Drawing on sociolinguistics research regarding commonbeliefs and justifications about language, we applied notions of language ideology to an analysis of the formative assessment practices of secondary science teachers from linguistically diverse schools. We identified two language ideologies that were demonstrated by teachers as they engaged in the formative assessment of student work. Here, we introduce the terms language-exclusive ideology and language-inclusive ideology. A language-exclusive ideology holds that certain forms of language are expected in a science class, and others are not appropriate. What we have termed a language-inclusive ideology suggests that multiple forms of language use are acceptable in science classrooms, and this approach finds synergies with the literature on translanguaging, or the integration of multiple languages for complex communicative purposes. We argue that science teacher educators should consider teachers' language ideologies as they prepare professional development and preservice teacher education curriculum materials, and we discuss potential implications for science education and teacher education. Finally, we call for more explicit consideration of issues of language ideology within the science education community to understand how various approaches to language can provide affordances or barriers to content learning and language development. K E Y W O R D S English Language Learners, formative assessment, ideology, language Science Education. 2019;103:854-874. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sce 854 |

No abstract

Anthropogenic climate change remains divisive in the United States, where skepticism of the scientific consensus is associated with conservative worldviews, resulting in political polarization. This study considers three hypotheses regarding U.S. polarization over climate change that have emerged from social psychology research and applies them to science education by showing how these hypotheses could relate to adolescents' science learning. We then test each hypothesis within an experimental educational intervention designed to study the influence of worldview, mechanistic knowledge, and quantitative reasoning on students' written arguments about climate change. We used mixed methods to analyze the results of this individually randomized trial with clustering involving 357 participants in grades 9-11 from 5 U.S. sites. Findings show that: (a) exposure to mechanistic knowledge about climate change increased odds of receptivity toward climate change; (b) increasingly conservative worldviews were associated with decreased odds of receptivity; (c) worldview and quantitative reasoning interacted, resulting in an amplified effect of worldview for students with greater quantitative reasoning. Results also suggest that the influence of worldview and mechanistic knowledge on receptivity work

No abstract