Skip to main content

Part of the book series: English Language Education ((ELED,volume 17))

Abstract

Described in this chapter is how science teachers can use communication models to guide their design and implementation of science lessons for ELLs. Taking the form of diagrams that visually depict communicative processes underlying science content instruction, communication models provide instructors with an intuitive and accessible way of critically examining content-language integrated learning. More specifically, we show how two models – repair-and-accommodation and 5R – help science teachers with limited linguistic expertise infuse content learning with additional language acquisition.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do thing with words. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2003). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (1991). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2002). Literacies, identities, and discourses. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. Cecilia Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 159–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn (pp. 76–108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. M. (1987). Language, social comparison, and power. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 350–384). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R., & Oliveira, A. W. (2014). Science language accommodation in elementary school read-alouds. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 577–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64–86). Newbury, CA: House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, U. (2007). The reproduction of social class inequalities through mathematics pedagogies in South African primary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(6), 679–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., Yates, S., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Models of science communication. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 128–146). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leggo, C. (1998). Living un/grammatically in a grammatical world: The pedagogic world of teachers and students. Interchange, 29, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2002). Multimedia semiotics: Genres for science education and scientific literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. Cecilia Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 21–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. l. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 33–67). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W., Meskill, C., Judson, D., Gregory, K., Rogers, P., Imperial, C. J., & Casler-Failing, S. (2015). Language repair strategies in bilingual tutoring of mathematics word problems. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15, 102–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction. In v. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 165–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Street, R. L., & Giles, H. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive approach to language and speech behavior. In M. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 193–226). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Colorado. (2015). PhET interactive simulations. Retrieved from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/chemistry

  • Weinburgh, M. H., & Silva, C. (2012). An instructional theory for english language learners: The 5R model for enhancing academic language development in inquiry-based science. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, & R. Lara-Alecio (Eds.), Handbook of educational theories (pp. 291–301). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinburgh, M. H., Silva, C., Malloy, R., Marshall, J., & Smith, K. (2012). A science lesson or language lesson? Using the 5R instructional model during a unit on soil erosion. Science and Children, 49(9), 72–76.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alandeom W. Oliveira .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Oliveira, A.W., Weinburgh, M.H. (2019). Using Communication Models to Teach ELLs Science. In: de Oliveira, L.C., Obenchain, K.M., Kenney, R.H., Oliveira, A.W. (eds) Teaching the Content Areas to English Language Learners in Secondary Schools. English Language Education, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02245-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02245-7_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02244-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02245-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics