Science and Language for English Language Learners in Relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with Implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2013
Science and Language for English Language Learners in Relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with Implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics
The National Research Council (2011) released “A Framework for K–12 Science Education” that is guiding the development of the Next Generation Science Standards, which are expected to be finalized in early 2013. This article addresses language demands and opportunities that are embedded in the science and engineering practices delineated in the Framework. By examining intersections between learning of science and learning of language, the article identifies key features of the language of the science classroom as students engage in these language-intensive science and engineering practices. We propose that when students, especially English language learners, are adequately supported to “do” specific things with language, both science learning and language learning are promoted. We highlight implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics.
BachmanL. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
BiberD.FineganE. (Eds.). (1994). Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
BrintonD. M.SnowM. A.WescheM. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
4.
BrownB. A. (2006). “It isn’t slang that can be said about this stuff”: Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 96–126.
5.
BrownB. A.RyooK. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 529–553.
6.
CanaleM.SwainM. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
7.
CarlsenW. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
9.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
10.
CorneliusL. L.HerrenkohlL. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 467–498.
11.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English language proficiency development standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
CoxheadA. (1998). An academic word list. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies.
13.
DuffP. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505–537.
14.
DuffP. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–322.
15.
EchevarriaJ.ShortD. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 195–211.
16.
EchevarriaJ.VogtM. E. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
EllisR. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, Australia: Research Division, Ministry of Education.
18.
EngleR. A.ConantF. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners’ classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.
19.
FangZ.SchleppegrellM. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
20.
FergusonC. (1994). Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In BiberD.FineganE. (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 15–30). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
GassS. M.SelinkerL. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
GeeJ. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Critical perspectives on literacy and education. London: Falmer Press.
23.
HallidayM. A. K. (2002). On grammar in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday (Vol. 1). London: Continuum.
24.
HallidayM. A. K.MartinJ. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.
25.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
26.
JohnsonM. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
KellyG. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 443–469). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
KellyL. G. (1969). Twenty-five centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
29.
LantolfJ. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
LantolfJ. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109.
31.
LeeO.BuxtonC. A.LewisS.LeRoyK. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 607–636.
32.
LeeO.FraddS. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 12–21.
33.
LemkeJ. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34.
LongM. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
35.
LongM. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de BotK.GinsbergR.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36.
LongM. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 26, 413–468.
37.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
38.
NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
39.
NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (Vol. 13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40.
PicaT. (2008). Task-based teaching and learning. In SpolskyB.HultF. K. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 525–538). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
41.
QuinnH.LeeO.ValdésG. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Understanding Language Initiative at Stanford University (ell.stanford.edu).
42.
RoseberyA. S.WarrenB.ConantF. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 61–94.
43.
ScarcellaR. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Technical Report No. 2003-1, No. 1). Santa Barbara, CA: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
44.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
SnowM. A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In Celce-MurciaM. (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 303–318). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
46.
SolomonJ.RhodesN. C. (1995). Conceptualizing academic language (Research Report No. 15). Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (ED38912)
47.
SternH. H. (1990). Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In HarleyB.AllenP.CumminsJ.SwainM. (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 93 –109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
ValdésG. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 102–132.
49.
WarrenB.RoseberyA. S.ConantF. (1994). Discourse and social practice: Learning science in language minority classrooms. In SpencerD. (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 191–210). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co.
50.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ.BraatenM. (2011). Fostering ambitious pedagogy in novice teachers: The new role of tool-supported analyses of student work. Teachers College Record, 113, 1311–1360.
51.
Wong FillmoreL. (1992). Learning a language from learners. In KramschC.McConnel-GinnetS. (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 46–66). Lexington, MA: Heath.
52.
ZuenglerJ.MillerE. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
