Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the Effectiveness of an Academic Language Planning Organizer as a Tool for Planning Science Academic Language Instruction and Supports

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

To engage in the practices of science, students must have a strong command of science academic language. However, content area teachers often make academic language an incidental part of their lesson planning, which leads to missed opportunities to enhance students’ language development. To support pre-service elementary science teachers (PSTs) in making language planning an explicit part of their science lessons, we created the Academic Language Planning Organizer (ALPO). The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the ALPO on two levels: first, by examining participants’ interactions with the ALPO as they identified academic language features, objectives and supports; and second, by exploring the ways that participants translated identified language supports to planned science activities. Findings indicated that, when using the ALPO, PSTs identified clear language functions and relevant vocabulary terms, and also frequently developed clear, observable and measurable language objectives. When lesson planning, PSTs were largely successful in translating previously identified language supports to their lesson plans, and often planned additional language supports beyond what was required. We also found, however, that the ALPO did not meet its intended use in supporting PSTs in identifying discourse and syntax demands associated with specific academic language functions, suggesting that revisions to the ALPO could better support PSTs in identifying these academic language demands. Implications for supporting PSTs’ planning for and scaffolding of science academic language use are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achieve, Inc. (2015). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org

  • Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18, 118–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., LaFramenta, C., & Ong, C. (2004). Towards the characterization of academic language in upper elementary classrooms. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigelow, M. (2010). Learning to plan for a focus on form in CBI: The role of teacher knowledge and teaching context. In J. Davies (Ed.), World language teacher education: Transitions and challenges in the twenty-first century (pp. 35–56). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigelow, M., Ranney, S., & Dahlman, A. (2006). Keeping the language focus in content-based ESL instruction through proactive curriculum-planning. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 24, 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 529–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. A., & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92, 708–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, C. A., & Lee, O. (2014). English learners in science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 204–222). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Garder, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Report prepared for the Office of Science Education. National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

  • Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural approach. In G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 227–258). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2010). Making content comprehensible to elementary English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–54). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co., Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Unpacking the language purpose: Vocabulary, structure, and function. TESOL Journal, 1, 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. (2008). Essay: What is academic language? In A. S. Rosebery & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students’ strengths (pp. 57–70). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, K. G. (2015). Examining language expectations and supports during elementary science instruction. In Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Chicago, IL.

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucero, A. (2012). Demands and opportunities: Analyzing academic language in a first grade dual language program. Linguistics and Education, 23, 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, S., Pritchard, R., & Zwiers, J. (2012). Identifying academic language demands in support of the common core standards. ASCD Express, 7(17). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol7/717-ohara.aspx.

  • Participation Map. (2016). Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/state-policy.

  • Ranney, S. (2012). Defining and teaching academic language: Developments in K-12 ESL. Linguistics and Language Compass, 6, 560–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regalla, M. (2012). Language objectives: More than just vocabulary. TESOL Journal, 3(2), 210–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. J. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 409–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5977), 450–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity [SCALE]. (2015). Elementary mathematics handbook. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoller, F. L. (2008). Content-based instruction. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1163–1174). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alceio, R., Guerro, C., Fan, Y., & Huerta, M. (2014). A randomized study of a literacy-integrated science intervention for low-socio-economic status middle school students: Findings from first-year implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2083–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinburgh, M., Silva, C., Smith, K. H., Groulx, J., & Nettles, J. (2014). The intersection of inquiry-based science and language: Preparing teachers for ELL classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 519–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting common core standards across disciplines (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. STEM Education Center, University of Minnesota, 1954 Buford Ave., St. Paul, MN, 55018, USA

    Karl G. Jung & Julie C. Brown

Authors
  1. Karl G. Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie C. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karl G. Jung.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Original Academic Language Planning Organizer (ALPO)

figure a

Appendix 2: Revised Academic Language Planning Organizer (ALPO)

figure b

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, K.G., Brown, J.C. Examining the Effectiveness of an Academic Language Planning Organizer as a Tool for Planning Science Academic Language Instruction and Supports. J Sci Teacher Educ 27, 847–872 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9491-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9491-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation