Education 3-13

International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

The relationship between teacher’s support of

literacy development and elementary students’
modelling proficiency in project-based learning
science classrooms

Tingting Li , Emily Miller , I.-Chien Chen , Kayla Bartz , Susan Codere & Joseph
Krajcik

To cite this article: Tingting Li , Emily Miller , I.-Chien Chen , Kayla Bartz , Susan Codere &
Joseph Krajcik (2020): The relationship between teacher’s support of literacy development and
elementary students’ modelling proficiency in project-based learning science classrooms, Education
3-13, DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2020.1854959

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1854959

Published online: 09 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rett20
EDUCATION 3-13
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1854959

The relationship between teacher’s support of literacy

development and elementary students’ modelling proficiency in
project-based learning science classrooms
Tingting Lia,b, Emily Millerc, I.-Chien Chend, Kayla Bartzb, Susan Coderea and
Joseph Krajcika
a
CREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; bDepartment of Counseling,
Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; cDepartment of
Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, USA; dCollege of Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Scientific modelling plays a crucial role in students’ science learning. Received 5 May 2020
Modelling proficiency and literacy development reinforce each other. Accepted 30 November 2020
This study investigates the relationship between teacher support of
KEYWORDS
student literacy development and their modelling proficiency in the Project-based learning;
context of elementary project-based learning science environments. To modelling proficiency;
explore the relationship, we sampled 557 students from 24 classrooms literacy; elementary students
in 12 different schools. Data were analysed by multilevel mixed linear
regression model analysis. Teaching strategies for teacher support of
students’ literacy development were identified based on our
observation field notes. The findings suggest that teacher support of
students’ literacy development to engage them in the modelling
practice is positively associated with their students’ modelling
proficiency. With teacher support of literacy development, elementary
students are able to develop models that provide scientific explanations
for phenomena related to core learning goals of the unit.

Introduction
A scientific model is a simplified representation of critical features of a system needed to explain or
predict scientific phenomena (Schwarz, Passmore, and Reiser 2017). Scientific modelling plays a
crucial role in students’ science learning (e.g. Stewart, Jennifer, and Cynthia 2005). Modelling
includes developing, evaluating, revising, and using scientific models (Buckley 2000; Schwarz and
White 2005). In this study, modelling proficiency refers to students’ ability to develop and use
models to explain phenomena. Growing evidence shows that elementary students can effectively
develop scientific models with sufficient support and scaffolding (Schwarz et al. 2009; Zangori,
Forbes, and Schwarz 2015). However, challenges with incorporating modelling in elementary
science classrooms persist (Schwarz, Manz, and Baker Marcum 2019). Furthermore, modelling is con-
sidered a challenging practice for young students (Lehrer and Schauble 2012). This is partly due to
the fact that the instruction used to support elementary students often replicates the instructional
practices reported as effective for middle and high school students (Schwarz, Manz, and Baker
Marcum 2019).
Modelling involves receptive and productive language skills (Quinn, Lee, and Valdés 2012). First, it
requires students to obtain and evaluate evidence from multiple sources. Next, it demands that

CONTACT Tingting Li litingt1@msu.edu

© 2020 ASPE
2 T. LI ET AL.

students develop a representation of that evidence to explain a phenomenon. The revision process is
often based on discussion with peers, or communication through written and other visual and print
material. Engaging in modelling, therefore, demands that students employ literacy and science lit-
eracy practices.
Students need support for literacy and modelling practices to develop modelling proficiencies.
Modelling proficiency and literacy capacities, such as developing language to represent ideas,
ability to read and interpret increasingly complex texts, and to share ideas orally and in drawing
or writing, reinforce each other (Krajcik and Sutherland 2010, 456). Indeed, literacy capacity is a fun-
damental enabler of science learning that goes beyond goals for acquiring scientific literacy, engin-
eering practices, or engaging in the consumption of science (NRC 2012). The Framework for K-12
Science Education describes literacy practices essential for development of science understanding.
Scientific models allow students to ‘make thinking visible’, an important feature for communication.
Multimodal texts that combine visual and mathematical diagrams, charts, and symbols are a key
component of students’ science learning. Hence, literacy capacity is essential for students to
clarify their thinking, communicate their findings, and justify their arguments (NRC 2012). Expressing
scientific ideas through written language and other semiotic systems requires learners to build on
prior understandings of literacy (Klein 2000). However, research shows that significant relationship
exists between students’ literacy capability and science learning (Pearson, Elizabeth, and Cynthia
2010), little is known about how teachers’ support of students’ literacy development during
science learning, such as supporting discourse for students’ sensemaking, supporting students to
read and interpret multimodal texts and to make connections to other unit experiences and texts,
and supporting students to communicate their ideas clearly using writing and/or drawing/
models, affects their students’ modelling proficiency.

Research questions
The main question of this study is What is the relationship between teacher support of student lit-
eracy development and student proficiency in modelling in the context of elementary Project-based
Learning (PBL) science environments? The following sub-questions are explored:

(1) To what degree is teacher perception that their students are engaging in modelling during
science associated with their students’ modelling proficiencies?
(2) To what degree is teacher support of student literacy development during science teaching
associated with their students’ modelling proficiencies?

