View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Academic Vocabulary Instruction and Socio-Scientific Issue Discussion in Urban Sixth-Grade Science Classrooms

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Academic Vocabulary Instruction and Socio-Scientific Issue Discussion in Urban Sixth-Grade Science Classrooms
Language: English
Authors: Relyea, Jackie Eunjung, Zhang, Jie, Wong, Sissy S., Samuelson, Courtney, Wui, Ma. Glenda Lopez
Source: Journal of Educational Research. 2022 115(1):37-50.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 6
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Junior High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Academic Language, Vocabulary Development, Science and Society, Grade 6, Urban Schools, Science Education, Middle School Students, Bilingual Students, Interdisciplinary Approach, Intervention
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2021.2022584
ISSN: 0022-0671
Abstract: Given the growing evidence of academic language demands embodied in science practices, this study aimed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of a literacy-science integrated program that emphasized the incorporation of academic vocabulary instruction and collaborative discussion of a socio-scientific issue in sixth-grade science classrooms in an urban school. The treatment students (n = 73) who participated in the intervention had significantly higher academic vocabulary knowledge and scientific argumentation posttest scores than the control students (n = 62). The effect on academic vocabulary knowledge was particularly greater for bilingual students than their monolingual peers. Mediation analyses revealed that the intervention effects on science content knowledge and scientific argumentation were mediated by academic vocabulary knowledge. Findings indicate that science teachers' instructional scaffolding for academic vocabulary and authentic discourse can not only improve students' academic vocabulary knowledge but also indirectly affect science content knowledge and scientific argumentation via academic vocabulary knowledge.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1331502
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHLXTzyhrEuOcdZnyacKjSmAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHRHHzbg7wOh6t0HKwIBEICBm0p67TTlaDQdTtX9AvISeFLEqtZjW17NT4JNNtZntHOMIhmk59GJ0NVHOn4QqOfy8WrdRgWTey3icvEVLlJAlOV8czr7hY4EuaG8UfuXX10DXlpgcka6CekxkaoF2MF0NhUIYPxEmPn6GL3srNJJRjXsyteJj7RX7BJcUehGXctpg4g6b-AtZcYr867psvo6N5g_byQA1sBv6fCa
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0155318319;ere01jan.22;2022Feb21.06:16;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155318319-1">Academic vocabulary instruction and socio-scientific issue discussion in urban sixth-grade science classrooms </title> <p>Given the growing evidence of academic language demands embodied in science practices, this study aimed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of a literacy-science integrated program that emphasized the incorporation of academic vocabulary instruction and collaborative discussion of a socio-scientific issue in sixth-grade science classrooms in an urban school. The treatment students (n = 73) who participated in the intervention had significantly higher academic vocabulary knowledge and scientific argumentation posttest scores than the control students (n = 62). The effect on academic vocabulary knowledge was particularly greater for bilingual students than their monolingual peers. Mediation analyses revealed that the intervention effects on science content knowledge and scientific argumentation were mediated by academic vocabulary knowledge. Findings indicate that science teachers' instructional scaffolding for academic vocabulary and authentic discourse can not only improve students' academic vocabulary knowledge but also indirectly affect science content knowledge and scientific argumentation via academic vocabulary knowledge.</p> <p>Keywords: literacy-science integration; academic vocabulary knowledge; science content knowledge; scientific argumentation; socio-scientific issues</p> <p>Academic vocabulary knowledge is a strong determinant of academic content knowledge acquisition (Beck & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]; Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref2">57</reflink>]). Students' semantic word knowledge contributes to effective inference making and building a coherent understanding of text and content, such that vocabulary knowledge serves as a proxy for content knowledge (Anderson & Freebody, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Stahl & Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref4">59</reflink>]). Given that content-specific academic vocabulary learning occurs in the context of building content knowledge (Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]; Snow, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref6">55</reflink>]), lack of academic vocabulary knowledge has been frequently identified as an obstacle to academic success, particularly for bilingual or linguistically diverse students who speak a language other than English (August et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]; Carlo et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]; Nagy & Townsend, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref9">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>The critical importance of academic vocabulary in content-subject areas is reflected in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) that require students to develop general academic and domain-specific vocabulary in content areas outside of English language arts (ELA) to access complex texts and material in grade-level topics and subject areas (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]). In science, particularly, the Framework for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref11">45</reflink>]) places a heavy emphasis on students' engagement in authentic discourse in science classrooms. These standards emphasize the use of academic vocabulary and language as well as evidence-based argumentation in learning essential science content. Therefore, both CCSS and NGSS place enriching rigorous academic vocabulary development in meaningful science classroom discourse at the center of students' learning and educational success.</p> <p>Despite the importance of academic vocabulary knowledge in content areas, many middle-grade content-subject classrooms are not likely to incorporate explicit and systematic vocabulary instruction in students' content learning (Lesaux et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>]). Furthermore, many content-area teachers have difficulty in allocating sufficient time to teach academic words that represent disciplinary concepts and ideas, and some view academic vocabulary instruction as the responsibility of ELA or reading teachers (Frey, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]; Lesaux et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref14">36</reflink>]; Rex & Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref15">50</reflink>]). Thus, content-area classrooms other than ELA seldom provide the quality and intensity of domain-specific academic vocabulary instruction necessary for students' content knowledge development. However, an emerging body of research indicates that linking disciplinary-specific vocabulary instruction with science teaching and learning has positive impacts on literacy and science outcomes for multilingual students (e.g., August et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; August et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]; Lara-Alecio et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]; Van Orman et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref19">63</reflink>]) and English-speaking monolingual students (e.g., Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to academic vocabulary instruction, student-centered, inquiry-based classroom discussion can promote the development of academic vocabulary knowledge and academic outcomes (Applebee et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]; Murphy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]; Palincsar & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref23">47</reflink>]; Reznitskaya et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref24">51</reflink>]), with particular benefits for bilingual students (e.g., Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]; Lawrence et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; Lin et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]). Studies of inquiry-based classroom discussion in content areas suggest that collaborative development of complex concepts and ideas through discussion can facilitate better understanding of academic content, authentic and productive language and thinking skills, and student engagement (e.g., Cartwright & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]; Matsumura et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref29">39</reflink>]). However, little time is devoted to inquiry-based classroom discussion and discourse practices in content-area classrooms due to multiple barriers, including time constraints (Plourde, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref30">48</reflink>]) and teachers' limited prior experience or knowledge of facilitating productive classroom discussions (Lawrence et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The primary goal of the current study was to design an evidence-based literacy-infused science intervention program with the intent to build capacity and support for sixth-grade science teachers' implementation of academic vocabulary instruction and inquiry-based discussion practices in their classrooms. The present study was to investigate the impact of this implementation on academic vocabulary knowledge, science content knowledge, and scientific argumentation of students in low-performing urban middle school classrooms with high portions of linguistically diverse students. We also examined whether the intervention effects were varied based on students' language status (i.e., bilingual or monolingual students) and whether students' improved academic vocabulary knowledge mediated the science content knowledge and scientific argumentation outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-2">Academic vocabulary knowledge in disciplinary learning</hd> <p>Academic vocabulary consists of words and phrases that are frequently used in academic disciplinary texts and discussions to convey abstract and technical ideas and to facilitate cognitive processing of academic content (Baumann & Graves, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref32">9</reflink>]; Nagy & Townsend, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>]; Snow & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]). Academic vocabulary words are typically classified as one of two types (Hiebert & Lubliner, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>]): (a) general academic vocabulary that refers to words that are used relatively frequently in academic discussion and texts across a variety of disciplines (Baumann & Graves, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref36">9</reflink>]; Coxhead, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]) and (b) domain-specific academic vocabulary that represents a lexicon of relatively low-frequency words for concepts and ideas that are unique to particular academic domains such as science, mathematics, or social studies (e.g., Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]; Nagy & Townsend, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the importance of domain-specific academic vocabulary as it is fundamental to understanding complex discipline texts and building specialized knowledge (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]; Fitzgerald et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]). The knowledge hypothesis suggests that "knowledge of individual words is just the tip of the iceberg" in the overall knowledge of a topic with more unseen knowledge below the surface of the ocean (Stahl & Nagy, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref43">59</reflink>], p. 10). If a student knows the meaning of a word specific to a discipline, the knowledge of the word can facilitate building more knowledge about the topic in the discipline in which the word involves.