Reading Research Quarterly
Vol. 32, No. 1
Lesley Mandel Morrow
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Michael Pressley
State University of New York at Albany, USA
Jeffrey K. Smith
Michael Smith
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
The effect of a literature-based program
integrated into literacy and science
instruction with children from diverse
backgrounds
W
hen teachers and researchers speak of inte-
grating the language arts, they can mean
two distinct things: integrating the teaching
of reading, writing, listening, speaking, and
viewing or integrating the teaching of these language
arts into the study of content. The general term integra-
tion suggests the interweaving of ideas from different
processes, subject areas, or domains of human inquiry
(Pearson, 1994). Based on this definition, the purpose of
integration is to help students realize that what they are
learning in one domain can transfer to another.
Integrating the language arts
The integrated language arts perspective is based
on the belief that reading and writing are functional
tools not to be mastered in isolation, but to be used in
authentic activities (McGinley & Tierney, 1989). Inte-
gration is a way to avoid acquisition of isolated irrelevant
skills. The integrated language arts perspective involves
the concurrent teaching of reading, writing, listening,
54
January/February/March 1997
©1997 International Reading Association
(pp. 54–76)
speaking, and viewing; the incorporation of these lan-
guage arts into content areas; and using children’s litera-
ture as a major source for instruction. Children engage in
shared oral reading and writing experiences; the teacher
uses literature in guided lessons; and there is time given
to social interaction with peers during periods of inde-
pendent reading and writing (Edelsky, Altwerger, &
Flores, 1991; Goodman, 1989; Harste, Woodward, &
Burke, 1984; Wells, 1985).
The content areas provide learning contexts in
which reading and writing are used for a purpose.
Proponents of the integrated language arts approach
suggest that it will increase students’ literacy abilities and
knowledge of content (Pappas, 1991) by providing a
flexible framework for concept-oriented instruction
(Gambrell, 1992; Pappas, 1995).
Theoretical and practical support for integration of
the language arts into content area instruction date back
to the progressive education movement, associated with
the work of John Dewey (1966). In pursuing his concern
ABSTRACTS
The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children
from diverse backgrounds
THE PURPOSE of the study was to determine the impact of a
literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruc-
tion on achievement, use of literature, and attitudes toward the lit-
eracy and science program. Six third-grade classes with children
from diverse backgrounds (N = 128) were assigned to one control
and two experimental groups (literature/science program and
literature-only program). Both standardized and informal written and
oral tests were used to determine growth in literacy and science. Use
of literature was measured by asking children to name book titles
they knew and had read both in and out of school. Interviews with
teachers and children determined attitudes toward the literature and
science programs. Children in the literature/science group scored
El efecto de un programa basado en la literatura, integrado en la enseñanza de la lectoescritura y la
ciencia, con niños de diversas procedencias
EL PROPÓSITO del estudio fue determinar el impacto de un pro-
grama basado en la literatura, integrado en la enseñanza de la lecto-
escritura y la ciencia, sobre los logros, el uso de la literatura y las
actitudes hacia el programa de lectoescritura y ciencia. Seis cursos de
tercer grado de niños de diversas procedencias (N = 128) fueron
asignados a un grupo de control y dos grupos experimentales (pro-
grama de literatura/ciencia y programa de literatura). Para determi-
nar el avance en lectoescritura y ciencia se usaron pruebas
estandarizadas y pruebas informales escritas y orales. El uso de la
literatura se midió pidiendo a los niños que nombraran títulos de li-
bros que conocían y habían leído en la escuela y fuera de ella. Las
entrevistas con docentes y niños determinaron las actitudes hacia los
programas de ciencia y literatura. Los niños del grupo de literatu-
Die Wirkung von literaturorientierten Programmen bei der Literarisierung wie bei der
Wissensvermittlung mit Kindern unterschiedlichster sozialer Herkunft
ZWECK DIESER Studie war, den Einfluß von literaturorientierten
Programmen auf den Unterricht im Lesen, Schreiben sowie auf den
Sachunterricht zu bestimmen, und zwar im Hinblick auf den
Leistungsfortschritt, auf den Gebrauch von Literatur und auf die
Einstellungen zu Literarisierungs- und Wissensvermittlungsprogram-
men. Sechs Klassen der dritten Schulstufe mit Kindern unter-
schiedlichster Herkunft (N = 128) wurden einer Kontroll- und zwei
Forschungsgruppen (Literatur-/Sachunterricht und reines Literatur-
programm) zugeteilt. Es wurden sowohl standardisierte wie in-
formelle schriftliche und mündliche Überprüfungen verwendet, um
die wachsenden Kenntnisse in der Literarisierung und im Wissen zu
bestimmen. Der Gebrauch von Literatur wurde ermittelt, indem die
Kinder nach Buchtiteln gefragt wurden, die sie kannten und die sie
sowohl in der Schule als auch in der Freizeit gelesen hatten.
Interviews mit Lehrern und Schülern ermittelten die Haltungen
gegenüber Literatur- und Wissensprogrammen. Kinder in der
55
statistically significantly better on all literacy measures than children
in the literature-only group. Children in the literature-only group
scored statistically significantly better on all literacy measures, except
for the standardized reading test, than children in the control group.
There were no differences between the groups on number of science
facts used in science stories written. In the test of science facts and
vocabulary, the literature/science group scored statistically signifi-
cantly better than the literature-only group and the control group.
Observational data collected during periods of independent reading
and writing, when children interacted in social settings, reported
the nature of literacy activities that took place.
ra/ciencia se desempeñaron significativamente mejor en todas las
medidas de lectoescritura que aquellos del grupo de literatura. Los
niños del grupo de literatura se desempeñaron significativamente
mejor que los del grupo de control en todas las medidas de lecto-
escritura, excepto en la prueba estandarizada de lectura. No hubo
diferencias entre grupos en el número de hechos científicos usados
en los relatos escritos de ciencia. En la prueba de hechos científicos
y vocabulario, el grupo de literatura/ciencia se desempeñó signi-
ficativamente mejor que los grupos de literatura y de control. Los
datos observacionales recogidos durante períodos de lectura y es-
critura independiente, cuando los niños interactuaban en contextos
sociales, permitieron describir la naturaleza de las actividades de lec-
toescritura que tuvieron lugar.
Literatur-/Wissensgruppe punkteten statistisch gesehen eindeutig
besser bei allen Leistungsfestellungen in der Literarisierung als
Kinder in der reinen Literaturgruppe. Kinder in der reinen
Literaturgruppe punkteten statistisch gesehen bei allen Leistungsfest-
stellungen in der Literarisierung—ausgenommen beim standard-
isierten Lesetest—besser als die Kinder in der Kontrollgruppe. Es gab
keine Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen in der Menge an
Faktenwissen, die bei Sachtexten geschrieben wurde. Bei der Über-
prüfung von Faktenwissen und Vokabeln punktete die Literatur-
/Wissensgruppe statistisch gesehen deutlich besser als die reine
Literaturgruppe und die Kontrollgruppe. Beobachtungen, die
während der freien, selbsttätigen Lese- und Schreibphasen aufge-
zeichnet wurden, als die Kinder in sozialen Lernphasen miteinander
kommunizierten, lieferten Daten über die Art von stattfindenden
Lese- und Schreibaktivitäten.
ABSTRACTS
L’effet d’un programme intégratif basé sur la littérature dans l’enseignement littéraire et scientifique
d’enfants de milieux différents
LE BUT de la recherche était de déterminer l’impact d’un programme
intégratif basé sur la littérature dans l’enseignement littéraire et scien-
tifique, sur la réussite, la pratique de la lecture, et les attitudes à l’é-
gard du programme de lettres et de sciences. Six classes d’enfants
de 3° année de milieux différents (N = 128) ont été répartis en un
groupe contrôle et deux groupes expérimentaux (programme de
lettres/sciences et programme de lettres uniquement). Pour évaluer
les progrès en lettres et en sciences on a utilisé aussi bien des tests
oraux qu’écrits, qu’étalonnés et informels. On a mesuré la pratique
de la lecture en demandant aux enfants de donner des titres de livres
qu’ils connaissaient et avaient lus à l’école et hors de l’école. On a
déterminé les attitudes envers les programmes de lettres et de scien-
ces au moyen d’entretiens avec des enseignants et des enfants. Les
enfants du groupe lettres/sciences ont une réussite qui est statis-
56
tiquement significativement supérieure dans toutes les évaluations de
l’écrit à celle des enfants du groupe lettres uniquement. Les enfants
du groupe lettres uniquement ont des résultats statistiquement
supérieurs dans toutes les évaluations de l’écrit à ceux des enfants du
groupe contrôle, exception faite du test de lecture étalonné. On n’a
pas observé de différences entre les groupes en ce qui concerne le
nombre de faits scientifiques rapportés dans les histoires scien-
tifiques produites par écrit. Dans le test de faits scientifiques et de vo-
cabulaire, le groupe lettres/sciences a réussi statistiquement signi-
ficativement mieux que le groupe lettres uniquement et que le
groupe contrôle. Les observations effectuées pendant les moments
de lecture et d’écriture autonomes, quand les enfants interagissent en
situation sociale, ont apporté des informations sur la nature des ac-
tivités de lecture-écriture qui s’y sont déroulées.
Literature in literacy and science instruction
with teaching children how to learn, Dewey hypothe-
sized that interest drives thought. Because children play
a role in deciding what they study, he argued, it is the
teachers’ responsibility to weave skills through the pur-
suit of topics of interest. Learning experiences, he sug-
gested, should include problem solving and discovery in
social settings.
Current models for learning, such as the integrated
language arts model, are similar to Dewey’s theories in
maintaining that knowledge is not just conveyed to the
learner; rather, learners construct their own understand-
ings, building upon what they already know (Vosniadou
& Brewer, 1987). Students take responsibility for and are
active participants in their own learning, which is sup-
ported through social interaction, problem-solving activi-
ties, and reflection. Teachers guide students by modeling
behaviors and offering support when needed.
As children become capable of working on their
own, teachers act as facilitators (Resnick, Levine, &
Teasley, 1992). Such interactions are intended to foster
critical thinking, with individual children internalizing the
cognitive activities practiced in the group (Vygotsky,
1978). The combination of modeling strategies for learn-
ing in a traditional format, joined to opportunities for
active learning, allows for understanding and transforma-
tion of knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). Inte-
gration in content areas rewards knowledge transforma-
tion in the study of different topics and promotes the
acquisition of a meaningful knowledge base (Lipson,
Valencia, Wixson, & Peters, 1993).
Importance of reading, writing, and literature in the
integrated curriculum
We believe that combining children’s literature
with related activities can advance attainment of some of
the goals for learning that Dewey and others envisioned.
The content of children’s literature, for example, lends it-
self to drawing on background knowledge as students
interact with peers and adults during reading, writing,
listening, and speaking about stories that are interesting
to them. Involvement in children’s literature encourages
discussions, role playing, and retelling and rewriting of
stories, all of which are ways of actively constructing
meaning from text. Children’s literature stimulates con-
versations that draw upon emotions, and promotes re-
sponses related to children’s life experiences (Jett-
Simpson, 1989).
Numerous investigations confirm the benefits of (a)
providing children with daily opportunities to experience
literature in active and pleasurable ways by reading and
telling stories to children; (b) dealing with stories
through interpretive and critical discussions; (c) integrat-
ing literature into themes being studied throughout the
57
curriculum; and (d) having children share books they
have read, respond to literature through written and oral
language, and participate in independent reading and
writing periods (Hoffman, Roser, & Farest, 1988;
Morrow, O’Connor, & Smith, 1990).
When we improve children’s writing we improve
their ability to think. Writing facilitates logical presenta-
tion of thought and allows for reflection upon what is
written. Writing changes the development and shape of
ideas. Many advocate the importance of writing as a
mechanism for thinking deeply about content since
thinking skills are best taught when connected to mean-
ingful contexts such as an academic subject. Forms of
writing that help shape children’s thinking include draw-
ing on one’s own experience and information in prepa-
ration for writing, summarizing and reviewing new infor-
mation through writing, and transforming knowledge
and extending it through writing (Langer & Applebee,
1987).
Integrating the language arts into the study of
science
Understanding basic science concepts is essential
to participate fully in life; however, there is evidence that
many students do not acquire this knowledge (American
Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS],
1989). When teaching science, 95% of teachers use a
science text 90% of the time (Ogens, 1990). Often this
approach leads to frustration for the child, rather than an
understanding of scientific concepts. Researchers analyz-
ing elementary science textbooks (Baker, 1991; Baker &
Saul, 1994) have concluded that such texts often require
reasoning beyond the capabilities of students. Because
one science text is typically used for all students in a
class, mismatches occur between reading competence
and reading demands for many children (Chall, Conrad,
& Harris-Sharples, 1991; Meyer, 1991).
Reliance on science textbooks tends to favor the
accumulation of factual knowledge at the expense of ac-
tivities that stimulate the process-oriented inquiry needed
to deal with science-related issues. Although the content
of science textbooks is restricted to avoid controversy
and space limitations preclude attention to many topics,
children’s literature that deals with science topics has
few restrictions and can provide the reader with insight
beyond factual accounts. Trade books deal with a wide
range of ideas that promote emotional responses, per-
sonal association, imagination, prediction, and evaluation
(Ross, 1994; Smith, 1994). Students should have varied
reading and writing experiences with science to stimu-
late inquiry and enhance their process skills for learning
(Edmondson & Novak, 1993; Roth, 1991; Santa &
Havens, 1991).
58 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1
Recently, there has been a movement for reform in
science education (Santa & Alvermann, 1991). An impor-
tant hypothesis emerging from the movement is that in-
tegration of the language arts and science could have an
effect on the development of scientific understanding
(AAAS, 1993; Dowd, 1991; Gaskins et al., 1994). Learning
science through the integration of authentic reading and
writing experiences can provide students with exposure
to and practice with the different genres of literature
about science including fiction written to highlight scien-
tific themes and expository prose that explores scientific
principles (Champagne & Bunce, 1991; Glynn, Yeany, &
Britton, 199l). Bruner (1986) argued that there are two
modes of cognitive functioning, the paradigmatic and the
narrative. For students to employ the rich diversity of
thought of which they are capable, neither mode should
be ignored. In science classes the paradigmatic mode
has been most prevalent. Using children’s literature in
narrative forms in science instruction could enhance a
student’s ability to utilize diversity of thought.
A number of studies have demonstrated that the
use of children’s literature enhances both literacy devel-
opment and children’s interest in reading (Hoffman et
al., 1988; Morrow, 1992; Morrow et al., 1990). It has
been found that difficult scientific concepts are under-
stood by students who are taught scientific content using
literature (Moore & Moore, 1989). Careful selection of
quality literature for the science curriculum could pro-
vide students with more interesting scientific reading
than that found in science textbooks, thus stimulating
students’ interest in participating in science (Renninger,
Hidi, & Krapp, 1992).
A literature review about integrating language arts
with content area instruction yields many anecdotal re-
ports that support the perspective and offer strategies for
classroom practice. There are few investigations that in-
volve empirical, controlled, experimental evaluation of
language arts and science integration or integration of
language arts with other content areas. When investigat-
ing the use of integration in elementary classrooms,
Schmidt et al. (1985) found that although teachers ex-
pressed belief in integrating when interviewed, they
spent a small percentage of their instructional time en-
gaged in integrated language arts activities. Baker and
Saul (1994) described teachers working together for a
2-year period to construct their own understanding of
integrating the science and language arts curriculum.
Smith, Monson, and Dobson (1992) studied the ef-
fects of using historical novels in an integrated language
arts approach to social studies and literacy instruction.
The control rooms used basal readers and social studies
texts while the treatment rooms used historical novels
for reading and social studies instruction. Students in the
treatment rooms recalled more information than students
in control rooms about the social studies themes studied.
When Gaskins et al. (1994) studied processes to
help students think, read, and write about science to de-
velop conceptual understandings, there were significant
gains on the measures used. However, there was no at-
tempt to determine whether students would have
learned better with other methods. The authors suggest-
ed the need for experimental studies to compare text-
book strategies to the integrated language arts approach.
This study is based on the need to support positive
anecdotal reports about the integrated language arts and
integrating into content areas. It expands upon the limit-
ed work about the topic and uses an empirical experi-
mental design. It builds on earlier work that studied inte-
grating the language arts in literacy programs by using
children’s literature (Morrow, 1992). The treatment in the
study uses a balanced approach to instruction with class-
rooms using integrated language arts strategies concur-
rently with explicit textbook instruction.
Purpose of the study
In this study we asked what the impact of a litera-
ture-based program integrated into literacy instruction
and science instruction would have on (a) children’s
comprehension of story, (b) children’s ability to write
well-formed original narratives, (c) children’s ability to
create well-formed narratives about science topics, (d)
children’s use of literature, (e) children’s knowledge of
science facts and vocabulary, and (f) children’s and
teachers’ attitudes towards the literature-based literacy
and science programs. We were also interested in de-
scribing student participation in activities in the treat-
ment classrooms to better understand what occurred.
The treatment in this study included: (a) the design
of literacy centers in classrooms to create rich literacy
environments, (b) teacher-guided literature activities in
the literacy and science programs, (c) guided activities
for writing narratives in literacy and science, and (d) self-
directed periods of reading and writing in social settings
with peers. In these settings children were actively in-
volved in practicing literacy through the construction of
meaning about text as they read and wrote stories. The
treatment rooms also used traditional textbook instruc-
tion in literacy and science as designated by the school
district. Therefore, the treatment provided a balanced
program of explicit instruction and literature-based
strategies associated with the integrated language arts.
This treatment is based on Cambourne’s model of learn-
ing (1988). He suggested that learners must be immersed
in varied types of texts; need many demonstrations of
how texts are used and constructed; must interact with
individuals who have high expectations for their success;
Literature in literacy and science instruction
must be given the opportunity to take responsibility for
some of their literacy learning by having choices and
making decisions about when, how, and what to learn;
and need the opportunity to use and practice what they
are learning in authentic situations.
Method
Participants and setting
The 128 participants (68 girls, 60 boys) were from
all six third-grade classrooms at one elementary school.
The sample was ethnically diverse, including 49 children
of African American heritage, 46 Caucasians, 25
Latinos/as (Cuban and Puerto Rican), and 8 Asian
Americans (Korean, Indian, and Japanese). The distribu-
tion of children was similar in each classroom, with ap-
proximately 10 African Americans, 8 Caucasians, 4
Latinos/as, and 2 Asian Americans in a class of 24. The
district has been bussing for many years, and diversity
within classrooms is the norm. Classes were heteroge-
neously grouped with respect to achievement, with ap-
proximately one fourth of the students in each class con-
sidered at risk and eligible for Basic Skills classes
according to state criteria (normal curve equivalency on
the California Test of Basic Skills [CTBS, 1980] of 34 or
less in reading and 36 or less in language).
Twenty-eight percent of the children in the study
were on free lunches and considered disadvantaged.
Eligibility for the free lunch program was determined by
the state, using a formula that utilizes the family income
and number of children in the family. The socioeconom-
ic status (SES) of the subjects in each ethnic group in the
study ranged from disadvantaged to middle class. All
teachers were female with 5 to 22 years of teaching ex-
perience, averaging 12 years.
Nature of the reading and science programs prior to the
treatment
The classrooms in which this study took place
were quite traditional in their approach to literacy and
science instruction. Prior to this study, literature was not
an integral part of the regular reading or science pro-
grams. Literacy instruction consisted of the following: (a)
the basal reading text with workbook materials was the
main source of reading instruction; (b) four reading
groups were employed during the daily reading instruc-
tion, which lasted 1 hour 30 minutes; (c) books from the
school and classroom library were available when chil-
dren were not in reading groups or working on activity
sheets; (d) occasionally, teachers read to students; (e)
none of the classrooms had well-designed literacy cen-
ters, although they each had a shelf with some children’s
59
literature; and (f) about 7 1/2 hours per week were
spent on literacy instruction in each classroom.
Prior to this investigation, science instruction con-
sisted of (a) the use of a textbook and supporting work-
sheets; (b) the study of four to five science topics
throughout the year in the form of individual units, such
as “Space” or “The Changing Earth”; (c) a project accom-
panying each unit (e.g., construction of a mobile of the
nine planets); and (d) science topics that were alternated
with social studies units each month. There were three
45-minute science periods a week for a total of 2 hours
15 minutes weekly.
Administrators and teachers in the district where
the study took place were interested in changing their
literacy program. They wanted to maintain some tradi-
tional textbook-based explicit teaching but were interest-
ed in implementing some literature-based instruction in-
tegrated into literacy and content areas. The teachers
were willing to participate in the treatment because they
had played a role in deciding upon the staff develop-
ment focus for the year. The teachers in the control
classrooms agreed to serve in that capacity because they
were to be provided with the materials and training giv-
en to the teachers in the treatment rooms at the end of
the study.
Materials
The materials used to measure the results of the
study were grouped into three categories: literacy and
science achievement, use of generic and science litera-
ture, and attitudes toward reading and science. They
were administered individually and in groups. Observa-
tional data were also collected to be sure treatments
were carried out as intended and to record types of liter-
acy activity that occurred during periods of independent
reading and writing in the experimental rooms.
Literacy and science achievement
Informal group tests, individualized tests, and com-
mercially prepared group tests were administered as pre-
and posttests to evaluate growth in comprehension, writ-
ing, science vocabulary, and factual knowledge. Pretests
were administered at the end of September prior to the
intervention, which began the third week of October
and continued to May. The posttests were administered
in May.
Three of the literacy measures, story retelling, story
rewriting, and the comprehension test, were curriculum-
tied measures, or authentic measures for the instruction
used. This information indicated whether or not the
treatment strategies had the ability to effect change in
that behavior compared to a control group. A standard-
ized test and writing science stories evaluated transfor-
60 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1
mation of knowledge. The story retelling, rewriting, and
comprehension test asked students to summarize and re-
view new information that they learned. Writing science
stories allowed for the development and shaping of
ideas and provided a mechanism for the transformation
of knowledge through writing (Langer & Applebee,
1987).
1. Free-recall story retelling and free-recall story
rewriting tests were used because they are holistic mea-
sures of comprehension that demonstrate both retention
of facts and the ability to construct meaning by retelling
text. For the oral story retelling and story rewriting tests,
two different storybooks were used, one for the pretest
and one for the posttest (see Appendix A for titles). They
were chosen for quality of structure, including delineat-
ed characters, a definite setting, clear theme, obvious
plot episodes, and a resolution. The stories were similar
in number of pages and words. The testing books were
selected with attention to research on children’s prefer-
ences in books (Monson & Sebesta, 1991) and involved
characters and concepts familiar and interesting to third-
grade children. Research assistants administered story
retelling tests individually. Story rewriting tests were ad-
ministered to whole groups by classroom teachers.
The story retelling and story rewriting tests
(Morrow, 1985) tapped literal knowledge of stories, spe-
cific elements of story structure, and story sequencing.
Children listened to a story that was read to them and
were then asked to retell it or rewrite it as if they were
doing it for a friend who had never heard the story be-
fore. No prompts were given with the rewriting test. In
the oral retelling, which was tape-recorded, prompts
were limited to “Then what happened?” or “What comes
next?” Both written and oral retellings were evaluated for
the inclusion of story structure elements: setting, theme,
plot episodes, and resolution. A child received credit for
partial recall or for understanding the gist of a story
event (Pellegrini & Galda, 1982; Thorndyke, 1977).
The scorers also observed story sequence by com-
paring the order of events in the child’s retelling with
that in the original, and by determining the child’s ability
to make relationships between story elements and con-
struct a meaningful presentation. The interrater agree-
ment of the scoring scheme (roughly 90%) and the valid-
ity of the measures have been established in previous
investigations with children from diverse backgrounds
(Morrow, 1992). In this study, seven coders scored six
protocols with 92% agreement for story retelling and
96% for story rewriting.
2. Probed recall comprehension tests were adminis-
tered by research assistants individually to each child af-
ter he or she read a story (testing book titles are in
Appendix A). The test included eight traditional compre-
hension questions focusing on detail, cause and effect,
classifying, inference, and making critical judgments,
plus eight questions focusing on story structure, includ-
ing setting, theme, plot episodes, and resolution.
Research assistants read the questions and recorded chil-
dren’s answers. This instrument had an interrater agree-
ment in the range of 92% and above in previous re-
search with children from similar and diverse
backgrounds (Morrow, 1985). In this study, six coders
scored the five pre- and posttests with 92% agreement.
3. The California Test of Basic Skills (1980), a stan-
dardized instrument, had been administered by the dis-
trict in April of the year before the study began and was
administered again in April of the year in which the
study was completed. The language and reading subtest
results are reported in the Results section of the study.
4. Written original stories were collected by teach-
ers. For creating original fictional stories, children were
shown five figures—a boy, a rabbit, an elf, a house, and
an airplane—and were told they could use all or some
of the figures to help write their story. The stories were
evaluated for story structure, including setting, theme,
plot episodes, resolution, and sequence. Better perfor-
mance was reflected by stories written in story grammati-
cal order. This instrument was found to be reliable in
previous work (Morrow et al., 1990). Six scorers in this
study evaluated five child protocols with 87% agreement.
5. Science stories about science themes studied were
created by students. The purpose of this test was to de-
termine if students could use learned science concepts
and transform their knowledge to narrative prose. In
these narrative science stories, we looked for the inclu-
sion of science concepts along with elements of good
narrative plot structure. Classroom teachers administered
this test. The four science topics being studied during
the school year were written on the board (space, plants,
animals, and the changing earth). Students were asked to
select the topic they liked best and to write a story about
it. They were told to include in the story as many facts,
words, and ideas as they knew about the topic and to
include a setting, theme, plot episodes, and resolution.
Stories were evaluated for the number of science
concepts included. Science concepts were defined as vo-
cabulary, facts, and ideas learned from the featured sci-
ence units. Stories were also evaluated for story structure
elements. Six coders scoring tests for the same five sub-
jects yielded 82% agreement.
Most of the children had difficulty writing in a nar-
rative style for this assignment; they wrote instead in an
expository fashion, simply including lists of facts. Those
who did write narratives were unable to weave science
concepts into their story lines, particularly on the pretest.
In order to examine this systematically, we did not score
Literature in literacy and science instruction
for elements of story structure as originally planned; in-
stead, we counted the number of expository pieces writ-
ten and the number of narrative pieces before and after
the treatment, and counted the number of scientific con-
cepts included in the pre- and posttest writing samples.
A piece qualified as a narrative if it included three of the
four story structure elements. A piece was considered ex-
pository when it was a statement of facts about the topic.
6. The science textbook test for the four third-grade
science units used in this study also measured science
achievement. The tests consisted of 24 questions and
measured factual information. There were six questions
for each of the four science units. The questions asked
children to fill in the blanks or identify statements as true
or false. A sample fill-in-the-blank question was as
follows:
Mammals are animals that have hair and feed their young
with _________.
A sample true or false question was as follows:
True or False? Birds and toads both come from eggs.
The test was administered to the groups as a whole by
their teachers. Reliability for test scores using coefficient
alpha was estimated to be .84 for these subjects.
Use of generic and science literature
To determine if the treatment had an effect on chil-
dren’s use of literature (i.e., if they were reading books),
and the types of literature they were familiar with, chil-
dren in the three groups were asked to name favorite
book titles. This was looked upon as a measure of litera-
ture use because it was assumed that a child was more
likely to be able to perform this task if he or she were
reading books, looking at books, or being exposed to
books by the teachers.
Recalling and recognizing names of authors and
reading materials have been used by other researchers as
measures of use (West, Stanovich, & Mitchell, 1993). Use
of reading materials, or exposure to print, correlates
highly with literacy abilities. Since the children in the
treatment groups had a great deal of exposure to differ-
ent forms of print, we tested their knowledge of book
titles to determine if the treatment had an effect on use.
Attitudes toward literacy and science
For this study, attitudes included teacher and child
reactions to the literature/science and literature-only pro-
grams. The interview data on attitudes were collected to
hear the voices of those involved and to determine the
acceptability of the treatment. According to Elliott (1988),
even if a strategy fosters an important goal, it may not be
acceptable to teachers (e.g., a strategy may require too
much teaching time); others may be perceived as foster-
61
ing one goal (e.g., memory of factual content) at the
expense of another goal (e.g., inferential thought).
Acceptance is a critical determinant as to whether an
educational intervention will be used after the study is
complete (Rich & Pressley, 1990).
Only children in the experimental groups were in-
terviewed about the literature-based program. Interview
questions required students to compare their regular
reading instruction to the literature-based program. Since
the control group children were not involved in literature-
based instruction, they couldn’t be expected to make
comparisons. Interview questions about science were
posed to all participants in the study since they were not
treatment specific.
Observational data
Observational data involved monitoring the activity
in the experimental and control groups to be sure teach-
ers were carrying out their programs as intended. We
were also interested in listing the type and frequency of
activities during science lessons, and in finding out how
the intervention led to the outcomes. For the science ob-
servations, we observed science lessons in all of the
classrooms. In addition, in the literature classrooms, we
observed the Independent Reading and Writing Periods
(IRWPs). These data were collected by research assis-
tants who recorded field notes as they observed.
Observational data were collected for all rooms via
videotapes or field notes during 30 science lessons over
the course of the school year. There was a total of 180
hours of observation or 60 hours in each treatment
group and 60 hours in the control group. In addition, all
rooms involved in the literature treatment were observed
in the same manner during teacher-directed literature ac-
tivities and independent reading and writing periods.
This was done once a week for 30 weeks for a total
120 hours in the four treatment rooms, 60 in the litera-
ture/science and 60 in the literature-only. The experimen-
tal and control groups were also observed during tradi-
tional literacy lessons. This involved 30 lessons in each
room over the school year. There was a total of 180 hours
of observations for these lessons, 60 hours per group.
Design and treatment
The six classrooms were randomly assigned to
three treatment groups: two experimental groups and
one control. Subjects in the first experimental group (21
boys and 22 girls) received a literature-based intervention
in both their literacy and science programs and are re-
ferred to as the literature/science group; subjects in the
second experimental group (20 boys and 20 girls) re-
ceived a literature-based intervention only in their literacy
program and are referred to as the literature-only group.
62 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1
The control group (19 boys and 26 girls) continued their
regular basal reading and science textbook instruction.
The literature/science versus control comparison
evaluated the effect of the literature plus science integra-
tion relative to the traditional basal and science textbook
instruction that occurred in the control group. The
literature-only versus control comparison assessed the ef-
fect of the literature-enriched program relative to tradi-
tional basal literacy instruction. The literature/science
and literature-only comparison assessed the effect that
adding literature to the science instruction had on both
literacy learning and science learning as opposed to
adding literature to only the literacy instruction.
Preparations for carrying out the treatment
Prior to carrying out the treatment, teachers in the
literature/science and literature-only groups participated
in 3 days of in-service training. An additional day was
spent with the literature/science group. Teachers were
given a handbook that provided a rationale for the inter-
ventions, and lesson plans for the various activities. In
the training sessions, there were demonstrations, simula-
tions, and question-and-answer periods. The actual treat-
ment incorporated moderate change, since the teachers
involved were used to very traditional textbook teaching.
Therefore, we could begin the intervention with minimal
in-service preparation, since there was minimal distur-
bance to usual routines.
Teachers were encouraged to discuss their con-
cerns about implementing the program. Their concerns
included: (a) How will I fit the additional activities in the
program into my school day? (b) How can I make space
for literacy centers in my overcrowded classroom? (c)
Will my children be able to work in social settings in a
productive manner? (d) If there is less time spent with
traditional skill development, will children score well
enough on the standardized measures?
Together the concerns were discussed and solu-
tions evolved that seemed to satisfy those involved by
(a) working through schedules together, (b) designing
literacy centers to fit into classrooms, and (c) helping
children to learn to work in collaborative settings. We
had the assurance from administrators that they sup-
ported the project and were willing to take risks about
the outcome.
Staff development continued during the treatment.
We met with the teachers in the experimental rooms
every week for the first month, twice a week for the sec-
ond 2 months, and once a month for the rest of the
school year. At these meetings, we discussed problems
and concerns ranging from classroom management to
skill development. We also shared activities the teachers
carried out and materials that children had created.
Teachers talked about moving their literacy center to a
better spot in their room. They shared how their children
were adjusting to social literacy settings and talked about
how they adjusted their schedules to fit the program into
the school day.
These meetings resulted in teachers learning from
teachers. The school principal and reading coordinator
attended our meetings, which demonstrated their sup-
port. Research assistants made weekly visits to experi-
mental and control rooms to answer questions, listen to
concerns, and provide additional materials, if needed.
During the intervention period, the only minor changes
that could be made to the program were based on
teacher input to ensure that the same treatment was oc-
curring in all of the rooms and was consistent through-
out the study.
The district used basal materials for reading instruc-
tion and science textbooks and wanted to continue
doing so; therefore, although the intervention comple-
mented or balanced the literacy and science instruction
that was in place, it did not change it completely. So as
not to confound treatment effects, schedules were adjust-
ed between experimental and control classes to equalize
time devoted to reading and science instruction. Thus, a
true experimental contrast existed at the classroom level.
To incorporate the treatment, less time was spent
with basal reading materials in the literature/science and
literature-only classrooms and less time was spent with
science textbooks in the literature/science rooms to in-
corporate the treatment. The same amount of time, how-
ever, was spent on literacy instruction and science in-
struction in the experimental and control groups.
During the study, all classrooms spent 7 1/2 hours
a week on reading instruction. In the experimental
groups, teachers spent 3 1/2 hours a week with the basal
reading materials and 4 hours with literature. In the con-
trol group, all 7 1/2 hours a week of reading instruction
involved basal materials. Similarly, in the control and lit-
erature-only groups, the 2 hours 15 minutes spent on
science instruction a week was with the textbook and
worksheets. In the literature/science rooms less time was
spent using textbooks to allow for the treatment.
Specifically, 1 hour 15 minutes was spent with the text-
book and 1 hour with literature enrichment. A detailed
allocation of time is described in following sections.
Reading instruction and science instruction in the
control rooms
Reading instruction and science instruction in the
control group continued as it had in the past, with the
basal materials and workbooks as the main source for
reading instruction and the science textbook and work-
book guiding science instruction.
Literature in literacy and science instruction
Reading instruction in the control rooms: Time allotments
and activities
The control rooms spent 1 hour 30 minutes daily for
a total of 712 hours per week on reading instruction.
1. There were four reading groups in each room
and the children were grouped homogeneously. All four
groups used the basal reading materials.
2. At the beginning of each literacy period, the
teacher taught a 30-minute lesson devoted to a particular
reading skill to the entire class.
3. After the lesson, the teacher introduced and ex-
plained independent work for children to engage in,
which included silent reading in the basal textbook, re-
lated workbook pages, and worksheets for the lesson
taught at the beginning of the period.
4. When these tasks were completed, students
could choose to read books from a shelf in the class-
room, select a quiet game that reinforced reading skills,
or write a story.
5. While children were engaged in independent
work, the teacher met with two of the four reading
groups for 30 minutes each. During this time, she intro-