Theoretical perspectives
Modelling proficiency in the elementary level
Attention to modelling as a practice has gained international attention in the past decade (Chiu
2016; Wei 2016). The ability to develop models to represent science ideas is required for STEM
careers. Models include diagrams, drawings, three-dimensional physical objects, or computer anima-
tions, but regardless of form, models must always explain the phenomenon under investigation and
account for available evidence (Schwarz, Passmore, and Reiser 2017). We focus on physical and con-
ceptual models (Lehrer and Schauble 2006) because they are frequently used in elementary school
(Schwarz, Manz, and Baker Marcum 2019).
Learners cannot engage in the practice of modelling without using other scientific and engineer-
ing practices (Schwarz, Passmore, and Reiser 2017). Often students use the model to construct scien-
tific explanations about the phenomenon. In our study, students are asked to provide explanations
about the models they construct to understand how they engage in developing and using models.
 EDUCATION 3-13 3

Recently, there has been increased focus on how to support students’ modelling proficiency (Ke
and Schwarz 2019; Vo et al. 2015). Science instruction and curriculum materials are two crucial
factors that affect elementary students’ modelling proficiency (Baumfalk et al. 2019). The importance
of the teacher’s role in engaging students in modelling, such as supporting students to identify the
components of the system, building relationships among these components, and using the model to
explain phenomena, has been reinforced in many studies (Lehrer and Schauble 2006; Zangori et al.
2017). Other studies focus on teachers’ understanding of models and the practice of modelling (e.g.
Danusso, Testa, and Vicentini 2010). Exploring how teachers can best support students’ engagement
and capacity in modelling practices is still critical and needed (Ke and Schwarz 2019).

Literacy development and students’ modelling proficiency

In the context of scientific inquiry, reading, writing, and oral communication skills comprise critical
literacy practices for supporting students’ engagement with the discourse of science (Krajcik and
Sutherland 2010). Standards for language and literacy (National Governors Association 2010) recog-
nise that reading and writing skills are essential to science; the Framework (NRC 2012) and NGSS
(NGSS Lead States 2013) also emphasise the importance of literacy integration as a scientific practice.
Although, literacy encompasses the assemblage of social practices, we concern ourselves with the
use of printed and written materials (Bartlett 2008). We further narrow our use of literacy to refer
to those literacy practices that are related to acquiring, interpreting, creating, and communicating
scientific meaning. Scientists spend at least half their total working time on reading, interpreting,
and producing text (Tenopir and King 2004). Similarly, elementary teachers must include literacy
practices as part of science. Not only is literacy considered part of doing science, elementary teachers
have to juggle the limited number of hours dedicated to science learning with demands for literacy
and math. Explicit integration of literacy in science provides a solution to this limitation.
Teachers can support literacy development while students learn science (Lee, Quinn, and Valdés
2013). Strategies teachers employ to support their students’ literacy development include prediction,
anticipation and question guides for particular texts (Martin 2002), learning logs for helping students
select texts related to their investigation, graphic organisers (Coburn 2003) and text annotation and
summaries (Gomez et al. 2010). Krajcik and Sutherland (2010, 456) suggest five critical features of
instruction and curriculum that foster literacy in the context of scientific inquiry:

(1) Bridging science ideas to prior knowledge and experience in the classroom and the students’
lives;
(2) Highlighting written questions to anchor lessons and engage students;
(3) Supporting the use of multiple representations;
(4) Providing repeated and multimodal text-based opportunities for students to use science ideas
and;
(5) Supporting students’ engagement with the discourses of science.

Although these strategies have been shown to promote student science learning (Plummer and
Kuhlman 2008), little is known about how these strategies affect student proficiency in scientific
modelling.

Multiple-literacies in project-based learning project

The Multiple-Literacies in Project-based Learning (ML-PBL) project uses project-based learning (PBL) to
integrate science with literacy to meet the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as well as
aspects of the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics (CCSS). ML-
PBL crafts a project-based learning environment to engage elementary students in making sense
of phenomena through three-dimensional learning (NGSS). The curriculum is designed to support
4 T. LI ET AL.

learners to explain phenomena, design solutions to problems, and develop the capacity for deeper
learning. The materials develop the three dimensions of the NGSS: scientific and engineering prac-
tices (SEPs), disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), and crosscutting concepts (CCCs). PBL provides a learning
environment that supports three-dimensional learning (Miller and Krajcik 2019).
PBL affords students opportunities to investigate real-world questions that they find meaningful
using an extended project that connects to authentic questions or problems in the community
(Miller and Krajcik 2019). Through a dynamic process of investigation and collaboration, students
engage in sustained inquiry to deeply explore complex and compelling phenomena. Active con-
struction, situated learning, social interactions, and cognitive tools form the four fundamental theor-
etical foundations of PBL (Krajcik and Shin 2014). ML-PBL units were designed, developed, and tested
across multiple years, to assess extent of learning and engagement of students. The project provides
six to seven day-long professional learning sessions over the year to support teachers in the use of
the materials and PBL instructional practices and pedagogy.
Literacy practices were integrated in the design of ML-PBL. The five critical features for fostering
literacy and instruction (Krajcik and Sutherland 2010, 456) serve as applied principles in the devel-
opment. These principles guided the design of materials and the integration of literacy and
science in the curriculum materials.

Curricular context of our study

The squirrel/adaptation unit
The third-grade sequence of ML-PBL consists of four units each lasting approximately six weeks,
assuming science is taught every day for 45–55 min. After each unit, a unit assessment is adminis-
tered which measures three-dimensional learning. Each unit revolves around the features of PBL:
an overarching driving question, collaborative activity, literacy and math integration, and culminates
in an artifact that addresses a problem in the community. Students work collaboratively to create a
response to the driving question and present their artifact.
This study focuses on the first unit in the third-grade sequence called the Squirrel Unit with the
driving question: Why do I see so many squirrels, but I can’t find any stegosauruses? Students figure out
that species can survive hundreds of millions of years because organisms within that species are
either very adaptable to changes in the environment (including changes in climate and in other
organisms) or because there is diversity among organisms and species so when some die out,
others survive. The students recreate prehistoric environments using fossils to compare living
species with extinct species, and they figure out that extant organisms can provide clues to how
extinct species may have perished. The final artifact of the unit is a model (sketch, drawing, or enact-
ment) of the causes of the stegosaurus’ extinction, and the concurrent survival of the small mammals
during the same period. Students incorporate all they have figured out about needs of organisms,
comparisons of traits over time, interactions of organisms with their environment, and that fossils
provide clues to ancient environments, to make an argument (with the help of a model) about sur-
vival of one organism and not the other. The final artifacts are created in student groups and are
shared so students can compare evidence and argue for the model that makes the best use of
evidence.
The individual lessons are also designed to support students’ literacy development. In this first
third-grade unit, students are provided explicit support for literacy development to help them
engage in making sense of the phenomenon of the ubiquitous presence of squirrels and building
toward the final artifact. Thus, the teacher’s support of students’ literacy development is purposefully
targeted in the unit. Throughout, students engage in a range of collaborative discussions and view
and interpret information presented in text or video. In addition, students write informative/expla-
natory texts to describe squirrels’ structures and explain how their structures help them survive.
Finally, students determine the meaning of domain-specific words in the text and integrate
 EDUCATION 3-13 5

information from the video, and illustrations and words in the text to demonstrate an understanding
of the ideas in the text related to survival.

The squirrel unit design for scientific modelling practice

Scientific modelling in ML-PBL supports sense-making discourse and offers a window into what ideas
students have. Thus, the practices of developing, using, and revising models are prominent.
Throughout the Squirrel unit, students develop an understanding of the crosscutting concepts of
structure and function, and systems and system modelling through the practice of scientific model-
ling. Modelling in the unit requires the ability to interpret and communicate understanding of multi-
modal texts and to use multimodal texts to represent ideas. The use of modelling to connect, make
sense of and integrate prior experiences with new understandings, reflects the integration design.
Students also explain their model using data from an investigation as evidence (explanatory
writing). In addition, the teacher prompts students by asking questions about students’ models.

The squirrel unit design for literacy development

Literacy processes and literacy development are simultaneously addressed as part of strengthening
students’ three-dimensional science learning (NGSS 2013). Instructional supports for literacy and
science learning are incorporated in the curriculum materials and teacher instructions for enactment,
suggested prompts, and questions. Students are supported to formulate claims with relevant evi-
dence based on engaging in and evaluating challenging informational texts. Literacy guidance, to
form text-based connections with science experiences is leveraged and integral to the modelling
practice. Lessons require students to use information they found in the texts to describe and to
portray those relationships in the shared model using symbols, arrows, labels, or coloured lines.
Thus, information from texts is applied in building models and comprehension of the multimodal
text is necessary for students to express and portray the nature of those relationships to successfully
practice modelling. In developing models, students are supported in creating and using written
labels for organisms, words and symbols to explain their relationships, and representing the
different structures that allow them to interact and survive. Finally, the students work with the
teacher to write a shared claim supported with evidence.

Method
Participants
The 2018–2019 enactment of the Squirrel Unit included 17 school districts and 35 teachers through-
out Michigan, USA. Treatment teachers were selected using a randomisation process that included
recruiting schools to apply, identifying a pool of schools that would allow for over-sampling of low-
income and minority students, and randomising and assigning schools to treatment and control con-
ditions. This student sample contains 628 treatment students (total 1,067 treatment students). To
employ a multilevel model, we only included those teachers from whom we had classroom obser-
vations, teacher exit surveys, and students’ post-unit assessments. Seventy-one students were not
included in the final analytic sample because some information was missing. The final analysis
includes 557 students (208 girls, 206 boys and 143 students with missing gender) from 24 classrooms
in 12 different schools. The unit assessment consisted of nine items, four measured modelling profi-
ciency (Mean = 7.79, SD = 2.21). The four items ask students to draw, explain, and imagine different
scenarios that make use of various science ideas (Table 1).
6 T. LI ET AL.

Table 1. Participants from the 2018–2019 school year.

Region Region D Region G Region K Region O
Schools 2 0 (2 teachers no observation) 5 5
Teachers 3 0 (2 teachers no observation) 15 6
Classrooms 3 0 15 6
Students 77 0 360 120

Instrument
Description of teacher exit survey
To gauge teachers’ perceptions of their instructional practices, each teacher completed a survey
when they finished their enactments in Spring 2019. The survey tool was developed by the
research team with attention to the contexts of the curriculum, question structure, and
precise, neutral, and consistent language (Bae and Lai 2020). Nineteen questions focused on tea-
chers understanding of teaching practices. Question 14 consisted of 15 embedded items that
asked teachers to report the extent to which their students engaged in the various tasks (see
Table 2 for an example of the tasks). We used a 3-point Likert scale with the responses of
Rarely (1), Sometimes (2), and Regularly (3).

Description of classroom observation protocol

To objectively report a teacher’s instructional practice and students’ response to those practices, a
classroom observation protocol was designed (King-Sears, Walker, and Barry 2018). The obser-
vation protocol aligned with the features of ML-PBL. It was designed to identify the lesson fea-
tures critical to enacting PBL and to measure the quality of PBL enactment based on whether
specific behaviours were observable among the students and their teachers. Observations were
conducted by seven raters who were trained to make reliable observations. Absolute agreement
on the measurement averaged about .81. The analysis includes a total of 41 observations across
24 teachers (Table 3).

Table 2. Frequency of occurrence of the selected items from the teacher exit survey.
Item Rarely Sometimes Regularly
Item1: Collaborate to build models to explain phenomena 25 98 464
Item2: Use evidence to support claims 0 52 535
Item3: Construct artifacts/products that represent their emerging understanding 0 220 367

Table 3. Selected teacher instructional practice in observation protocol.

Teacher instructional practices
Teacher’s support of reading, viewing,
writing, and
drawing/representing to figure out
phenomenon and engage in
sensemaking.
Note: LP: Learning performance; DQ: Driving question.
Evidence statement Score
Provides appropriate supports for students to read and interpret 4
multimodal texts, makes connections to other unit experiences and
texts, AND supports students to clearly communicate their ideas that
connect the texts to the LP or DQ.
Provides some appropriate supports for students to read and interpret 3
multimodal texts, makes connections to other unit experiences and texts,
AND supports students to clearly communicate
their ideas that connect the texts to the DQ.
Provides few appropriate supports for students to read and interpret 2
multimodal texts, or makes connections to other unit experiences and
texts, AND few supports for students to communicate their ideas clearly
most of the time.
Provides minimal or no appropriate support for students to read and 1
interpret multimodal texts, make connections to other unit experiences
and texts, AND does not support students to communicate their ideas.
 EDUCATION 3-13 7

Description of post-unit assessment

To assess students’ modelling proficiency, we designed a post-unit assessment aligned with the
NGSS performance expectations. All tasks were designed as three-dimensional. Figure 1 shows a
modelling task, and Table 4 presents the rubric. This item asks students to draw a model to show
‘what could happen to squirrels if all the trees were cut down.’ The model in Figure 1 includes
the components, such as squirrels, trees that were cut down, nuts, habitat, and an owl (predator).
The causal relationships between food, habitat, the predator and the squirrel’s survival are shown
in the model. The model demonstrates the student’s idea of an organism’s response to change.
To grasp the whole picture of the student’s idea, the written explanation and the model were com-
bined to create a composite score.

Description of the observation field notes

To further explore the features related to how teachers support student literacy development in the
classroom, and whether and how student proficiency in modelling varies by the levels of teacher
support, the classroom observation field notes were analysed. As our definition for literacy

Figure 1. Example of a modelling task and student’s responses in Squirrel unit.

8 T. LI ET AL.

Table 4. Rubric of a modelling task in Squirrels unit.

Rubric Score
Model clearly shows (labels, words, pictures, symbols) 3
1. What happens to the squirrel survival and
2. Clearly states or shows the relationship of no trees to what happened to the squirrel.
Model shows (labels, words, pictures, symbols) What happens to the squirrel survival but the relationship to the event of 2
no trees is unclear or needs to be inferred.
Not clear that the event of no trees caused a change to the squirrel’s survival. Or not clear that there was an event. 1
No model or illegible. 0

focuses on accessing, interpreting, and creating written, drawn, and digital texts that contain scien-
tific thinking, strategies related to supporting this activity were called out in the observation field
notes. Based on the score from classroom observations of teacher support of literacy to figure out
phenomenon and engage in sense-making, three levels were defined. A score of 4 based on the obser-
vation of items of literacy support represents a high level of support. A classroom observation score
of 3 indicated the middle level. Teachers who received observation scores 1 or 2 demonstrated a low
level of literacy support. In our study, 18 teachers had at least two classroom observations. Thus, 41
classroom field notes from 24 classrooms were analysed to clarify the features across the different
levels of teachers support of literacy development.

Measures
To respond to the research questions, we use teacher data from two measures: (1) survey of teachers’
perceptions of whether students engage in modelling in their classrooms; and (2) observations
regarding the level of teacher support for students’ literacy development. Data from the student
unit assessment for modelling proficiency served as an outcome measure. See Table 5 for a
summary of the instruments and what they measured.

Teachers’ perception of student engagement in modelling

Three items were used to measure the teachers’ perception of the use of modelling, all which were
on a 3-point Likert scale (e.g. Rarely, Sometimes, Regularly) that measured the frequency of specific
scientific practices, and the three related items: how often (1) students collaborated to build models
and explain phenomena; (2) used evidence to support their claim; and (3) made products that
showed learning (Table 2). These three items had a Cronbach’s alpha of .76 and a mean of 8.30
with a standard deviation of 1.07 (Table 6).

Teacher’s support of literacy development

Another teacher-level predictor of student proficiency in modelling was taken from the observations
that were conducted 2–3 times throughout the unit. One observation item was the teacher’s support
of students’ literacy development in the classroom (Mean = 3.03, SD = 0.94). The rubric for scoring
the observation protocol is presented in Table 4.

Table 5. Summary of Instruments and what they measured.

Instrument Measured Scale
Classroom Engaged in modelling/ Score 1-4, 4 being high and 1 being low.
Observations Support of literacy
Observation Field Engaged in modelling/ Qualitative data
Notes Support of literacy
Teacher Exit Survey Teacher’s perception of use 3 items used on a 3-point Likert Scale (frequency)
of modelling
Squirrel Post-Unit Modelling proficiency Level-1 Outcome Variable (student level variable) in multilevel mixed
Assessment linear regression models consisted of 4 out of 9 items.
 EDUCATION 3-13 9

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for student and teacher level variables.

Level Variable N Mean Std. Min Max
Student Level (DV) Student modelling proficiency (4 tasks) 557 7.79 2.21 0 11
Teacher Level (IVs) Teacher perceived students learn modelling (3 items) 24 8.30 1.07 5 9
Teacher supports of literacy development (1 item) 24 3.03 0.94 1 4
School Level 12

Students modelling proficiencies

We employed intra-class correlations (ICCs) to represent inter-rater reliability (IRR). The inter-rater
reliability of the initial training scoring was 0.93, which is higher than the basic criteria for IRR, requir-
ing a .80 (Gwet 2012). We then used randomisation procedures in assigning assessments to different
scorers to avoid fatigue. Each round of scoring, scorers received 50 assessments with 10 repeated
students, used to check the IRR. Five rounds of scoring were conducted for Squirrels Unit. The
range of ICC, from round 1–5, was from .82 to .90.

Analytic model and strategies

Our analysis proceeded in two steps. The first step of the analysis used multilevel mixed linear
regression models to test the association between teachers’ teaching practices and students’ mod-
elling proficiency, and accounts for the school and teacher clustering. A three-level model was used
to analyse student proficiency (level-1), nested within classrooms (level-2), which were nested within
schools (level-3). Our specific interest was the relationship between students’ modelling proficiency
represented by the 4 specific questions from the Squirrel Unit assessment (level-1 outcome variable)
and teacher perception of students’ engagement in modelling in their classrooms as well as obser-
vations of the classroom (level-2 predictors). After we confirmed this association, we shifted to the
teacher observational data that summarise the evidence in the field notes. In the field notes, we
identified several teaching strategies for teacher support of students’ literacy development based
on our observation protocol. We further identified three different levels – low, middle and high to
describe how teachers support student literacy development.

Results
The descriptive statistics of teacher and student variables
The descriptive analysis shows that teachers provided support for students’ literacy development to
engage them in modelling. Table 6 gives the average scores of teacher and student variables. Four
modelling tasks measured students’ modelling proficiency; each item had a score of 0–3 for a total
score of 12. Given the analysis of 557 student responses, the total score for student modelling profi-
ciency ranged from 0 to 11, with an average score of 7.79 per student. Based on the rubric for mod-
elling tasks, the average score of 1.95 indicates that students’ models included the components and
relationships among those components. However, students less often provided a causal explanation
of the phenomenon.

Teacher perception that students successfully engaged in modelling

The total score of the three items for the variable teacher perception that students successfully
engaged in modeling ranged from 5 to 9, with an average score of 8.30. Furthermore, the average
score of each item was 2.77, which indicates that teachers reported their students engaging in mod-
elling practices regularly across several activities.
10 T. LI ET AL.

Teacher support of student literacy development

With respect to the teacher support of literacy development, only one item from the observation
protocol was used, Level of teacher support of literacy development, which had a score that ranged
from 1 to 4 with an average score of 3.03. As seen in Table 6, on average, teachers were observed
to provide some support for students’ literacy development.

Multilevel mixed linear regression models

Our team performed three level hierarchical linear regression models, shown in Table 7, which pre-
sents the association between observed teaching practice for supporting students’ literacy development
and student modeling proficiency.

The relationship between teacher support of student literacy development and modelling
proficiencies
Model 1 reveals the effect of teacher practices, which are drawn from observation data, on student
modelling proficiency. The ICC is 0.1322, indicating 13.2% of the variance can be explained by the
teacher-level of differences. For every 1 unit increase of observed teacher support of literacy and
language development, there is a 0.421 increase in the student modelling proficiency scores.

The relationship between teacher perception of student engagement in modelling and

student modelling proficiencies
Model 2 shows the association between teachers’ perception that their students successfully engage
in modelling and the students’ modelling proficiency. For every 1 unit increase of teacher perception
that their students successfully engage in the practice of modelling, there is a 0.422 increase in mod-
elling proficiency scores, with an ICC of 0.0619, which indicates 6.2% of the variance can be explained
at the teacher-level. Model 3 further examines which factor is more critical for supporting students’
modelling proficiency, teacher’s perception of student engagement in modelling or the teacher’s
support of literacy development.

Students’ modelling proficiency in the levels of teacher support of literacy development

Table 8 presents descriptive statistics of student modelling proficiency by three initial levels of class-
room observation indicating the level of teacher support of literacy to figure out phenomenon and
engage in sensemaking. Students who experienced classrooms with a high level of teacher
support in literacy demonstrate a significantly higher modelling proficiency compared to students
experiencing low levels of teacher support in literacy (p < .001). Students who experienced a
middle level of teacher support in literacy also have a significantly higher modelling proficiency com-
pared to students with a low level of teacher support in literacy (p < .01). Nearly 79% of students

Table 7. Multilevel mixed-effects models.

Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
b/se b/se b/se
Teachers support of literacy development 0.421* 0.421**
(0.190) (0.137)
Teacher perceived students doing modelling practice in their classrooms 0.421** 0.176
(0.141) (0.159)
Constant 6.435*** 4.323*** 3.784**
(0.588) (1.177) (1.248)
Note: Final analytic sample, Students = 557, teachers = 24. We estimate that school and teacher random effects compose
approximately 10% of the total residual variance teachers.
*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05.
Total teachers = 24, schools = 12.
 EDUCATION 3-13 11

Table 8. Students’ modelling proficiency by the levels of teacher support of literacy development.
Students’ modelling proficiency
Teacher Support of literacy development N Mean SD T-value
Low Level (1-2) 109 7.00 2.38
Middle Level (3) 206 7.81 2.24 3.29**
High Level (4) 242 7.96 2.12 4.17***
*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05, two-tailed t-tests comparing the average SQ modelling performance by Teacher observation
score with low-score group.

experienced a middle or high level of teachers’ support in literacy, indicating that most students
experienced at least some support from their teachers in figuring out phenomena and engaging
in sense-making.
Table 9 presents the analysed results of the observation field notes. In our study, on the whole,
teachers who are at a high level and middle level are far more prevalent than those at a low level of
teacher support for literacy development. The proportions of high level teachers and middle level
teachers are similar, 41.46% and 39.02% respectively. While low level teachers comprised only
19.51% of our sample. This supports that the majority of teachers in this study can effectively
support students’ literacy development to engage students in sense-making.
However, the universality and frequency of the strategies that constitute teacher support of
student literacy development vary greatly from level to level. Teachers who are considered
middle and high levels provide multiple supports for student literacy and development. In contrast,
teachers at the low level only give limited support for literacy development. On the other hand, even
though teachers at the low level provide students some supports for interpreting multimodal texts,
those supports were not integrated to promote students’ sensemaking, and thus the supports are
not translating to students’ proficiency in the practice of modelling. When students are able to
take advantage of the multiple supports for literacy development, they can engage in obtaining
information and applying science ideas from multimodal texts in the modelling process, part of
the input and output bidirectional process. Furthermore, learners can use the newly acquired infor-
mation as evidence to support their claim and discuss their model with peers and teachers. Com-
munication of the information from multimodal texts, and support accessing these texts help
students clarify the relationships between the various variables related to squirrel survival (food,
habitat, and protection from a predator), and response to change rather than merely engaging in
printed text. In the output modelling process, students with literacy support may also use the evi-
dence they obtained from multi-modal texts to represent their ideas through models with multiple
representations. These engagements with literacy are all essential processes of modelling practice.
High level teachers address multiple strategies more frequently than the middle level and low
level teachers. And they mainly focus on the strategies of ‘Reading and interpreting texts,’ ‘ Multi-
modality,’ and ‘Model Development’. Evidence of this finding can be found in the example from
observer field notes below:
Examples of field notes from the observations of a high level teachers:

Table 9. Summary of observers’ field notes.

Low Level Middle Level High Level
Teacher Support of Literacy and Language Development N (%) N (%) N (%)
Reading and interpreting multimodal texts 4(50) 10 (62.50) 13 (76.50)
Oral language strategies 3 (37.5) 5 (31.25) 6 (35.29)
Multimodality 4 (50) 5(31.25) 9(52.94)
Vocabulary skills 0 0 3 (17.65)
Comprehension strategy support 0 2 (12.5) 6 (35.30)
Model development 0 7 (43.75) 9 (52.94)
Claim writing 2 (25) 5 (31.25) 5 (29.41)
Total 8 (19.51) 16 (39.02) 17 (41.46)
12 T. LI ET AL.

Teacher 1: Teacher circulates among groups, makes connections to reading groups, and promotes asking questions
(that?? what scientists do) Repeats directions and makes suggestions for one student to read while the other listens,
then they identify the text to highlight and to copy to (or summarize in) their notes. Students take turns reading and
deciding what structures to draw; very interested in highlighting and adding to notes, Models writing notes.

The other difference between high level, middle level, and low level teachers is the support they
provide students for writing evidence-based claims. High level teachers tend to provide support to
students to write claims based on the evidence they gathered from reading or interpreting multimo-
dal texts, while most middle level teachers neglected to use this strategy. However, this strategy is
essential for students to develop the practices of modelling and constructing written explanations
that accompany the models.
Example of field notes from an observation of a middle-level teacher: The teacher has the fossil pictures on the
whiteboard or in print for the students to look at while they turn and talk about their noticing. The students will
also draw their fossil on their worksheet prior to making a claim about when it lived. The teacher misses, probably
due to a time constraint, the opportunity to share more specific directions for the worksheet, which would also have
supported the students in communicating their ideas more quickly and more clearly.

Discussion and conclusion

Our study provides evidence that, with teacher support of literacy development, elementary stu-
dents are able to develop models that provide scientific explanations for phenomena related to
core learning goals of the unit. In this study, teacher support of student literacy development
mainly includes supporting language development to represent ideas, supporting students’ engage-
ment with the discourses of science for sharing ideas and making sense of phenomena, providing
repeated and multimodal text-based opportunities for students to use science ideas, and supporting
students to share ideas orally and in drawing or writing. We found that when teachers and the cur-
riculum provide support for student literacy development, students’ modelling proficiencies devel-
oped. This finding extends the previous work (Schwarz et al. 2009; Zangori, Forbes, and Schwarz
2015) by providing further evidence that with support, young learners can meaningfully engage
in modelling practice. Our work further supports the idea of synergy in supporting students’
science learning (Tabak 2004; McNeill and Krajcik 2009). Tabak (2004) suggests that multiple co-
occurring and interactive supports can be used synergistically to promote students learning.
McNeill and Krajcik (2009) suggest supporting students’ scientific explanation practice through
synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds. Our work further extends the previous
work and concentrates on the idea of students’ modelling proficiency through synergies between
teacher support of students’ literacy development and modelling practice.
The findings show a unique link created between teacher support of students’ literacy develop-
ment and increased proficiency in student modelling practices. Student proficiency in modelling can
be affected by supporting their literacy, which adds to Ke and Schwarz’s (2019) work that empha-
sised directly supporting their modelling practice, such as modelling norms or modelling purposes.
This finding supports previous studies that science and literacy instruction can reinforce each other,
and that deepening one practice simultaneously deepens the other (NRC 2012; Pearson, Elizabeth,
and Cynthia 2010). Previous studies show there is a significant relationship between students’ lit-
eracy ability and their science learning (Krajcik and Sutherland 2010; Pearson, Elizabeth, and
Cynthia 2010), but they provide less evidence on specific science practices and teacher practices.
This study contributes to modelling literature by establishing a positive connection between
teacher support of literacy and students’ modelling proficiency.
The current study shows that embedded teacher supports for literacy development in curriculum
materials can engage elementary students in modelling, which will eventually affect their modelling
proficiency. When the teacher provides multiple supports for literacy development, students more
successfully engage in the modelling practice. As shown in the field notes, a high level of literacy
support aids the students in understanding the modelling task. In the first example, the teacher
 EDUCATION 3-13 13

scaffolds the students’ productive and receptive back and forth engagement of multi-model texts. In
the next example, the teacher focuses on comprehension skills and in the moment evaluation of text.
These skills are carried over to the modelling practice as students are encouraged to evaluate their
models. Previous studies have shown the important roles of teachers and curriculum materials in
providing modelling support to promote students’ learning (Baumfalk et al. 2019; Ke and Schwarz
2019). This study builds from previous research and provides specific principles related to how to
design curriculum materials using a student literacy development perspective. It also extends the
view that science and literacy instruction reinforce each other (NRC 2012; Pearson, Elizabeth, and
Cynthia 2010). Furthermore, our study identifies specific and multiple strategies for the teacher to
support student literacy development within the PBL science context to engage students in scientific
modelling.
Another interesting finding is that teachers’ perception of students doing modelling is a more
salient factor for supporting students’ modelling proficiency than their support of students’ literacy
development. Two possible explanations for this: (1) teachers’ perception of their students’ model-
ling proficiency were collected after all units were completed, and the teacher’s confidence and
ability in supporting students in modelling improved and, (2) compared to the data from obser-
vations and assessment scoring that were derived from the third party of observers, the teacher per-
ception of students doing modelling was from the teacher survey, it is self-reported data and
therefore could be biased.
Some limitations do exist. Given this is the first unit of our third-grade curriculum materials, tea-
chers and students were just learning PBL practices. Also, a small number of observations limited our
analysis and interpretation. Although, we found evidence to link teacher support of students’ literacy
development with their modelling proficiency, given this is the first unit, we will explore whether this
pattern holds in following units. Finally, we did not provide direct evidence about the relationship
between students’ actual literacy performance and their modelling proficiency. In the future, we
plan to conduct research that continuously tracks the growth of student proficiency in modelling,
as well as its relation to the teacher providing multiple supports for literacy development.

Acknowledgements
All opinions are those of the authors.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the George Lucas Educational Foundation under Grant [APP# 139873].

References
Bae, C. L., and M. H. Lai. 2020. “Opportunities to Participate in Science Learning and Student Engagement: A Mixed
Methods Approach to Examining Person and Context Factors.” Journal of Educational Psychology 112 (6): 1128–
1153. doi:10.1037/edu0000410
Bartlett, Lesley. 2008. “Literacy’s Verb: Exploring What Literacy is and What Literacy Does.” International Journal of
Educational Development 28 (6): 737–753. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.09.002
Baumfalk, Ben, Devarati Bhattacharya, Tina Vo, Cory Forbes, Laura Zangori, and Christina Schwarz. 2019. “Impact of
Model-Based Science Curriculum and Instruction on Elementary Students’ Explanations for the Hydrosphere.”
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 56 (5): 570–597. doi:10.1002/tea.21514
Buckley, Barbara C. 2000. “Interactive Multimedia and Model-Based Learning in Biology.” International Journal of Science
Education 22 (9): 895–935. doi:10.1080/095006900416848
Chiu, Mei-Hung, ed. 2016. Science Education Research and Practice in Asia: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer.
14 T. LI ET AL.

Coburn, Daniel G. 2003. “Using Graphic Organizers.” Science Scope 27 (1): 46–46.
Danusso, Luciana, Italo Testa, and Matilde Vicentini. 2010. “Improving Prospective Teachers’ Knowledge About Scientific
Models and Modelling: Design and Evaluation of a Teacher Education Intervention.” International Journal of Science
Education 32 (7): 871–905. doi:10.1080/09500690902833221
Gomez, Kimberley, Jennifer Sherer, Phillip Herman, Gomez Louis, Jolene White Zywica, and Adam Williams. 2010.
“Supporting Meaningful Science Learning: Reading and Writing Science.” In Science Education as a Pathway to
Teaching Language Literacy, 93–112. Brill Sense.
Gwet, K. L. 2012. “Benchmarking Inter-rater Reliability Coefficients.” Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability.
Ke, Li, and Christina V. Schwarz. 2019. “Using Epistemic Considerations in Teaching: Fostering Students’ Meaningful
Engagement in Scientific Modeling.” In Towards a Competence-Based View on Models and Modeling in Science
Education, edited by A. Upmeier zu Belzen, D. Krüger, and J. van Driel, 181–199. Cham: Springer.
King-Sears, M. E., J. D. Walker, and C. Barry. 2018. “Measuring Teachers’ Intervention Fidelity.” Intervention in School and
Clinic 54 (2): 89–96. doi:10.1177/1053451218765229
Klein, Perry D. 2000. “Elementary Students’ Strategies for Writing-to-Learn in Science.” Cognition and Instruction 18 (3):
317–348. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1803_2
Krajcik, J. S., and N. Shin. 2014. “Project-based Learning.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences, edited by R. K.
Sawyer, 275–297. New York: Cambridge.
Krajcik, Joseph S., and LeeAnn M. Sutherland. 2010. “Supporting Students in Developing Literacy in Science.” Science 328
(5977): 456–459. doi:10.1126/science.1182593
Lee, Okhee, Helen Quinn, and Guadalupe Valdés. 2013. “Science and Language for English Language Learners in
Relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with Implications for Common Core State Standards for
English Language Arts and Mathematics.” Educational Researcher 42 (4): 223–233. doi:10.3102/0013189X13480524
Lehrer, Richard, and Leona Schauble. 2006. “Cultivating Model-Based Reasoning in Science Education.” In The
Cambridge Handbook of: the Learning Sciences, edited by R. K. Sawyer, 371–387. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lehrer, Richard, and Leona Schauble. 2012. “Seeding Evolutionary Thinking by Engaging Children in Modeling its
Foundations.” Science Education 96 (4): 701–724. doi:10.1002/sce.20475
Martin, George T. 2002. “Reading, Writing, and Comprehending.” The Science Teacher 69 (7): 56–56.
McNeill, Katherine L., and Joseph Krajcik. 2009. “Synergy Between Teacher Practices and Curricular Scaffolds to Support
Students in Using Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Writing Arguments to Explain Phenomena.”
Journal of the Learning Sciences 18 (3): 416–460. doi:10.1080/10508400903013488
Miller, Emily C., and Joseph S. Krajcik. 2019. “Promoting Deep Learning Through Project-Based Learning: a Design
Problem.” Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research 1 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1186/s43031-019-0001-1
National Governors Association. 2010. Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. 2013. “Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.”
Appendix D: All standards, all students: Making the Next Generation Science Standards accessible to all students.
Pearson, P. David, Moje Elizabeth, and Greenleaf Cynthia. 2010. “Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other.”
Science 328 (5977): 459–463. doi:10.1126/science.1182595
Plummer, Donna M., and Wilma Kuhlman. 2008. “Literacy and Science Connections in the Classroom.” Reading Horizons:
A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts 48 (2): 4–4.
Quinn, Helen, Okhee Lee, and Guadalupe Valdés. 2012. “Language Demands and Opportunities in Relation to Next
Generation Science Standards for English Language Learners: What Teachers Need to Know.” Commissioned
Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science
Standards 94 (2012): 32–32.
Schwarz, C., E. Manz, and M. Baker Marcum. 2019. “Modeling for Sense-making in the Elementary Classroom: Research,
Exemplars, and Initial Principles for Modeling That Works.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Toronto, CA.
Schwarz, Christina V., Cynthia Passmore, and Brian J. Reiser. 2017. Helping Students Make Sense of the World Using Next
Generation Science and Engineering Practices. Arlington: NSTA Press.
Schwarz, Christina V., Brian J. Reiser, Elizabeth A. Davis, Lisa Kenyon, Andres Achér, David Fortus, Yael Shwartz, Barbara
Hug, and Joe Krajcik. 2009. “Developing a Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling: Making Scientific Modeling
Accessible and Meaningful for Learners.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching 46 (6): 632–654.
Schwarz, Christina V., and Barbara Y. White. 2005. “Metamodeling Knowledge: Developing Students’ Understanding of
Scientific Modeling.” Cognition and Instruction 23 (2): 165–205. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
Stewart, James, L. Cartier Jennifer, and M. Passmore Cynthia. 2005. “Developing Understanding Through Model-Based
Inquiry.” In How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom., 515–565. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
 EDUCATION 3-13 15

Tabak, Iris. 2004. “Synergy: A Complement to Emerging Patterns of Distributed Scaffolding.” The Journal of the Learning
Sciences 13 (3): 305–335. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3
Tenopir, Carol, and Donald W. King. 2004. Communication Patterns of Engineers. Piscataway: John Wiley & Sons.
Vo, Tina, Cory T. Forbes, Laura Zangori, and Christina V. Schwarz. 2015. “Fostering Third-Grade Students’ use of Scientific
Models with the Water Cycle: Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices.” International Journal of Science
Education 37 (15): 2411–2432. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1080880
Wei, Bing. 2016. “School Science Teaching and Learning in Macau: Problems and Challenges.” Science Education
Research and Practice in Asia, 55–70. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0847-4_4
Zangori, Laura, Cory T. Forbes, and Christina V. Schwarz. 2015. “Exploring the Effect of Embedded Scaffolding Within
Curricular Tasks on Third-Grade Students’ Model-Based Explanations About Hydrologic Cycling.” Science &
Education 24 (7-8): 957–981. doi:10.1007/s11191-015-9771-9
Zangori, Laura, Amanda Peel, Andrew Kinslow, Patricia Friedrichsen, and Troy D. Sadler. 2017. “Student Development of
Model-Based Reasoning About Carbon Cycling and Climate Change in a Socio-Scientific Issues Unit.” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 54 (10): 1249–1273. doi:10.1002/tea.21404