Scaffolding Learning Via Multimodal STEM Text Sets for Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

The importance of text complexity has gained recognition since the Common Core State Standards (CCSS-ELA) were developed. The Linking Science and Literacy for All Learners (LS&L4AL) program uses multimodal STEM text sets to link reading grade-band complex texts with Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) sense-making. We define a multimodal STEM text set as a coherent collection of resources pertaining to an anchor phenomenon and line of inquiry that support learners’ acquiring the disciplinary literacy skills and sense-making called for by the NGSS and CCSS-ELA shared practices. The anchor phenomenon and line of inquiry are determined by the anchor text – a rich, complex grade-band level text about natural phenomena with research-generated data from recent STEM primary literature. In this study we report on a qualitative analysis of how English language arts, special education, and science middle school teachers (N=11) scaffolded instruction to support students, including students with learning disabilities, in reading complex STEM texts to develop sense-making of scientific phenomena.

The Linking Science and Literacy for All Learners program (LS&L4AL) develops multimodal STEM text sets with integrated scaffolds to support diverse learners in fulfilling the shared CCSS-ELA and NGSS practices. A text set is a coherent sequence of texts connected to a specific topic designed to support learners in building vocabulary, background knowledge, and other literacy skills (Cappiello & Dawes, 2021; Palmer and Folk, 2016). A multimodal STEM text set (see Figure 1), in our program, begins with an “anchor phenomenon” and a line of inquiry (i. e., key concept or idea). Based on the learner characteristics and the CCSS and NGSS shared practices (argumentation), a multimodal STEM text set is comprised of content scaffolds (to build content knowledge) and instructional scaffolds (to ensure access to and understanding of the content). Notably, the definition of text set is broadened to include multimodal sources such as graphs, charts, tables, mathematical equations, diagrams, figures, as well as audio, video, and other digital media. The goal is for students to experience scaffolded instruction towards independently reading a complex grade-band expository text from recent science and engineering primary literature (e.g., Folk et al., 2020a; Lannin et al., 2020; van Garderen et al., 2021). By connecting the anchor text with content and instructional scaffolds in a multimodal STEM text set, diverse learners, including students with disabilities, are provided support to build knowledge and literacy skills to fulfill the NGSS and CCSS shared practices and performance expectations, (Romine et al., in press). In this study, we examined teachers’ use of multimodal STEM text sets that integrate scaffolds to support all students, including those with learning disabilities (SWLD), in accessing complex science texts and in making claims based on evidence and reasoning (argumentation).

Figure 1.

Model of Linking Science and Literacy for All Learners: Organization of a Multimodal Text Set

Review of Literature

Disciplinary Literacy

The reciprocal and synergistic relationship between science and language is well established (Pearson et al., 2010). Reading and writing about science and engineering require sophisticated disciplinary literacy skills (Norris & Phillips, 2003). Furthermore, the collaborative discourse and argumentation practices important for science and engineering also require rich disciplinary language understanding (Fang et al., 2008; Hines et al., 2010; Osborne, 2010; Rhodes & Feder, 2014). Learning these disciplinary literacy skills and practices in grades 6–12 is inextricably linked to participating in post-secondary education, to today’s workplace and to society (Hines et al., 2010).

Although teaching disciplinary literacy is a shared responsibility of teachers, little instructional collaboration occurs between disciplines (Rhodes & Feder, 2014). Even more disconcerting is that approximately 65% of U.S. eighth grade students are not proficient in reading (NCES, 2019) and diverse learners, including SWLD, are especially at-risk for not acquiring the skills needed for science learning (e.g., National Assessment of Education Progress; U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Engaging learners to develop disciplinary literacy skills is essential but requires teachers to provide explicit support (Patterson et al., 2018).

Text Difficulty vs. Text Complexity

While conceptualizations of text complexity vary, text complexity refers to the properties of a text as opposed to how hard or easy it is to read a text (Mesmer, et al., 2012). Text complexity for informational text can be determined based on four factors, namely: (1) degree to which the purpose is explicitly stated, (2) the conventionality of the text structure or genre used, (3) clarity and conventionality of the language, and (4) the knowledge demand connected to the content/discipline of the text (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2017).

Many students have trouble accessing complex grade-level texts (Mason & Hedin, 2011; Patterson et al., 2018). Four characteristics of complex, expository text have been found to challenge SWLD (Mason & Hedin, 2011; Sáenz & Fuchs, 2002). First, these texts often use complex structures (e.g., compare-contrast) that can occur at any level within a text (e.g., sentence, paragraph), and sometimes multiple structures appear in a single passage. Many learners find these structures unfamiliar and difficult to understand. Second, concepts and vocabulary are often densely packed so that learners struggle to connect prior knowledge to new learning (Diehl & Reese, 2010). Third, many texts contain high levels of novel and technological vocabularies with few supports for vocabulary development (Fang et al., 2008). Fourth, learners vary in background knowledge and comprehension skills to draw inferences which are critical to understanding (Mason & Hedin, 2011).

In response to the challenges, teachers often avoid using complex grade-level text (Buehl, 2017; Shanahan, 2012) or use texts that lack sufficient complexity, resulting in “no opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills that would enable them [students] to catch up” (Shanahan, 2019, p. 22). For SWLD, limiting access to complex grade level text is particularly problematic resulting in no gains (O’Connor et al., 2010). As Lupo et al. (2019) poignantly note, if students are only provided with easier text with fewer difficult words and content, it may ultimately contribute to inequities among different populations. When provided adequate scaffolds, students who have lower reading achievement, including SWLDs, can comprehend challenging text (Dressman, et al., 2005; Lupo, et al., 2018).

Scaffolding Instruction

Scaffolding is a term first used to describe parent/child interactions to support learning (Bruner, 1975; Wood et al., 1976). Later, Vygotsky (1978) described scaffolding as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the distance between what a learner can complete independently and what they can complete with support. Cazden (1979) was the first to explicitly link ZPD with scaffolding. Scaffolding, as a metaphor, has garnered broad appeal because of the way it captures the relationship between teaching and learning (Brownfield & Wilkinson, 2018). However, a concern is that now scaffolding is somewhat synonymous with nearly any form of guidance or support (Brownfield & Wilkinson, 2018; Elbers, et al., 2013). Based on the work of Wood et al., (1976), Brownfield and Wilkinson (2018) identify three tenets of scaffolding: (1) intersubjectivity--the shared understanding between the teacher and learner in terms of what needs to be learned; (2) contingent support--where the kinds of assistance varies according to the learners’ needs; and (3) release of responsibility to the learner--with teaching the learner becomes responsible for applying what is learned independently and in novel situations.

The teacher plays a key role in the scaffolding of student learning to develop disciplinary literacy. Various scaffolds exist for different classroom contexts to build disciplinary literacy (e.g., Fisher & Frey, 2014; Patterson et al., 2018; Rojas Rojas et al., 2019). In the section below, we describe our taxonomy of scaffolding and rationale for use in the multimodal STEM text sets.

Building Disciplinary Content Knowledge via Content Scaffolding

Reader familiarity of the topic plays an important role in comprehending any text. In a study of students’ reading comprehension, it was found that background knowledge and vocabulary were the strongest predictors of success (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2018; Cromley & Azevedo, 2007; Landauer & Dumais, 1997; Shanahan, 2019). For SWLD, having limited prior knowledge or not using the knowledge they possess has been identified as a challenge (Mason & Hedin, 2011).

Content scaffolds, a key dimension of our taxonomy, are designed to build disciplinary content knowledge to promote engagement in and understanding of the line of inquiry connected to the complex text. Essentially, these scaffolds are designed to assist in sense-making, including the three-dimensions of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the science and engineering practices, the crosscutting concepts of science, and fundamental disciplinary core ideas (NRC, 2012). Content scaffolds are multimodal resources organized in a systematic manner, and may include materials leveled to a learner’s reading ability and tap into diverse perspectives reflecting the funds of knowledge diverse learners bring to the content.

Instructional Scaffolding Connected to Learner Characteristics

Instructional scaffolds, another key dimension of our taxonomy, are intentional supports designed to help meet the needs of students with the goal of increasing access to and understanding of text. Here scaffolding is not merely as “help” provided to students in the moment, but rather as supports specifically designed to induce students’ development and to increase autonomy with complex text (Walqui, 2006). Instructional scaffolds can serve various purposes but are connected specifically to challenges students may have engaging in and understanding the anchor text (van Garderen et al., 2021). For example, instructional scaffolds may serve to build background knowledge or vocabulary to comprehend the text itself (e.g., graphic organizer such as a concept map), skill development (e.g., argumentation), and extend understanding of text (e.g., develop a glossary of keywords; Fisher & Frey, 2014).

It is important to acknowledge that instructional and content scaffolds (Figure 1) are seen separately based on their purpose but do overlap to strengthen engagement, learning, and autonomy. Therefore, a scaffold used for content could also serve as an instructional strategy. Scaffolds to promote learning practices may not only serve to increase content knowledge, but as a bridge to address challenges learners might encounter when dealing with text.

Purpose of the Current Study

Although research is limited connecting types of scaffolds for developing disciplinary literacy in science (Patterson et al., 2018; Rojas Rojas et al., 2019), there is emerging evidence that suggests the types of scaffolding in science instruction can have an impact on comprehension of complex text (e.g., Lupo et al., 2019; Rojas Rojas, et al., 2019). Several studies examined teacher approaches to scaffolding (Lin et al., 2012; van de Pol, et al., 2010), however, to date, there are limited studies that have investigated scaffolding in diverse settings and the perceived benefits of scaffolding for diverse learners, including SWLD, in science.

In this study, we examine the impact of year-long professional development (PD) on teachers’ use of multimodal STEM text sets to support all students, including SWLD, in accessing complex STEM texts. The following research questions guided our study:

1. How did teachers use multimodal STEM text sets to support reading and science content learning for all students?

2. What are the teachers’ perceived effects of scaffolded multimodal STEM text sets on student learning?

Method

In this study, we followed an overarching mixed methods triangulation research design that reflected a convergence model as various data sources were looked at separately and then together (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The data reported here represent a subset of a large set of quantitative and qualitative data collected from a year-long PD program. The quantitative data, designed to measure the impact of multimodal STEM text sets on student argumentation, is reported in the article by (Romine et al., under review) in this special series. In this article, we report on the qualitative data through grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

The Professional Development Program

The professional development was a year-long program involving a 1-day orientation session, a week-long summer workshop and four day-long follow-ups. All sessions were held face-to-face except for the last follow-up which was held online due to COVID-19. The overarching goals were to work with the teachers to develop grade-level multimodal STEM text sets that addressed NGSS and CCSS-ELA.RST standards.

