Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading
Effectiveness
Extensive Field Testing
The Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading program has undergone extensive field testing to ensure effective use in diverse classrooms in urban, rural, and suburban settings. During the 2003-2004 school year, three Seeds/Roots units for second and third grade students were pilot tested in two classrooms each in the San Francisco Bay Area and were revised based on the evidence gathered. During the 2004-2005 school year, the revised units were field tested in schools across the United States. Teachers presented each unit in at least 20 classrooms.
The Seeds/Roots development team gathered student work from each unit and asked teachers in the field test classrooms to complete surveys and participate in interviews. Students in the field tests participated in pre- and post-tests in both science and literacy in order to gauge student gains through participation in the unit. We used the teacher surveys and student work samples to once again make changes to improve the units.
An independent and respected research organization, the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) at the University of California, Los Angeles, conducted an extensive evaluation study, analyzing results and contacting field test teachers on their own. The full text of the CRESST evaluation report can be found on our web site, www.seedsofscience.org. The following results are drawn from that report.
Evaluation Results are Very Promising
While the findings reported here cannot be automatically generalized for all Seeds/Roots units, they do provide solid preliminary evidence that the Seeds/Roots approach to integrating inquiry science and literacy can have powerful positive effects on student learning. Preliminary evidence also suggests that positive effects may be strongest for girls and lower-achieving students, those traditionally underserved by science materials.
Teachers Report Positive Outcomes in the Classroom
CRESST evaluators interviewed a small sample of Seeds/Roots second and third grade teachers who presented the Soil Habitats and Shoreline Science units. All teachers reported that students were active and enthusiastic participants in the unit, regardless of previous achievement profiles. All found the materials, including the student science books, very useful. They thought the units gave wellbalanced attention to science and literacy and were very effective in helping students grow in both areas. All interviewees said that they would use the Seeds/Roots materials again, given the opportunity. Many teachers expressed enthusiasm about an approach that embraces both science and literacy learning goals.
Students Demonstrate Learning Gains
The field test studies for two of the units, Shoreline Science and Soil Habitats, included comparison classrooms. Students in these comparison classes used an inquiry science-only unit that taught similar science concepts. For the Soil Habitats unit, we also included literacy-only classrooms (a curriculum that included the opportunity for students to read, write, and talk about the content in the Seeds/Roots student science books) and a businessas- usual comparison (in which students experienced their regular science and literacy programs). Our aim was to determine whether the integrated science and literacy Seeds/Roots units, which use an integrated Do-it, Talk-it, Read-it, Write-it approach, were more effective in raising student achievement than content-comparable alternatives in which students engaged in more typical science inquiry approaches (Doit, Talk-it) or more passive science approaches (Read-it, Write-it, Talk-it).
Students who experienced the two integrated Seeds/Roots units demonstrated statistically significant learning gains in many aspects of science and literacy, as compared to the comparison groups. Students in both the Shoreline Science group and the comparison science-only group demonstrated gains in science understanding, but the Seeds/Roots group showed significantly more growth. Notably, girls made stronger growth than boys, and students with the lowest scores on the science pretest demonstrated significant gains that were equivalent to those of the highest-scoring students, suggesting that these units were accessible to the full range of students.
Students in the Shoreline Science group also made stronger growth on assessments of science vocabulary and comprehension of science passages. Students who experienced the Soil Habitats unit made significantly higher gains on the science assessment than students in the comparison groups who used science-only, literacy-only, or their regular program of instruction. Again, girls achieved more growth than boys on the science assessment. The Soil Habitats group also significantly outscored comparison students on picture and association vocabulary items.