duced skills, children read orally, and there was pre- and
postdiscussion about stories read in the basal.
The basal materials were from the late 1980s. Of
the selections in the third-grade materials, 10 were
whole pieces of children’s literature and several others
were adaptations from children’s literature. There was
some overlap in discussion surrounding literature selec-
tions in the experimental groups and the discussions
provided by the basal. For example, both programs em-
phasized learning about structural elements in stories.
Science instruction in the control rooms: Time allotments
and activities
Two hours and 15 minutes were spent on science
instruction weekly in three 45-minute periods.
1. Science instruction relied on the science text-
book with workbook pages and a project for each unit.
Science classes included lectures, discussions, movies,
material displays, and a project for the science theme.
Lessons were in whole-group settings.
2. Lessons began with a review of concepts taught
in the last science period.
3. The teacher presented a lesson dealing with a
new concept.
4. Some reading from the textbook occurred.
5. Discussion about the topic was encouraged.
6. Children completed workbook pages that rein-
forced the concepts taught.
7. The last activity might be a film or filmstrip, or
children might work together in groups formed by the
teacher to do an experiment or a prescribed project,
63
such as making a mobile of the planets during the unit
on outer space.
Reading instruction and science instruction in the
literature-only program
Half the time spent in reading instruction in the
literature-only group was done as described in the con-
trol rooms; the rest of the time was with the literature-
enriched program. Science instruction for the children in
the literature-only program was identical to science in-
struction in the control group.
Reading instruction in the literature-only program: Time
allotments and activities
One hour 30 minutes per day for a total of 7 1/2
hours per week was spent on literacy instruction. In the
literature-only program, 3 1/2 hours per week were
spent on basal activities, reading groups, and indepen-
dent work as described for the control group, and 4
hours were spent on the literature-enriched activities.
The literature-only rooms included the following.
1. Classroom literacy centers contained open-faced
shelves as well as regular bookshelves for displaying fea-
tured books. There were 5–8 books per child at 3–4
grade levels in varied genres of children’s literature, such
as biographies, picture storybooks, informational books,
novels, and so forth. There was a system for checking
books out for use at home.
The literature-only and literature/science groups
were provided with five titles each for the four science
units in the science program: plants, animals, space, and
the changing earth. There were multiple copies of these
books in the rooms. Pillows, rugs, stuffed animals, and
rocking chairs added comfort to the centers. There were
literature manipulatives such as feltboards with story
characters, headsets and taped stories, puppets for story-
telling, chalktalks, and roll movies.
Each center had an Author’s Spot with writing pa-
per, booklets, and writing utensils for writing stories and
making books. The center made literature accessible and
introduced children to several modalities for engaging in
social literacy activities.
2. Teacher-guided literature activities were carried
out three times a week, and children were read to daily.
Activities engaged children in retelling and rewriting sto-
ries; creating original oral and written stories; storytelling
using props such as roll movies, feltboard figures, and
chalktalks; sharing books read; and keeping track of
books read.
During story activities, emphasis was placed on el-
ements of story structure and on styles of authors and il-
lustrators. Teachers used culturally diverse stories and
discussed different genres of literature. Regular discus-
64 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1
sion concerned literal, interpretive, and critical issues re-
lated to stories. Activities included writing related to liter-
ature. The activities demonstrated by teachers provided a
model for children to emulate during periods of inde-
pendent reading and writing. Although the science titles
were present in the literature-only rooms, they were nev-
er featured.
3. Independent reading and writing periods (IRWP)
in which children were given the opportunity to choose
from a variety of literacy activities, such as reading a
book, reading to a friend, listening to a taped story,
telling a feltboard story, asking someone to read to
them, checking out books to take home, writing a story,
and so forth, were held three times a week. Children
could work alone or with others; cooperative activities
were encouraged. They were expected to stay with one
or two activities during the 30-minute period. Each IRWP
emphasized concepts that had been featured by the
teacher during her guided literature lessons. During
these periods, the teacher worked along with the chil-
dren as a participator or facilitator.
Rules were established during IRWPs to help chil-
dren self-direct their activities. It took about a month for
students to be able to work independently of the
teacher, deciding which activities to engage in and stay-
ing on task. Montessori’s (1965) theory emphasizing re-
spect for others and materials helped to keep this time
productive.
The weekly schedule was managed as follows.
Two days a week the teacher carried out the reading pe-
riod as described in the control group section: (a) a 30-
minute whole-group lesson for skill development, and
(b) two 30-minute meetings with two reading groups.
On the other 3 days, instead of a basal reader skill les-
son, the teacher did a whole-group literature lesson for
30 minutes. Instead of seeing two reading groups on
these days, she would only see one group for 30 min-
utes, and then there was a 30-minute period of indepen-
dent reading and writing in a collaborative setting with
peers.
Reading instruction and science instruction in the litera-
ture/science program
In the literature/science group, the reading pro-
gram was carried out with classroom literacy centers,
teacher-modeled literature activities, and periods for in-
dependent reading and writing as in the literature-only
program described in the previous section.
Science instruction in the literature/science program:
Time allotments and activities
Two hours and 15 minutes per week were spent
on science instruction. This was divided into three 45-
minute periods. In the literature/science program, 1 hour
15 minutes was spent with activities described for the
control group and 1 hour was spent on literature-
enriched activities. The literature-enriched science pro-
gram included two major features.
1. Five titles of children’s literature were provided
and highlighted for each unit taught in the third-grade
science textbook. These books were used to present
concepts about science topics studied in the textbook.
These featured science books had a special spot in the
literacy center.
2. Teachers involved students in writing stories that
contained science facts studied. The narrative stories in-
cluded elements of story structure such as setting, theme,
plot episodes, and resolution. These stories were written
as a class first, and then in small groups or individually.
The literature/science treatment lessons were orga-
nized as follows.
1. The entire 45 minutes of the first lesson of a
week was spent with the textbook and follow-up activi-
ties as described for the control group.
2. The second science lesson of the week pre-
sented concepts about science with a selection of chil-
dren’s literature that was read and discussed. In the
second half of the period, students would work with
the teacher to write a whole-class science story.
3. The third science lesson in the week began with
the use of the textbook. In the second half of the period,
children wrote science stories in small groups or alone.
Procedure
Data collection
At the end of September all measures described in
the Materials section were administered as pretests, and
again as posttests in May when the intervention was
completed. The intervention began in the third week of
October and continued to May. Observations were con-
ducted in the experimental rooms once a week during
the intervention period. Research assistants visited each
classroom and took field notes during each visit. Classes
were observed during guided literature activities and sci-
ence lessons to be certain that all program components
were carried out as intended and to be able to describe
the nature of the lessons in the experimental rooms.
During IRWPs, collaborative activities in literacy and sci-
ence were recorded. Review of field logs confirmed that
treatments were carried out as intended such as time
spent and number of activities.
Control rooms were also observed once a week to
describe the type of activity that occurred during science
and reading periods. From these observations we found
that teachers in the control rooms were not utilizing the
Literature in literacy and science instruction
treatments being used in the experimental rooms. The
one exception was with respect to storybook reading. It
was not possible nor would it have been ethical to re-
strict storybook reading entirely. Control teachers, if they
chose, read stories to their classes, but they did so no
more than twice a week.
Analysis of the quantitative data
Because individual children could not be randomly
assigned to conditions, the intact classroom rather than
the child was the unit of random assignment and analy-
sis in this study. Consequently, the classroom mean was
used for all measures. This procedure was followed be-
cause the behaviors of subjects during IWRPs were likely
to be interdependent. Such interdependence would vio-
late the assumption of independence of experimental
units that underlies conventional analysis—that is, using
the individual child as the unit of analysis.
Given that this approach addresses the unit of
analysis problem, we felt it was the most appropriate de-
sign, even though the approach yields small degrees of
freedom for the error term (Morrow, 1992). There were
three conditions, two experimental—literature/science
and literature-only—and one control. As indicated earli-
er, each group included two classrooms of children.
The data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA). In the analysis, the pretests served
as a covariate and the posttests were the dependent mea-
sures. Post hoc comparisons on pretest-adjusted posttest
means were carried out for each analysis, using
Bonferroni’s adjustment on the least square estimate of
means to determine which between-group differences
were significant. On all measures, the tests for homogene-
ity of the within-group regression, an assumption of the
analysis of covariance (Winer, 1971), were nonsignificant.
Also, on all measures, pretest means were exam-
ined using a one-way ANOVA and found not to be sig-
nificantly different on any measures (alpha = .10). It
should be noted that this test was not particularly pow-
erful given the small sample size that resulted from using
the classroom as the unit of analysis. Pretest means can
be found in Table 1.
Analysis of the observational data
During the first month of observations, the ob-
servers and individuals doing the monthly videotaping
familiarized themselves with the classroom setting and
established their identities within the classrooms. The
initial field notes and videotapes provided a basis for
clarifying and standardizing the procedures for data col-
lection. This information was used to develop guide
sheets that were used by the research assistants while
observing, writing field notes, videotaping, and transcrib-
65
ing tapes. Field notes included detailed information on
children’s self-selected literacy behaviors during IRWPs
in the treatment rooms. These notes also included activi-
ties provided by teachers for children during science or
literacy lessons, whether in treatment or control condi-
tions. The observers’ notes included information about
dialogue between children, dialogue between children
and teachers, and materials used.
Complete interaction episodes were to be followed
from beginning to end. This type of note taking and
videotaping is referred to by Baker (1963) as the stream
of behavior chronicle because it records, minute by
minute, what subjects do and say. The data from the pe-
riods of independent reading and writing in the literature-
only and literature/science groups categorized the types
of activities that occurred and the frequency with which
they occurred.
Results
Literacy and science achievement
The literacy and science achievement dependent
variables consisted of scores on a free-recall story
retelling test, a free-recall story rewriting test, a probed
recall comprehension test, the CTBS, written original sto-
ries, science stories, and the science textbook test. Data
were analyzed separately for each test using ANCOVA
and the Tukey approach for the set of post hoc compar-
isons, p < .05 (one-tailed comparisons).
Table 1 presents the pre- and posttest means and
standard deviations for all the literacy and science
achievement tests listed previously. The Table also con-
tains the effect size (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) for each
pretest to posttest difference relative to the standard de-
viation of that difference as estimated from the within-
classroom standard deviations of the difference. One in-
dication of the potency of the literature/science
intervention was that the effect sizes (ES) for every mea-
sure in Table 1 exceed the corresponding ESs in the
literature-only and control conditions. In general, this is
a conservative approach to estimating ES relative to al-
ternatives (e.g., estimating the standard deviation of the
difference from the standard deviation of classroom
mean estimates of the difference). It has the added ad-
vantage of mapping the ESs relative to the pretest-to-
posttest changes experienced by individual students.
In the running text, the ES for each post hoc com-
parison is provided, each of which is a difference be-
tween ESs recorded in Table 1, as illustrated for the first
measurement taken up in this results section, the story
retelling measure (e.g., in the next paragraph). Consistent
with Cohen (1988), effects larger than 0.9 SD are inter-
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for literacy and science achievement measures
66
Group
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Literature/science group (n = 43) Literature-only group (n = 40) Control group (n = 45)