Participants

Participants included a cohort of 14 middle school teachers. Due to COVID-19, we report on data collected from 11 of the teachers who were able to implement the text set and complete qualitative data associated with implementation. The participants were middle school teachers from eight school districts in a midwestern state. Of the participants, 8 taught science, 2 taught ELA, and 1 taught special education. Table 1 shows the demographics of each teacher. All participants created and implemented a multimodal STEM text set in one or more classrooms. Due to COVID-19, a blended learning environment was offered for 193 (19%) of the students.

Table 1.

Teacher Participant Demographics

	Gender	Race	Grade Levels	School Context	Highest Level of Education	# Years Teaching
Science Teachers
Rose	Female	White	8	Suburban	Master’s Degree	21
Emily	Female	White	8	Rural	Master’s Degree	12
Carol	Female	White	8	Rural	Master’s Degree	13
Helen	Female	White	6	Suburban	Master’s Degree	6
Kyle	Male	White	7	Rural	Bachelor’s Degree	3
Anna	Female	White	6	Rural	Master’s Degree	17
Mason	Male	White	7	Urban	Master’s Degree	13
Joan	Female	White	6	Rural	Master’s Degree	17
ELA Teachers
Maya	Female	African American and/or Black	8	Suburban	Specialist’s Certificate	9
Jennifer	Female	White	7	Urban	Specialist’s Certificate	3
Special Education Teacher
Christina	Female	White	6, 7, 8	Rural	Bachelor’s Degree	8

Based on assessment data collected, 1,046 students completed at least one assessment. Of these students reporting their gender, 475 (45%) reported female and 566 (54%) reported male. White and Black/African American were the most common ethnicities reported, at 745 (71%) and 176 (17%) students, respectively. Hispanic/Latino (65, 6.2%), Asian (15, 1.4%), and multiracial (34, 3.3%) were also present in the sample. Educational backgrounds of the students varied. Students were evenly distributed between grades 6 (316, 30%), 7 (349, 33%), and 8 (376, 36%). Thirty-two (3%) of the students were English Language Learners (ELL), and 151 (14%) were students with disabilities (SWD) specifically, students identified for special education services that had an individualized educational plan (IEP)¹. Of the 151 students in IEPs, 103 (68.2%) were male and 48 (31.8%) were female. Thirty-three of these students (21.9%) were in Grade 6, 67 (44.4%) were in Grade 7, and 51 (33.8%) were in Grade 8. One of the students (0.7%) was an English as a Learning Language (ELL) student. A majority of the students on IEPs (100, 66.3%) identified as Caucasian. However, we also had a strong representation of Black/African American students (38, 25.2%). Ethnic backgrounds with less representation included Hispanic/Latinx (4, 2.7%), Native Hawaiian (1, 0.7%), and multiracial (8, 5.3%).

Data Collected

Data included semi-structured interviews, instructional logs, and the multimodal STEM text sets. The semi-structured interviews occurred at the end of the PD year and after the text set was implemented. Interviews were conducted virtually by a graduate research assistant and lasted from 45–60 minutes each. The interview protocol included questions focused on teachers’ perspectives on implementing the text set, ways the PD changed their teaching practices, outcomes observed with students and plans for any future use of the text sets. All interviews were transcribed, and all transcripts were checked for accuracy and uploaded for team analysis.

Instructional logs for one classroom were completed by the teachers after each lesson taught throughout their text set. Teachers provided information about the date of the lesson, class minutes spent on the lesson, text set focus (anchor or scaffold), and lesson cycle or phase (teachers used the 5E learning cycle to develop their text set lessons). Additionally, teachers were asked to share general comments on the lesson (what worked, what did not work, something surprising, something learned) and comments specific to diverse learners (engagement during the lesson, CER skill development, and involvement with the text set).

The teachers’ multimodal STEM text sets were developed based on a template that included a unit overview for connecting to ELA and science standards, a space for listing scaffolds, and a description of each lesson including guiding questions and learning activities. Hyperlinks to google docs, websites, and other resources were embedded into the text sets.

Data Analysis

The analysis of qualitative data followed a mostly inductive, grounded theory approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Using online analysis software, research team members coded interviews, teacher-developed text set instructional materials, and instructional logs. Each set of data was coded by two research team members to provide “check-coding” and improve intercoder reliability (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Initial codes were established beforehand for topics that related to the research questions, such as “Use of Anchor Text,” “Scaffolding,” and “Multimodal Text use.” However, during the coding process, new codes were added. As codes were determined and defined, the team discussed the process and meanings of the terms to arrive at a shared understanding (see Appendix for Coding samples). Following this phase in the analysis, the code-counts guided the determination of key themes. Grounded theory methods engaged the research team in an openness to the data rather than pre-selected ideas (Charmaz, 2006).

