Teachers' Experiences With Multiple Literacies in Third Grade in the Context of Project-Based Science Learning

• In Event: Elementary Students' Academic and Social Emotional Learning Through Project-Based Learning: Results of an Efficacy Study

Abstract

Objectives and Theoretical Perspectives
As captured in our project title, multiple literacies (reading, writing, oral language, representing, and viewing) are integral to our curricular and instructional efforts. This is a propitious time to focus on multiple literacies, especially at third grade. A number of states are entertaining – or have adopted – “third-grade retention” laws stipulating that students not reading at grade level by the end of grade three are to be retained. This action is in response to the well-documented “4th-grade slump” in which students, who have been making satisfactory progress with reading, show significant declines in their reading achievement as they matriculate to fourth grade (McNamara et al., 2017).

Explanations for this phenomenon include the changing nature of text demands in 4th grade; specifically, more informational texts which include unfamiliar academic language and the expectation that students use background knowledge to draw inferences from text. Where are students to get exposure to informational text, build academic language, acquire background knowledge, and learn to use that background knowledge to draw inferences from text? Our hypothesis was that project-based science instruction was an ideal context in which to provide these learning opportunities. Indeed, research on the impact of integrating science and literacy instruction in the elementary grades has identified benefits for both knowledge building and literacy development (e.g., Guthrie and colleagues). We proposed that, by developing and including informational texts that were content rich, did not shy from the wise use of academic language, built on the knowledge students were generating in the course of their first-hand investigations, and included supports for teachers to use the texts in a highly interactive manner, we could provide the learning opportunities that would address opportunity gaps. Our purpose is to explore the evidence regarding the usefulness and accuracy of this proposal, through reflections of teachers enacting instruction.

Method and Data Sources
We use interviews because we are interested in teachers’ stories of their experiences (see Seidman, 2006) and how they make meaning of the integration of literacy in science when teaching third-grade students, many of whom were achieving below grade level. We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed interviews (45-to-60 mins.) with 20 teachers who represented 17 schools. The interview used a set of open questions that invited a broad array of responses. Using open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), we identified patterns that informed our understanding of how the literacy resources are supporting and failing to support teachers’ efforts to enact ambitious literacy instruction in the context of project-based science teaching.

Results and Significance
Illustrative findings include: (a) teachers’ reports of an increase in engagement, both for the students and for the teachers; (b) teachers viewed the researcher-designed texts as topically and thematically coherent, highly connected to the lesson content, and accessible to all learners; (c) features of unit texts promoted motivation for learning, evidenced by students seeking additional unit-related materials throughout the day, students asking for opportunities to write, and the teachers themselves (re)discovering a joy for teaching science.

Authors

• Gabriel Philip DellaVecchia, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Miranda Fitzgerald, University of North Carolina - Charlotte

• Kathleen M Easley, The Learning Partnership

• Annemarie S. Palincsar, University of Michigan