_________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________

Pretest (SD) Posttest (SD) Pretest (SD) Posttest (SD) Pretest (SD) Posttest (SD)

Story retelling 3.59 (1.24) 10.14 (2.24)a 4.37 (0.70) 7.82 (1.80)b 4.75 (1.94) 5.34 (1.24)c
(ES = 2.5 SD) (ES = 1.4 SD) (ES = 0.4 SD)
Story rewriting 3.46 (1.35) 9.38 (2.14)a 3.02 (1.25) 6.09 (2.12)b 4.03 (1.23) 5.03 (1.98)c
(ES = 2.5 SD) (ES = 2.0 SD) (ES = 1.0 SD)
Probed recall comprehension 13.62 (2.89) 24.45 (3.01)a 12.99 (2.14) 20.41 (3.41)b 14.47 (3.06) 16.09 (2.84)c
(ES = 2.7 SD) (ES = 1.8 SD) (ES = 1.0 SD)

California Test of Basic Skills

Reading 61.30 (10.87) 69.36 (10.10)a 60.67 (11.20) 64.86 (11.11)b 61.87 (10.94) 62.71 (10.44)b
(ES = 2.4 SD) (ES = 1.3 SD) (ES = 0.2 SD)
Language 57.55 (10.91) 65.23 (11.02)a 64.77 (11.10) 64.85 (12.10)b 64.09 (10.81) 63.30 (11.11)b
(ES = 1.3 SD) (ES = 0.1 SD) (ES = –0.2 SD)
Written original story 4.39 (1.57) 10.97 (1.59)a 5.66 (1.13) 8.58 (1.13)b 5.92 (1.13) 5.91 (2.38)c
(ES = 3.2 SD) (ES = 2.0 SD) (ES = 0.50 SD)

Science stories
Proportion of expository vs.
narrative 0.70 (0.46) 0.22 (0.41)a 0.76 (0.43) 0.61 (0.49)b 0.73 (0.44) 0.76 (0.43)c
(ES = 0.8 SD) (ES = 0.4 SD) (ES = 0.1 SD)
Number of science concepts 4.01 (1.05) 7.24 (1.12)a 3.92 (.13) 6.94 (1.61)a 4.51 (.78) 7.12 (.81)a
(ES = 2.6 SD) (ES = 2.5 SD) (ES = 2.0 SD)
Science textbook unit test 8.05 (1.01) 15.14 (1.98)a 8.16 (2.10) 12.27 (2.22)b 7.89 (1.02) 12.38 (1.14)b
(ES = 4.1 SD) (ES = 1.8 SD) (ES = 3.1 SD)

Note. Posttest means are adjusted for pretest scores. Each of the three groups consists of two classrooms. All students in each classroom were tested on pre- and posttests. The classroom mean was used as the
unit of analysis, so the means and standard deviations reported here are based on n = 2. a,b,cPosttest scores are significantly different (p < .05) if they do not share the same superscript. ES = effect size.
READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1
Literature in literacy and science instruction
preted as large, between 0.4 and 0.9 SD as medium-sized
effects, and less than 0.4 SD as small effects.
The ANCOVA for the story retelling measure was
statistically significant, F (2,2) = 9.30, p < .01. Post hoc
comparisons revealed that all groups were statistically
significantly different from each other, with the literature/
science group scores statistically significantly better than
the literature-only group and the literature-only group
scores statistically significantly better than the control
group scores. The effect size for the literature/science
versus literature-only comparison was 1.1 SD (i.e., 2.5
SD–1.4; see appropriate cells of Table 1). The literature/
science versus control ES was 2.1 SD (i.e., 2.5–0.4 = 2.1),
and the literature-only versus control difference was 1.0
SD (i.e., 1.4–0.4 = 1.0). Thus the differences between
conditions in story retelling were large.
The ANCOVA for the score on the rewriting mea-
sure was statistically significant F (2,2) = 8.98, p < .01.
Post hoc comparisons revealed that all groups were dif-
ferent from each other with the literature/science scores
statistically significantly better than the literature-only
group (ES = 0.5 SD), literature/science outperforming
controls (ES = 1.5 SD), and literature-only doing better
than controls (ES = 1.0 SD). Thus, there were large ef-
fects favoring the two treatment groups.
The ANCOVA for the probed recall comprehension
test score was statistically significant, F(2,2) = 11.46, p <
.001. Post hoc comparisons revealed that the
literature/science group scored statistically significantly
better than the literature-only group (ES = 0.9 SD) and
the control group ES = 1.7 SD), and the literature-only
group scored statistically significantly better than the
control group (ES = 0.8 SD).
The ANCOVAs for the reading score F (2,2) = 8.93,
p < .05 on the CTBS, and for the total language score,
F (2,2) = 6.36, p < .05, were statistically significant. Post
hoc comparisons revealed that the literature/science
group scored statistically significantly better than the
literature-only group (ESs = 1.1 and 1.2, respectively)
and the control group (ESs = 2.2 and 1.5 SDs, respect-
ively) in both areas. The literature-only group and the
control group were not significantly different from each
other (ESs = 1.1 and 0.3 SDs, respectively).
The ANCOVA comparing the posttest performances
of the three groups on the written original stories was
statistically significant, F (2,2) = 7.23, p < .05. Post hoc
comparisons revealed that all groups were different from
each other with the literature/science group scores statis-
tically significantly better than the literature-only (ES =
1.2 SD) and control groups (ES = 2.7 SD), and the
literature-only group scores statistically significantly
better than the control group (ES = 1.5 SD).
67
We tested for the ability to transfer knowledge of
science concepts learned into the writing of narratives.
Children were asked to create a story that included a set-
ting, theme, plot episodes, and resolution. To do so,
they were to use science words, facts, and ideas that
they had learned in science. We did not expect that most
of the children would write expository pieces on the
pretest. Therefore, we compared the proportion of ex-
pository pieces to narrative stories written before and af-
ter the treatment, as well as the number of scientific con-
cepts included in the pre- and posttreatment writing
samples.
The ANCOVA for the type of written piece re-
ceived (expository or narrative) was statistically signifi-
cant, F (2,2) = 17.81, p < .001. Post hoc comparisons indi-
cated that literature/science children were writing
statistically significantly more narratives than the literature-
only group (ES = 0.4 SD) and the control group (ES = 0.7
SD), and literature-only students wrote statistically signifi-
cantly more narratives than the control children (ES = 0.3
SD). There were no significant differences in the number
of science concepts used between the three groups.
Table 2 presents samples of original pieces written
by children in the study about the topic The Changing
Earth. In each instance, the child was to select a science
topic—such as plants, animals, the changing earth, or
space—studied during the year. They were told to make
a list of the science facts they had learned about the topic.
They were asked to write a story that had a setting,
theme, plot episodes, a resolution, and include as many
of the science facts they had recorded as possible. The
first sample is an expository piece by a child in the con-
trol group with many science facts included. The second
sample is from a child in the literature/science group. It
is a narrative including the elements of story structure
and science facts.
The ANCOVA for scores on the science textbook
unit test were statistically significant, F (2,2) = 5.05, p <
.05. Post hoc comparisons revealed that scores in the
literature/science group were statistically significantly
higher than those for the literature-only group (ES = 2.3
SD) and the control group (ES = 1.0 SD). There were no
significant differences between the literature-only group
and the control group.
Use of literature
Naming book titles in science and generic literature
Data on literature use were measured using an in-
terview that asked experimental and control children to
name book titles they knew and had read at school and
at home. This was looked upon as a measure of litera-
ture use, because it was assumed that a child would be
68 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1

Table 2 Expository and narrative posttest science stories

An expository posttest piece on The Changing Earth (from control group)

The Many Ways That Our Earth Changes

The Earth has been changing as soon as it came to be. Hurricanes change the earth when the water hits up against the
rocks and changes their shape, or the waters hit up against the sand and washes it away into the ocean. Gravity changes the
earth by pulling rocks off of mountains. Volcanoes change the earth when the lava that runs out if it burns everything in its
way and only ash is left where there was rich dirt and plants. Earthquakes change the earth. The ground starts moving, then
the crust cracks. They can damage buildings. Drought changes the earth. When there is no rain, the ground gets dried out,
plants die, animals die, and everything gets barren. The earth has been changing as soon as it came to be and I guess it al-
ways will.