Trustworthiness of Data

Credibility of findings were established using several strategies (Brantlinger et al., 2005). First, due to the three types of data collected, the research team triangulated the data to determine themes. Second, multiple researchers were involved in designing the study and ensured interpretations were not idiosyncratic. Team members met weekly during most of the year to review the results of the analyses. Where discrepancies in terms were noted, the team was able to adjust codes or determine which codes were pertinent. Third, Dedoose was used to manage the data enabling us to keep track of who, when and where quotes were found. As per case study methods, we provide a thick description by delving into the teachers’ interviews, instructional materials/text set documents, and instructional logs (Merriam, 1998). Multiple quotes and coded sections of the other documents for each finding provided documentation of what the teachers planned, what was implemented through self-report, and how it went. The interviews and logs also provided teachers’ reflections on the text set instruction, and it is such documentation that helped us create thick descriptions of the qualitative data.

Results

Qualitative data analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) provided a deeper understanding of the scaffolds the teachers used and the perceptions for how these scaffolds supported students, in particular SWLD. The results are organized around the two main research questions: (1) how the teachers used scaffolds within their multimodal STEM text sets, and (2) teacher perceptions of the effects of using scaffolds.

How Teachers Used Scaffolds

Although we acknowledge the overlap between instructional and content scaffolds, for the purposes of our analysis we looked at how the teachers talked about their uses of scaffolding for building disciplinary knowledge connected to the complex text.

Instructional Scaffolds to Support Access and Engagement in Complex Text

Breaking Down Complex Text.

Each anchor text is a long 5- or 6-page article adapted from recent primary literature about studies of a phenomenon of interest to middle school learners (e.g., health effects of vaping; heat stress in a changing climate; acoustic monitoring of bees). Several of the teachers described concerns about having students read the entire text and how overwhelming that would be. A common approach was to present the text in small segments. Anna started by reading aloud the anchor text, but she felt that was clunky. She addressed this by presenting the text in chunks to build up students to the complex text:

They take this information and then be able to build from it, but I couldn’t get it to go. I started with it. And that was really clunky, me reading it aloud. It took several class times, so it seems like we chunked it up.

Although simpler, less complex texts were used to build background disciplinary knowledge, Mason also described the use of these texts as a way to engage students to read longer, more complex text that may be perceived as being overwhelming:

I know the first couple of articles, they were short and all that. It doesn’t matter. It’s still an article, right? Kids immediately put up this wall, but you know, you just throw a kid in the deep end, they’re going to freak out, but if they get to walk in with little steps and hang out for a while, then eventually they want to go to the deep end.

This analogy to swimming is a helpful way to see how instructional scaffolds can help students “ease into it.”

Comprehending Text.

Many teachers used graphic organizers and annotation strategies to help students comprehend what was read. In the multimodal STEM text set developed by Jennifer, she provides the ways to not just read the text in smaller segments but how the students engaged with the text through guided annotations: “●Chunk article into sections ●Circle unknown words ●Highlight claim, relevant evidence, and reasoning”. Later in the text set, Jennifer describes how she scaffolds the reading of one of the texts by having students do a close reading, looking for CER in the text.

Joan used a notetaking approach to breakdown the text to help students comprehend:

The notes system helped because we would go back and be like, ‘Okay, what’s something that made you sad or that you didn’t agree with?’ … we would have some really great classroom discussions. And I don’t think that they would have made those connections had we not had the note taking system. If they hadn’t been reading with intentionality. One of our notes was ‘circle something that doesn’t make sense.’ And so, that gave them that freedom of it’s okay if something doesn’t make sense, we’ll discuss it later.

Several of the teachers implemented strategies from the PD, such as “Word tournament,” described by Anna in this way: “We did that bracket, you choose a word and which one’s better and why. And have them play with those words. That really helped them get more comfortable with the text.” Anna described this as helping students develop comfort with the words and the text. Her description of playing with the words to make complexity less daunting is noteworthy.

Modeling.

Facilitators in the PD used modeling, such as think alouds and previews of the articles, to scaffold reading for comprehension of complex texts. Jennifer described how she modeled what she wanted the students to do to help them understand a text feature of argumentation within the complex text: “Model circling unknown words, annotating, and making connections for the first paragraph. Model thinking out loud for identifying claim and evidence, as well as filling out a graphic organizer.”

Using a recording of the text, Rose was able to model purposeful reading and then provide the students a way to comment: “What is an Urban Heat Island” (supplemental article). I read this using QuickTime and modeled determining importance/reading for meaning. Posted it and students were able to add their comments. Better engagement.”

Content Scaffolds to Increase Disciplinary Knowledge

Knowledge-building Through Focused Vocabulary Scaffolds.

One indicator of content learning is vocabulary, and teachers described students’ needs for help with the specialized content vocabulary to increase disciplinary content knowledge. One of the science teachers, Anna, noticed that students were confused between the use of the terms “climate” and “weather.” Part of her vocabulary content scaffold was to tease apart student understandings:

One thing I hadn’t anticipated was them not being able to differentiate between weather and climate, I assumed that was already done in elementary school. And so, which is funny because usually I’m really good at reviewing but I just, it was one of those things that I just assumed. So I had to go back and include differentiating climate and weather.

After realizing this, Anna scaffolded the learning with videos that showed the difference between weather and climate.

Maya elaborates on this scaffolding to build knowledge where less complex text was used to develop vocabulary knowledge to understand the anchor text:

I think the text leading up to the anchor really helped them. It’s building that background knowledge; they actually have something to say based on the text we have previously read. So once we made it to the anchor text we had a discussion about the vocabulary. I think the text leading up to the anchor text put them in a mindset, they got ready for the information, and they made their connections. So it wasn’t as difficult as I thought it would be. And I think this is because of the scaffolding.

Knowledge-building Through NGSS Practices and Cross-cutting Concepts.

The need to focus on vocabulary and particular concepts within the anchor text helped determine some of the scaffolds. One of the science teachers, Kyle, described activities he used, in addition to shorter readings, to help students understand energy, frequency and waves:

We worked with dominoes to show how energy was transformed through waves. We had some labs where we used a rope and they had to show the direction a wave might be moving with how they’re moving their rope, whether it was up and down or left and right. … So getting them that hands on, I think, helped them to see what they were trying to look for and read in the anchor text.

Another science teacher, Rose, described using online simulation, Gizmo, especially needed when instruction moved online due to COVID-19. The Gizmo lab gave students hands-on manipulation of concepts to build content knowledge about heat stress: “Very engaging as students can manipulate variables like clothing, body position, water and food intake to the point of total failure (death) of the test subject.”

Knowledge-building Through Textual Analysis.

Similar to the need for chunking information as an instructional strategy, breaking down the anchor text for the purpose of scaffolding the content was also used. As described by one of the science teachers, Mason: “I thoroughly walked through both charts/graphs included [in the anchor text]. We used the data from the text to find the heat index and even practiced a couple of others to make sure they understood.” Mason’s decision to help students read charts and graphs was based on an assessment prior to implementing the multimodal STEM text set. This scaffolding helped students develop the confidence towards making sense of these texts:

I think the kids, they got more confident in dealing with all of the graphs and charts. The first real difficult one, which I think was a triple line graph or something, you could just hear the ugh, and then by the time we did three or four of those, and of course coaching them up, you know, like, hey, this is a challenge, let’s go, you know…And so I think and taking a very difficult graph and then just saying, ‘look -- you see a heading over here on the left, which means everything on this half of the graph has to do with this one thing and everything on the right has to do with this other.’ I think in the end, they were bringing the points together so they weren’t intimidated by that stuff anymore.

Content scaffolds, including the intentional use of video, went beyond the science concepts and included understanding the practice of argumentation. Use of commercials, modeled in the PD, were commonly implemented in the classroom. As Jennifer describes:

I took that video, that commercial, and we did a mini lesson where we watched it together in class and then we modeled answering the questions about the claim, evidence and reasoning and who’s the audience and all this and they really had fun with that.

The scaffolds helped students to break down, analyze, the texts (videos) in order to build their knowledge of argumentation.

Knowledge-building Through Relevant Content.

For special education teacher, Caroline, using an unrelated learning experience served as an important scaffold to support understanding of a key concept found in the complex text. In her classroom, the students were studying the concept of acoustics as part of the Flight of the Bumblebee text set. They were using text-to-speech to assist their learning, but the classroom acoustics were poor. When the sounds throughout the classroom were loud, the students recognized the need to make acoustic boxes to muffle the noise around their Chromebooks. This problem-solving experience provided relevant learning and deeper understanding as described by their teacher:

We built the acoustic [boxes]. We problem solved the acoustics out. So, when we broke down that word, they went a whole different level with it than I thought it was going to go. [With the acoustic boxes and text-to-speech] we had to muffle the acoustics and that really nailed into them ‘acoustics.’ When we start talking about the bees’ acoustics, it really made sense.

The students engaged in scientific practices of defining a problem and designing a solution. They then had built knowledge about the concept that assisted them in reading the complex text. This type of practice is what helped create a more equitable learning experience for these learners.

Knowledge-building through relevant content also happened in the integration of technology. One of the ELA teachers described using virtual reality inquiry as a content scaffold, but within that she had the students stop and journal to reflect on their learning:

I had them do the headset thing, the virtual reality, where they went into body systems, and it talked about thermoregulation, and I had them to journal about it. … I was using it more so as a hook to increase the engagement, but it turned into a two-day thing. They were really into it, and I didn’t want to stop them, and then I had a writing piece where they had to make a claim based on their experience with the VR and then they have to have evidence and they had the reasoning.

The relevancy in this example was based on the technology that engaged students. What started as a hook became an extension into the content of the line of inquiry within the text set.

Knowledge Building Through Multimodality of Texts.

The development of STEM text sets included the intentional goal of using multiple kinds of texts. A range of multimodal texts were used for the text set implementation: videos (such as commercials, information on scientific concepts), radio, infographics, Venn diagrams, google slides, picture books, and scientific articles. The use of images and videos was popular for many of the teachers. Reading and discussing an image became accessible hooks into a topic. In one of the instructional logs, Mason shares observations of student engagement; the lesson had students look at a photo and ask: “‘What’s going on in this picture?” What is exciting to note is Mason described how students of varying abilities were figuring out the image: “Interesting that SpEd students were able to figure out what was going on before non-SpEd kids could.”

Jennifer described what we noted above as instructional scaffolding in which students practice a concept by starting with small chunks of information and build towards larger concepts. In addition, we see teachers blending multiple modes of texts, which allow students to begin synthesizing information to engage in argumentation, as Jennifer described: “This allows for students to explain how the various forms of media (infographics, article, video) tie together and build toward main claims and deeper understanding of relevant evidence”.

Kyle saw that multimodal STEM text sets helped students understand concepts when they could “read” texts in multiple ways: “Being able to see it and hear it helped them to comprehend what we were doing”. This use of repetition stood out as teachers were not implementing the same instruction and text, but implementing multimodal components into their instruction.

Teacher Perceptions of Scaffolding to Support Student Learning

At the start of the year-long PD, many teachers were skeptical of the integration of complex text into their classroom instruction. Some were not convinced of their role or responsibility to integrate complex text. Others did not believe complex text could be used with all their learners--especially their students with disabilities. In analyzing the data, it was hard to ignore the statements made by all the teachers as to the benefits of using scaffolding practices.

Surprise: “My Learners Can Read Complex Texts!”

Introducing students to a complex informational text, as Helen described, would normally elicit complaints and concerns such as, “I can’t do this. This is too difficult.” However, Helen describes that after scaffolding the content and the CER practices, the students reached the final lesson, which included the anchor text, and they were ready to work more independently:

It was a moment for me that was, ‘Oh my gosh, this is awesome!’ Because by the time we got to the anchor text, I know when I first got it. And these workshops and I was like, I’m going to give this to sixth graders and they’re going to flip their lid, like they’re not going to be able to handle this. By the time we got to it, because I did everything like scaffold up to that point. We had done all kinds of CER stuff throughout these other lessons until we got to the last lesson, which had the anchor text. And I mean, nobody, nobody threw a fit about it. It was just another reading that they got to do. And they kind of got into it, and they started asking questions and it wasn’t like, ‘Oh, why do we have to read this, this is so much.’ I was genuinely shocked. It was a nice aha, for me. Okay, give them the skills first and then they don’t freak out. And they kind of knew how to break it apart and they looked for those keywords. They were not overwhelmed by it at all, which I was shocked.

Changes to Instruction: “I’ve Never Taught this Way Before!”

In addition to the surprises, teachers explained new approaches they tried. The uses of text sets, especially multimodal texts, were new to most of the teachers. One of the scaffolds was the use of picture books. Teachers were unsure middle school students would engage with this type of text. Joan described using one of the picture books in her classroom: “We read aloud the Water Princess today. Students LOVED being read to, and ya know what, I loved reading to them”. The book Water Princess (Verde & Badiel, 2016) was one of several picture books on climate and heat stress used by several of the teachers.

Emily, a science teacher, described some of her own new understandings of scaffolding:

The idea of scaffolding to be able to read more difficult texts was something that I hadn’t really introduced before. I sort of leaned towards easier texts that I didn’t scaffold. So the idea of scaffolding was definitely helpful in the PD and teaching the kids that they’re able to read more difficult text. It just, they just kind of have to lead up to it.

Emily also described how she used to see reading in science for the purpose of gaining content knowledge and did not think about how to support the reading of the text. She described learning about reading strategies as one of the bigger changes she implemented:

You know, when we read, highlighting texts, things like that. I had always focused on, okay, we’re going to read this with the purpose of being able to discuss this concept. So actually stopping and saying “okay when I read this, we’re going to highlight the main idea, we’re going to pull out some supporting details,” things like that.

This new view of reading with intentionality was noted by other teachers as well, and described by Joan: “They knew what to look for. They were reading with intentionality and not just, okay, you gave me this thing to read.” An important initial reading strategy is to consider the purpose in reading something, and as these teachers observed, they needed to not just assume students knew how to read a text to get the meaning, especially if they needed the background and genre knowledge (Patterson et al., 2018).

In addition to intentionality, or as Helen describes “goal-oriented” teaching, this type of focus was aided by linking science content and literacy. Of note is her reference that there is time to incorporate literacy practices:

There’s lots of opportunities to incorporate literacy, and I was kind of already doing it, but I was able to do it a little bit more being goal oriented with it. So I guess what kind of surprised me is how many opportunities I have within a day or week or a unit to incorporate some literacy pieces, like you can do that daily if you wanted to.

Maya provided insights into her own growing understanding of the need for scaffolds to support students’ reading of complex text:

I probably would not have known to find the scaffolding texts that I use. It wasn’t just on one topic. It was a collection of different writing that drove home the point of the anchor text. But it was like different perspectives and talking about different things. I think one of them the students really liked was the thermoregulation, the article on that. It helped them see some of the points of the anchor text. So I think without the PD I would not have known to have those different scaffolding texts. It gave that background knowledge and I think I probably would have struggled trying to build.

Learning Can Be Enhanced With Scaffolding

The teachers discussed several ways students appeared to benefit from the scaffolded instruction within the multimodal text sets. One noticeable change the teachers saw was the way the students began to understand scientific concepts such as weather and climate or heat stress. For example, Mason said, “I fully think they understood the difference between heat exhaustion and heat stroke. And not only that, just the whole idea of how heat affects the human body”. Not only did the students understand the concepts, but they were able to think more deeply about the concepts, such as in the example given, the effects of heat exhaustion.

Students began to understand and use claim, evidence, and reasoning. For example, Emily said, “definitely when we did the SBAs, I could tell that they were better able to pull out those claims as we continued through our three SBAs.” Mason added that “their [students’] claims are becoming really strong.” While teachers did frequently note the growth students were showing in making claims and backing the claims up with evidence, they did not mention how students were grappling with reasoning through the evidence.

