Abstract
This study is an attempt to examine the use of linguistic resources by primary science students so as to understand the conceptual and language demands encountered by them when constructing written explanations. The students’ written explanations and the instructional language (whole-class discussion and textbook) employed over the topic, the life cycle of plants, in four grade 4 classrooms (age 10) taught by three teachers constitute the data for this study. Students’ written explanations were subjected to a combination of content and linguistic analysis. The linguistic analysis was conducted using selected analytical tools from the systemic functional linguistics framework. A diversity of linguistic resources and meanings were identified from the students’ explanations, which reveal the extent to which the students were able to employ linguistic resources to construct written scientific explanations and the challenges involved. Both content and linguistic analyses also illuminate patterns of language use that are significant for realising scientific meanings. Finally, a comparison is made in the use of linguistic resources between the students’ explanations and the instructional language to highlight possible links. This comparison reveals that the teachers’ expectations of the students’ written explanations were seldom reflected in their oral questioning or made explicit during the instruction. The findings of this study suggest that a focus on conceptual development is not sufficient in itself to foster students’ ability to construct explanations. Pedagogical implications involving the support needed by primary students to construct scientific explanations are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bloome, D., & Clark, C. (2006). Discourse-in-use. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaite, & E. Grace (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 227–241). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Christie, F. (2005). Speech and writing, (Chapter 4). In F. Christie (Ed.), Language education in the primary years (pp. 48–63). Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.
Driver, R., & Project, L. N. C. S. S. (1994). Making Sense of Secondary Science: research into Children’s Ideas. London; New York: Routledge.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press and Lederman, N. G.
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: a systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.
Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262–273.
Frändberg, B., Lincoln, P., & Wallin, A. (2013). Linguistic resources used in Grade 8 students’ submicro level explanations — Science items from TIMSS 2007. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2387–2406.
Gardner, P. L. (1980). The identification of specific difficulties with logical connectives in science among secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(3), 223–229.
Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: students, teachers and researchers. London: Continuum.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: a study with Year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186–210.
Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72(1), 41–49.
Jewell, N. (2002). Examining children’s models of seed. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 116–122.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: an analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044–1061.
Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls’ preferences for animals or plants: a simple ‘head-to-head’ comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 95–99.
Kwa, S. H., & Teo-Gwan, W. L. (2012). My Pals are here! Science: cycles (Primary 3 and 4). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Education.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Pub. Corp.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case Study research in education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Metz, K. (1991). Development of explanation: incremental and fundamental change in children’s physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 785–798.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Peker, D., & Wallace, C. S. (2011). Characterizing high school students’ written explanations in biology laboratories. Research in Science Education, 41, 169–191.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 179–201.
Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: a functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Conceptual knowledge in talk and text: what does it take to understand a science question? Instructional Science, 29, 213–236.
Schussler, E. E. (2008). From flowers to fruits: how children’s books represent plant reproduction. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1677–1696.
Seah, L. H. (2011). Lexicogrammatical analysis of science classroom language: possibilities and limitations. unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E. (2011). Understanding students' language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources. Science Education, 95(5), 852-876. doi:10.1002/sce.20448
Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E. (2013). Understanding the language demands on science students from an integrated science and language perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 952-973. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.832003
Solomon, J. (1986). Children’s explanations. Oxford Review of Education, 12(1), 41–51.
Stake, R. (1988). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In R. M. Jaeger, & L. S. Shulman, & American Educational Research Association. (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 253–276). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Taylor, S. (2001). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In S. Taylor, M. Wetherell, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: a guide for analysis (pp. 5–48). London: Sage.
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.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean - scientific speaking: apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–194). London: Cassell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Wells, G. (1994). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 6(1), 41–90.
Wong, E. D. (1996). Students’ scientific explanations and the contexts in which they occur. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 495–509.
Zuzovsky, R., & Tamir, P. (1999). Growth patterns in students’ ability to supply scientific explanations: findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study in Israel. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1101–1121.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Education, Singapore (OER 65/12 SLH). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position, policy or endorsement of the funding agency. The author is grateful to the teachers and students who participated in this study and would also like to acknowledge the contribution of research team member Ms Teresa Ong for her help with collecting the data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seah, L.H. Understanding the Conceptual and Language Challenges Encountered by Grade 4 Students When Writing Scientific Explanations. Res Sci Educ 46, 413–437 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9464-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9464-z