A narrative posttest piece about The Changing Earth (from literature/science group)

The Treasure Hunt

My friends Amber, Alex, and Kevin found a map of a buried treasure. We decided to look for it. We followed the map to
hunt for the treasure. It said go to a stream and find waters that get rough that made the rocks strange shapes from banging
up against them. We walked for hours and then Kevin shouted, “Look there are the rocks.” We looked for the next clue.
Amber found it carved in the rock. It was hard to read from the wear of the wind and water. It said, “Go to the forest and
find the clearing with the colored flowers.” We walked for hours. It was hot and dry, the ground was hard, it hadn’t rained
for months, the grass was brown, the flowers were dead with no color in them from the drought. Then the sky got dark, the
wind blew 100 miles an hour, the rain came down in buckets, we ran into a cave. This was a hurricane. When the storm
ended it looked like a different place. Trees fell, the lake washed away the beach, but colored flowers were growing. We
had found the spot. We saw a note that said go to the mountain. We saw it ahead. We ran toward it. The earth began to
shake, the mountain rumbled. It wasn’t a mountain it was a volcano. Red hot lava ran down the side. We ran for cover.
When the volcano finished erupting the earth was covered with ash. When it was safe we came out to look for a clue, I saw
a paper. It said go to the forest and you will find it. When we got there, the leaves were green, the flowers were pretty, the
sky was blue, there was a breeze, there was fruit to eat on the trees and birds were singing and the sun was warm. Alex
said, “This is it.” “What,” we said. Alex said, “We saw changes in the earth that were scary like jagged rocks from wind and
water, and a hurricane that blew down trees, and a volcano burned up the ground. Now we can see the beautiful part of the
earth. This is the treasure.” We all agreed and enjoyed the pretty earth.

able to perform this task if he or she were reading
books, looking at books, or being exposed to books by
the teacher.
Results of the pre- and postinterview for the total
number of science and generic book titles named by
children in the three groups showed that children in the
experimental groups could name more book titles than
the control group (literature/science group: 151 books;
literature-only group: 145 books; control group: 110
books). The children in the literature/science group
were able to name more science titles than children in
the other two groups. An examination of the book titles
named showed that those from the literature/science
group strongly reflected the four science units studied
and the trade books provided about plants, space, ani-
mals, and the changing earth.
Attitudes toward the literature/science and literature-only
programs
Attitudes toward reading and science in the
literature/science and literature-only programs compared
to the traditional reading and science instruction were
evaluated through interviews with teachers and children
in the experimental and control classrooms. As men-
tioned earlier, we were interested in attitude since it lets
us know what is acceptable in the intervention or not
acceptable to those participating. Although our results fa-
vor the treatment groups, if teachers and children did
not find the strategies acceptable to them, they won’t be
used and they wouldn’t be of much value (Elliott, 1988).
Teacher interviews
The four teachers in the experimental groups were
interviewed individually. Comments were quite consis-
tent among them. In general, teachers reported that they
were skeptical at first about the amount of time that the
program would take away from other classroom activi-
ties (e.g., basal reading instruction and regular science
instruction in the literature/science and literature-only
program rooms), but that their feelings changed over
time. By the end of the study, they saw literature as an
integral part of their reading instruction program.
All reported concerns about getting children to stay
on task during IRWPs, but they were able to work
through these problems. They reported that they
planned to continue the program and to further integrate
literature with their basal instruction. The teachers who
participated in the literature/science program reported
the desire to integrate the literature program into other
content areas such as social studies. It appears from the
Literature in literacy and science instruction 69

Table 3 Literature/science and literature-only teachers’ interview responses

What did you learn from the program that you will continue to use?
• New techniques for reading and writing instruction
• The value of choice in having a variety of books for children to read
• The value of choice in having a variety of materials that motivated children
• Children enjoyed being read to and I enjoyed reading to them
• Children’s participation in collaborative learning was productive
• Self-esteem was enhanced because there was something that everyone could be good at
• Children became more interested in reading and writing

What did children learn from the program?

• Children learned skills by practicing reading and writing during IRWPs
• Specific skills practiced were oral reading, silent reading, comprehension, learning about authors, illustrators, literature
genres, and parts of books
• Appreciation for reading and writing

Comments of teachers about the science program from the literature/science group
• The science program became a part of my total curriculum
• Children combined science with literacy during IRWP, by reading and writing about science topics and using storytelling
manipulatives with science books
• Literacy and science achievement and interest were enhanced because children were doing science during literacy periods
and literacy during science periods
• The integration of science and literacy made my teaching more interesting
• I’m going to try this with social studies next year

data that the treatment was quite acceptable to them,
and they would continue to use the strategies.
The responses to the interview questions are listed
in Table 3. The two teachers in the literature/science
program made additional comments that reflected their
participation in the science program, and these are also
included in Table 3.
Child interviews
To determine their attitudes toward the treatments,
children in the experimental groups participated in inter-
views summarized in Table 4. Children from the control
group were not interviewed because they would not have
been able to answer questions pertaining to either treat-
ment program. A total of 83 children were interviewed
from the literature/science and literature-only groups.
During these interviews, similar responses to the
questions appeared frequently. These are listed with the
number of children who gave each response recorded
next to the example. Answers that are italicized repre-
sent those from children in the literature/science group
only. The data reveal that the program activities were
quite acceptable to students who enjoyed participating
in them and recognized what they were learning during
their participation. The data also suggest positive atti-
tudes toward reading and writing as a result of the re-
sponses received.
To determine attitudes toward science we asked
children in all groups the following questions: Do you
like science? If yes, why? If no, why? In response, 35 chil-
dren in the literature/science group said yes, and 8 said
no; 15 children in the literature-only group said yes, and
25 said no; and 17 children in the control group said yes
and 28 said no. Children who responded yes in the
literature/science group said they liked science because
“You learn a lot”; “It’s fun”; “You get to read good
books”; “It’s fun to write the stories”; and “You can do
science during IRWPs.” Those who responded no said
they didn’t like science because “It was boring.” In the lit-
erature-only and control groups, responses were the
same. Children who said they liked science reported lik-
ing it because “You learn a lot” and “It’s fun.” Those
who said they didn’t like science said “It’s not fun” or
“It’s boring.”
Observational data
Observations of science lessons
Thirty science lessons in all the rooms were ob-
served in the course of the year for types of teacher and
child activity that took place in the science lessons ob-
served and the frequency of occurrence in the different
treatment rooms. The 12 categories of activities that
emerged and were used during science lessons included
(a) use of children’s literature; (b) developing literacy
skills; (c) use of the science text; (d) lecture; (e) discus-
sion; (f) lessons held in literacy centers; (g) lessons held
70 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1

Table 4 Child responses to interview questions

What is the literature program like that you want to continue to do?
• There are many kinds of books to read and time to read them (n = 70)
• There are lots of things to do like roll stories, chalk talks, tape stories (n = 47))
• I like reading on the rug and sitting in the rocker (n = 30)
• You can choose what to do, and who you do it with, and where you do it (n =72)
• It’s fun and makes me happy (n = 70)
• I like reading the books about science and writing stories about science (n = 20)

How would you make the literature program better?

• Add new books and more kinds of books (n = 25)
• Make IRWPs longer and have it every day (n = 34)
• Get more roll movies, puppets, tape stories, etc. (n = 28)

What do you think you are learning during IRWP?

• To read and write better because I practice it a lot (n = 40)
• To read better because my friends help me and I help them (n = 45)
• A lot of new words from reading and writing (n = 20)
• About different kinds of books and authors and illustrators (n = 32)
• How to tell and write stories and poetry that I make up myself (n = 28)
• To understand better what I read (n = 17)
• How to read and write together in groups (n = 22)
• Ways to tell stories with puppets, tape stories, crafts, and others (n = 23)
• More science since we read and write about it in story books in our room (n = 25)

What is regular reading in your classroom like?

• You can only read from one book and they don’t always have good topics (n = 40)
• You have no freedom to choose what you want to do; the teacher tells you (n = 47)
• You have to work at your desk instead of where you want to, like on the rug (n = 22)
• Teachers use workbooks, give tests, ask questions, and check your skills (n = 21)
• It’s not much fun and you feel bad when kids are in higher groups than you (n = 39)
• Regular reading doesn’t make much sense; in IRWPs, you can mix science, reading, and writing and then they are more in-
teresting (n = 15)

How would you make regular reading better?

• Read more stories to the children and let them choose what they want to read (n = 42)
• Do less comprehension checks, less skill checks, use less workbooks (n = 28)
• Let the kids work in groups they choose, give them more freedom (n = 18)
• Have more activities to choose from and make it like IRWP (n = 18)

What are you learning in regular reading?

• How to read better (n = 58)
• How to break words into syllables, vowel sounds, vocabulary, phonics, spelling (n = 30)
• To do worksheets, read flash cards, answer questions, and take tests (n = 52)

Is your teacher the same during regular reading and IRWPs?

• In regular reading she tells you what to do, IRWPs you can decide yourself (n = 35)
• She reads to us a lot more during IRWPs (n = 20)
• She is happier during IRWPs, she yells a lot in regular reading (n = 25)

