MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W115222

Reading Aloud: Integrating Science and Literature for All Students

2008· article· en· W115222 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lynda Delo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science Teacher · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Mathematics educationActive listeningReading aloudThink aloud protocolPsychologyReading comprehensionComprehensionRead aloudSubject (documents)Science educationPedagogyComputer scienceLinguisticsCommunicationUsability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] When students read literature that connects science to their everyday lives, the science becomes more interesting and relevant, and in turn, students are motivated to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. Many resources are available to elementary teachers who wish to support science learning with literature. Unfortunately, somewhere between middle school and high school, the emphasis on using literature to teach science content--particularly the exercise of reading aloud--has all but disappeared. The practice of reading aloud is helpful because most students have higher listening comprehension than reading comprehension (Trelease 2006)--low-reading level students, English language learners, and auditory learners in particular tend to understand what they hear better than what they read. This article provides suggestions for including the practice of reading aloud in the high school science classroom. Engaging students If reading aloud to young students is so important for their academic development, then why stop in the sixth grade? In general, reading aloud to (and with) students is a good way to role model positive reading behavior, to introduce students to books they may not normally read, and to help create a positive attitude toward books and reading in general. In the science classroom, sharing even one well-chosen book a semester with students will support the subject matter being studied. This can be accomplished by simply reading a book out loud to students throughout the semester. Better yet, have students themselves actively participate--provide each student with a copy of the book if you have a classroom set, or pass around your copy, and encourage students to read aloud and follow along. Dialogic reading in particular requires students to fully engage with the text by creating an interaction between you, the student, and the book. In dialogic reading, you are responsible for asking open-ended questions while students read aloud. For example, ask students: What do you think is going to happen next? or Why do you think the character did that? In my classes, I first ask a student with weak comprehension skills what he or she remembers; then, I direct questions to additional students until the main points of the text have been covered. When students are asked to summarize or retell text, they are challenged to digest information and re-form it in their own words. Students can also retell text by summarizing parts of a book in their journals, taking an end-of-the-book quiz, or drawing parts of a book as a series of pictures with or without words. (See Figure 2, p. 36 for more reading-related activities.) When incorporating reading aloud in the classroom, keep in mind that it should always be voluntary; allow students to opt out of reading aloud so that they do not feel threatened by it. During the activity, call on everyone in the class, but give each student the choice of reading an entire section (e.g., paragraph or page) aloud, just reading the first few words of a chapter (to demonstrate they are following along), or simply pointing to the appropriate place in the book. Surprisingly, I have found that many students with weak reading skills choose to read out loud. When struggling students learn how to read, they want to share their accomplishment with their peers. (Note: Classroom expectations should ensure students are respectful of others at all times. Do not tolerate any laughing or inappropriate comments while a student is reading aloud.) Including all genres When searching for reading material for your classroom, consider all genres (Figure 1). Do not rule out fiction--many good informational fiction books are available. For instance, Jean Craighead George and Gary Paulsen weave fictional stories around factual information and describe human interaction with the natural world (Figure 1). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0180.019
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science TeacherSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207