A learning format gaining attention that encourages language acquisition in science is the use of dynamic models as instructional tools. This grounded theory investigates the impact of the dynamic food chain model as an alternative lesson for teaching food chains. The researchers examined the impact of a paper-based activity and a dynamic model activity on 5th grade students’ content knowledge and language development. A total of 96 English learners (ELs) and 62 native English speakers participated. Data were collected using a What I Did/What I Learned reflection and analyzed qualitatively. Results indicate that ELs exceeded native speakers in academic language development and in understanding interconnectedness of organisms. In addition, students engaging in the dynamic model activity expressed more joyful learning than students in the paper-based activity.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Aschbacher, P., & Alonzo, A. (2006). Examining the utility of elementary science notebooks for formative assessment purposes. Educational Assessment, 11(3 & 4), 179–203.
Biffi, D., Hartweg, B., Stewart, M., Patterson, M., Simanek, E., & Weinburgh, M. H. (2016). Engaging students with dynamic models: Peruvian food chain Jenga. Science Scope, 39(5), 51–57.
Bailey, A. L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carlsson, B. (2002). Ecological understanding 1: Ways of experiencing photosynthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 681–699.
Carrier, K. (2005). Supporting science learning through science literacy objectives for English language learners. Science Activities, 42(2), 5–11.
Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.
Coll, R., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.
Concario, M. (2016). Encouraging students to language in the science classroom. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 126–137.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for, developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire (1st ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Echevarria, J., & Colburn, A. (2006). Designing lessons: Inquiry approach to science using the SIOP Model. In A. Lathman & D. Crowther (Eds.), Science for English language learners (pp. 95–108). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Eilam, B. (2012). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model. Instructional Science, 40(2), 213–239 213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9175-4.
Fulp, S. L. (2002). Status of elementary school science teaching. Retrieved on August 16, 2016 from the Horizon Research website: http://2000survery.horizon-research.com/reports/elem_science/elem_science.pdf.
Gallegos, L., Jerezano, M. E., & Flores, F. (1994). Preconceptions and relations used by children in the construction of food chains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 259–272.
Galvin, E. (2015). To determine and overcome misconceptions in biology held by students and educators in the Irish schooling system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Limerick, Limerick.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gibbons, B. (2003). Supporting elementary science education for English learners: A constructivist evaluation instrument. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 371–380.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.
Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16–29.
Harbour, K., Evanovich, L., Sweigart, C., & Hughes, L. (2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2014.919136.
Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students’ systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 22–28.
Hokayem, H., & Gotwals, A. W. (2016). Early elementary students’ understanding of complex ecosystems: A learning progression approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1524–1545.
Hokayem, H., Gotwals, A.W. & Weinburgh, M. H. (2014). The methods of developing a learning progression for systemic reasoning. In Berlin, D. F. & White, A. L. (Eds.). Initiatives in mathematics and science education with global implications (pp. 63-72). Columbus, OH: International Consortium for Research in Science and Mathematics Education.
Hokayem, H., Ma, J., & Jin, H. (2015). A learning progression for feedback loop reasoning for feedback loop reasoning at the lower elementary level. Journal of Biological Education, 49, 246–260.
Hokayem, H., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Engaging fifth graders in scientific modeling to learn evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 49–72.
Huerta, M., & Jackson, J. (2010). Connecting literacy and science to increase achievement for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0402-4.
Johnson, C. C. (2007). Effective science teaching, professional development and no child left behind: Barriers, dilemmas, and reality. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 133–136.
Jordan, R. C., Brooks, W. R., Hmelo-Silver, C., Eberbach, C., & Sinha, S. (2014). Balancing broad ideas with context: An evaluation of student accuracy in describing ecosystem processes after a system-level intervention. Journal of Biological Education, 48(2), 57–62.
Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40–44.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s ideas about ecology 1: Theoretical background, design, and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 721–732.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s ideas about ecology 2: Ideas found in children age 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 19–34.
Lee, O., Luykx, A., Buxton, C., & Shaver, A. (2007). The challenge in altering elementary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction. Journal of research in Science Training, 44(9), 1269–1291.
Lee, O., Quin, H., & Valdes, G. (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 Mathematic. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x13480524.
Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 33–47). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
MacDonald, R., Miller, E., & Lord, S. (2017). Doing and talking science: Engaging ELs in the discourse of science and engineering practice. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 179–197). The Netherlands: Springer Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9_10.
Medina-Jerez, W., Clark, D., Medina, A., & Ramirez-Marin, F. (2007). Science for ELLs: Rethinking our approach. The Science Teacher, 74(3), 52–56.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Oliveira, A. W., & Weinburgh, M. H. (2017). Introduction: Science teacher preparation in language and content. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 1–21). London: Springer.
Reiner, M., & Eilam, B. (2001). Conceptual classroom environment: A system view of learning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 551–568.
Roessingh, H., & Kover, P. (2003). Variability of ESL learners’ acquisition of cognitive academic language proficiency: What can we learn from achievement measures? TESL Canada Journal, 21(1), 1–21.
Roessingh, H., Kover, P., & Watt, D. (2005). Developing cognitive academic language proficiency: The journey. TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 1–27.
Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., . . . Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(6), 632–654.
Smith, E. (2009). A conceptual change model of learning science. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 43–64). New York, NY: Routledge.
Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(1), 450–452.
Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic vocabulary for English language learners through science content: A formative experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711003604468.
Treagust, D. F. (1993). The evolution of an approach for using analogies in teaching and learning science. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 293–301.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamilia, T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2017). The condition of education 2017 (2017–144). Retrieved on May 21, 2018 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp.
Wallis, J. (2013). A call to teachers: Don’t forget the joy. Education Week, 3(8), 27.
Weinburgh, M. H., & Silva, C. (2011). Math, science, and models. Science & Children, 48(10), 38–42.
Wilson, S., Schweingruber, H., & Nielsen, N. (Eds.). (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts (pp. 47–68). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved on November 21, 2016 from https://www.nap.edu/read/21836/chapter/5#49.
About this article
Cite this article
Pearce, E., Stewart, M., Malkoc, U. et al. Utilizing a Dynamic Model of Food Chains to Enhance English Learners’ Science Knowledge and Language Construction. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 887–901 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10004-5
- English as a second/additional language
- English learners
- Food chains