipline and providing plan and deliver disciplinary literacy opportunities to instruction that reporting teaching science reflects the unique literacy skills of that discipline. three or fewer days per week Our goal as teacher educators is to help PSTs or some weeks not at all) understand and practice integration strategies for (Plumley, 2019). literacy and science in order to: a) increase the time spent on science without taking time away from literacy; b) to have the knowledge and experience to share with future colleagues about the necessity of science and literacy integration; c) practice research-based, reform-oriented strategies for teaching science that meaningfully uses disciplinary literacy and is connected to the practices and standards of each subject area; and d) develop an understanding of the contextual use of language and linguistics within disciplines as a way of delivering disciplinary literacy instruction.
Conceptual Framework
As co-teachers, we spent time thinking about our use of terms to describe the connections between science and literacy that we were trying to foster. Calling our science and literacy teaching a “multidisciplinary” or “thematic” unit was inappropriate because these types of units tend to keep each discipline separate from the other and focus on using a science theme, like “outer space,” to teach reading and writing, with little regard for meeting science objectives and practices (Akerson & Young, 2008; Drake & Burns, 2004). Instead, we debated between the terms “integrated” and “interdisciplinary” teaching. The definitions vary depending on the researcher and discipline you examine, and we soon realized that either could be used to describe our work. During “interdisciplinary” teaching, the disciplines are identifiable, and the skills and concepts of each are present and used together to help students meet standards for each subject (Akerson & Young, 2008; Drake & Burns, 2004). For example, students might conduct an experiment to collect data during science and then use a text during reading with a cause-effect structure that they analyze to find supporting evidence for their findings from the science experiment. Thus, students are developing their skills in the science practices of
planning and carrying out investigations and constructing explanations, while also learning to comprehend and use nonfiction text structures. By focusing on this type of teaching, PSTs learn that different disciplines have different ways of communicating knowledge and require a unique set of literacy skills in order to read and write within that discipline (Siffrinn & Lew, 2018). Thus, interdisciplinary teaching and learning is what we currently advocate for and teach. However, we decided to use the term “integrated” unit to describe our work together because “integration” is a general term used to describe any kind of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary work (Drake & Burns, 2004; Jacobs, 1989), so that as our teaching or field placements allow, we might shift among types of integration as we need to do so.
We use the pedagogical content knowledge model called teacher professional knowledge and skill (TPK&S) from Gess-Newsome (2015). Specifically, our integrated unit experience attends to several concepts within TPK&S: a) teacher professional knowledge bases, particularly pedagogical, content, curricular, and assessment knowledge; b) topicspecific professional knowledge, particularly knowledge of instructional strategies and science practices; and c) classroom practice.
Teacher professional knowledge bases is a formal set of knowledge often provided to teachers from experts and researchers within a particular discipline or field of teaching (Gess-Newsome, 2015). In our work, this includes knowledge of inquiry science instruction, the science and engineering practices, the engineering design process, national and state standards for science and literacy, disciplinary literacy strategies, and pre, formative, and summative assessment strategies in science and literacy. Additionally, PSTs are immersed in understanding the language of the disciplines (Siffrinn & Lew, 2018). This calls for PSTs to understand that language use looks different based on the context (Gee, 1990). As such, our goal is to help PSTs understand how the linguistic and language practices within a discipline work together with teaching the content of the discipline (Schleppegrell, 2004) as a way of improving student literacy achievement and content knowledge (ILA & NCTE, 2017). Depending on the school or district where the PSTs complete their fieldwork, it may also include the curriculum offered there for teachers. Under this element of TPK&S, the PSTs in our courses learn research-based strategies for teaching and assessment that can be used across many topics with STEM and literacy.
Topic-specific professional knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 2015) means taking a deeper dive into the specific standard on which the PSTs focused when teaching for their integrated unit. They review adult- and children-level content knowledge for their standard, dissect science and literacy standards to determine disciplinary literacy instruction that is needed, examine the progression of standards before and after their grade level, research and determine through assessments their students’ funds of knowledge, and find appropriate texts and graphic organizers to support reading and writing.
Reflection on Action is part of the classroom practice through which pedagogical content knowledge develops (Gess-Newsome, 2015). Reflection on Action is when PSTs contemplate their rationale for teaching in particular ways, articulate their adjustments to practice, and consider how assessment data informs their decisions. This happens before they begin teaching as we work one-onone with them to provide feedback on their plans, while they are in the midst of teaching using videos, anecdotal notes, and observational feedback, and when they are finished teaching via a combined final exam for our courses. One reason we engage PSTs in a vast amount of Reflection on Action is to help dispel common traditional beliefs held by many teachers. For example, the National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Plumley, 2019) found that 77% of teachers hold traditional beliefs about teaching and learning science, where science instruction should begin with definitions for new scientific vocabulary, and 56% of teachers hold traditional beliefs that hands-on activities should be used primarily to reinforce a science idea that students already learned. A second reason is to have PSTs gain and develop linguistic knowledge so they understand how to incorporate disciplinary literacy practices that are appropriate for their students and their literacy needs at specific points within a science unit. As professors, we understand the importance of breaking teachers from these cycles of inefficient science and content area literacy instruction and work to make the integrated unit an example of effective science and disciplinary literacy instruction.
Design of Our Courses
In 2017, the International Literacy Association (ILA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) released a research advisory that highlighted components of an effective teacher preparation program. The three major components in their research advisory are Knowledge Development, Applications of Knowledge within Authentic Contexts, and Ongoing Teacher Development (ILA & NCTE, 2017). The design of our undergraduate teacher preparation courses reflects the three major ILA and NCTE components by having PSTs learn the content and pedagogical skills in class through course readings, discussions, curriculum analysis, and lessons modeled by professors. PSTs apply their learning in an authentic context by practicing their teaching of each discipline with students under our and the host classroom teacher’s supervision in the beginning and middle of the semester. Toward the end of the semester, our courses overlap, and PSTs plan and reflect on student data collected from integrated science and literacy lessons and assessments as part of an integrated unit of study they teach to students. Our courses culminate with a final presentation and reflection,
showcasing their integrated unit teaching using observations and student data as a combined final exam. It is this culminating reflection that sets PSTs up for success as they enter into student teaching and work on the goals they identified as part of their Reflection on Action from the integrated unit. Our courses reflect ILA and NCTE’s best practices for a teacher preparation program because each of our courses support one another in a single semester, and our courses prepare PSTs for the next semester in student teaching. Next, we describe our process of collaboration.
At our university, PSTs take several teaching methodology courses together as a cohort model, including science, literacy, history and social science, mathematics, and inclusive practices. Upon realizing that we were attending to correlating instructional practices in science and literacy at about the same time of the semester, and knowing that we also shared PSTs in our cohort model, it was a natural fit for us to co-plan and eventually co-teach our courses together. However, we recognize that teacher preparation programs vary in their design, and we encourage our readers and their colleagues to collaborate with one another, just as we did, to identify teaching skills, practices, and routines that might be shared across courses or build on each other from one semester to the next. This also helps to avoid duplicate instruction and to dig deeper into each discipline’s content and practices across a teacher preparation program. We provide suggestions for ways to accomplish this in the conclusion.
Separate Disciplinary Methodology Courses
The semester begins with the PSTs learning how to teach in each discipline by engaging in course content and practicing with students with supervision and feedback from us and their host teachers. In science, PSTs learn to conduct a read-aloud using an autobiography of a STEM specialist to promote participation in science by all populations and to practice the readaloud literacy strategy in STEM early in the semester. The PSTs teach a two-day engineering lesson to practice conducting hands-on STEM lessons. In literacy, PSTs learn the essential components of effective reading and writing lessons. For example, they learn about ways to activate and build background knowledge, teach vocabulary, set a purpose for reading, monitor reading comprehension, promote writing about reading, and deliver phonemic awareness and phonics instruction (Cooper et al., 2018). PSTs in this course learn about these literacy instructional concepts throughout the first half of the semester while teaching students two hours a week in two different classrooms. In class, the PSTs explore the theory and research behind the instructional practices they are using, review instructional tools such as graphic organizers that enhance a literacy lesson, observe and participate in lessons modeled by the literacy professor, and use feedback from the professor to plan literacy lessons for students. For more specific details on the first half of the literacy course, see Correia and BrieskeUlenski (2021).
Co-Teaching the Integrated Unit
We utilize the second half of the semester to prepare PSTs to enact a five-lesson integrated unit in a grade 1-5 classroom in a local school. To prepare, we co-teach our classes together for several sessions. Our first co-taught lesson is an overview of the integrated unit project, where we explain what it is, the components of the project, and provide examples. In another co-taught lesson, we teach about the role of language in science through a disciplinary literacy lens and help PSTs brainstorm ways for using reading and writing to support science learning among students. During additional co-taught lessons, we examine the structures of science informational texts, how to help students write like a scientist, and the connections between the 5E Instructional Model for teaching science and literacy instructional practices. Together, we also help PSTs identify key assessments in science and literacy that they can use to understand their students’ content knowledge throughout all stages of their unit implementation. At the end of our co-teaching sequence, we provide the PSTs with class time to work on developing and planning the lessons for their unit and we provide support and feedback.
Planning the integrated unit incorporates the following steps for the PSTs: a) research the science and literacy standards for their topic provided by their field placement; b) preassess students to determine their funds of knowledge (NSTA, 2017); c) draft their unit, using a storyline template, shown in Figure 1 (Windschitl et al., 2018; Zembal-Saul et al., 2013); d) determine how reading and writing can support explanation construction (Siffrinn & Lew, 2018); e) write science lesson plans following the 5E instructional model (Bybee, 2016); f) design reading and writing lesson plans appropriate for reading and producing informational texts (Akhondi et al., 2011); g) create and implement a curriculum map, shown in Table 1, that outlines the daily schedule of the unit in their field placement classroom (ILA & NCTE, 2017; NSTA 2017); h) reflect daily with their professors and peers (ILA & NCTE, 2017; NSTA, 2017); and i) present their work as part of a shared final exam in our courses, where PSTs showcase their professional learning and their students’ learning; and j) answer questions on an exit survey.
FIGURE 1
Integrated Unit Storyline Template
TABLE 1
Curriculum Map Template
Science Lesson Plans
PSTs develop a unit of instruction using the storyline sequencing structure. A storyline is an instructional sequence of lessons in science centered on understanding a natural phenomenon or solving a problem. Each lesson in a storyline helps the students figure out a piece of the science idea and then add to a developing explanation about the natural phenomenon or problem they are solving (Reiser et al., 2021). To accomplish this, the PSTs write a series of learning goals, which also helps them analyze the science standard with which they are working. Using prompts from Wiggins and McTighe (2011), PSTs write learning goals that say “Students will learn/understand that…”, breaking down one science standard into three to five goals. Alongside this, they conduct background knowledge research and seek out natural or human-made phenomena that connect with the learning goals and standard and that can be used as a foundation to their storyline. From here, PSTs use the 5E Instructional Model (Bybee, 2016) to formulate lesson plans. This structure means that PSTs have their students Explore first and conduct inquiries into science ideas prior to reading about and having vocabulary explained to them. This moves the PSTs away from front-loading vocabulary (Suarez et al., 2014-22) and instead places this component of learning within the Explain phase of the 5E Instructional Model. During the Explain phase, along with learning a few key scientific vocabulary words, PSTs use nonfiction texts as a way to connect with the exploration and learning of vocabulary and to find evidence that will support their initial exploration and ongoing explanation of the phenomenon (Windschitl et al., 2018). Any nonfiction texts used and vocabulary learned after the Explore and during the Explain phase of the 5E Instructional Model should connect closely to the storyline phenomenon and learning goals planned. Then, the 5E Instructional Model culminates in Elaborate, an opportunity for students to engage in additional inquiries or extend their learning via authentic writing tasks or meaningful projects.
Reading and Writing Lesson Plans
Reading Lesson Plan. PSTs develop one reading and one writing lesson plan for their integrated unit. Both lesson plans take more than one day to complete because of the pedagogical practices that are needed for teaching an entire lesson. For the reading lesson plan, PSTs review children’s informational literature to identify a text that would be appropriate for conducting an interactive read aloud that aligns with the science standard for expanding student content knowledge. The PSTs use the structure of the text to plan their read aloud lesson. They do this because it is necessary for students to know and understand informational text structure by third grade (Akhondi et al., 2011). The selected text must support and complement the information students are learning in their 5E Instructional Model lesson plans for science. In addition, the selected text and read aloud lesson should start after students have already completed the Explore phase of the 5E Instructional Model to avoid presenting information that may unravel the inquiry they are investigating. This is explained to the PSTs for proper sequencing of all lessons for the integrated unit. After PSTs select the
text, they review it with the literacy professor to identify the informational text structure the author used, identify a state standard that emphasizes the text structure, and select a graphic organizer that correlates to the text structure to facilitate comprehension questions during and after reading the text. The identification of the appropriate text structure, state standard, and graphic organizer is important because research demonstrates that using an appropriate graphic organizer that compliments the text structure facilitates comprehension (Akhondi et al., 2011) and has a positive impact on a student’s ability to recall information (Carrell, 1985).
The interactive read aloud lesson plan includes the following components as described by Cooper and colleagues (2018): activating prior knowledge, building background knowledge, pre-teaching vocabulary (Witherell & McMackin, 2013), making a prediction, setting a purpose for reading, asking comprehension questions during and after reading that align with an informational text structure graphic organizer, checking predictions, writing about reading, and administering a post-reading anticipation guide. This full read aloud lesson is spread across two days. On the first day, PSTs activate prior knowledge, engage students in a building background knowledge activity that extends the Explore, pre-teach vocabulary, make predictions, and set a purpose for reading with their class. These are considered prereading activities. On the second day, PSTs engage their students in the during- and post-reading activities that include reading aloud the text, stopping at identified spots to ask comprehension questions and fill in the text structure graphic organizer, checking their predictions, writing about what they read using the graphic organizer, and administering the post-reading anticipation guide.
Writing Lesson Plan. Once PSTs understand informational text structure and plan their read aloud and science lessons, they move into planning a two-day writing lesson that serves as the Elaborate phase of the 5E Instructional Model. The preplanning of the writing lesson plan involves using a state standard for writing informational text and using the same graphic organizer from the interactive read aloud lesson. The writing lesson plan includes the following components: introducing the activity and setting a purpose, activating prior knowledge, analyzing a written model, modeled writing by the teacher, shared writing, shared writing again, peer review, and publishing.
PSTs are taught that introducing the writing activity and setting its purpose is meant to generate excitement. It is here that the PSTs might connect to the natural phenomenon or problem by opening the writing lesson plan with a letter or request to the class for information on the topic they have been studying. Some PSTs do this as a letter from someone in the school, the local news, a community member, or a STEM specialist or organization, asking the class to write about what they learned and to share it with the world around them. This is when the students learn what type of informational writing they will be doing as a class: recount, report, procedure, explanation, or persuasion (Dreher & Kletzien, 2015). When activating prior knowledge, a text structure graphic organizer will be used three times to have
students recall information learned from all lessons in the unit. The graphic organizers help students categorize their learning into three main topics for the whole-class writing. The PSTs develop questions to ask the students to help them fill in three key details on each graphic organizer, while the main idea is already written for the students. PSTs are taught to do this so the class knows the topic and can focus on recalling the information learned from the unit.
When analyzing a written model, the PSTs identify an exemplar text of the informational writing they will be doing with students and lead them through a review of the text, using a writing checklist adapted from Writing Units of Study (Calkins, 2017) . The PSTs review the writing checklist with the students before going through the exemplar text. Afterwards, PSTs model how to take the information on the first graphic organizer and turn it into the first page or paragraph of the writing piece. They think aloud and ask themselves questions to model this process in front of their students. Then, they guide the students in writing the next two pages or paragraphs, using the next two graphic organizers in a shared writing modality.
Once the writing is completed, the PSTs engage the students in rereading their writing and using the checklist and graphic organizers to make sure their writing piece has all the information necessary and meets the requirements for informational writing. Then, the PSTs celebrate the publication of their writing by sending the piece to the intended audience from the lesson introduction.
Assessments
Before PSTs plan and implement their integrated unit, they learn about assessments in the disciplines. This includes their purpose, data that can be collected and interpreted, and how to administer them. As teacher educators, we feel it is important that PSTs understand these concepts about assessment before they practice using them with students.
For science, assessments are used to gauge conceptual understanding and vocabulary knowledge in relation to the learning goals PSTs have written. They create a pre-assessment test given two weeks ahead of the unit beginning; it includes the prereading questions from the anticipation guide (described in next paragraph). They formulate a pre-assessment class discussion to find out student conceptions about the phenomenon under study in the storyline and conduct this during the Engage step of the 5E Instructional Model. During the remainder of the 5E Instructional Model phases, PSTs learn to use and analyze data from quick, formative assessments and anecdotal observations of student conceptions during teaching to make necessary adjustments to the unit lessons as time goes on. The unit ends with a summative assessment, repeating the pre-assessment test but removing any questions pertaining to learning goals that did not make it into the final unit lesson plans.
In literacy, PSTs learn about anticipation guides as a pre- and post-reading assessment
to track student comprehension of science concepts presented in the read aloud. In addition, PSTs learn how to use graphic organizers, observations, and checklists as formative assessments to track student understanding of the science information in the read aloud and writing lessons.
We find that preparing PSTs to administer a variety of assessments allows them to accurately plan an integrated unit that advances student knowledge and understanding of the concepts in science and literacy. Furthermore, the formative assessments inform PSTs’ decision-making process by reteaching or modifying lessons as they progress through their unit. Ultimately, they are prepared to use data to inform their instruction.
Curriculum Map
PSTs are provided an empty curriculum map to plan with their classroom teacher. The curriculum map is used to show how different parts of the school day are planned to help students work toward the learning goals in the unit, thereby achieving true integration. In collaboration with the classroom teacher, the PSTs use language from their storyline and lesson plans to write brief notes for what is happening on specific days and times that outline their teaching sequence for the science and literacy lessons. Table 2 is an example of a completed curriculum map. PSTs add rows to each chart as needed to show where the lessons may occur during a school day for different disciplines. If their teaching extends beyond one week, the PSTs make a second chart that explains the teaching sequence in the second week.
TABLE 2
Completed Curriculum Map by Preservice Teachers
In planning out their teaching sequence, we explain to the PSTs that their lessons will typically take more than one day, and this should be reflected in their completed curriculum map. In addition, we remind them that it will take a series of lessons to fully address a standard, and that no one lesson can teach an entire standard in literacy or science. On the curriculum map, the PSTs begin with their pre-assessment one to two weeks ahead of the unit teaching, then launch the unit with the Engage and Explore phases of the 5E Instructional Model. By day three, we suggest that the PSTs move into conducting the first half of the interactive read aloud lesson and follow it up with the Explain phase of the 5E Instructional Model. During day four, we recommend the PSTs complete the read aloud lesson plan with their class, begin the first half of the writing lesson plan, and begin the Elaborate phase of the 5E Instructional Model if it is separate from the writing lesson. On the fifth day, the PSTs should try to complete the writing lesson plan, Elaborate phase, and conduct their unit summative assessment.
Feedback and Reflections
During implementation of the integrated unit, PSTs collect student learning data via artifacts of work, anecdotal notes, and professor observational feedback. They use these sources of information for daily reflection regarding their science and literacy lessons. The purpose of our feedback and their reflections is to practice using the Massachusetts Candidate Assessment of Performance (CAP) elements (DESE, 2019) upon which they will be scored during their subsequent student teaching semester.
At the conclusion of the integrated unit, PSTs create a presentation that showcases their unit storyline, curriculum map, integration strategies, student work, and reflection on the CAP elements as a combined final exam for both college courses. During their presentation, PSTs provide evidence and explain how their teaching decisions and actions influenced student learning. Each PST adds another 5E Instructional Model to their curriculum map and storyline, helping to solidify the idea that each standard in science takes multiple lessons to accomplish and to help students understand a phenomenon. At the end of their presentation, each PST reflects on two CAP elements; an example is shown in Figure 2. They identify one CAP element with evidence they feel they are proficient in performing, and one that they need to work on during student teaching. To finish, PSTs state a professional goal they wish to advance further during student teaching based on the CAP element they identified as needing improvement. As a result, the PSTs are well prepared for the next semester as they work on their professional goal during student teaching.
FIGURE 2
Sample Student CAP Reflection
PSTs feel prepared for implementing integrated teaching. Anonymous exit survey data shows that 94% of surveyed PSTs feel very or somewhat confident in planning and implementing their own integrated unit in the future. Additionally, 94% of surveyed PSTs indicated that they are very likely or likely to implement an integrated unit on a different topic in their own classroom. As evidenced by this quote, PSTs’ noticed our goal of co-planning and co-teaching our teacher preparation courses,
Everythingleadingup to this hasprepared me forthe unit.Throughout the semesterwe worked onwriting effectivereading andwriting lessonplans, so the transition into the unitwas easy. Inscience,we did our own experiment firstusing the 5Emodel, andwe could use this in our unit as well.Thewholeexperiencewas definitelybetterbecause we hadalreadydone thesethingsbefore, and itwasn’t all brand new.
Summary and Next Steps for College Professors
As professors who teach preservice teachers, we find that co-teaching and co-planning our courses together demonstrate to PSTs the importance of planning with colleagues and teaching a unit that incorporates multiple academic disciplines. We encourage our fellow professors to identify colleagues who have teaching philosophies and goals that align with theirs. This first step opens the door for collaboration and to understanding each other’s pedagogical practices. We suggest that professors ask questions that probe for understanding
of each other’s course content, examine ways in which you prepare PSTs, and discuss overlap between to courses. Further into your collaboration, it will be helpful to identify one way in which you can build upon each other’s courses and open the door for co-teaching and coplanning. This may eventually lead you down a path similar to ours in redesigning our courses in a way that advances PST understanding of interdisciplinary teaching and learning.
References
Akerson, V. L., & Young, T. A. (2008). Why research on interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction? In V. L. Akerson (Ed.), Interdisciplinarylanguage arts and science instruction inelementaryclassrooms (pp. 3-13). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A., & Samad, A.A. (2011). How to teach expository text structure to facilitate reading comprehension. TheReadingTeacher, 64(5), 368-372.
Bybee, R. W. (2016). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creatingteachablemoments. NSTA Press.
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOLQuarterly, 19(4), 727-752.
Calkins, L. (2017). Aguide to thewritingworkshop:Primarygrades. Heinemann.
Cooper, J. D., Robinson, M .D., Slansky, J. A., & Kiger, N. D. (2018). Literacy:Helping students constructmeaning. Cengage.
Correia, M., & Brieske-Ulenski, A. (2021). Will you be my (virtual) book buddy? Teacher candidates and striving readers team up during a pandemic to meet each other’s literacy needs! PDSJournal, 16(4), 12-16.
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). (2019). Handbook forthe candidate assessment ofperformance. Retrieved from https://www.doe.mass.edu/ edprep/cap/handbook/handbook.docx
Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standardsthroughintegrated curriculum.ASCD. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/103011/chapters/What-Is-IntegratedCurriculum%C2%A2.aspx
Dreher, M. J., & Kletzien, S. B. (2015). Informational text in k-12 classrooms: Bestpractices to help childrenreading,write, and learn from nonfiction.The Guilford Press.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Sociallinguistics and literacies:Ideologyindiscourses, criticalperspectives on literacyand education. Taylor and Francis.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examiningpedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28-42). Routledge.
International Literacy Association and National Council of Teachers of English. (2017). Literacy teacherpreparation[Researchadvisory].
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. In H.H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinarycurriculum:Design andimplementation. ASCD. http://www.ascd. org/publications/books/61189156/chapters/The-Growing-Need-for-InterdisciplinaryCurriculum-Content.aspx
National Science Teachers Association (2017). Position statement: Science teacherpreparation. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/science-teacher-preparation
Plumley, C. L. (2019). 2018 Nationalsurvey ofscience and mathematics education: Status of elementaryschool science. Horizon Research, Inc.
Reiser, B. J ., Novak, M., McGill, T. A. W., & Penuel, W. (2021). Storyline units: An instructional model to support coherence from the students’ perspective. Journal ofScienceTeacher Education, 32(7), 805-829.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Thelanguage ofschooling:Afunctionallinguisticsperspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Siffrinn, N. E, & Lew, S. (2018). Building disciplinary language and literacy in elementary teacher training. TheReadingTeacher, 72(3), 325-341.
Suarez, E., Bell, P. McCulloch, A., & Starr, M. (2014-22). Practice brief 66: Why you should stop pre-teaching science vocabulary and focus on students developing conceptual meaning first. STEMTeachingTools. https://stemteachingtools.org/brief/66
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). Theunderstandingbydesignguide tocreatinghigh-quality units.Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Witherell, N. L., & McMackin, M. C. (2013). Vocabulary and the common core: Sounds like poetry to me! NewEnglandReadingAssociationJournal, 48(2), 21-27.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious scienceteaching. Harvard Education Press.
Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence? Engaging K-5 students inconstructingexplanations in science. Pearson.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Adam Brieske-Ulenski is an Assistant Professor of Reading Education and chair of the Graduate Reading programs at Bridgewater State University in the Elementary and Early Childhood Education Department. Adam has presented with ILA and other literacy associations about the roles of literacy professionals, including classroom teachers.
Nicole J. Glen is a Professor of Science Education at Bridgewater State University in the Elementary and Early Childhood Education Department. Nicole has presented and published about the role of writing and disciplinary literacy within science and engineering education.
