Negotiating science - building thematic patterns of the scientific concept sound in a Swedish multilingual lower secondary classroom

Abstract

In this article we examine a teacher's and multilingual students' use of multiple resources and their potential for students' meaning-making of sound and sound transmission. Students were 14-15 years old, Swedish grade 8, speaking Swedish as a second language. We examine how different strategies and multiple resources interact in creating thematic patterns in a multilingual science classroom. Data comprise 64 hours of video-and audio recordings, digital photos, field-notes, textbooks, worksheets and student notebooks. As analytical tools we use thematic development strategies, control and social interaction strategies as well as strategies of bridging multiple resources. In co-constructing the content using various resources, thematic patterns were developed through a continuous shift between everyday and scientific language due to the teacher's awareness of the unit's abstract and technical content. Findings also reveal that a strategy of control performed by the teacher marked the importance of using 'physics words' . Strategies of social interaction accentuated by earlier experiences as well as personal and humorous connotations expressed in everyday language supported meaning-making. In addition, a number of multiple resources, such as models, gestures, bodily action, drawings, reading and writing were used.this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution-noncommercial-noderivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

Meaning making in collaborative practical work: a case study of multimodal challenges in a Year 10 chemistry classroom

“…In science discourse, content is mainly understood and communicated through language (Axelsson and Jakobson 2020). Abrahams and Millar (2008) argued that for practical work to be effective, students must not only know how to manipulate the objects, but also communicate the scientific ideas behind the practical work.…”

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Pre-service Chemistry Teacher Preparation Unit on Fostering Pedagogical Scientific Language Knowledge

“…Since there is a lack of knowledge on the side of (pre-service) chemistry teachers about scientific language and the teaching and learning of it, e.g., refs , − , , this study aims to conduct the first cycle of participatory action research in university teacher training to develop a seminar unit on fostering pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical scientific language knowledge. Therefore, findings from the literature as well as German chemistry teachers’ systematized pedagogical scientific language knowledge are used to develop a seminar unit.…”

“…If science teachers do not know how to teach scientific language in their classroom, it can lead to scientific language anxiety for students and thus hinders their learning . In accordance with the scientific language awareness a teacher should possess regarding the importance of scientific language in the teaching and learning process, teachers seem not to consider scientific language characteristics in their teaching − ,,− or are even unaware of their word choices, e.g., by using scientific terms students actually do not know yet or in an everyday sense, and therefore might convey false knowledge. ,,,,− Additionally, some science teachers see no relevance in formulating lesson objectives regarding scientific language or even do not see teaching scientific language as their task. ,,,− …”

Språklärare i NO-undervisning? – ämneslitteracitet och integrerat kunskapsbyggande i språkligt heterogena klassrum

“…Studierna visar bland annat att NO-lärare i högre utsträckning fokuserar på begrepp, ordförståelse och muntlig kommunikation ; Norris kuserar på begrepp, ordförståelse och muntlig kommunikation Norris & Phillips, 2003;Richardson Bruna m.fl., 2010;Seah, 2016), men har mindre fokus på & Phillips, 2003;Richardson Bruna m.fl., 2010;Seah, 2016), men har mindre fokus på relationen mellan vardagsspråk och ämnesspråk, semantiska relationer mellan äm-relationen mellan vardagsspråk och ämnesspråk, semantiska relationer mellan ämnesbegrepp och arbete med skriftliga ämnestexter (t.ex. Axelsson & Jakobson, 2020; nesbegrepp och arbete med skriftliga ämnestexter (t.ex. Axelsson & Jakobson, 2020;Danielsson, 2011;af Geijerstam, 2006;Seah & Yore, 2017), där de senare kan sägas vara Danielsson, 2011;af Geijerstam, 2006;Seah & Yore, 2017), där de senare kan sägas vara väl så centrala för elevernas utveckling av ämneslitteracitet.…”

“…Axelsson & Jakobson, 2020; nesbegrepp och arbete med skriftliga ämnestexter (t.ex. Axelsson & Jakobson, 2020;Danielsson, 2011;af Geijerstam, 2006;Seah & Yore, 2017), där de senare kan sägas vara Danielsson, 2011;af Geijerstam, 2006;Seah & Yore, 2017), där de senare kan sägas vara väl så centrala för elevernas utveckling av ämneslitteracitet. väl så centrala för elevernas utveckling av ämneslitteracitet.…”