</p> <p>Despite the wide recognition of the significance of domain-specific academic vocabulary for students' learning and academic success, only a small number of studies have evaluated vocabulary instructions designed to improve students' domain-specific academic vocabulary knowledge in content-area classrooms in secondary schools (Townsend et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref44">62</reflink>]). It may be because the unique characteristics of domain-specific academic words present challenges for content-area teaching and learning. They tend to be highly abstract, technical, morphologically complex, and polysemous in nature. Furthermore, these words frequently convey multiple meanings in many different contexts, making it challenging for students to both comprehend these types of words and use them accurately in their writing and discussion (Bravo & Cervetti, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]). Yet, these features underscore the need for explicit vocabulary instruction with a connection to broader concepts in authentic contexts (Lesaux et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]; Nagy & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>]; Nagy & Townsend, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref48">43</reflink>]). These words should be taught and used in rich and varied contexts which provides an opportunity to develop more in-depth conceptual knowledge in a content discipline (Bolger et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]; Carlo et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref50">16</reflink>]; Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref51">58</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-3">Academic vocabulary instruction with linguistically diverse students in science classrooms</hd> <p>Increased attention in the integration of literacy and science instruction has underscored the need for effective instructional approaches to enhance both literacy and science learning. Although a growing body of research in recent years has investigated the effects of the literacy-embedded content-area instruction (e.g., Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]; Guthrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref53">24</reflink>]) or literacy instruction focusing on reading and writing content-rich texts (e.g., Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]), there is limited evidence that content-area instruction that integrates the aforementioned evidence-based vocabulary practices can have a positive impact on linguistically diverse students' academic vocabulary and content knowledge development.</p> <p>Although limited, emerging studies have indicated that linguistically diverse students, in particular, can benefit from science instruction that emphasizes both academic language and vocabulary learning along with content knowledge development. For example, August et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref55">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>]) conducted a set of randomized control studies to examine the effectiveness of a nine-week intervention, <emph>Quality English and Science Teaching</emph> (QuEST), in supporting sixth-grade English learners' academic language and science learning. The intervention highlighted explicit instruction of general academic and science-specific vocabulary; word-learning strategies using cognate, root words, and affixes; and linguistic and contextual scaffolding for English learners (e.g., visual materials, graphic organizers, concept map, Spanish translation). These vocabulary instruction components were embedded in the 5E (Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend, and Evaluate) science instructional model. During the lessons, students participated in whole-class discussions on specific science topics (e.g., cells, space) and teachers clarified and elaborated on student responses. Yet, the discussion activities were more bound to target concepts or text comprehension rather than rooted in meaningful, authentic dialogue about complex science-related issues.</p> <p>In another quasi-experimental study, Lawrence et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref57">34</reflink>]) examined the efficacy of discussion-based instructional practices primarily designed to enhance middle-grade students' vocabulary learning in multiple content areas. This intervention program called <emph>Word Generation</emph> focused on the weekly presentation of high-utility academic words in meaningful texts and discussion activities on controversial topics as an integral part of the academic vocabulary intervention program. Students in the treatment group engaged in whole-class and/or small-group discussions in which they were encouraged to utilize the target words in the classroom discourse. The researchers found significant positive intervention effects on the treatment-group English learners' academic vocabulary outcomes.</p> <p>Likewise, a recent study by Van Orman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref58">63</reflink>]) showed that both English learners and their proficient English-speaking peers who participated in the vocabulary intervention embedded in a seventh-grade science unit—the <emph>Science Vocabulary Support</emph> (SVS) program—experienced more gains in academic vocabulary and reading comprehension outcomes than their counterparts in business-as-usual classrooms. Although both intervention studies reported significantly positive treatment effects on both English learners and monolingual English-speaking students' curriculum-based measures of taught academic words, it is unknown whether and to what extent the enhanced academic vocabulary knowledge can lead to improvement in science content learning and acquisition.</p> <p>Taken together, the findings suggest the need to incorporate robust academic vocabulary instruction tightly coupled with rich discussion activities in content area classrooms for linguistically diverse students who require supplemental support in enhancing academic vocabulary and disciplinary content learning. August et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref59">7</reflink>]) argued that literacy-science integration designed to foster English learners' literacy skills and science content knowledge may not come at a disadvantage to their English-proficient peers in the same classrooms. The use of a variety of scaffolding techniques and differentiated instructional practices to meet English learners' needs is a critical factor contributing to promoting their understanding of vocabulary concepts and domain-specific contents. However, further investigation is needed to examine to what extent the integration of vocabulary instruction in middle-grade science classrooms can affect not only students' academic vocabulary knowledge but also content knowledge and whether the improved vocabulary knowledge is positively associated with science content knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-4">Inquiry-based science learning through socio-scientific issue discussion</hd> <p>The Framework for the NGSS (National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]) underscores the importance of scientific discourse that involves developing claims and supporting evidence through an inquiry investigation. Engaging in science inquiry and discourse practices is essential to science learning because it provides students with opportunities to enhance conceptual understanding of scientific phenomena through the process of formulating questions, constructing and critiquing explanations, and evaluating claims and evidence (Osborne, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref61">46</reflink>]). Inquiry-based science learning requires students to collaborate with peers or teachers, think deeply to understand complex concepts, and link the utility of science content to their personal lives inside and outside school (Krajcik & Czerniak, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recent science education researchers have implemented inquiry-based science curricular units and instructional strategies to promote students' understanding of complex science content and science-based decision-making processes. One innovative approach has been the inclusion of socio-scientific issues as a central theme in science instruction (Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref63">52</reflink>]; Zeidler, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref64">65</reflink>]). Socio-scientific issues are complex and controversial social issues and dilemmas with conceptual or procedural linkages to science as well as students' own lives (Sadler et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref65">53</reflink>]). In socio-scientific-issues-based instruction, dialogic argumentation is a central instructional framework in which a group of students grapple with controversial questions and engage in active meaning-making as they discuss, question, and evaluate one another's positions in light of evidence and reasoning (Ash & Wells, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]). Socio-scientific-issues-based instructional models have demonstrated that the use of socio-scientific issues in classroom discussion improves students' science content knowledge (e.g., Kinslow et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref67">30</reflink>]; Sadler et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref68">53</reflink>]; Venville & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref69">64</reflink>]), academic vocabulary use in oral discourse (e.g., Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref70">67</reflink>]), argumentation skills (e.g., Reznitskaya et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref71">51</reflink>]), and decision-making skills (e.g., Klosterman & Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref72">31</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref73">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, these discourse-rich, socio-scientific-issues-based learning opportunities present increasingly intensive academic language demands for many bilingual students who are learning English as an additional language and simultaneously working to develop rigorous content knowledge. Explicit vocabulary instruction that focuses on abstract and complex science-specific concept words can scaffold both English learners and their native-English-speaking peers in the process of obtaining information from written materials. Furthermore, providing instructional support and scaffolds to help students engage in higher-order processes of claim, evidence, and reasoning in whole-class or small-group discussion is necessary for the design and implementation of effective socio-scientific-issues-based instruction (Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref74">52</reflink>]). A well-structured productive inquiry-based discussion of engaging current event topics and issues, coupled with scaffolded, explicit instruction in academic vocabulary and argumentation, can facilitate bilinguals' or English learners' English vocabulary acquisition. We proposed that this vocabulary knowledge, in turn, can be leveraged for the development of science knowledge development and argumentation skills.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-5">The current study</hd> <p>Considering the need for effective instructional approaches in light of the NGSS-aligned science practices that involve intensive academic language demands (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref75">35</reflink>]), the current study aimed to examine the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary intervention program, <emph>Dialogic Inquiry for Socio-scientific and Conceptual Understanding in School Science</emph> (<emph>DISCUSS</emph>), that emphasized the integration of academic vocabulary instruction and collaborative inquiry-based group discussion practices on socio-scientific issues (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref76">67</reflink>]). The DISCUSS intervention was implemented in sixth-grade science classrooms in an urban middle school with high portions of students speaking a language other than English. Figure 1 displays the hypothesized logic model of the DISCUSS intervention. We hypothesized that the core components of the intervention would lead to a positive effect on academic vocabulary knowledge that may serve as a potential mediator of the intervention effects on students' science content knowledge and scientific argumentation. Guided by this logic model, we first examined the overall impact of the intervention treatment on academic vocabulary knowledge (a mediator or proxy outcome) as well as science content knowledge and scientific argumentation (distal outcomes). We further investigated whether the intervention effects differed for bilingual students who were learning English as a second language and English-speaking monolingual students. Finally, we explored the mediating role of students' academic vocabulary in the treatment effect on science content knowledge and scientific argumentation. The three specific research questions guiding the study were:</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Hypothesized logic model for the intervention: intervention components, proxy outcome, and distal outcomes.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the impact of the DISCUSS intervention implemented in sixth-grade science classrooms on students' academic vocabulary knowledge, science content knowledge, and scientific argumentation?</item> <p></p> <item> Do the DISCUSS intervention treatment effects vary by language status (bilingual or monolingual students)?</item> <p></p> <item> Does academic vocabulary knowledge mediate the treatment effect on science content knowledge and scientific argumentation?