Reframing Literacy in the Discipline of Science with the Disciplinary Literacy Observation Tool (DLOT)

Abstract

This article explains how teams of special educators, science teachers, literacy consultants, and administrators can use the Disciplinary Literacy Observation Tool (DLOT) and accompanying planning tool to improve disciplinary literacy instruction in inclusive secondary science classrooms. The DLOT was developed in partnership with practitioners as a tool for professional development and coaching. First, the tool's development and five dimensions are described: (a) aspects of disciplinary literacy in science, (b) instructional grouping, (c) student engagement, (d) quality of pedagogy, and (e) overall quality. Then, an illustration is provided for how special educators can collaborate with science educators and other colleagues to use the DLOT to identify, document, reflect upon, and set goals regarding disciplinary literacy instruction in science in ways that benefit students with learning disabilities. With the DLOT, practitioners can approach literacy integration in science to address both general and discipline–specific strategies aligned synergistically to Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards through three–dimensional science learning.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ball

D. L.

, & Cohen

D. K.

(1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice–based theory of professional education. In Sykes

& Darling–Hammond

(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). Jossey Bass.

Berkeley

, Scruggs

T. E.

, & Mastropieri

M. A.

(2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta–analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355988

Berry

(2020). Disrupting to driving: Exploring upper primary teachers’ perspectives on student engagement. Teachers and Teaching, 26(2), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1757421

Bonnette

R. N.

, Crowley

, & Schunn

C. D.

(2019) Falling in love and staying in love with science: Ongoing informal science experiences support fascination for all children. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1626–1643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1623431

Brownell

M. T.

, Benedict

A. E.

, Leko

M. M.

, Peyton

, Pua

, & Richards–Tutor

(2019). A continuum of pedagogies for preparing teachers to use high–leverage practices (HLPs). Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824990

Bryant

D. P.

, Bryant

B. R.

, Flower

, McKenna

, Muething

, Shin

, et al. (2013). Secondary special education observation and intervention study (Technical Report). Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, College of Education, University of Texas at Austin and Texas Education Agency.

Bulgren

J. A.

, Sampson Graner

, & Deshler

D. D.

(2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12003

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://www.carnegie.org/publications/time-to-act-an-agenda-for-advancing-adolescent-literacy-for-college-and-career-success/

Cassidy

, & Ortlieb

(2013). What was hot (and not) in literacy: What we can learn. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.215

10.

Christodoulou

, & Osborne

J. F.

(2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166

11.

Chuy

, Scardamalia

, Bereiter

, Prinsen

, Resendes

, Messina

, et al. (2010). Understanding the nature of science and scientific progress: A theory–building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1), 1–21. https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt

12.

Ciullo

, Lembke

E. S.

, Carlisle

, Thomas

C. N.

, Goodwin

, & Judd

(2016). Implementation of evidence–based literacy practices in middle school response to intervention: An observation study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714566120

13.

Coyne

M. D.

, Zipoli

R. P.

, & Ruby

M. F.

(2006). Beginning reading instruction for students at risk for reading disabilities: What, how, and when. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 161–168. https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/home/isc

14.

Crawford

A. D.

, Zucker

T. A.

, Williams

J. M.

, Bhavsar

, & Landry

S. H.

(2013). Initial validation of the pre–kindergarten Classroom Observation Tool and goal setting system for data–based coaching. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000033

15.

Crowell

, & Kuhn

(2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3–year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725187

16.

De La Paz

, & Wissinger

D. R.

(2017). Improving the historical knowledge and writing of students with or at risk for LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(6), 658–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416659444

17.

DiDomenico

, Elish–Piper

, Manderino

, & L'Allier

S. K.

(2019). Three coaching priorities for enhancing teacher practice in disciplinary literacy instruction in the English language arts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.943

18.

Drew

S. V.

, Olinghouse

N. G.

, Faggella–Luby

, & Welsh

M. E.

(2017). Framework for disciplinary writing in science Grades 6–12: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000186

19.

Drew

S. V.

, & Thomas

(2018). Secondary science teachers’ implementation of CCSS and NGSS literacy practices: A survey study. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145–017–9784–7

20.

Driver

, Newton

, & Osborne

(2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/journal/1098237x

21.

