Advertisement

How Do Teachers Use Comics to Promote Engagement, Equity, and Diversity in Science Classrooms?

  • Camillia MatukEmail author
  • Talia Hurwich
  • Amy Spiegel
  • Judy Diamond
Article

Abstract

Equitable learning opportunities are critical to the goals of science education. However, major curriculum standards are vague on how to achieve equity goals, and educators must often develop their own resources and strategies to achieve equity goals. This study examines how educators used a comic book series designed to interest youth in virology as a way to make science more broadly appealing to their diverse students.

We begin with the notion of Pedagogical Design Capacity, which describes a dynamic relationship between teachers and their tools and the ability for teachers to perceive and leverage affordances of artifacts as tools in their curriculum design. In a qualitative analysis of 18 interviews with educators, survey responses, instructional artifacts, and classroom observations, we describe the potential that educators saw in the comics and the strategies they used to take advantage of that potential to promote equitable science teaching. Notably, we observed how the comics enabled educators to incorporate multiple literacies and disciplinary lenses into their lessons, thereby expanding traditional views of science literacy. We documented the range of techniques by which they used comics and fictional narratives to support specific scientific practices, such as modeling. We also observed challenges that participants encountered in using comics, which included overcoming their own and their students’ attitudes and beliefs regarding the role of informal reading materials in science education.

By investigating how resourceful science educators use comic books, this study informs both researchers and educators on how innovative curriculum materials can broaden and diversify participation in science. Findings have implications for the design of similar curriculum materials and instructional approaches, as well as professional development to support equitable science teaching.

Keywords

Equity Classrooms Comic books Instructional strategies Science education Teachers 

