Language, Access, and Power in the Elementary Science Classroom

Abstract

The Next Generation Science Standards call for the adoption of many aspects of scientific inquiry in the classroom. The ways in which classroom talk and classroom environment change as students and teachers learn to utilize inquiry approaches are underexplored. This study examines the frequency with which linguistic markers related to access and power appear in student and teacher speech in the elementary science classroom. As teachers begin to implement argument-based inquiry methods, teacher and student use of these markers changes significantly. These changes indicate that students whose teachers utilize argument-based inquiry have greater access and power in the science classroom. In this paper, the mechanisms by which teachers afford their students access and power are explored from a quantitative perspective. C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 99:238-259,

Mitigating the effect of language in the assessment of science: A study of English‐language learners in primary classrooms in the United Kingdom

“…Some researchers argue learners should be permitted to demonstrate content-specific knowledge using the linguistic means they feel most comfortable with, be it scientific vocabulary, everyday vocabulary or a combination of both (Brown & Spang, 2008;Lyon et al, 2012;Schoerning, Hand, Shelley, & Therrien, 2015). The proposed benefits of such a flexible language approach include giving learners greater agency and presence in the classroom by making them feel more able to participate freely and think divergently (Schoerning et al, 2015). Supporters also argue that it allows learners to develop fundamental understanding of scientific ideas and phenomena before being asked to operate with them using technical scientific language (Brown & Spang, 2008).…”

A no-conflict approach to informal science education increases community science literacy and engagement

“…Many people feel alienated or excluded from science in general [Bandura, 2006;Goodman et al, 2011;Hodson, 1999;Rossatto, 2007;Diaz-Rico and Weed, 2002;Duran, Dugan and Weffer, 1998;Hildebrand, 2001;Tobin and McRobbie, 1996;Lee, 1997;Lee and Fradd, 1996;Rakow and Bermudez, 1993;Rosenthal, 1993]. In designing our outreach approach, we drew on a body of research that applies a sociocultural and linguistic framework to create inclusive science learning environments [Richter, 2011;Schoerning, 2012;Schoerning and Hand, 2013;Schoerning, 2013;Schoerning et al, 2015]. This research suggests that an informal conversational style and explicit instruction in the conventions of scientific argumentation are the common factors that underlie many science teaching and learning approaches that have been shown to significantly improve the performance of underserved groups and close achievement gaps [Schoerning et al, 2015;Akkus, Gunel and Hand, 2007;Prain and Hand, 2016].…”

El empleo espontáneo de conectores y vocabulario relacionado con las ciencias: Implicaciones en la argumentación escrita

“…La situación se complica luego de reconocer que la "escritura en ciencias" es una de las cualidades (entre otras) con la que se espera cuente la ciudadanía (Balgopal, Laybourn, Wallace y Brisch, 2015;Blanco-López, España-Ramos y González-García, 2015;Feinstein, 2015;Schoerning, Hand, Shelley y Therrien, 2015;Takao y Kelly, 2003;Xiao y Sandoval, 2015). Bajo esta perspectiva se asume a la argumentación escrita y espontánea (Archila, 2015a;Levin y Wagner, 2006) como un medio para potenciar la alfabetización científica que, a su vez, permite acceder a las concepciones en ciencias de los estudiantes (reveladas por el vocabulario recurrente) y el nivel de elaboración de sus escritos (expresado en el tipo de conectores utilizado) (Archila, 2015a).…”