Teachers frequently mentioned how the text sets increased the engagement of students in their classrooms. For example, speaking specifically about the anchor text, Joan said, “My kids were just enthralled as I read to them”. Mason noted: “Doing different stuff other than just – oh, here’s an article. Here’s an article. Here’s an article – really had them engaged and they were learning while having fun and didn’t know they were learning, you know.” Engagement was high for all students, including the diverse learners. For example, Kyle noted “My diverse learners were equally involved, and I noticed how all of my students were asking the key questions to come with ideas to support the claims they had made.” All students were engaged with the text sets and allowed them to have fun while learning.

Confidence is another thing teachers mentioned noticing in their students. For example, Kyle said, “I also have some of those that struggle that before we were out for the end of this year, I could actually get them to read a little bit. So they were overcoming that fear.” Confidence was increased no matter the reading level. For example, Joan describes how her students’ confidence grew:

When we had our fishbowl activity, they’d already read it on their own and with a partner. They’d already had a lot of classroom discussion on it. So everybody was armed with information, and they could confidently discuss whatever we were talking about. It didn’t matter their level, it wasn’t like the super high kids who can read. They’d taken notes, they’d had time to read it. They’d had time to marinate in it. That just gave them confidence of, hey, I can do this too, doesn’t matter my reading ability.

The text sets allowed students to overcome fears and participate in multimodal instruction that helped grow their confidence. Interestingly, the confidence that students gained during the text set units allowed them to take more risks during instruction. For example, Mason stated:

…discussion before ‘walk n talk’ before actually crafting a CER statement with their team, I believe, has created a safe environment for these learners… And so, that gave them that freedom of it’s okay if something doesn’t make sense, we’ll discuss it later.

The way the text sets were designed with multiple opportunities to revisit the concepts in different ways lent itself to a safe space to take risks. Another outcome of the text sets was improved reading among the students because of the scaffolding. For example, Helen stated:

But I feel like after they got past that hump of, like, oh, we are going to have to read and understand things. I feel like it started clicking for them. It started to become easier for them like even, even the kids that are not, you know, strong readers and writers, like I feel like we’re making improvements.

Helen described several ways she scaffolded the instruction to help students with content and CER background. Teachers continuously mentioned improvements in reading from all students, including the diverse learners. They did, however, mention that while the diverse learners were improving their reading, it was not at the grade level expectation, but it was an improvement.

It would be remiss of us if we did not acknowledge that despite the perceived benefits of scaffolding, the teachers also noted challenges their learners faced when engaging with complex texts and science phenomena. Several teachers discussed how the reading demands associated with text complexity were challenging for diverse learners even with scaffolded supports in place. For example, Emily stated:

And just the reading of the anchor text took probably twice as long as I expected. And I think some of that was my kids’ reading level. Like, even though I scaffold, that going forward and getting into the length of the anchor text took longer than I thought it would.

Intentional Scaffolding Addresses Specific Learners’ Needs

The teachers described challenges their learners experienced, such as with the argumentation process (claim, evidence, reasoning). Some learners experienced difficulty identifying and developing a claim. Additionally, identifying and using evidence presented a challenge, as Mason stated, “They still struggle backing up their claim with evidence from the chart. They don’t want to use the data for some reason”. Writing was also a challenge. The teachers discussed how learners had difficulty organizing their thoughts into a written format. For example, Mason noticed, “requiring every kid to have to sit down and put pencil to paper when we know there are all kinds of differences with kids and some kids just, they just can’t do that”. Christina discussed how her students had difficulty transferring their ideas into writing: “And we could have one-on-one discussions with them, like in a small group discussion and we could hear it go deeper. Then when we would take it to a paper, we got some resistance, a little bit, just because it’s such a struggle for them to write.”

As teachers determined the needs of their learners, they then used instructional and content scaffolds to support all students’ learning. To demonstrate, we use a lengthy but powerful quote from Rose, a science teacher, who described her process of learning about her students’ needs:

Over winter break I was really looking at the data, and I realized that it was my same group of kids that just were not succeeding. And when I started really digging, I knew I had some low readers, but I did not realize how low they were because I did not have access to their reading scores and things like that. I just knew that they were in reading recovery, and things like that. So I met with our reading recovery teacher, and I realized I have one student that’s reading on like a 2^nd grade level. There’s no way that kiddo is going to get this, you know, so, I started using a lot of ELL strategies, honestly. And we did more focused note taking when we would read through the anchor text and that helped a lot. That translated to higher performance in other subject areas than science. Two of my kids I felt like were real success stories as I saw their overall performance in science improve because they weren’t so ashamed that they couldn’t read it, or that they didn’t understand it.

As Rose considered her learners, she made decisions for how to implement scaffolds that supported their reading: reading with purpose, questioning the text, using multiple texts, understanding steps to take to get to a complex text. Rose noted that this removed a sense of shame at not being able to read a complex text and students found success.

Discussion and Implications

As a result of one year of PD programming and the design and implementation of multimodal STEM Text Sets, we find the following: (1) Multimodal STEM text sets included content scaffolds for targeted vocabulary instruction, concept building through scientific practices, and relevant connections to the learners and instructional scaffolds for previewing a text through modeling, analyzing text features, and providing purposeful readings (such as read for and highlight the claim, evidence, and reasoning). (2) The teachers perceived many benefits to student learning as a result of scaffolded instruction within the multimodal STEM text sets that supported students engaging in complex text. Despite the challenges some students faced, scaffolding helped teachers create more equitable learning opportunities.

