Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Metalanguage in an Explicit Literacy Instruction on Scientific Explanation

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper illustrates the role of metalanguage in an explicit literacy instruction to talk about the forms and functions of scientific genres, particularly the genre of explanation. In the context of science, metalanguage refers to the technical terms for talking about scientific language using words like law, hypothesis, and evidence. Despite many efforts to use literacy strategies to address the challenges of learning scientific language, the conventional genres commonly found in science remain implicit in most science classroom teaching. In order to explicitly discuss the nature of scientific genres and how they are linked to scientific practices, scientific metalanguage provides a potential literacy tool. To illustrate this argument, we draw on a case study where four teachers and their grade 9 students learned how to use a specific type of metalanguage to describe scientific explanation. Analysis of their classroom discourse showed that the use of the metalanguage facilitated explicit communication about the logical sequence, epistemic structure, and validity of scientific explanation. Based on the findings, we discuss the usefulness of metalanguage for teachers and students to describe and analyze scientific genres as well as how these genres are used to construct and communicate scientific knowledge.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Science teachers often make a distinction between describe and explain to their students, whereby “explain” usually requires more elaboration and a higher Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive level. However, such distinction is vague and oversimplified and only emphasizes the level of thinking required, particularly for assessment purpose. It does not delve into the language and social practices that account for the difference between informational report (description) and explanation.

References

  • Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). The assessment of practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 209–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.858496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achinstein, P. (1983). The nature of explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Andringa, S., de Glopper, K., & Hacquebord, H. (2011). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on free written response task performance. Language Learning, 61(3), 868–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00623.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, J., Pearson, D., & Cervetti, G. (2006). Seeds of science/roots of reading. California: The Regents of the University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410208667042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 639–669. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. L., & Concannon, J. P. (2016). Students’ perceptions of vocabulary knowledge and learning in a middle school science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruna, K. R., Vann, R., & Escudero, M. P. (2007). What’s language got to do with it?: A case study of academic language instruction in a high school “English Learner Science” class. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 36–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical & methodological issues. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

  • Denzin, N. K. (2002). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Academic Press.

  • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

  • Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., & Pringle, R. M. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grades 3–8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

  • Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcez, P. M. (2017). Microethnography in the classroom. In K. A. King, Y.-J. Lai, & S. May (Eds.), Research methods in language and education (pp. 435–447). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

  • Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, NJ: NSTA Press.

  • Gee, J. P. (2010). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

  • Gillies, R. M., & Baffour, B. (2017). The effects of teacher-introduced multimodal representations and discourse on students’ task engagement and scientific language during cooperative, inquiry-based science. Instructional Science, 45(4), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9414-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 54–68). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, England: Arnold.

  • Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Science Education, 102(4), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Love, K. (2010). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(4), 338–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (2007). Genre, ideology and intertextuality: A systemic functional perspective. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 2(2), 275–298.

  • Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London, England: Continuum.

  • Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The Sociological Review, 31, 187–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

  • 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 

  • New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 31(9), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., Smith, M. L., Guilbert, S. M., Stange, D. M., Baker, J. J., & Weber, A. C. (2008). Learning to read scientific text: Do elementary school commercial reading programs help? Science Education, 92(5), 765–798. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F. & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction?. Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, A. D., & Elliott, L. J. A. (2020). Truth, success, and faith: Novice teachers’ perceptions of what’s at risk in responsive teaching in science. Science Education, 104(4), 736–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21568.

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(1), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M. C. (2012). Reading for evidence through hybrid adapted primary literature. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), Reading for evidence and interpreting visualizations in mathematics and science education (pp. 41–63). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørvik, G. O., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). “Do books like these have authors?” New roles for text and new demands on students in integrated science-literacy instruction. Science Education, 99(1), 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). London, England: Sage.

  • Tang, K.-S. (2016a). How is disciplinary literacy addressed in the science classrooms? A Singaporean case study. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(3), 220–232.

  • Tang, K.-S. (2016b). Constructing scientific explanations through premise–reasoning–outcome (PRO): An exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1192309

  • Putra, G. B. S., & Tang, K.-S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy instructions on writing scientific explanations: A case study from a chemistry classroom in an all-girls school. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00022c

  • Tang, K.-S., & Danielsson, K. (Eds.). (2018). Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8

  • Tang, K.-S., & Putra, G. B. S. (2018). Infusing literacy into an inquiry instructional model to support students’ construction of scientific explanations. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 281–300). Cham, Switzerland: Springer

  • Tang, K.-S. (2019). The role of language in scaffolding content & language integration in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.00007.tan

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

  • Unsworth, L. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585–609.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Translation newly rev. and edited / by Alex Kozulin ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A., & Jesson, R. (2018). A case study of literacy teaching in six middle- and high-school science classes in New Zealand. In K.-S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 133–147). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  • Wright, K. L., Franks, A. D., Kuo, L.-J., McTigue, E. M., & Serrano, J. (2016). Both theory and practice: Science literacy instruction and theories of reading. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1275–1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9661-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X., Kuo, L.-J., & Jiang, L. (2020). Connecting theory and practice: A systematic review of K-5 science and math literacy instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09957-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. (2018). Commentary on the expanding development of literacy research in science education. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our gratitude to the teachers, students, and colleagues who collaborated in this research project.

Funding

This paper refers to data from the research project “Developing disciplinary literacy pedagogy in the sciences” (OER 48/12 TKS), funded by the Education Research Funding Programme, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. STEM Education Research Group, School of Education, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845, Australia

    Kok-Sing Tang

  2. School of Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia

    Natasha Anne Rappa

Authors
  1. Kok-Sing Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natasha Anne Rappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kok-Sing Tang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, KS., Rappa, N.A. The Role of Metalanguage in an Explicit Literacy Instruction on Scientific Explanation. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 19, 1311–1331 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10121-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10121-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation