Further Wrestling with the “Science of Reading” in Our Science Worlds, Part II

By Brian Bartel and Kevin Anderson

In the November 2023 WSST Newsletter (p. 18) we shared initial details on what the “Science of Reading” is and some words of caution in planning out programs. This new law has definitely added a bit of spice to the already full plates of elementary teachers, especially given the legally required professional learning that is taking 80 hours or more in some districts. Therefore, our advocacy for strong elementary science is even more important, but we have to be mindful of breaking those plates. So, what would we suggest for elementary teachers who want to keep science strong? Are there implications for secondary science teachers too? And, what are the lessons we should be pulling from all this hoopla for using textbooks and research to guide our instruction?

What are some important considerations for elementary teachers?

Perhaps the key part of Act 20 to consider in relation to science is the requirement to build student background knowledge. Many early literacy programs have students reading about science, but as we know, we need to do more than read about it. Therefore, the work of districts like Wauwatosa is notable, where they are lining up their literacy units that have a science context with their science units and standards at each elementary grade. Coherence in learning across subjects is a critical first step; so, be wary of literacy programs that promise to replace science instruction instead of working alongside it.

It’s important to be a little cautious about literacy or science programs created primarily to be more “fun” and “engaging” for all students. One reason why “balanced literacy” programs like Lucy Calkins were so popular is that they were seen as more engaging for all students than traditional phonics and phonemes work. Science curriculum, likewise, can gravitate toward doing lots of fun and frenetic activities that get students excited. Research shows, however, that this was the wrong approach in literacy, and it is in science too. Students need both lab activities and access to other more direct types of learning opportunities to most effectively build conceptual understanding.

Should secondary science teachers care?

While secondary teachers are fairly insulated from the impacts of Act 20, you still have an important role to play. You are the advocates, the champions, and the mentors for elementary teachers trying to teach science well. There have been several Wisconsin secondary science teachers who have nudged their district leadership to do better with elementary science, and have seen changes happen.

Literacy, also, of course, plays a role in your classrooms. This work could support you in considering how to help your students who do not read well. You can glean ideas for how to bring more research-based literacy learning to your classrooms, such as thoughtful vocabulary instruction and making sure students aren’t just parroting those terms.

So can we trust textbooks?

As we observe elementary teachers experience this shift in reading instruction, we might ask ourselves, “can we trust our own textbooks?” Remember that the resources adopted by districts across the nation were essentially using methods that ran counter to the most up to date research on reading. And in some cases, these resources obstinately ignored research that conflicted with their own work. There are now districts actively contemplating how they can remove and discard many of these resources from teacher shelves. We envision scenes from “Dead Poet’s Society” where students are prompted by Robin William’s character to rip out chapters of their textbooks. But we are not advocating for that kind of drama with our science textbooks!

For the most part, we can trust textbook companies to deliver trustworthy products. We have to remember that these companies employ a wide array of experts to make science textbooks that host general information about a subject. These experts can be subject experts, language experts, art and design experts, and others, just to name a few. Textbooks go through many drafts and iterations, often field tested by teachers, before they reach a finished product. And good science textbooks even reference scientific literature for the discoveries found therein. Of course, remember that publication dates matter. We know that science changes, and sometimes printed textbooks can etch content in pages for decades when recent discoveries may demand updating. But that’s the process of science, isn’t it? We can both remember teaching a three kingdom model in taxonomy, and then teaching a six kingdom model, and later shifting to the higher level of domains. Modern textbooks that live online might be able to update that information more quickly, but there’s value in visually pointing out some of the older ideas in textbooks. You can literally teach the process of science while learning content!

Even a recently published textbook can have shortcomings, as we have seen textbooks that mostly consist of prescribed labs along with readings and answering comprehension questions. They rarely move beyond DOK 2 and are not usually student-centered. Fortunately, you can also use reference tools like EdReports to provide reviews of textbooks you might be using or are considering for adoption. We also have to remember that what we teach isn’t always bound directly inside of a textbook adoption. There are science standards to consider (hopefully your textbook has been published since the release of NGSS over a decade ago), as well as your district’s scope and sequence. And teacher craft comes into play, especially as you consider appropriate inquiry-driven, hands-on activities. So it’s natural to seek out supplemental resources. Brian had the fortune of starting out as a science teacher under the mentorship of seasoned veterans like Gary Krueger (a former WSST president) who would literally push resources and lesson ideas into his lap - Gary called this “peer poaching”. Many of those ideas (that probably originated from other WSST members at conferences and from Science World!) supplemented the content in the textbooks Brian was using. Modern practices of peer poaching have moved online, which has helped to create a small industry for aspiring educators who want to sell their craft. But we have to be careful of steering directly into crowdsourcing our curriculum through

Facebook groups, Pinterest, Teachers Pay Teachers, and other sources. Some of these ideas can lead to “feel good” teaching over best practices, as we witnessed in reading instruction. In addition, these communities also provided echo chambers that amplified and rebroadcast questionable reading strategies that are now being tossed out or even banned (e.g. three-cueing).

That’s not to say that these online communities don’t have value. In fact, while textbooks may have reliable content, they might be slower to update instructional practices when new standards are adopted. To fill that void, we have seen some wonderful resources created by “boots on the ground” teachers. For instance, consider the emergence of storylines developed in an effort to create units around engaging, real world phenomena. Organizations like OpenSciEd even offer curriculum built around this approach. Rightfully so, many textbook publishers have begun to take notice of these efforts and are updating their instructional practices.

So what are science teachers supposed to do?

Here’s our advice. Get to know your textbook and recognize where it might need some updates, especially with instructional practices. Know how your textbook addresses your district’s science standards so you can fill in the gaps where they might be lacking. And seek out professional science communities like WSST and Kevin Anderson from the DPI; they have resources and strategies to offer that are reliable, tested and NGSS aligned.