From the text set anchor phenomenon and line of inquiry, the scaffolds provided the structure needed for students, especially SWD, to reach the complex grade level anchor text (figure 1). This is exciting as many SWLD have difficulty with complex text (Mason & Hedin, 2011; Patterson et al., 2018) and, similar to other studies (e.g., Lupo, et al., 2018), with instructional scaffolds students are able to access complex text. The results from this study also demonstrate how multimodal STEM text sets and scaffolds address several of the overlapping ELA and science practices, primarily “Engaging in argument from evidence” and “Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.” Students with disabilities have been found to experience difficulty engaging in practices such as argumentation (e.g., De La Paz & Levin, 2018). Identifying ways to help address these challenges are important to developing disciplinary literacy. The teachers included scaffolds to help their learners develop and reach the learning goals and, importantly, adjusted scaffolds based on their learner needs. Supporting SWD in general education classrooms is often lacking (e.g., McGrath & Hughes, 2018), yet the findings from this study clearly demonstrate the potential of using multimodal STEM text sets with integrated content and instructional supports to address this significant concern and provide a model for linking science and literacy.

The program’s focus on literacy integration is based on the need for students to experience intentional uses of reading, writing, speaking, viewing, and listening as they are learning science (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2018). The multimodal STEM text sets provided the scaffolds for this blending of content and literacy instruction demonstrating that it is possible for a collaboration between the disciplines (Rhodes & Feder, 2014). Further, the scaffolds supported students’ learning as they were reading purposefully, metacognitively engaging with the text, and experiencing a fuller literacy experience of talking, writing, and reading (Lee, et al., 2013; Schoenbach, et al., 2012). Though teachers reported some learners still struggling, including SWLD, they also reported being surprised at how well all the students did in reading a complex science text.

Time was needed to develop and implement the text sets. However, it was the time and the repeating of ideas, such as CER, that teachers reported making a difference in their students’ learning. The use of scaffolds to support content learning also took time but scaffolding the scaffolds (modeling how to annotate for CER, for instance) made the difference in students working with the text and “playing” with the words. The ideas of “play,” “relevancy,” and “enjoyment” were a surprise to the teachers, and yet these affective aspects of the scaffolds impacted learning. Finally, confidence and stamina were shown to be important for all students. As students spent the time and engaged in multiple texts and scaffolds, they developed a stamina that also created greater confidence in that “Yes, I can read a complex text.”

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the positive findings, we did face some limitations in this study. The first limitation was some incomplete data from all the teacher participants, mostly due to COVID-19 impact on teachers. However, the year-long PD had mostly been completed when the final sessions pivoted online. Thus, the limitations of access due to COVID also created new learning as the teachers and facilitators adjusted to virtual learning. This impact of COVID on PD and on student learning is already a focus for future research.

A second limitation was the need for a common understanding of the terms used in the program: “text complexity” and “scaffolding,” for instance. As we analyzed the data, we questioned if some of the scaffolding was serendipitous. Part of the study is for us to determine shared understandings, and future research will allow us to begin with a clearer definition of the terms and help understand more about the intentionality when teachers scaffold instruction. Thus, future PD and research needs to focus on teachers’ deeper understanding of types of scaffolds, when to use, and for what students.

A final limitation is that there were no observations of teachers in their classrooms. The self-reported nature of the data thus needs to be considered. Future research could include observational data that may bolster findings of implementation and student learning.

Appendix

Excerpt from Data Analysis Codes: Linking Science & Literacy for All Learners; in descending order.

Code and Count	Definition	Example of Coded Excerpt
Scaffolds 965 excerpts	Content scaffolds, Instructional scaffolds, Use of Inquiry	I think the text leading up to the anchor really helped them. It’s almost like building that background knowledge.
CER 232 excerpts	Reference to claim, evidence, or reasoning	CER, we began by looking at a medieval painting, noting observations, providing an overall claim from the painting. Then students practiced providing evidence then reasoning.
Student Learning 231 excerpts	References to student learning	Generally, the aha moments came from the struggling students. … the diverse learners were really, you know, “This is very interesting, and I want to know more about that.”
Diverse Learners 191 excerpts	Reference to range of learners; need for background knowledge; reading ability; multilingual	But using those [ELL] strategies with them did seem to help because I felt like their language development was not, they just didn’t have the language, they didn’t have the experience and the personal experience with the subject matter.
Challenges 108 excerpts	Time, curriculum disconnect, student struggles	I can’t really catch up with the current curriculum. But, I took two months [implementing the text set] and went slowly.
Anchor 103 excerpts	Reference to the complex anchor text	We did go through the anchor text, you know, my whole class, we would go through…
Motivation / Engagement 87 excerpts	References to reading and doing science; student interest; relevance to students	My kids were very engaged with the content because as I said, the beginning climate change for them is something they, like they’ve grown up with the idea of climate change.
PD Impact & Implementation 72 excerpts	References impact of the PD; implementation of a practice; made a change in instruction	When [program facilitator] took us through those articles and how to use that supplementary text to shore up the reasoning behind the anchor text, that was very, very helpful to me. …The presentation of it, of how to supplement the kids’ understanding of these concepts.
Multimodal Texts 49 excerpts	References use of multimodal texts: videos, pictures/visuals,	I used the visuals first before engaging the students in any of the reading. We went back and read the passage along with the videos being played again and discussing the pictures.