at desks; (h) use of worksheets; (i) use of experiments;
(j) use of movies, demonstrations, and other science ma-
terials; (k) cooperative group work; and (l) independent
work.
In the categories of activities that emerged from
observing science lessons, all groups were fairly similar
in the amount of independent seat work, cooperative
work, demonstrations, movies, experiments, discussion,
and lectures held. The literature/science group partici-
pated the most, the literature-only group was next, and
the control group participated the least in the areas of
use of literature, developing literacy skills, and lessons
occurring in the literacy center. The literature/science
group, followed by the literature-only group, used the
least number of worksheets.
Observation of independent reading and writing activities
We observed periods of independent reading and
writing in the literature-only program groups and in the
literature/science groups to record the types and fre-
quency of literacy activities that occurred.
Oral reading. During IRWPs, children chose to
read orally in pairs, in small groups, and alone. They
read books, magazines, and newspapers. Oral reading
was sometimes accompanied by manipulatives, such as
feltboard stories and puppets. Oral reading was ob-
Literature in literacy and science instruction
served 98 times in 120 observations. The following is a
typical incident.
Mercedes and Patricia selected the book Bringing
the Rain to Kapiti Plain (Aardema, 1981) to read, using
felt figures to illustrate the story. Patricia got the book,
and Mercedes brought the feltboard and story characters.
Patricia said she would read, and Mercedes agreed to
place the figures on the board at the right time. Patricia
read aloud, and Mercedes followed along in the book.
When they finished reading, they discussed that it was
good when it finally rained because there was a drought
in the jungle.
Silent reading. Children could decide to read alone
silently and sitting close to one another in groups. They
could choose to sit at their desks or curl up on the car-
pet in the literacy center. A group of children went to
the literacy center to look for books to read. Jovanna
said, “Hey, you guys, I have an idea. Let’s all read a
book about plants.” She went to the featured plant
books, which were displayed because plants was the
topic being studied in science, and distributed them to
group members. “Who wants Miss Harp in The Poison
Ivy Case? (Lexau, 1983). Phillip took that one. Next she
held up A Tree Is Nice (Udry, 1956). Tyshell asked for
that. The next book was Johnny Appleseed (Moore,
1964). Adasha raised his hand, and Jovanna gave that
one to him.
There were two left, Discovering Trees (Florian,
1986) and Cherries and Cherry Pits (Williams, 1986).
Jovanna said, “Josh, I think you’ll like Discovering Trees,
and Kendra, you take Cherries and Cherry Pits.” They
took their books, found a spot on the rug with a pillow
or stuffed animal, and began reading. When they fin-
ished reading, each took a turn telling about his or her
story. Eighty-two silent reading incidents were recorded
in 120 observations in treatment rooms.
Writing. Children’s literature and the manipulatives
such as the roll story box and puppets encouraged writ-
ing. Yassin, Patrick, and Darren decided they wanted to
write a new episode for the book Space Rock (Buller &
Schade, 1988). They read the story with their unit about
space and decided to think of another adventure. They
wrote the story and when it was finished, they made it
into a roll movie to show the class. There were 105 writ-
ing incidents recorded in the 120 observations of the
treatment rooms.
Comprehension. Children demonstrated under-
standing of what they read in activities during IRWPs.
Most of the time, the comprehension was at the literal
level. There were 120 incidents of children demonstrat-
ing understanding of texts. Ninety were literal and 30
were interpretive. The following incident illustrates literal
comprehension. After four children read The Magic
71
School Bus Inside the Earth (Cole, 1987) orally to each
other, they decided to illustrate the main episodes by
making posters for scenes in the story. They each
selected a part of the story they liked best and illustrated
it in a poster. They numbered the posters in order to
match the sequence of the story.
The following example illustrates interpretive com-
prehension: A group of children had read Sylvester and
the Magic Pebble (Steig, 1969). They made stick puppets
to represent the characters and were rehearsing to pre-
sent it to the class. They discussed voices to use to rep-
resent Sylvester and his mother and father. They gave
one another suggestions for expressions in their voices
for the characters who were happy or sad.
During the observations of literacy activities, it be-
came apparent that children were using science trade
books frequently. In 20 of the 98 oral reading episodes,
science books were used; in 25 of the 82 silent reading
episodes, science trade books were selected; and in 30
of the 105 writing episodes, topics dealt with science
themes being studied in the classroom. In the 115 inci-
dents where children demonstrated understanding of
text read, 30 involved the use of science books.
The treatment rooms, literature/science and litera-
ture-only, had all of the featured science books available
to them. However, in the literature-only rooms, the
books had not been highlighted by the teachers. Ninety-
five percent of the science book selection observed took
place in the literature/science classrooms. Featuring the
books during science and including literacy activities
such as writing in science lessons seemed to transfer into
the IRWPs. We had not anticipated such a dramatic dif-
ference between the literature/science and the literature-
only groups with respect to science book selection.
Discussion
Limitations of the study
This study has several limitations that will be dis-
cussed here.
1. We used intact classrooms when it was prefer-
able to randomly assign teachers and children to the dif-
ferent conditions. We were unable to make random as-
signments because we were working in a school district
where they made their own decisions about this.
Although there were a large number of children in the
investigation, the n was small because the classroom
was the unit of analysis. Under the circumstances, this
was the correct way to analyze the data, instead of using
the child as the unit of analysis. The fact that we had re-
sults that favored the treatment group with such a small
n suggests that the intervention was extremely effective.
72 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1
2. We were somewhat restricted in implementing
the treatment because we were working in a school dis-
trict and had to respect the curriculum that was in place.
The intervention put more emphasis on authentic strate-
gies for literacy instruction since the administration and
teachers were more open to and familiar with these
changes. The study discussed the impact of the treat-
ment not only on literacy measures but on science learn-
ing as well. Although science instruction is moving to a
more hands-on, work-like-a-scientist philosophy, which
is crucial to good science education, it was not incorpo-
rated in the treatment. This was due to the restraints of
the school district, which was clearly entrenched in the
use of textbook and workbook instruction.
The changes that we did make were those that the
teachers and administration felt comfortable with.
Although we were not completely satisfied with the sci-
ence treatment, at least we were making some change
from a total textbook orientation to the use of literature
as an instructional resource and carrying out discussions
that were open-ended and of a problem-solving nature.
Literacy and science achievement
This study produced support for integrating a
literature-based program into literacy and science in-
struction at the third-grade level with respect to the de-
velopment of language arts competencies and knowl-
edge of science. Classrooms using the literature/science
program scored significantly higher statistically on all lit-
eracy measures used in the study. They also produced
higher scores on two of the three science measures. The
only measure not showing statistically significant differ-
ences was the number of science concepts used in the
science stories. We believed that the literature/science
group would produce strong results in literacy, but the
science results show that literacy gains come not at the
cost of science gains, but coupled with them.
Comparisons with the literature-only program pro-
vide more support for the conclusions reached above.
The literature-only program produced higher mean re-
sults than the control classrooms for all measures except
the CTBS scores (reading and language), the number of
science facts used in the science stories, and the science
textbook test. It is not surprising that the literature-only
program produced higher literacy means than the con-
trol group. What is interesting is that this group per-
formed better than the control group in the number of
narrative science stories written. It appears that they
were able to transform the knowledge gained from the
narratives written from the literature treatment and ex-
tend it to writing about science in a narrative mode
(Langer & Applebee, 1987).
In a previous study with a similar treatment, but
without the integration of the literature program with a
content area such as science, gains were made in many
of the same literacy tests used in this investigation; how-
ever, there were no statistically significant differences
between the experimental and control groups on the
standardized test (Morrow, 1992). In this investigation,
statistically significant differences did occur, with the
literature/science group achieving higher scores than the
literature-only group and the control group.
It was important to find on tests that were closely
associated with the curriculum or the treatment in the
study such as story retelling and rewriting that students
did better than those in the control group. It is even
more important that we found transfer of knowledge
when students in the literature/science group scored bet-
ter than children in the other groups. It appears that the
integration of literature and language arts activities into
science instruction enhanced performance in the lan-
guage arts more than when the integration into a content
area did not exist. Dewey’s (1966) philosophy that inter-
est drives thought as well as problem solving in social
settings could be the reason for these results.
Reasons for success of the program
Consistent with the hypothesis that literature-based
instruction is motivating, there were indications that stu-
dents in the literature-based groups read more than con-
trol students read. Consistent with the hypothesis that
reading of science material would be especially motivat-
ed by the integrated literature/science approach, there
was evidence that students in the literature/science class-
rooms elected to read science on their own more often
than did students in the literature-only. Since the chil-
dren in the treatment groups had a great deal of expo-
sure to books, we tested their knowledge of book titles
to determine if the treatment had an effect on use.
When the literature/science students were inter-
viewed, their enthusiasm for the approach was apparent;
they expressed the belief that the integrated approach
made reading and writing more interesting and that the
integrated experiences increased their understanding of
science. One of the most interesting outcomes was that a
majority of students in the literature/science group re-
ported that they liked science, and the majority of literature-
only and control students reported that they did not like
science. The most common complaint in the latter two
conditions was that science instruction was boring, an
infrequent claim in the literature/science condition.
Our literature review suggests that researchers have
found that students find textbook instruction boring and
frustrating and that this type of teaching results in factual
knowledge at the expense of stimulating process skills
Literature in literacy and science instruction
for learning (Baker & Saul, 1994; Ross, 1994). Our results
support these claims as well as those that suggest that
the integration of the language arts and science can have
an effect on the development of scientific understanding
and inquiry. Although the results from the literature/sci-
ence group are encouraging, we must still be concerned
with the reasons for the increased motivation. It must be
remembered that intact classrooms were used in this
study and that teachers in the different treatments were
aware of the condition they were in. Could there have
been a novelty effect that might fade with time? Could it
be that the teachers’ enthusiasm for the new program in-
spired the children?
The success of the integrated literature-based pro-
gram might also be explained by Bruner’s (1986) sugges-
tion regarding the paradigmatic and narrative modes of
cognitive functioning. He maintains that to ignore either
of these modes would fail to capture rich diversity of
thought. The treatment in the literature/science group
encouraged both cognitive modes for learning so that
students were able to use rich diverse thoughts on the
outcome measures.
Implications for future research
Although there is a great deal of anecdotal data
concerning the benefits of integrating literature-based
programs in literacy and content areas, there aren’t many
experimental studies, especially in content integration.
The investigation reported here adds experimentally
controlled data to that anecdotal evidence. The out-
comes produced in this study provide reason for ex-
panded study of integrated science and language arts in-
struction. Confidence in the approach will increase if it is
possible to replicate the benefits observed here.
We need to learn more about the effect of integra-
tion on classroom experiences and students’ perceptions
of those experiences. In this study we were able to doc-
ument that the literature-based program reduced the
amount of seat-work activities in favor of time in the
classroom literacy center, but the analyses did not illumi-
nate the interactions that occurred during instruction. It
would be important to study the interactions during inte-
grated literature/science instruction in more depth since
understanding them can possibly address some theoreti-
cal issues.
It must be emphasized that it was the combination
of literature-based activities with traditional basal reading
and science textbook instruction that was more powerful
than traditional instruction alone. The students in the
treatment rooms spent less time with traditional instruc-
tion than did students in the control rooms. An impor-
tant question remaining to be explored is the role that
the more traditional explicit instruction played in com-
73
plementing the literature-based programs to enable the
children to succeed. In a time when we are concerned
about explicit instruction versus an integrated language
arts approach, the success of this treatment might be an
indication that a balanced program such as the one used
in the literature/science and the literature-only groups is
