An Instructional Rationale for Linking
Content Area Learning and Literacy
Vitale and Romance (2007) outlined a logical basis for linking cumulative
content-area learning and literacy through a rationale that considers reading
comprehension as a subset of comprehension in general. By doing so, the
learning dynamics (e.g., prior knowledge, instructional coherence) for developing
meaningful comprehension and reading comprehension can be considered as
parallel. More specifically, cumulative meaningful learning provides a strong
foundation for both reading comprehension and student writing. This foundation
is central to the implementation of the Science IDEAS model.
In considering research on the effectiveness of the Science IDEAS model
across grades 1-8, Romance and Vitale (1992, 2001, 2008) and Vitale and
Romance (2006, 2009, 2010) have demonstrated consistently that cumulative,
in-depth science instruction results in substantial acceleration of student
reading comprehension proficiency (vs. similar students receiving basal
reading instruction). In such studies, it is important to recognize that
the performance of Science IDEAS students on nationally-normed reading comprehension
tests is, in itself, a significant transfer effect (i.e., students have
no prior exposure to test content). As a result, these studies demonstrate
the instructional power of integrating reading and writing within cumulative,
in-depth science instruction represents a significant difference from the
learning contexts represented by traditional basal reading selections (see
Walsh, 2003).
Some ongoing research initiatives relevant to the present literature
and to the Science IDEAS model are important to mention. For example, Cervetti
and Pearson (2006) have reported the results of studies addressing the role
of reading in the service of learning science through their “Roots and Seeds”
curriculum. Within their model, students first participate in hands-on hands-on
experiments to illustrate science concepts which are then followed by science
reading assignments. Duke and her colleagues (Duke, 2000b, 2007; Duke et
al., 2002) conducted a series of studies using informational texts in primary
grades. These studies addressed an important instructional deficiency identified
in earlier work in which Duke (2000a) reported a scarcity in the use of
informational texts at the primary levels. In related work, Duke and Pearson
(2002) reported the results of studies addressing use of informational text
to build reading comprehension (see also Maniates & Pearson, 2008; Pearson
& Fielding, 1995).
In research closely related to the Science IDEAS model, Guthrie and his
colleagues (Guthrie & Oztgungor, 2002; Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa, & Others,
2004; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004) have conducted series of studies
showing consistent improvement in student reading comprehension and motivation-to-learn
resulting from embedding science-focused instructional modules into traditional
reading programs using their CORI model. In a broader instructional intervention
working with ELL students across grades K-6 for whom science instruction
replaced traditional reading/language arts, Klentschy (2003) showed that
grade 6 students who participated in the initiative for 4 or more years
averaged a percentile rank of 64 on a state-administered nationally-normed
reading test. Complementary essays by Hirsch (1996, 2006) addressed the
cumulative learning of academic content as a major systemic deficiency in
U.S. elementary schools.