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155318319-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155318319-7">Participants</hd> <p>The current intervention study was conducted in a middle school located in an economically disadvantaged urban district in southern Texas. Nearly 80% of students in the school were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Participants included 135 sixth-grade students (49% female; age <emph>M</emph> = 11.82 years; <emph>SD</emph> =.61) and 52% of them were bilinguals (<emph>n</emph> = 70) who spoke a language other than English with their family members at home. Additionally, 27% of the students (<emph>n</emph> = 36) were born outside the United States. As shown in Table 1, of the participants, 43% were Hispanic, 27% were Black/African American, 9% were Asian, 1% were American Indian, 2% were White/European American, and 9% were of other ethnicities. Six science teachers from six different classrooms participated in the study: half the classrooms were randomly assigned to the treatment condition and half were assigned to the control. A total of 73 students from the treatment classrooms and 62 students from the control classrooms agreed to participate in the project.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographics of student participations by treatment condition.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>All (<italic>N</italic> = 135)</td><td>Treatment (<italic>n</italic> = 73)</td><td>Control (<italic>n</italic> = 62)</td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">66</td><td char=".">51%</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">49%</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">48%</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">49%</td><td char=".">37</td><td char=".">51%</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">52%</td></tr><tr><td>Race/ethnicity</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> American Indian</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2%</td></tr><tr><td> Asian</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">9%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">8%</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">10%</td></tr><tr><td> Black/African American</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">27%</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">26%</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">27%</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td char=".">58</td><td char=".">43%</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">49%</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">35%</td></tr><tr><td> White/European American</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1%</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2%</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">9%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">10%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">8%</td></tr><tr><td> Unknown</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">10%</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">6%</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">16%</td></tr><tr><td>Home language</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> English only</td><td char=".">56</td><td char=".">41%</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">41%</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">42%</td></tr><tr><td> Language other than English</td><td char=".">70</td><td char=".">52%</td><td char=".">41</td><td char=".">56%</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">47%</td></tr><tr><td> Unknown</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">7%</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3%</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">11%</td></tr><tr><td>Maternal education</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Less than a high school diploma</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">7%</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">12%</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr><tr><td> High school diploma</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">15%</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">20%</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">8%</td></tr><tr><td> 2- or 4-year college</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">22%</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">18%</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">27%</td></tr><tr><td> Graduate school</td><td char=".">48</td><td char=".">35%</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">36%</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">36%</td></tr><tr><td> Unknown</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">21%</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">14%</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">29%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155318319-8">Intervention description</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155318319-9">Intervention curriculum</hd> <p>The treatment curriculum consisted of 20 lessons comprising a unit, <emph>Space Exploration</emph>, and was implemented in three sixth-grade science classrooms. The unit curriculum was aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for sixth-grade science standards, covering <emph>The Solar System</emph> unit content that was taught in the control group and other sixth-grade classrooms in the district. Table 2 displays the four-week <emph>Space Exploration</emph> unit curriculum of the treatment classrooms. The treatment group teachers taught a two- or three-day content unit (i.e., <emph>The Solar System</emph>) as well as a socio-scientific issues unit (i.e., <emph>Space Exploration</emph>) for another two or three days each week. The <emph>Space Exploration</emph> unit was divided into four thematic domains associated with the space exploration projects: <emph>technological innovation</emph> (week 1), <emph>economic impact</emph> (week 2), <emph>space junk and environmental impact</emph> (week 3), and <emph>public policy</emph> (week 4). In a weekly thematic subunit, the treatment group students read a new argumentative passage from a researcher-developed booklet that provided opposing viewpoints on the complex issue of the U.S. federal government funding for space exploration along with the description of potential consequences and tradeoffs involved.</p> <p>Table 2. The space exploration unit curriculum of the intervention treatment condition.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Week</td><td>Science content coverage and standards (Day 1-3)</td><td>Socio-scientific issues lesson topics (Day 3-5)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">1</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>History and future of space exploration</p></list-item><list-item><p>Types of equipment and transportation needed for space travel (TEKS 6.11[C])</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Introduction to space exploration issues and a central discussion question</p></list-item><list-item><p>Space exploration and technological innovation</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td char=".">2</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Solar system: scale of relative distance</p></list-item><list-item><p>Scale of relative size of plants</p></list-item><list-item><p>Characteristics of planets</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Space exploration and economic impact</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td char=".">3</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Gravity and the motion of our solar system (TEKS 6.11[B])</p></list-item><list-item><p>The physical properties, locations, and movements of the Sun, planets, Galilean moons, meteors, asteroids, and comets (TEKS 6.11[A])</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Space junk and the environmental impact of space exploration</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td char=".">4</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Introduction to rocketry</p></list-item><list-item><p>Rocket launch and redesign</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Space exploration and public policy</p></list-item><list-item><p>Reconsidering the central discussion question</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. TEKS = Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills.</p> <p>For both science content and socio-scientific issues lessons, the treatment group teachers followed the 7E instruction model—<emph>Elicit</emph>, <emph>Engage</emph>, <emph>Establish</emph>, <emph>Explore</emph>, <emph>Explain</emph>, <emph>Elaborate</emph>, and <emph>Evaluate</emph>—that was a modified and expanded version of the traditional 5E instructional model (Bybee & Landes, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]). We included the two additional, <emph>Elicit</emph> and <emph>Establish</emph>, to adapt the model for students learning English as an additional language and to scaffold content learning by activating background knowledge and providing explicit vocabulary instruction. Table 3 illustrates a brief description of the 7E model components and corresponding science content and socio-scientific issues lesson samples.</p> <p>Table 3. Illustration of 7E instruction model and corresponding science content and socio-scientific issues lesson examples.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>7E Sequence</td><td>Description</td><td>Science content lesson</td><td>Socio-scientific issues lesson</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Elicit</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Elicit prior knowledge regarding content</p></list-item><list-item><p>Introduce content/language objectives and new science vocabulary words</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Activate background knowledge about the planets in the solar system</p></list-item><list-item><p>Identify misconceptions in student understanding</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Activate background knowledge about how space program has impacted everyday life</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Engage</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Generate interest and curiosity in topic of the lesson</p></list-item><list-item><p>Raise questions and/or students raise questions regarding topic</p></list-item><list-item><p>Connect lesson objectives with students' lived experiences, home life, culture, etc.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Ask students about the size of the sun and other planets in comparison</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students share their experience in visiting an observatory or having conversations about the solar system, etc.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Show a set of pictures of invented products and discuss the products invented for NASA's space exploration projects</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Establish</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Provide relevant and necessary background information for students to participate in the lesson topic</p></list-item><list-item><p>Explicit instruction of academic vocabulary and word learning strategies</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Pre-teach science concepts by linking what students already know (e.g., scale, proportion, model)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students read a text that provides guidance on the concept of a scale model.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Teach new words using visuals, contextual sentences, concept maps, and affixes/root words</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Explore</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students test hypotheses, conduct hands-on investigations on key concepts and engage in discussions with peers.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students create a scale model of the planets using the reference of the sun as the size of a basketball.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Students discuss to decide on the size.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students read the assigned sections of the weekly booklet.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Small-group discussion on a given domain question in the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) framework</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Explain</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students present and explain concept in their own words using the CER.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Facilitate and guide toward accurate understandings</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students present their model to the class using evidence and reasoning to explain their claim on their scale model of the solar system.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students write a summary of group discussion in a CER diagram chart and present it to the whole class.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Elaborate</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Prompt students to use alternative explanations to explore new situations and existing evidence to propose new solutions</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students discuss the controversy behind Pluto's classification as a dwarf planet and a possibility to reclassify it as a planet.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students challenge one another and consider alternative perspectives.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Evaluate</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Assess students' content and language knowledge and skills and ability to apply new concepts.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students complete a quick write to determine the proportion of dwarf planets using CER to explain their conclusion.</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students write argumentative paragraphs to address the domain question in the CER format.</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. Adapted from Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref78">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the <emph>Elicit</emph> state, teachers prompted for prior knowledge on a subunit topic, and students connected it to their understanding of previous content. Teachers also introduced content and language objectives along with new science vocabulary words that students would learn. During the <emph>Engage</emph> stage, students participated in initial discussions to raise questions regarding a topic and reveal their ideas and experience.</p> <p>The <emph>Establish</emph> stage was to pre-teach science concepts and provide explicit instruction of academic vocabulary and word-learning strategies. We selected 3-4 target science-specific academic vocabulary words for each lesson. The target words were from an argumentative passage that represented new and potentially difficult concepts in each lesson. Teachers provided scaffolds in the form of concept maps of target words, visual images, definitions in a native language, and sentences providing clear examples of word meanings in context. Students were also taught word-learning strategies through explicit teacher modeling that included drawing on their cognate knowledge as a means of figuring out unfamiliar words in English and deriving a word meaning by analyzing morphemes. For example, treatment teachers explained what root words were (e.g., <emph>aster-</emph>/<emph>astro</emph>-), the meaning of the root (e.g., <emph>start</emph> in Greek), and how suffixes added to the root word can turn them into a word with different meanings (e.g., <emph>asteroid</emph>, <emph>astronomical</emph>, <emph>astronaut</emph>, <emph>asterisk</emph>).</p> <p>In the <emph>Explore</emph> stage, students had an opportunity to work together without direct instruction by testing scientific hypotheses, conducting hands-on investigations on key concepts, and engaging in discussions with their peers. The teachers facilitated students' exploration by asking questions and prompting for authentic scientific experimentation. Likewise, in the socio-scientific issues lessons, students engaged in a small-group discussion to investigate key concepts in response to an overarching question—<emph>Should the U.S. government increase or decrease funding for space exploration?—</emph>as well as four specific domain questions: <emph>Would increasing or decreasing funding for the space exploration project be beneficial for technological innovation</emph> (domain 1), <emph>U.S. economy</emph> (domain 2), <emph>space environment</emph> (domain 3), and <emph>public policy</emph> (domain 4)? While students discussed the controversial socio-scientific issue and considered civic and ethical dilemmas therein, the treatment group teachers encouraged students to use the target academic vocabulary words that were introduced in the aforementioned <emph>Establish</emph> stage in authentic dialogical contexts. In the collaborative group interaction, students engaged in the argumentative thinking process to reach and justify decisions in response to the given domain question.</p> <p>Then, in the <emph>Explain</emph> stage, students presented and explained the concept discussed in their small group to the whole class. The presentation structure consisted of three components: claim (e.g., a conclusion that answered the specific domain question), evidence (e.g., textual evidence from the booklet or textbook that supported the group claim), and reasoning (e.g., the justification for why the evidence identified supported the claim). Teachers facilitated and guided students toward accurate and clear understandings of the content.</p> <p>The <emph>Elaborate</emph> stage was to provide students with an opportunity to further explore alternative perspectives and propose new solutions. For example, teachers prompted students to discuss the controversy over Pluto being classified as a dwarf planet and whether Pluto needed to be reconsidered as a planet. Moreover, after listening to peers' presentations on the socio-scientific issues discussion summary, students were encouraged to pose hypothetical "what if" questions and propose alternative argumentation.</p> <p>Finally, the <emph>Evaluate</emph> stage involved informal assessment to gauge students' content and language knowledge and skills and their ability to apply new understanding to the main concept and issues associated with space exploration projects. Students engaged in an argumentative writing activity to effectively and coherently organize their argumentation and understanding based on the small-group and whole-class discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-10">Professional development</hd> <p>Three science teachers from the treatment group received professional development prior to the intervention implementation. The teachers participated in a whole-day summer training session to review the intervention core components, curriculum, lesson materials, and implementation procedures. The session also focused on instructional approaches to integrating academic vocabulary instruction into science lessons and facilitating collaborative small-group and whole-class discussion activities. Throughout the intervention implementation, the research team provided the teachers with ongoing assistance and support during weekly visits.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-11">Business-as-usual control group</hd> <p>Three classes were randomly selected and assigned to the control condition. The control teachers instructed their usual science lessons for the <emph>Earth and Science</emph> unit following sixth-grade science TEKS, as well as their district's scope and sequence and pacing guides. Overall, the lessons followed the traditional 5E instructional format as required by the district and included hands-on components in some form. For example, one lesson had students ball up paper to model the different sizes of the planets in our solar system. However, there was a lack of direct and explicit instruction on, or integration of, general or science-specific vocabulary and concepts during the lesson. In general, very little, if any, class time was devoted to a small-group or whole-class discussion focused on soliciting students' thinking about scientific concepts. There were also limited opportunities for students to engage in the process of constructing scientific knowledge through argumentation activities or explore solutions to real-world issues.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-12">Fidelity of implementation</hd> <p>In this study, fidelity of the intervention implementation was conceptualized as the extent to which delivery of the intervention's core components adhered to the intervention model originally designed (Dane & Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref79">20</reflink>]). We created an adherence checklist with 11 items per lesson to assess the degree to which the three treatment teachers enacted the 11 features of the lesson. The research staff observed eight lessons of each of the three classrooms and indicated the presence (1 point) of absence (0 point) of the 11 features using the corresponding treatment-specific checklist. Adherence to the checklist items across the teachers ranged from 81% to 84%.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-13">Student measures</hd> <p>We used the following measures to assess students' learning throughout the intervention in regard to our research questions.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-14">Academic vocabulary knowledge</hd> <p>Both treatment- and control-group students' academic vocabulary knowledge was assessed using a researcher-designed measure before and after the implementation of the intervention. The researcher-developed vocabulary measure (see Appendix A in the online supplemental material) contained 40 multiple-choice questions in which students were asked to choose a synonym for a given word drawn from the words taught throughout the <emph>Space Exploration</emph> unit and derived from the argument text booklet (see Appendix A in the online supplemental material). Among 40 items, 20 of them were general academic vocabulary (e.g., <emph>fundamental</emph>, <emph>render</emph>) and 20 were domain-specific academic vocabulary words (e.g., <emph>emission</emph>, <emph>gravity</emph>). The assessment form for pretest and posttest had the same set of test items, but the items were rearranged into a different order to avoid response patterns that could serve as clues. The Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) reliability coefficients for internal consistency were.73 and.74 for pretest and posttest, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-15">Science content knowledge</hd> <p>A science content knowledge assessment was administered to students in the treatment and control groups prior to and immediately following the intervention. The researcher-created science content knowledge measure consisted of 26 items: 19 multiple-choice questions and seven matching questions (see Appendix B in the online supplemental material). The questions were developed by consulting the TEKS, district school benchmark exams, school content exams, and district curricular resources. The assessment items covered space science concepts including the solar system, history of space exploration, and rocketry. The researchers worked with the school collaborators to ensure both treatment and control groups would have access to the same content tested. The KR-20 reliability coefficients were.74 and.77 for pretest and posttest, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-16">Scientific argumentation</hd> <p>We evaluated students' ability to construct a scientific argumentation and support and justify their claim with evidence and reasoning by administering an open-ended science question in both the pretest and posttest: <emph>An astronomer finds an unknown object in space that is square shaped and does not orbit the Sun. Should this object be classified as a planet?</emph> Students were asked to read this prompt and provide a written response by stating their claim, evidence, and reasoning. A rubric was used to score and evaluate student responses to the prompt in the following criteria: (a) <emph>Is a claim properly declared?</emph>; (b) <emph>Is adequate evidence provided?</emph>; and (c) <emph>Is the rationale clearly stated?</emph> Each criterion was rated on a 3-point scale from 0 to 2 (i.e., 0 = <emph>inadequate</emph>, 1 = <emph>moderate</emph>, and 2 = <emph>adequate</emph>) by two science education experts (inter-rater agreement = 96%).</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-17">Analysis plan</hd> <p>We first conducted preliminary analyses including descriptive statistics of the study variables and correlations among all the variables. For Research Question 1 (RQ1) intended to examine the treatment effects on student outcomes, we fit a series of hierarchical linear models (HLMs; Raudenbush & Bryk, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref80">49</reflink>]). Two-level HLMs were specified to account for the nested nature of the data with students (Level 1) nested in classes (Level 2). The combined model equations for RQ1 (main effect of treatment) was specified as follows:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">Y</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow><mrow><mtext>pottest</mtext></mrow></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>00</mn></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">(</mi><mtext>PRETEST</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">)</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>20</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">(</mi><mtext>TREATMENT</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">)</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">ε</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">μ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi mathvariant="normal">j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></math> </ephtml> [RQ1]</p> <p>where</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mrow><mi>Y</mi></mrow><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">ij</mi></mrow><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">pottest</mi></mrow></msubsup></math> </ephtml> represents the posttest student outcomes (i.e., academic vocabulary knowledge, science content knowledge, and scientific argumentation) for a student i in class j;</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>00</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> is the average score across all classes;</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>10</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> is the parameter estimate for student-level pretest score;</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>20</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> corresponds to the intervention treatment effect; and</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>ε</mi></mrow><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">ij</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> and</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>μ</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>0j</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> are student-level and class-level error terms, respectively.</p> <p>For RQ2, in order to examine whether the intervention effect was varied as a function of bilingual status, the following model equation was fitted:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">Y</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow><mrow><mtext>pottest</mtext></mrow></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>00</mn></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>10</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">(</mi><mtext>PRETEST</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">)</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>20</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">(</mi><mtext>TREATMENT</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">)</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>30</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">(</mi><mtext>BILINGUAL</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">)</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mi mathvariant="normal" /><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>40</mn></mrow></msub><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">(</mi><mtext>TREATMENT</mtext><mtext> × </mtext><mtext>BILINGUAL</mtext><mi mathvariant="normal">)</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mi mathvariant="normal" /><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">ε</mi></mrow><mrow><mtext>ij</mtext></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><mi mathvariant="normal" /><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">μ</mi></mrow><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi mathvariant="normal">j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></math> </ephtml> [RQ2]</p> <p>where</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>30</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> represents the main effect of students' bilingual status (<emph>BILINGUAL</emph> coded as 0 for English-speaking monolingual students and 1 for bilingual students) and</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>40</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> is the interaction effect between treatment condition and bilingual status. We estimated an effect size (ES; i.e., Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) by dividing the parameter estimate for the treatment effect,</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>20</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> , by the pooled standard deviation.</p> <p>To explore whether academic vocabulary knowledge mediated the intervention effect on science content knowledge and scientific argumentation (RQ3), we performed two sets of mediation analyses with academic vocabulary posttest as a single mediator and science content knowledge and scientific argumentation posttest as an outcome in a separate mediation model using STATA 15 (StataCorp, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref81">60</reflink>]). Figures 2 and 3 display a path diagram for the hypothesized mediation model of science content knowledge (Model 1) and scientific argumentation (Model 2), respectively. Both models included the two pretest scores as covariates: academic vocabulary knowledge and science content knowledge for Model 1 and academic vocabulary knowledge and scientific argumentation for Model 2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Mediation Model 1: Path coefficients for estimating the treatment effects on science content knowledge through academic vocabulary knowledge. Note. All path coefficients are standardized. Standardized errors are adjusted for classroom clusters. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Mediation Model 2: Path coefficients for estimating the treatment effects on scientific argumentation through academic vocabulary knowledge. Note. All path coefficients are standardized. Standardized errors are adjusted for classroom clusters. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.</p> <p>We employed the bootstrap method to estimate an approximation of the sampling distribution that provides bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The bootstrap approach is considered more reliable than the traditional causal step approach by Baron and Kenny ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref82">8</reflink>]) that requires the assumption of normality of the sampling distribution of indirect effects. We repeated the bootstrap process the recommended minimum of 100 times. In addition, to account for the nested data structure (i.e., students were nested within classrooms), cluster robust standard errors were estimated for both mediation models using the <emph>vce</emph> (<emph>cluster</emph>) option in STATA 15.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155318319-19">Descriptive statistics and correlations</hd> <p>Table 4 reports means and standard deviations of all pretest and posttest measures for the overall sample and subgroups by language status (bilingual or monolingual) by treatment and control condition. Students' scores on the measures were consistently higher at posttest compared to pretest. As a randomization check, we tested the baseline differences between treatment and control in the pretest measures. There were no statistical significant differences between the conditions of academic vocabulary knowledge (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref83">122</reflink>] = −.81, <emph>p</emph> =.42), science content knowledge (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref84">125</reflink>] = 1.74, <emph>p</emph> =.08), and scientific argumentation (<emph>t</emph>[<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref85">80</reflink>] = 1.33, <emph>p</emph> =.19) on pretest measures of the full sample.</p> <p>Table 4. Descriptive statistics on pretest and posttest measures for all sample, bilingual students, and monolingual students by treatment and control condition.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</td></tr><tr><td>Treatment</td><td>Control</td></tr><tr><td>All (<italic>n</italic> = 73)</td><td>Bilingual (<italic>n</italic> = 41)</td><td>Monolingual (<italic>n</italic> = 30)</td><td>All (<italic>n</italic> = 62)</td><td>Bilingual (<italic>n</italic> = 29)</td><td>Monolingual (<italic>n</italic> = 26)</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Academic vocabulary pretest</td><td char=".">17.30 (5.99)</td><td char=".">15.70 (4.88)</td><td char=".">20.08 (6.79)</td><td char=".">18.12 (5.27)</td><td char=".">17.64 (5.02)</td><td char=".">20.04 (4.65)</td></tr><tr><td>Academic vocabulary posttest</td><td char=".">20.13 (5.64)</td><td char=".">19.03 (4.82)</td><td char=".">21.83 (6.37)</td><td char=".">18.35 (5.55)</td><td char=".">16.67 (5.10)</td><td char=".">22.10 (3.59)</td></tr><tr><td>Science content knowledge pretest</td><td char=".">11.36 (4.14)</td><td char=".">10.88 (3.84)</td><td char=".">12.38 (4.51)</td><td char=".">9.83 (5.75)</td><td char=".">9.88 (5.21)</td><td char=".">10.58 (6.48)</td></tr><tr><td>Science content knowledge posttest</td><td char=".">14.34 (5.84)</td><td char=".">13.00 (5.84)</td><td char=".">16.46 (5.40)</td><td char=".">13.78 (5.46)</td><td char=".">11.73 (5.10)</td><td char=".">17.29 (3.87)</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific argumentation pretest</td><td char=".">.67 (1.23)</td><td char=".">.78 (1.31)</td><td char=".">.53 (1.13)</td><td char=".">1.06 (1.39)</td><td char=".">.50 (.89)</td><td char=".">2.25 (1.42)</td></tr><tr><td>Scientific argumentation posttest</td><td char=".">1.90 (2.01)</td><td char=".">1.92 (2.11)</td><td char=".">2.00 (.91)</td><td char=".">1.41 (1.53)</td><td char=".">.80 (1.12)</td><td char=".">2.33 (1.56)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. There were missing data on language status both in treatment (<emph>n</emph> = 2) and control (<emph>n</emph> = 7) groups.</p> <p>Table 5 presents pairwise correlation coefficients for all study variables. Notably, the academic vocabulary knowledge posttest average score was positively and significantly correlated with science content knowledge (<emph>r</emph> =.52, <emph>p</emph> <.001) as well as scientific argumentation (<emph>r</emph> =.42, <emph>p</emph> <.001) posttest scores.</p> <p>Table 5. Pairwise correlation matrix for study variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td char=".">1.Academic vocabulary pretest</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">2.Academic vocabulary posttest</td><td char=".">.71<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">3.Science content knowledge pretest</td><td char=".">.39<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.40<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">4.Science content knowledge posttest</td><td char=".">.59<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.52<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.64<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td char=".">5.Scientific argumentation pretest</td><td char=".">.43<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.42<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.51<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.56<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td char=".">6.Scientific argumentation posttest</td><td char=".">.44<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.42<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.34<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.60<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td><td char=".">.59<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">***</xref></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>.</item> <item>5 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155318319-20">Research question 1: Main intervention effects</hd> <p>As shown in Table 6, we found significant main intervention effects on students' academic vocabulary knowledge (<emph>p</emph> <.01, ES =.40) and scientific argumentation (<emph>p</emph> <.05, ES =.43). This finding indicates that students in the intervention treatment group had significantly higher posttest scores of academic vocabulary knowledge and scientific argumentation than their peers in the control group, after controlling for the pretest scores. The main effect of treatment was not statistically significant for the measure of science content knowledge (<emph>p</emph> >.05, ES =.08), indicating that there was no significant difference in science content knowledge between the treatment and control groups.</p> <p>Table 6. Results of hierarchical linear models for the intervention treatment effects on academic vocabulary, science content knowledge, and scientific argumentation posttests (N = 135).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Source</td><td>Model 1: Academic vocabulary</td><td>Model 2: Science content knowledge</td><td>Model 3: Scientific argumentation</td></tr><tr><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Fixed effects</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td char=".">6.22<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">***</xref></td><td char=".">1.29</td><td char=".">8.25<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">***</xref></td><td char=".">1.73</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">.29</td></tr><tr><td> Treatment<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td char=".">2.25<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">**</xref></td><td char=".">.82</td><td>-.47</td><td char=".">2.16</td><td char=".">.78<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">*</xref></td><td char=".">.33</td></tr><tr><td> Pretest</td><td char=".">.68<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">***</xref></td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.58<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">***</xref></td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.85<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">***</xref></td><td char=".">.13</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Variance component</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Within-person</td><td char=".">13.62</td><td char=".">1.85</td><td char=".">12.88</td><td char=".">1.77</td><td char=".">1.70</td><td char=".">.78</td></tr><tr><td> Between-person</td><td char=".">.29</td><td char=".">.68</td><td char=".">6.24</td><td char=".">4.08</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note</emph>.