Mediating Science Explanations With Linguistic Tools in Oral Discussions Supports English Learner Written Explanations

• In Event: 45.027 - Supporting Elementary and Middle School Students to Write Scientific Explanations

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of the study was to test the utility in using theory-driven linguistic tools to support complex science explanations.

Perspectives
Although there has been a steady increase in research that directly targets English learners’ (EL) language and content learning needs, until very recently, the majority of education research for this student population has not been grounded in approaches that meaningfully integrate contemporary theories of content learning and language development and use. Past research has found that academic language skills (a subset of academic discourse) mediate content knowledge (e.g., Greenleaf et al., 2011). Thus, problems in achieving content standards could be mitigated through exposure to oral and written literacy activities that build familiarity with science genres.

The approach to teaching science explanations taken here targets: (1) foregrounding science discourse and literacy practices, and (2) incorporating conceptual and linguistic supports or scaffolds that enable students to take advantage of learning opportunities that science inquiry brings to the learning context. This framework integrates innovations in: (a) cognitive science, (b) culturally congruent science instruction, (c) disciplinary literacy, and (d) systemic functional linguistics (e.g., Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). SFL researchers examine text and genre from the global view; supports how disciplinary actors take up appropriate word resources and use them for the given genre and context.

Methods and Data Sources
Classroom observations were conducted in three second-grade classrooms during three weeks of planned academic conversations designed to build student understanding of the interactional styles of western science (e.g., challenge ideas) and science habits of mind (e.g., use evidence to support claims, reason with data). Transcripts of student exchanges involving 25 dyads were used to examine the nature of oral science discourse and student written work were also examined. SFL contextual features were used to operationalize and analyze student oral and written utterances in terms of description/representation and taking/negotiating positions.

Results
Evidence of a progression in the appropriation of science oral and written language discourse patterns was found. For both beginning and intermediate ELs, oral explanations progressed from a heavy reliance on sentence stems, word banks, and code switching to less reliance on sentence stems and more risk-taking in the use of text connectives when making causal connections between observations and content concepts. A significant developmental shift in written explanations was also observed. Linguistic choices pointed to clear evidence of conceptually-based explanations at the study conclusion.

Significance
These results indicate that participation in academic conversations supported conceptual learning and science disciplinary literacy for students in this study with beginning and intermediate levels of English proficiency. This pattern of results is significant in that there is growing attention to the need to contextualize language learning in content-based situations in order to sufficiently address the academic needs of ELs (Moschkovich, 2010). We attempted to provide this contextualization with the focus on making conceptual links explicit to students and the use of SFL to support language use in a manner that is consistent with science disciplinary discourse.

Author

• Zenaida Aguirre-Munoz, University of Houston