Divergences Across Modalities in Diagrammatic Science Models With English Learners

• In Event: 31.031 - Multimodal STEM Learning With Emerging Bilingual Students

Abstract

Objective. This study investigated how fifth-grade students, including English learners (ELs), used visual, written language, and oral language modalities to engage in a diagrammatic science modeling task. When used in combination in student models, modalities can diverge to communicate disciplinary meanings that are inconsistent with or opposed to one another (Unsworth, 2006). These divergences can illuminate “the messy middles that students have as they develop expertise on a topic” (Gotwals & Songer, 2009, p. 279). Alternatively, these divergences can indicate developing English proficiency, as ELs may not yet have the language to communicate their science understanding with precision. The purpose of this mixed-method study was to investigate (a) the extent to which divergences between visual and written language modalities could be explained in terms of students’ science and English proficiency and (b) whether and how the addition of a third modality—oral language—provided further insight into students’ developing science and English proficiency.

Theoretical Framework. This study is grounded in two key constructs: Multimodality is a theory of communication that meaning is made through multiple modalities, each with affordances and limitations (Bezemer & Kress, 2016). Precision embraces a meaning-centered conception of language use by going beyond the structural elements of language to the disciplinary meaning those elements communicate (Moschkovich, 2012; Quinn, Lee, & Valdés, 2012).

Methods. Two-hundred students’ responses to a science modeling task were coded for divergence between visual and written language modalities based on Unsworth’s (2006) framework. Logistic regression was used to predict the probability of divergence as a function of science proficiency and district-assigned EL classification. A subsample of 10 students of varying EL classifications also participated in interviews where they described their models in the oral language modality. Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify “critical events” (Powell, Francisco, & Maher, 2003) indicating divergence between or across all three modalities.

Results. Divergences were more likely among students with intermediate science proficiency, who were still developing science understanding, and ELs and former ELs, who lacked precision in the written language modality. As one example of divergence, Figure 1 shows an EL’s model of how smell travels across the room as gas particles moving freely. While the student demonstrates science understanding in the visual modality, the phrase “separate trou [sic]” in the written language modality is imprecise and could be interpreted as divide into two or more parts (not scientifically accurate) or move freely around in space (scientifically accurate). Student interviews in the oral language modality provided further insight into ELs’ developing science and English proficiency (to be elaborated in the presentation).

Significance. Examining learning from a multimodal perspective can offer a more complete and nuanced picture of what all students, especially ELs, know and can do in science, thus exposing “the rich possibilities in these students’ thinking” (Fernandes, Kahn, & Civil, 2017, p. 280). This study highlights the potential of interdisciplinary research that bridges EL education and content area education with the goal of supporting ELs to capitalize on the opportunities and meet the challenges of content instruction.

Authors

• Scott Grapin, University of Miami

• Lorena Llosa, New York University