</item> <item>7 Treatment was dummy coded (0 = control, 1 = treatment).</item> <item>8 <emph>p</emph> < 0.10,</item> <item>9 <emph>p</emph> < 0.05,</item> <item>10 <emph>p</emph> < 0.01,</item> <item>11 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155318319-21">Research question 2: Interaction effects between treatment and language status</hd> <p>Table 7 shows the results of the HLMs that explored the interaction effects between treatment and students' language status (bilingual or monolingual) on student outcomes. For academic vocabulary knowledge, there was a marginally significant interaction effect (<emph>p</emph> =.09), indicating that the treatment effect for bilingual students (ES =.23) was slightly greater than the treatment effect for monolingual students (ES =.22). As shown in Figure 4 that displays the interaction effect for the academic vocabulary knowledge outcome, bilingual students in the treatment group attained higher average scores in posttest academic vocabulary knowledge than bilingual students in the control group. Accordingly, there was virtually no difference between bilingual and monolingual students in the treatment classrooms, whereas a significant difference was evident between bilingual and monolingual students in the control condition. For the science content knowledge and scientific argumentation outcomes, the interaction effects were not statistically significant (<emph>ps</emph> >.05), suggesting that there was no evidence that the treatment effects were significantly varied by language status.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Interaction effect between treatment and students' bilingual status on academic vocabulary knowledge posttest.</p> <p>Table 7. Results of hierarchical linear models for the interaction effect between treatment and bilingual status on academic vocabulary, science content knowledge, and scientific argumentation posttests (N = 135).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Source</td><td>Model 1: Academic vocabulary</td><td>Model 2: Science content knowledge</td><td>Model 3: Scientific argumentation</td></tr><tr><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>β</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Fixed effects</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td char=".">19.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn17">***</xref></td><td char=".">.77</td><td char=".">9.59<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn17">***</xref></td><td char=".">1.64</td><td>-.29</td><td char=".">.47</td></tr><tr><td> Treatment<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn13">a</xref></td><td char=".">1.93<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn15">*</xref></td><td char=".">.81</td><td>-.66</td><td char=".">1.95</td><td char=".">.80<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn15">*</xref></td><td char=".">.37</td></tr><tr><td> Pretest</td><td char=".">3.59<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn17">***</xref></td><td char=".">.40</td><td char=".">.57<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn17">***</xref></td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.89<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn17">***</xref></td><td char=".">.16</td></tr><tr><td> Bilingual</td><td>−1.13</td><td char=".">.79</td><td>−1.92</td><td>−1.92</td><td char=".">.43</td><td char=".">.38</td></tr><tr><td> Treatment × Bilingual</td><td char=".">.64<sup>†</sup></td><td char=".">1.51</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.20</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Variance component</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Within-person</td><td char=".">13.10</td><td char=".">1.83</td><td char=".">11.18</td><td char=".">1.58</td><td char=".">1.76</td><td char=".">.31</td></tr><tr><td> Between-person</td><td char=".">.23</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">5.01</td><td char=".">3.33</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>12 <emph>Note</emph>.</item> <item>13 Treatment was dummy coded (0 = control, 1 = treatment).</item> <item>14 <emph>p</emph> < 0.10,</item> <item>15 <emph>p</emph> < 0.05,</item> <item>16 <emph>p</emph> < 0.01,</item> <item>17 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155318319-22">Research question 3: Mediational effects of academic vocabulary knowledge</hd> <p>For the mediation model (i.e., Model 1) of which a mediator was the academic vocabulary knowledge posttest and an outcome variable was the science content knowledge posttest (see Figure 2), we found positive and statistically significant coefficients of (a) a path from treatment to academic vocabulary knowledge (<emph>β</emph> =.23, <emph>SE</emph> =.08, <emph>p</emph> <.001, bootstrapped 95% CI =.10 to.35) and (b) a path from academic vocabulary knowledge to science content knowledge (<emph>β</emph> =.28, <emph>SE</emph> =.08, <emph>p</emph> <.01, bootstrapped 95% CI =.11 to.44), after accounting for the effects of the pretests. Although the direct effect of the intervention on science content knowledge was not statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> =.02, <emph>SE</emph> =.21, <emph>p</emph> >.05, bootstrapped 95% CI = −.39 to.44), the intervention treatment effect made a significant indirect contribution to science content knowledge via academic vocabulary knowledge (indirect effect =.06, <emph>SE</emph> =.29, <emph>p</emph> <.05).</p> <p>Similar findings were observed in the mediation model (i.e., Model 2) in which the academic vocabulary knowledge posttest was a mediator and the scientific argumentation posttest was an outcome variable (see Figure 3). The direct effect of the intervention on scientific argumentation was not statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> =.15, <emph>SE</emph> =.10, <emph>p</emph> >.05, bootstrapped 95% CI = −.04 to.34), after controlling for the effects of the pretests. However, the effect of the intervention treatment on academic vocabulary knowledge remained statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> =.21, <emph>SE</emph> =.07, <emph>p</emph> <.01, bootstrapped 95% CI =.06 to.35). The effect of academic vocabulary knowledge on scientific argumentation was also found to be positive and statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> =.19, <emph>SE</emph> =.07, <emph>p</emph> <.01, bootstrapped 95% CI =.06 to.32). Accordingly, the intervention made a significant indirect contribution to the scientific argumentation outcome via academic vocabulary knowledge, after controlling for the contribution of the pretests, indicating that academic vocabulary knowledge significantly mediated the treatment effect on the scientific argumentation outcome (indirect effect =.04, <emph>SE</emph> =.08, <emph>p</emph> <.05).</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The current interdisciplinary intervention study was conducted with the specific aim of investigating the effects of a literacy-science integration approach on sixth-grade students' learning outcomes. Specifically, the primary goal of the DISCUSS project was to incorporate academic vocabulary instruction and socio-scientific-issues-based inquiry learning and discussion into sixth-grade science classrooms within the context of an urban middle school with a high percentage of students speaking a language other than English. The treatment-group science teachers provided instructional scaffolding to improve students' science-specific academic vocabulary knowledge, which we theorized, could enable students to access and communicate science content. The teachers also engaged students in the inquiry-based group discussion of the socio-scientific dilemma to help students internalize and apply the meaning of the newly taught words in the verbal interchange of ideas. We hypothesized that this scaffolded vocabulary learning and authentic group discussion that involved real-life decision-making situational scenarios would not only bolster students' academic vocabulary knowledge but also enhance their understanding of science concepts and scientific argumentation skills using the claim-evidence-reasoning approach. Overall, our results indicated that students benefited from the DISCUSS intervention in improving academic vocabulary knowledge, particularly bilingual students, which, in turn, positively contributed to gains in science concept knowledge and scientific argumentation skills. The findings of this study supported a synergistic effect of combining the components of vocabulary instruction and inquiry-based discussion on academic vocabulary knowledge that played a mediating role and facilitated the improvement of science concept knowledge and scientific argumentation skills.</p> <p>The results of the study indicate that the treatment-group students benefited from literacy-science integrated instruction that provided opportunities for students to learn new science-specific vocabulary words through instructional routines (e.g., word-learning strategies using word parts and cognates) and scaffolds (e.g., concept mapping, visuals, bilingual definitions, example sentences) and through using the taught words in extended discourse. Both bilingual students learning English as an additional language and English-speaking monolingual students who received the DISCUSS intervention treatment attained a higher average score on the academic vocabulary knowledge assessment (ES =.40) relative to those in the control condition.</p> <p>Unsurprisingly, students in the treatment group outperformed those in the control group on the curriculum-based measure of academic vocabulary knowledge in the posttest. However, we interpret this positive treatment effect on academic vocabulary knowledge, particularly impactful for bilingual students, from four perspectives. First, the results indicate that science instruction that emphasized explicit teaching of science-specific words and concepts may have contributed to the improvement of students' academic vocabulary knowledge as well as background knowledge. Given that domain-specific academic vocabulary knowledge is substantially associated with background knowledge in new disciplinary topics (Fitzgerald et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref86">21</reflink>]; Snow, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref87">55</reflink>]), in-depth learning of sophisticated, high-utility academic words in science can facilitate the development of background knowledge necessary for reading comprehension of science content-rich texts (Beck & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, the treatment-group students attained a higher average score in the academic vocabulary knowledge posttest that included both general and science-specific vocabulary word items. This finding indicates that the treatment-group teachers' focus on teaching the domain-specific vocabulary words rather than general vocabulary words to make the most of precious instructional time improved not only students' explicitly taught science vocabulary knowledge but also their general vocabulary knowledge. As students learn more about science vocabulary words and relevant concepts, they will more likely expand their understanding of the taught science words and concepts and incidentally learn untaught general academic words through reading and discussion in enriched contexts (Carlisle et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref89">15</reflink>]; Shefelbine, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref90">54</reflink>]; Swanborn & de Glopper, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref91">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, and most strikingly, the significant treatment effect on academic vocabulary knowledge was more profound for bilingual students who made greater gains than their monolingual peers, which led to a comparable performance in the academic vocabulary knowledge posttest between bilingual and monolingual students in the treatment condition. The treatment-group science teachers' vocabulary instruction that focused on the use of word parts and cognate morphemes of science vocabulary words may be particularly critical for students who speak Spanish as a native language that shares etymological roots with the English language. Given that many science vocabulary words are based on Greek and Latin roots (e.g., <emph>asteroid</emph>), learning to use word parts, suffixes, and cognates to infer the meanings of new science words may be one powerful tool for many Spanish-speaking bilinguals and English learners. Our results converge with the previous research evidence suggesting that vocabulary instructional strategies that underscore multilingual students' engagement with morphological analysis of multisyllabic words are effective in enhancing their vocabulary knowledge in a new language (e.g., Carlo et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref92">16</reflink>]; Lesaux et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref93">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, a plausible explanation for the significantly positive treatment effect on students' academic vocabulary knowledge can be that students' rich and authentic language experiences through group discussions about the important societal issue with links to science (i.e., space exploration) may have enhanced their ability to internalize and produce the newly acquired vocabulary words in meaningful contexts. The treatment students were likely to benefit from multiple exposures to and use of new sophisticated words while taking an active role in building strong representations of word meaning during the authentic discussions. This speculation is supported by the evidence from empirical studies that report the improvement of vocabulary knowledge through language-rich and dynamic discussion activities among linguistically diverse students (e.g., Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref94">27</reflink>]; Lawrence et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref95">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite students' gains in academic vocabulary knowledge, our study did not find evidence that the DISCUSS intervention directly and significantly improved students' science content knowledge. This finding is consistent with results from a previous intervention program, QuEST (August et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref96">6</reflink>]), which was also implemented for sixth-grade English learners and their English-proficient peers in urban middle schools in southern Texas. Although the treatment effect on the curriculum-based measure of science content knowledge was not statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> >.05) in both the DISCUSS and QuEST interventions, the effect sizes were.08 and.14, respectively. The greater effect size of the QuEST program may be associated with its longer duration of implementation than the DISCUSS intervention (i.e., 4 weeks for DISCUSS and 15 weeks for QuEST). However, more importantly, the current study findings converge with previous evidence that the treatment-group science teachers' instructional time devoted to fostering students' academic language and vocabulary did not impede bilingual and monolingual students' science content learning gains.</p> <p>In the DISCUSS intervention, both the treatment and control groups of students received the same amount of instructional time in science (five 45-minute science lessons per week) at the same school. Yet, a primary distinction between the two groups was that the treatment-group teachers allocated more time to scaffolding with a focus on vocabulary and background knowledge development for linguistically diverse students within the same time window as the control condition. The current study findings suggest that the instructional time and space that science teachers provide for students' vocabulary and background knowledge development, regardless of their language status or English proficiency, may not hinder their science content learning but contribute to maneuvering the academic language demands needed to access the rigorous science content more equitably (Heineke & Neugebauer, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref97">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our mediational model analysis also confirms the important role of academic vocabulary knowledge as a mechanism through the intervention treatment that can contribute to science content knowledge gains and improvement in scientific argumentation skills. Although there is insufficient evidence that the 4-week DISCUSS intervention program significantly improved the treatment-group students' science content knowledge, we found a significant indirect effect of the treatment on science content knowledge via academic vocabulary knowledge. These findings suggest that the treatment group students' improved academic vocabulary knowledge may serve as leverage, enabling them to apply and transfer this knowledge to new content and concept knowledge in disciplinary learning. The results also support the notion that greater access to domain-specific vocabulary can reduce cognitive load and optimize processing capacity to facilitate the acquisition of higher-order content knowledge and argumentation skills (Alexander, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>]; Venville & Dawson, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref99">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>The significant effect of the treatment on scientific argumentation skills with the moderate effect size (ES =.43) is particularly noteworthy in light of the growing emphasis on the importance of evidence-based argumentation and scientific inquiry approach in science education (e.g., NGSS; National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref100">45</reflink>]). This positive effect may be attributable to the daily instructional routine embedded in the 7E instruction model (i.e., <emph>Explore</emph>) that allocated time for students to engage in structured group discussion of the complicated socio-scientific problem (e.g., government funding to support space exploration development and contamination of planetary environments). Engaging in the discussion of the socio-scientific issues requires an understanding of science content related to outer space and exploring relevant political or ethical questions about what action the group might take regarding space exploration and activities (Sadler, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref101">52</reflink>]). The DISCUSS students were introduced to the complex issue through the booklet that provided opposing viewpoints on the theme and then explored the big questions by making arguments, identifying and evaluating evidence, and explaining their reasoning. This collaborative problem-solving practice may provide a context to apply scientific content knowledge and critically examine real-life issues and controversies in students' decision-making processes (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Puig, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref102">28</reflink>]; Lewis & Leach, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref103">37</reflink>]; Zeidler et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref104">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-24">Implications</hd> <p>The findings from the study underscore the importance of building domain-specific vocabulary knowledge and engaging in inquiry-based, collaborative discussion in science classrooms. Implications from the results of the present study suggest the need for science teachers' explicit academic vocabulary instruction with the aim of developing background knowledge of abstract and complex scientific concepts. Teaching academic vocabulary is often viewed as teaching the meaning of a particular word; however, academic vocabulary instruction in content areas represents a foundation for disciplinary knowledge development (Fitzgerald et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref105">22</reflink>]) for all students regardless of their language status. Given that the engagement in the NGSS-aligned science practices involves intensive academic language demands (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref106">35</reflink>]), academic vocabulary instructional practice should be considered as an essential component of science teaching and learning. On the other hand, we fully acknowledge the potential tension between explicit academic vocabulary learning and language-rich science practices. We posit that academic vocabulary teaching in science classrooms should be embedded in the language-rich science activity context and should not be simplified as rote memory or at the cost of deeper conceptual learning. Professional development should equip science teachers with language and literacy scaffolding strategies to foster all students' science content, practice, and language learning including robust domain- or content-specific academic vocabulary knowledge. These scaffolding strategies are especially crucial to supporting the needs of the growing bilingual population and educational equity and access (August et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref107">5</reflink>]; Lara-Alecio et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>]; Van Orman et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref109">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-25">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>Our study has some limitations that warrant careful interpretation of our results and point to a need for future research to expand upon our findings. First, three sets of the pre/posttest measures are researcher-developed and curriculum-embedded. Multiple measures are needed, including standardized measures, to more fully capture students' knowledge in academic vocabulary and science content domains. Moreover, future larger-scale research in literacy-science integration should include classroom observations on students' engagement, teacher interviews, or discourse analysis to solicit insights into the nature of diverse learning and collaborative processes that can revolve around vocabulary instruction and discussions of important social and scientific issues. Further studies could perhaps examine the influence of teacher and student characteristics and observed literacy and science practices on student outcomes. Expanded research with larger sample sizes may allow researchers to examine variability among teachers in terms of implementation and approach, providing insights that could inform improved instructional and curricular design.</p> <p>Finally, because the <emph>Space Exploration</emph> unit (hands-on inquiry and extended literacy integration activities) took longer for the treatment classrooms than the business-as-usual <emph>Solar System</emph> lessons for the control classrooms, the teachers expressed concerns about time and sequence alignment with the district science pacing guide. The treatment teachers in our study vary in their view of responsibility for integrating language and literacy practices in science classrooms. To make our instructional model more adaptable for different grades and instructional settings, future research may consider team-teaching or other effective approaches to support collaborative efforts among literacy and science teachers, researchers, curriculum developers, and professional development facilitators to provide a socio-scientific issues-based learning opportunity in science classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0155318319-26">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0155318319-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref98" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, P. A. (2000). Research news and comment: Toward a model of academic development: schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 28 – 44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029002028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77 – 117). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (3), 685 – 730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref66" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ash, D., & Wells, G. (2006). Dialogic inquiry in classrooms and museums. In Z. Bekerman, N. C. Burbles, & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education reader (pp. 35 – 54). Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref17" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> August, D., Artzi, L., & Barr, C. (2016). Helping ELLs meet standards in English language arts and science: An intervention focused on academic vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32 (4), 373 – 396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1039738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Francis, D. J., Powell, J., Moore, S., & Haynes, E. F. (2014). Helping ELLs meet the common core state standards for literacy in science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7 (1), 54 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.836763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref55" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, L., & Francis, D. J. (2009). The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2 (4), 345 – 376. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903217623</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref82" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173 – 1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref32" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (2010). What is academic vocabulary? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54 (1), 4 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children's oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107 (3), 251 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1086/511706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bolger, D. J., Balass, M., Landen, E., & Perfetti, C. A. (2008). Contextual variation and definitions in learning the meanings of words. Discourse Processes, 45 (2), 122 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701792826</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience in content areas. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 130 – 149). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bybee, R. W., & Landes, N. M. (1990). Science for life & living: An elementary school science program from the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. The American Biology Teacher, 52 (2), 92 – 98. https://doi.org/10.2307/4449042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., Fleming, J. E., & Gudbrandsen, B. (2000). Incidental word learning in science classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (2), 184 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.1001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlo, M. S., August, D., Mclaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., Lively, T. J., & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English‐language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39 (2), 188 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cartwright, T. J., & Smith, S. L. (2017). Tackling science instruction through "science talks" and service learning. In K. L. Heider (Ed.), Service learning as pedagogy in early childhood education (pp. 179 – 191). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (5), 631 – 658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213 – 238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18 (1), 23 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzgerald, J., Elmore, J., & Relyea, J. E. (2021). Academic vocabulary networks matter for students' disciplinary learning. The Reading Teacher, 74 (5), 569 – 579. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzgerald, J., Elmore, J., Relyea, J. E., & Stenner, A. J. (2020). Domain-specific academic vocabulary network development in elementary grades core disciplinary textbooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (5), 855 – 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frey, N. (2002). Literacy achievement in an urban middle-level professional development school: A learning community at work. Reading Improvement, 39 (1), 3 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary School Journal, 99 (4), 343 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1086/461929</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heineke, A., & Neugebauer, S. R. (2018). The complexity of language and learning: Deconstructing teachers' conceptions of academic language. Issues in Teacher Education, 27 (3), 73 – 89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E., & Lubliner, S. (2008). The nature, learning, and instruction of general academic vocabulary. In A. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 106 – 129). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang, J. K., Lawrence, J. F., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Differential effects of a systematic vocabulary intervention on adolescent language minority students with varying levels of English proficiency. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19 (3), 314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914521698</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2010). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J. S., Relyea, J. E., Burkhauser, M. A., Scherer, E., & Rich, P. (2021). Improving elementary grade students' science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1935 – 1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2019). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 25 (3), 388 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (8), 1017 – 1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. (2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based learning approach (5th ed.). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an instruction intervention on middle school English learner's science and English reading achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (8), 987 – 1011. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawrence, J. F., Crosson, A. C., Paré-Blagoev, J., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Word Generation randomized trial: Discussion mediates the impact of program treatment on academic word learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52 (4), 750 – 786. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, O., Llosa, L., Grapin, S., Haas, A., & Goggins, M. (2019). Science and language integration with English learners: A conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development. Science Education, 103 (2), 317 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45 (2), 196 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1267 – 1287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, T.-J., Anderson, R. C., Hummel, J. E., Jadallah, M., Miller, B. W., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Morris, J. A., Kuo, L.-J., Kim, I.-H., Wu, X., & Dong, T. (2012). Children's use of analogy during collaborative reasoning. Child Development, 83 (4), 1429 – 1443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01784.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction and curriculum, and students' interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 108 (4), 293 – 312. https://doi.org/10.1086/528973</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, P., Wilkinson, I., Soter, A., Hennessey, M., & Alexander, J. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (3), 740 – 764. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 52 – 77). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304 – 330. https://doi.org/10.2307/747823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. E., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (1), 91 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. Washington, DC : National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne, J. F. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science (New York, NY), 328 (5977), 463 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies. Cognition & Instruction, 1, 117 – 175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plourde, L. A. (2002). Elementary science education: The influence of student teaching where it all begins. Education, 123 (2), 253 – 275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rex, L. A., & Nelson, M. C. (2004). How teachers' professional identities position high-stakes test preparation in their classrooms. Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1288 – 1331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00380.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-J., Clark, A.-M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39 (1), 29 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler, T. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and research. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (10), 1622 – 1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shefelbine, J. L. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word meanings from context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22 (1), 71 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969009547695</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328 (5977), 450 – 452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112 – 133). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2 (4), 325 – 344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167042.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15. StataCorp LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69 (3), 261 – 285. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069003261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend, D., Barber, A. T., & Carter, H. (2020). Learning academic language, comprehending text. In J. Moje, P. P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Nesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. V, pp. 345 – 364). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Orman, D. S. J., Ardasheva, Y., Carbonneau, K. J., & Firestone, J. B. (2021). Examining the impacts of extended vocabulary instruction in mixed-English-proficiency science classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 114 (1), 74 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1881754</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 952 – 977.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89 (3), 357 – 377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, J., Wong, S., Relyea, J. E., & Wui, G. (2017). Designing a socio-scientific issue curriculum on space exploration: Dialogic inquiry approach for English learners. English in Texas, 47 (2), 7 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Morris, J., Miller, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Lin, T., Zhang, J., Jadallah, M., Scott, T., Sun, J., Latawiec, B., Ma, S., Kay Grabow, K., & Hsu, J. Y. (2016). Improving children's competence in decision making: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 53 (1), 194 – 223. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215618663</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jackie Eunjung Relyea; Jie Zhang; Sissy S. Wong; Courtney Samuelson and Ma. Glenda Lopez Wui</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref104"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1331502
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Academic Vocabulary Instruction and Socio-Scientific Issue Discussion in Urban Sixth-Grade Science Classrooms
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Relyea%2C+Jackie+Eunjung%22">Relyea, Jackie Eunjung</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhang%2C+Jie%22">Zhang, Jie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wong%2C+Sissy+S%2E%22">Wong, Sissy S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Samuelson%2C+Courtney%22">Samuelson, Courtney</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wui%2C+Ma%2E+Glenda+Lopez%22">Wui, Ma. Glenda Lopez</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2022 115(1):37-50.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Language%22">Academic Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+and+Society%22">Science and Society</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Education%22">Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00220671.2021.2022584
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0671
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Given the growing evidence of academic language demands embodied in science practices, this study aimed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of a literacy-science integrated program that emphasized the incorporation of academic vocabulary instruction and collaborative discussion of a socio-scientific issue in sixth-grade science classrooms in an urban school. The treatment students (n = 73) who participated in the intervention had significantly higher academic vocabulary knowledge and scientific argumentation posttest scores than the control students (n = 62). The effect on academic vocabulary knowledge was particularly greater for bilingual students than their monolingual peers. Mediation analyses revealed that the intervention effects on science content knowledge and scientific argumentation were mediated by academic vocabulary knowledge. Findings indicate that science teachers' instructional scaffolding for academic vocabulary and authentic discourse can not only improve students' academic vocabulary knowledge but also indirectly affect science content knowledge and scientific argumentation via academic vocabulary knowledge.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1331502
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1331502
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00220671.2021.2022584
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 37
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Academic Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science and Society
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Academic Vocabulary Instruction and Socio-Scientific Issue Discussion in Urban Sixth-Grade Science Classrooms
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Relyea, Jackie Eunjung
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhang, Jie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wong, Sissy S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Samuelson, Courtney
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wui, Ma. Glenda Lopez
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0671
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 115
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Educational Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1