an important choice to consider.
Work is needed to determine qualitative differ-
ences in the understanding of science concepts learned
through literature-based experiences and those acquired
by traditional textbook presentations. We hope that the
literature-based experience led to concepts being more
meaningfully connected with related ideas, but we do
not know from the data reported here. We hope that the
literature/science experiences resulted in students relat-
ing new science concepts to prior knowledge, but we do
not know that based on the data reported here. We are
somewhat concerned that the students in the literature/
science treatment did not do better than students in the
other conditions on the one measure in this study tap-
ping generalizations of the science concepts (e.g., use of
science facts, ideas, and vocabulary in writing stories).
Much remains to be learned about the scientific knowl-
edge acquired in an integrated language arts and science
program relative to the scientific knowledge acquired in
traditional science instruction.
Future research must go further than occurred in
this investigation in its treatment of literature-based sci-
ence content. For example, there were no hands-on sci-
ence opportunities tied to the literature in this study.
Given the centrality of such experiences in the move-
ment for science curriculum reform, there needs to be
hard thinking about how much experience can flow
from and be articulated with the reading of literature
pertaining to science themes.
Perhaps the results of this investigation will stimu-
late others to join us in the exploration of the robustness
and impact of the integrated approach, providing more
complete mapping of the strengths and weaknesses of
integrating literacy and content area instruction. There
are important questions about the qualities of interaction
that lead to improved learning (Cazden, 1986; Forman &
Cazden, 1985; Slavin, 1983). Is it children explaining ma-
terial to one another? Is it children listening to the expla-
nation of others, arriving at joint understandings that
none would achieve alone?
Detailed analyses of literature-based interactions
have the potential to inform us about how students’
prior knowledge is used during knowledge construction,
as students discuss, question, and reflect on what they
read (Jett-Simpson, 1989). Consistent with Vygotsky’s
(1978) theory, analyses of academic interactions could
help us better understand the development of thought,
74 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1
distributed models of cognition, and cooperative learn-
ing models of instruction.
It is also important to know if a treatment will have
long-term effects. Therefore, future investigations of this
type should consider a longitudinal component. Al-
though we believe there would probably be some long-
term effects from the treatment used here, we also think
that it would need to continue for the effects to be as ev-
ident over time.
Although teachers did have input into this investi-
gation during the in-service training, as they got to know
the program better they had many suggestions for
change. We could not incorporate all of their ideas dur-
ing the study, since there needed to be conformity in the
treatment. Because we continued the program as part of
the curriculum after the study ended, we did incorporate
teachers’ suggestions. They helped to refine our efforts to
suit their teaching styles and the needs of their students.
The integration of content and literacy learning de-
serves careful analysis since in this study it was motivat-
ing for students. We are interested in finding out if stu-
dent enthusiasm diminishes as the novelty of the
literature/science integration wears off. This integration
might really make more obvious the relevance and im-
portance of both content learning and the language arts.
If so, it would be a key ingredient in creating more moti-
vating educational environments, a possibility we hope
is as intriguing to other investigators as it is to us.
REFERENCES
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.
(1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals
in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCI-
ENCE. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
BAKER, L. (1991). Textbooks and text comprehension. Science
Education, 75, 359–367.
BAKER, L., & SAUL, W. (1994). Considering science and language
arts connections: A study to teach cognition. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31, 1023–1037.
BAKER, L.L. (1963). The stream of behavior: Explorations of its
structure and content. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
BRUNER, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
CAMBOURNE, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the
acquisition of literacy in the classroom. New York: Ashton Scholastic.
CAZDEN, C.B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
The handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432–463). New
York: Macmillan.
CHALL, J.S., CONRAD, S.S., & HARRIS-SHARPLES, S. (1991).
Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier and harder
books. New York: Teachers College Press.
CHAMPAGNE, A.B., & BUNCE, D.M. (1991). Learning-theory-based
science teaching. In S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany, & B.K. Britton (Eds.),
The psychology of learning science (pp. 21–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
COHEN, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DEWEY, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: The Free
Press.
DOWD, K. (1991). Storybooks: Stimulating science starters. School
Library Media Quarterly, 24, 105–110.
EDELSKY, C., ALTWERGER, B., & FLORES, B. (1991). Whole lan-
guage: What’s the difference? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
EDMONDSON, K.M., & NOVAK, J.D. (1993). Moving from the old
to the new research on reading comprehension instruction. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 30, 547–559.
ELLIOTT, S.N. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments in ed-
ucational settings. In J.C. Witt, S.N. Elliott, & F.M. Gresham (Eds.),
Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 121–150). New York:
Plenum.
FORMAN, E., & CAZDEN, C.B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian per-
spectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J.
Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian per-
spectives (pp. 323–347). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
GAMBRELL, L.B. (1992). Elementary school literacy instruction:
Changes and challenges. In M.J. Dreher & W.H. Slater (Eds.), Elementary
school literacy: Critical issues (pp. 227–239). Norwood, MA: Christopher
Gordon.
GASKINS, I., GUTHRIE, J.T., SATLOW, E., OSTERTAG, F., SIX, L.,
BYRNE, J., & CONNER, B. (1994). Integrating instruction of science
and reading/writing processes: Goals, assessments, and teacher devel-
opment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1039–1056.
GLYNN, S.M., YEANY, R.H., & BRITTON, B.K. (1991). The psychol-
ogy of learning science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
GOODMAN, Y.M. (1989). Roots of the whole language movement.
Elementary School Journal, 90, 113–127.
HARSTE, J., WOODWARD, V., & BURKE, C. (1984). Language sto-
ries and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
HEDGES, L.V., & OLKIN, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-
analysis. New York: Academic Press.
HOFFMAN, J.V., ROSER, N.L., & FAREST, C. (1988). Literature shar-
ing strategies in classrooms serving students from economically disad-
vantaged and language different home environments. In J.E. Readence
& R.S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research. 37th yearbook of
the National Reading Conference (pp. 331–338). Chicago: National
Reading Conference.
JETT-SIMPSON, M. (1989). Creative drama and story comprehen-
sion. In J.W. Stewig & S.L. Sebesta (Eds.), Using literature in the ele-
mentary classroom (pp. 91–109). Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
LANGER, J.A., & APPLEBEE, A.N. (1987). How writing shapes
thinking: A study of teaching and learning (Research Rep. No. 22).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
LIPSON, M., VALENCIA, S., WIXSON, K., & PETERS, C. (1993).
Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and
learning. Language Arts, 70, 252–264.
MCGINLEY, W., & TIERNEY, R.J. (1989). Traversing the topical
landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written
Communication, 6, 243–269.
MEYER, L.A. (1991). Are science textbooks considerate? In C.M.
Santa & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: Processes and appli-
cations (pp. 28–37). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
MONSON, D., & SEBESTA, S. (1991). Reading preferences. In J.
Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teaching the English language arts (pp. 664–673). New York: Macmillan.
MONTESSORI, M. (1965). Spontaneous activity in education. New
York: Schocken.
MOORE, S., & MOORE, D. (1989). Literacy through content: Content
through literacy. The Reading Teacher, 42, 170–171.
Literature in literacy and science instruction
MORROW, L.M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving
young children’s comprehension, concept of story structure and oral
language complexity. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 647–661.
MORROW, L.M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program
on literacy achievement, use of literature, and attitudes of children
from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 250–275.
MORROW, L.M., O’CONNOR, E., & SMITH, J. (1990). Effects of a
story reading program on the literacy development of at risk kinder-
garten children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 255–275.
OGENS, E. (1990). A review of science education: Past failures, fu-
ture hopes. The American Biology Teacher, 53, 199–203.
PAPPAS, C.C. (1991). Fostering full access to literacy by including
information books. Language Arts, 68, 449–462.
PAPPAS, C.C. (1995). An integrated language perspective in the ele-
mentary school. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley-Longman.
PEARSON, P.D. (1994). Integrated language arts: Sources of con-
troversy and seeds of consensus. In L.M. Morrow, J.K. Smith, & L.C.
Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrated language arts: Controversy to consensus
(pp. 11–32). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
PELLEGRINI, A., & GALDA, L. (1982). The effects of thematic fan-
tasy play training on the development of children’s story comprehen-
sion. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 443–452.
RENNINGER, K.A., HIDI, S., & KRAPP, A. (1992). The role of inter-
est in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
RESNICK, L.B., LEVINE, J.M., & TEASLEY, S.D. (Eds.). (1992).
Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
RICH, S., & PRESSLEY, M. (1990). Is teaching of reading compre-
hension strategies acceptable to teachers? Elementary School Journal,
91, 43–64.
ROSS, E. (1994). Using children’s literature across the curriculum.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
ROTH, K.J. (1991). Reading science texts for conceptual change. In
C.M. Santa & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: Processes and ap-
plications (pp. 48–63). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
SANTA, C.M., & ALVERMANN, D.E. (Eds.). (1991). Science learn-
ing: Processes and applications. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
SANTA, C.M., & HAVENS, L.T. (1991). Learning through writing. In
C.M. Santa & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: Processes and ap-
plications (pp. 122–133). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
SCARDAMALIA, M., & BEREITER, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and
knowledge transforming in written composition. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),
Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Volume 2: Reading, writing, and
language learning (pp. 142–175). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
SCHMIDT, W.H, ROEHLER, L., CAUL, J.L., BUCHMAN, M.,
DIAMOND, B., DOLOMON, D., & CIANCIOLO, P. (1985). The uses of
curriculum integration in language arts instruction: A study of six
classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 305–320.
SLAVIN, R.E. (1983). Noncognitive structures in comprehension
and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 72–110.
75
SMITH, J. (1994). Models for implementing literature in content
studies. The Reading Teacher, 48, 198–209.
SMITH, J.A., MONSON, J.A., & DOBSON, D. (1992). A case study
on integrating history and reading instruction through literature. Social
Science Education, 56, 370–375.
THORNDYKE, P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension
and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 72–110.
VOSNIADOU, S., & BREWER, W.F. (1987). Theories of knowledge
restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57,
51–67.
VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of psy-
chological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
WELLS, G. (1985). The meaning makers. London: Oxford University
Press.
WEST, R.F., STANOVICH, K.E., & MITCHELL, H.R. (1993). Reading
in the real world and its correlates. Reading Research Quarterly, 28,
34–51.
WINER, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
CHILDRENÕS LITERATURE REFERENCES
AARDEMA, V. (1981). Bringing the rain to Kapiti Plain. New York:
Dial.
ANDERSON, H.C. (1985). The nightingale. New York: Harcourt,
Brace.
BROWN, M. (1979). Arthur’s eyes. Boston: Little, Brown.
BULLER, J., & SCHADE, S. (1988). Space rock. New York: Random
House.
COLE, J. (1987). The magic school bus inside the earth. New York:
Scholastic.
COONEY, B. (1985). Miss Rumphius. New York: Puffin.
FLORIAN, D. (1986). Discovering trees. New York: Aladdin.
HURD, R. (1980). Under the lemon tree. Boston: Little, Brown.
LEXAU, J. (1983). Miss Harp in the poison ivy case. New York: Dial.
LOBEL, A. (1982). Ming Lo moves the mountain. New York:
Greenwillow.
MOORE, E. (1964). Johnny Appleseed. New York: Scholastic.
STEIG, W. (1969). Sylvester and the magic pebble. New York:
Windmill.
STEIG, W. (1986). Brave Irene. Toronto: Collins.
UDRY, J.M. (1956). A tree is nice. New York: Harper & Row.
WILLIAMS, V.B. (1986). Cherries and cherry pits. New York:
Scholastic.
Received July 7, 1995
Final revision received March 26, 1996
Accepted April 2, 1996
AUTHOR NOTE
This investigation was funded by the National Reading
Research Center, the International Reading Association’s Elva Knight
Research Grant Award, and the National Council of Teachers of
English Research Foundation Award.
76 READING RESEARCH QUARTERLY January/February/March 1997 32/1

APPENDIX A
Storybooks used for testing

Probed comprehension test

Pretest: Hurd, R. (1980). Under the lemon tree. Boston: Little, Brown.
Posttest: Steig, W. (1986). Brave Irene. Toronto: Collins.
Free recall story retelling test
Pretest: Lobel, A. (1982) Ming Lo moves the mountain. New York: Greenwillow.
Posttest: Brown, M. (1979). Arthur’s eyes. Boston: Little, Brown.
Free-recall story rewriting test
Pretest: Cooney, B. (1985). Miss Rumphius. New York: Puffin.
Posttest: Anderson, H.C. (1985). The nightingale. New York: Harcourt, Brace.