Duschl

R. A.

(2008). Science education in three–part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371

22.

Edmonds

, & Briggs

K. L.

(2003). The instructional content emphasis instrument: Observations of reading instruction. In Vaughn

& Briggs

K. L.

(Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning (pp. 31–52). Brookes.

23.

Ehren

B. J.

(2005). Looking for evidence–based practice in reading comprehension instruction. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(4), 310–321. https://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/pages/default.aspx

24.

Faggella–Luby

M. N.

, & Deshler

(2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know, what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/journal/15405826

25.

Faggella–Luby

, Graner

, Deshler

, & Drew

S. S.

(2012). Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary specific strategies are not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle with reading and writing. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318245618e

26.

Fellows

(1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 985–1001. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/journal/10982736

27.

Fisher

(2018). Reconciling disciplinary literacy perspectives with genre–oriented activity theory: Toward a fuller synthesis of traditions. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10:1002/rrq.233

28.

Fisher

, Frey

, & Lapp

(2010). Responding when students don't get it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.1.6

29.

Fives

, Huebner

, Birnbaum

A. S.

, & Nicolich

(2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21115

30.

Gillespie Rouse

, & Kiuhara

S. A.

(2017). SRSD in writing and professional development for teachers: Practice and promise for elementary and middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12140

31.

Gillis

, & Van Wig

(2015). Disciplinary literacy assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.386

32.

Goldman

, Britt

, Brown

, Cribb

, George

, Greenleaf

, .; Project Readi. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741

33.

Graham

, & Harris

(2013). Common Core State Standards, writing, and students with LD: Recommendations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12004

34.

Graham

, & Perin

(2007). A meta–analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.99.3.445

35.

Greenleaf

C. L.

, Litman

, Hanson

T. L.

, Rosen

, Boscardin

C. K.

, Herman

, et al. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647–717. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210384839

36.

Grillo

K. J.

, & Dieker

L. A.

(2013). A new twist on vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 75(4), 264–267. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2013.75.4.7

37.

Haager

, & Vaughn

(2013). The Common Core State Standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12000

38.

Hapgood

, Magnusson

S. J.

, & Palincsar

A. S.

(2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case of young children's scientific inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(4), 455–505. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1466917

39.

Harris

K. R.

, Lane

K. L.

, Graham

, Driscoll

S. A.

, Sandmel

, Brindle

, et al. (2012). Practice–based professional development for self–regulated strategies development in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111429005

40.

Haug

B. S.

, & Ødegaard

(2015). Formative assessment and teachers’ sensitivity to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 629–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.1003262

41.

Hinton

, & Suh

(2019). Foregrounding collaboration in disciplinary literacy: Implications from JAAL, 2008–2017. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.986

42.

Kaldenberg

E. R.

, Watt

S. J.

, & Therrien

W. J.

(2015). Reading instruction in science for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714550204

43.

Kamil

M. L.

, Borman

G. D.

, Dole

, Krai

C. C.

, Salinger

, & Torgesen

(2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE#2008–4027). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2008. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

44.

Kane

(2013). The argument–based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087465

45.

Kennedy

M. J.

, & Isle

F. M.

(2012). The old man and the sea: Navigating the gulf between special educators and the content area classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2011.00349.x

46.

Kent

S. C.

, Wanzek

, & Al Otaiba

(2017). Reading instruction for fourth–grade struggling readers and the relation to student outcomes. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(5), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1216342

47.

Kiili

, Makinen

, & Coiro

(2013). Rethinking academic literacies: Designing multifaceted and academic literacy experiences for pre–service teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(3), 223–232.

48.

Kuhn

, Hemberger

, & Khait

(2016). Tracing the development of argumentative writing in a discourse–rich context. Written Communication, 33(1), 92–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315617157

49.

Lapp

, Fisher

, & Grant

(2008). “You can read this text: I'll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(5), 372–383. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.5.1

50.

Lauterbach

A. A.

, Benedict

A. E.

, Yakut

A. D.

, & Garcias

A. A.

(2020). Improving vocabulary outcomes in inclusive secondary science classrooms through professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1661738

51.

Magnusson

S. J.

, & Palincsar

A. S.

(2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary school level. In Bransford

& Donovan

(Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom, (pp. 421–474). National Academies Press.

52.

Mason

, & Hedin

L. R.

(2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2011.00342.x

53.

Michaels

, & O'Connor

(2012). Talk science primer. TERC. http://searkscience.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/67803311/18–TalkScience_PrimerArticle.pdf

54.

National Center for Special Education Research. (n.d.). Facts from NLTS2: General education participation and academic performance of students with learning disabilities. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20063001/

55.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). The common core state standards. NGA Center, CCSSO. http://www.corestandards.org/

56.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/

57.

National Research Council (NRC). (2013). The next generation science standards. National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/

58.

National Research Council (NRC). (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core for ELA Standards, A workshop summary, H. Rhodes and M.A. Feder, Rapporteurs. Steering Committee on Exploring the Overlap between “Literacy in Science” and the Practice of Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/

59.

National Science Foundation. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017. Special Report NSF 17–310. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

60.

Neuman

S. B.

, Koh

, & Dwyer

(2008). CHELLO: The Child/Home Environmental Language and Literacy Observation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.11.001

61.

Newman

, Wagner

, Knokey

A. M.

, Marder

, Nagle

, Shaver

, et al. (2011). The post–high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the national longitudinal transition study–2 (NLTS2). (NCSER 2011–3005). SRI International. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf

62.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. http://www.nextgenscience.org/

63.

Norris

S. P.

, & Phillips

L. M.

(2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/journal/1098237x

64.

Palincsar

A. S.

, Collins

K. M.

, Marano

N. L.

, & Magnusson

S. J.

(2000). Investigating the engagement and learning of students with learning disabilities in guided inquiry science teaching. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(3), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.3103.240

65.

Palincsar

A. S.

, Magnusson

S. J.

, Cutter

, & Vincent

(2002). Supporting guided–inquiry instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 88–91.

66.

Roskos

, & Neuman

(2012). Classroom management for achieving readers. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 308–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01047

67.

Seifert

, & Espin

(2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 35(4), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712444275

68.

Shanahan

, & Shanahan

(2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content–area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. Retrieved from https://www.hepg.org/her–home/home

69.

Silliman

E. R.

, & Wilkinson

L. C.

(2015). Two challenges of the academic language register for students with language learning disabilities. In Bahr

R. H.

& Silliman

E. R.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of communication disorders (pp. 291–302). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

70.

Spires

, Kerkhoff

, & Graham

(2016). Disciplinary literacy and inquiry: Teaching for deeper learning. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 60(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.577

71.

Suarez

, Bell

, McCulloch

, & Starr

(2020). Why you should stop pre–teaching science vocabulary and focus students developing conceptual meaning first. STEM Teaching Tools: Practice Brief #66. http://stemteachingtools.org/brief/66

72.

Texley

, & Wild

A. L.

(Eds.). (2004). NSTA pathways to the science standards: Guidelines for moving the vision into practice. NSTA Press.

73.

Therrien

, Taylor

, Hosp

, Kaldenberg

, & Gorsh

(2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2011.00340.x

74.

Thomas

, Drew

S. V.

, & Pulyado

(2018). When Air Masses collide!: A 3–D, NGSS– and CCSS–aligned middle school weather unit. Science Scope, 42(2), 55–66. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/26611835

75.

Thomas

, & Drew

S. V.

(2021). Practice–based professional development on writing–to–learn In earth and space science: A design research project. Journal of Science Teacher Education. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1898763

76.

Vaughn

, Hughes

, Moody

, & Elbaum

(2001). Instructional grouping for reading for students with LD: Implications for practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(3), 131–137. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/home/isc

77.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.

78.

Wexler

, Mitchell

M. A.

, Clancy

E. E.

, & Silverman

R. D.

(2016). An investigation of literacy practices in high school science classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33, 258–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1193832

79.

Windschitl

, Thompson

J. J.

& Braaten

M. L.

(2018). Ambitious science teaching. Harvard Education Press.

80.

Wright

T. S.

, & Gotwals

A. W.

(2017). Supporting kindergartners’ science talk in the context of an integrated science and disciplinary literacy curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 117, 513–537. https://doi.org/10.1086/690273