Inquiry approaches to teaching and learning Science at primary school level have become widely accepted and used throughout Europe and internationally (e.g. Bolte, Holbrook, & Rauche, 2012). Curriculum integration works in concert with inquiry approaches, enabling connections across different disciplines to be made and efficiencies achieved in addressing curriculum requirements. This has been particularly evident in multilingual contexts where teachers must prioritise language learning alongside curriculum content (e.g. Escobar Umenetea & Sanchez Sola, 2008; Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002).

The focus of the research reported in this presentation, is on the integration of Science and English language/literacy in inquiry-based teaching. Integrating science and literacy is an effective way to develop science conceptual knowledge and capabilities alongside English literacy competencies and skills (Feez & Quin, 2017; Ødegaard, Haug, Mork, & Sørvik, 2014; Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010). Integrating science with literacy can produce significant learning gains in science, vocabulary and writing (Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, 2012; Howes, Lim & Campos, 2008).

Despite literature supporting the effectiveness of this approach to teaching, it is not without problems or critique. Many teachers find it challenging to maintain the integrity of discipline knowledge and practices within integrated approaches (Boyd & Hipkins, 2012). There is evidence that primary teachers, in particular, lack confidence in their science discipline knowledge (Murphy, Neil & Beggs, 2007) and this can mean that language and literacy elements and outcomes become foregrounded in teaching, while doing science may get lost. 

To address these issues and challenges for teachers, we conducted a qualitative participatory action research pilot project to develop a model that supports science and literacy integration within inquiry-based teaching. Our objective was to identify sets of teacher practices in literacy and science that could be useful prompts for planning each stage of an inquiry. We drew on relevant literature and curriculum documents to verify effective practices, and collaborated with four teachers to discuss, revise, pilot, further refine, and iteratively develop a model.

The inquiry process for learning that we used in this study followed the stages of: 1. Prepare/Thinking Ahead, 2. I Wonder/ Engage, 3. Find Out/ Explore, 4. Make Meaning/ Explain, 5. Take Action/ Extend(communicate), 6. Reflect/ Evaluate. This was based on the processes that each school used, which in turn were informed by literature and models of inquiry-based learning that each school had worked with to develop their own particular process.

The project is theoretically informed by social constructivism, which is the basis for integrated and inquiry approaches to teaching, as well as the collaborative and dialogic approach to developing the model. More specifically we drew on Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998), and the related notion of Communities of Learning to work alongside teachers to develop the model.

This research was conducted in two low socio-economic, culturally diverse primary schools in New Zealand. Two teachers in each school participated in an action research process where we engaged with their professional practice, critically reflected on inquiry-based teaching and practice, researched a model to support inquiry-based integrated teaching, and collaboratively planned to take action. We worked through stages of: collaborative conversation, video observations of the teachers’ classroom practice in literacy and science, critical reflection on video recordings to identify key science and literacy practices, developing and revising the model, trialling the model as a guide for designing and implementing teaching, and further video observations and critical reflections. Our conversations with the teachers were recorded and selectively transcribed. We also collected samples of children’s work and teaching artefacts such as planning documents, finally we held focus groups with children from each class to gain further insights into the impact of the model on teaching and learning. Through both deductive and inductive analysis with the teachers, a refined set of practices emerged which the teachers then used to collaboratively plan and implement a further integrated science-literacy inquiry. The example below is an early version of part of the model. We allocated science and literacy teaching practices to each stage of the inquiry process creating a table. An example of the kinds of cicatrices identified follows: Make Meaning/ Explain Stage of Inquiry Science Practices Model how to look at all data to explain Push students to make inferences based on observations Ask questions  What do you think is happening?  What makes you think that?  What have we seen? Integrated Practices: Use wait time to allow children to think and formulate explanations. Target questions to elicit accurate explanations. Use probe and prompt questions Literacy Practices: Support students to work from oral explanations to written explanations Model language forms to support patterns of meaning making Support reading of other scientist' explanations

In our collaborative and iterative development of the model, we have identified teaching practices that are common to both science and literacy. We also have worked on the model to create a visual representation that is easily understandable, as well as adding layers with further detail, examples and resources to support teachers’ work. In this presentation we will share the latest iteration of the model, which is a key outcome from the research, and its applicability for a range of teaching contexts. We will also briefly discuss the positive impact of the model and collaboration with teachers on their practices in teaching science and literacy through inquiry.

Bolte, C., Holbrook, J., & Rauche, F. (Eds) (2012). Inquiry-based science education in Europe: Reflections from the PROFILES project. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Student inquiry and curriculum integration: Shared origins and points of difference (Part A). Set: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 15-23. Cervetti, G., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P., & Goldschmidt, P. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631-658. Escobar Umenetea, C., & Sanchez Sola, A. (2008). Language Learning through Tasks in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Science Classroom. Porta Linguarum, 11, 65-83. Feez, S., & Quinn, F. (2017). Teaching the distinctive language of science: An integrated and scaffolded approach for pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 192-204. Howes, E. V., Lim, M., & Campos, J. (2008). Journeys Into Inquiry-Based Elementary Science: Literacy Practices, Questioning, and Empirical Study. Science Education, DOI 10.1002/sce.20297. Murphy, C., Neil, P., & Beggs, J. (2007). Primary science teacher confidence revisited: ten years on Educational Research, 49(4), 415-430, DOI: 10.1080/00131880701717289 Ødegaard, M., Haug, B., Mork, S., & Sørvik, G. (2014). Challenges and Support When Teaching Science through an Integrated Inquiry and Literacy Approach. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 2997-3020. Pearson, P., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463. Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). integrating inquiry science and language development for English Language Learners. Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 39(8), 664–687. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice : Learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.