My Take on Literacy in Science

How do we motivate our students to read non-fiction when they are so used to enjoying twist-filled mind trips on Marvel Comics and the Harry Potter Series? This question has been intriguing me for a while. First of all, to make reading non-fiction motivating, the teacher should recommend a good textbook, one that explicitly explains, with meaningful examples and fine digital imagery, how and why things work in a given way in science. Worked problems with detailed explanations could be immensely motivating, too. And most of all, the reading techniques employed by students could have a worthwhile impact on their own comprehension. Having read Marlene Thier’s article titled “Science and Literacy: Tools for Life”, I have found some interesting ideas to encourage my students to read science text in the short-term, so that they would become active readers and thereby, lifelong learners. The first strategy lies in incorporating performance expectations for literacy. These are blueprints that will promote independent learning among students. Apart from summarizing lessons and analyzing themes, I think making meaningful connections between students’ reading and their own life is a very powerful idea, and I think that would deepen the understanding of the content. For example, for a problem-solving assignment, I could ask my eighth graders to analyze why a parallel arrangement of light bulbs is brighter than those in series, assuming the two electrical circuits contained the same number of light bulbs. The literacy assignment that could be blended here would be to explain, using their personal experiences of traveling, how the vehicular traffic changes when more highways are available. To evaluate my students’ analysis of an author’s intents and biases, I could give them a reading comprehension rubric that is similar to the one used by their language arts teacher.

The second strategy is called explicit teaching strategies. It is not only a smart note-taking technique, where students are doing a ‘mental filtration’ to distinguish between key ideas and the supporting statements, but also could serve as an efficient differentiating tool.  My students’ question marks next to certain less comprehensible parts of the text are my pedagogical bookmarks. These are the areas where I need to lay a greater emphasis on, either by providing more hands-on experiences or by using alternative teaching methodologies, say using an effective simulation.

Finally, the third strategy is called metacognition, which is also my favorite. I would use this tool efficiently in my science and chemistry classes if I could allow my students to ‘think aloud’ as they edit lab report exemplars. The strategy is to not only have an internal conversation, but also they would communicate in mixed ability groups and take turns to read loud as they think. Such collaboration clarifies the misconceptions associated with a concept/method, so that they could understand the finer details associated with scientific writing or solving complex problems.  A think aloud strategy could also be a valuable linguistic tool for EAL learners. As these students communicate with their native-speaking peers in groups, they learn to pronounce complex words correctly and also understand the contextual usage of new words. I do agree with the author that a synergy of the three ideas mentioned above would help improve their achievement at school, and I believe that the ultimate goal of such a practice should be to enable them to make meaningful conclusions and connections when confronted with complex text in their real lives.