Notes

Supplementary material

References

  1. Acher, A., Arcà, M., & Sanmartí, N. (2007). Modeling as a teaching learning process for understanding materials: a case study in primary education. Science Education, 91(3), 398–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Af Geijerstam, Å. (2006). Att skriva i naturorienterande ämnen i skolan [Writing in natural sciences in school] Studia Linguistica Upsalensia 3. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  3. Alaba, S. O. (2007). The use of educational cartoons and comics in enhancing creativity in primary school pupils in Ile-ife, Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(10), 913–920.Google Scholar
  4. Aleixo, P. A., & Sumner, K. (2017). Memory for biopsychology material presented in comic book format. Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, 8(1), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educative features: elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asowayan, A. A., Ashreef, S. Y., & Omar, S. H. (2017). A systematic review: the next generation science standards and the increased cultural diversity. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banks, J. A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education. Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E. W., Gutiérrez, K., Heath, S. B., Lee, C. D., Lee, Y., Mahiri, J., Nasir, N. S., Valdes, G., & Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: lifelong, life-wide, life-deep. Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, P., Bricker, L., Tzou, C., & Baines, A. D. (2012). Learning in diversities of structures of social practice. Human Development, 55, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”: language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, J. C. (2017). A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquiry-based science education in K-12 settings: implications for advancing equitable science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1143–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction, 17–36.Google Scholar
  14. Bobek, E., & Tversky, B. (2016). Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6
  15. Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., & Jaynes, C. A. (2009). Text genre and science content: ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference. Reading Psychology, 30(6), 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chad, J. (2016). Science comics: Volcanoes: Fire and life. First Second.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, J. S. (2013). “Your credibility could be shot”: preservice teachers’ thinking about nonfiction graphic novels, curriculum decision making, and professional acceptance. The Social Studies, 104(1), 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Danielsson, K. (2010). Learning chemistry. Text use and text talk in a Finland-Swedish chemistry classroom. IARTEM e-Journal, 3(2), 1–28.Google Scholar
  20. Dark, M. L. (2005). Using science fiction movies in introductory physics. The Physics Teacher, 43, 463–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher 0013189X17727502.Google Scholar
  23. Diamond, J., Jee, B., Matuk, C., McQuillan, J., Spiegel, A. N., & Uttal, D. (2015). Museum monsters and victorious viruses: improving public understanding of emerging biomedical research. Curator: the Museum Journal, 58(3), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diamond, J., Powell, M., Fox, A., & Downer-Hazell, A. (2012). World of viruses. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  25. Duke, N. K., Pearson, P D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuel & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4 ed., pp. 286–314). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  26. Driscoll, M. P., Moallem, M., Dick, W., & Kirby, E. (1994). How does the textbook contribute to learning in a middle school science class? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. (2003). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135–144.c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frankel, F. (2005). Translating science into pictures: A powerful learning tool. In Invention and impact: building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education (pp. 155–158). Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  32. Gavigan, K. W. (2014). Shedding new light on graphic novel collections: a circulation and collection analysis study in six middle school libraries. School Libraries Worldwide, 20(1), 97.Google Scholar
  33. Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 48–70.  https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  36. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Goldschmidt, P., & Jung, H. (2011). Evaluation of seeds of science/roots of reading: effective tools for developing literacy through science in the early grades-light energy unit. CRESST report 781. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  39. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Guzzetti, B. J., & Bang, E. (2010). The influence of literacy-based science instruction on adolescents' interest, participation, and achievement in science. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(1), 44–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., & Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2003). Message from the “island group”: what is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harwood, W. S., & McMahon, M. M. (1997). Effects of integrated video media on student achievement and attitudes in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: a systemic view for change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27.Google Scholar
  45. Hicks, D. (1995/1996). Discourse, learning, and teaching. In M.W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 21, pp. 49–95). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  46. Hosler, J., & Boomer, K. B. (2011). Are comic books an effective way to engage nonmajors in learning and appreciating science? 1. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hosler, J. S. (2000). Clan apis. Active Synapse.Google Scholar
  48. Hosler, J. S. (2008). Optical allusions. Active Synapse.Google Scholar
  49. Hutchinson, K. H. (1949). An experiment in the use of comics as instructional material. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 23(4), 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jacobs, D. (2007). More than words: comics as a means of teaching multiple literacies. English Journal, 96(3), 19.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30047289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jacobs, V. (2008). Adolescent literacy: putting the crisis in context. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Januszyk, R., Lee, O., & Miller, E. (2015). Chapter 4: charges of the NGSS diversity and equity team. In O. Lee, E. Miller, & R. Januszyk (Eds.), NGSS for all students. National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  53. Januszyk, R., Miller, E. C., & Lee, O. (2016). Addressing student diversity and equity. Science and Children, 53(8), 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jee, B. D., & Anggoro, F. K. (2012). Comic cognition: Exploring the potential cognitive impacts of science comics. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11(2), 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jennings, K. A., Rule, A. C., & Vander Zanden, S. M. (2014). Fifth graders’ enjoyment, interest, and comprehension of graphic novels compared to heavily-illustrated and traditional novels. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 257.Google Scholar
  56. Johnson, C. C. (2011). The road to culturally relevant science: exploring how teachers navigate change in pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 170–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koch, F. (2017). Science comics: plagues: the microscopic battlefield. First Second.Google Scholar
  59. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.Google Scholar
  60. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: the rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  61. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lansing, K. M. (1981). The effect of drawing on the development of mental representations. Studies in Art Education, 22(3), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lansing, K. M. (1984). The effect of drawing on the development of mental representations: a continuing study. Studies in Art Education, 25(3), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lapp, D., Wolsey, T. D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2011). Graphic novels: What elementary teachers think about their instructional value. Journal of Education, 23–35.Google Scholar
  67. Laprise, S., & Winrich, C. (2010). The impact of science fiction films on student interest in science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2), 45.Google Scholar
  68. Laughter, J. C., & Adams, A. D. (2012). Culturally relevant science teaching in middle school. Urban Education, 47(6), 1106–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lee, O. (2002). Chapter 2: promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. Review of Research in Education, 26(1), 23–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lee, O., Miller, E. C., & Januszyk, R. (2014). Next generation science standards: all standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: the challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.Google Scholar
  74. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: the learning sciences (pp. 371–387). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  76. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2000). Symbolizing, communicating, and mathematizing: key components of models and modeling. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 361–383). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  77. Lin, C. H. (2002). Literature circles. ERIC Digest.Google Scholar
  78. Lin, K. (2014). Effects of science fiction films on junior high school students’ creative processes and products. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., dela Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds: EXPOSURE to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 694–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 34(4), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Matuk, C. F., Diamond, J., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Heroes, villains and viruses: How graphic narratives teach science. In International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA2009). Chicago: IL.Google Scholar
  83. McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible art. Mass: Northampton.Google Scholar
  84. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd edition. Chicago: SAGE.Google Scholar
  85. Millard, E., & Marsh, J. (2001). Sending Minnie the Minx home: comics and reading choices. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ministry of Education and Research. (2006). Kunnskapsløftet [The knowledge promotion reform]. Oslo, Norway: Author. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from http://www.udir.no/Lareplaner/.
  87. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nam, Y., Roehrig, G. H., Kern, A., & Reynolds, B. (2012). Perceptions and practices of culturally relevant science teaching in American Indian classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  90. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. Committee on learning science in informal environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  91. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  92. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  93. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Appendix D: all standards, all students/case studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  94. Nelson, J. (2006). Hur används läroboken av lärare och elever? [How is the textbook used by teachers and students?]. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 2(2), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Norton, B. (2003). The motivating power of comic books: insights from Archie comic readers. The Reading Teacher, 57(2), 140–147.Google Scholar
  97. Ogier, S., & Ghosh, K. (2017). Exploring student teachers’ capacity for creativity through the interdisciplinary use of comics in the primary classroom. Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, 1–17.Google Scholar
  98. Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: a teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Olson, J. C. (2008). The comic strip as a medium for promoting science literacy. Northridge, CA: California State University. URL: http://www.Csun.edu/jco69120/coursework/697/projects/OlsonActionResearchFinal.Pdf [accessed 5.
  100. Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: the false promise of technology in the classroom, and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  101. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Ottaviani, J. (2003). Dignifying science: stories about women scientists. Gt Labs.Google Scholar
  103. Ottaviani, J., & Myrick, L. (2011). Feynman. Macmillan.Google Scholar
  104. Özdemir, E. (2010). The effect of instructional comics on sixth grade students’ achievement in heat transfer. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University—Turkey.Google Scholar
  105. Pappas, C. C. (2006). The information book genre: its role in integrated science literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 226–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Pearson, M., & Somekh, B. (2006). Learning transformation with technology: a question of sociocultural contexts? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Pillsbury, R. T. (2008). Diagramming the never ending story: student-generated diagrammatic stories integrate and retain science concepts improving science literacy. Ann Arbor: The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.Google Scholar
  109. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Reed, M., & Flood, J. (2016). Science comics: dinosaurs: fossils and feathers. First Second.Google Scholar
  111. Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity practices? A critique of the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 1031–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Rota, G., & Izquierdo, J. (2003). “Comics” as a tool for teaching biotechnology in primary schools. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(2), 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Santa, C.M., & Alvermann, D.E. (1991). Science learning: Processes and applications. Newark: DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  115. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: a functional linguistics perspective. Routledge.Google Scholar
  116. Schoerning E. (2018) The culture of classroom science: discourse, dialog, and language practices. In: Science culture, language, and education in America. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  117. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 449–460). Springer, Boston, MA, Factors Affecting Teachers’ Pedagogical Adoption of ICT.Google Scholar
  121. Sørvik, G. O., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). “Do books like these have authors?” New roles for text and new demands on students in integrated science-literacy instruction. Science Education, 99(1), 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Spiegel, A. N., McQuillan, J., Halpin, P., Matuk, C., & Diamond, J. (2013). Engaging teenagers with science through comics. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2309–2326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.Google Scholar
  124. Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Tatalovic, M. (2009). Science comics as tools for science education and communication: a brief, exploratory study. Jcom, 8(4).Google Scholar
  126. The White House. (2014). The Clinton-Gore administration: a record of progress. Retrieved from http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-05.html.
  127. Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., Guerrero, C., Fan, Y., & Huerta, M. (2014). A randomized study of a literacy-integrated science intervention for low-socio-economic status middle school students: findings from first-year implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2083–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Unterhalter, E. (2009). What is equity in education? Reflections from the capability approach. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(5), 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: the logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Weitkamp, E., & Burnet, F. (2007). The Chemedian brings laughter to the chemistry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1911–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar
  134. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wilgus, A., & Brooks, M. G. (2017). Science comics. New York: First Second, an imprint of Roaring Brook Press.Google Scholar
  136. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.Google Scholar
  137. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Wu, H. K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: a case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.Google Scholar
  142. Zimmer, C. (2015). A planet of viruses. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityBrooklynUSA
  2. 2.370E Prem S. Paul Center at Whittier SchoolUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  3. 3.University of Nebraska State MuseumLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations