Activating Bilingual English Language Learners’ Strengths in Science: The Pedagogy of Argument Driven Inquiry (ADI)

  • Rebecca M. CallahanEmail author
  • Victor Sampson
  • Stephanie Rivale
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 17)


Bilingual English Language Learner (ELL) students need more opportunities to learn how to read, write, and discuss science as they learn to use the core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and practices of science to develop explanations for natural phenomena or to solve problems. This chapter describes how teachers can use the Argument Driven Inquiry (ADI) instructional approach to provide bilingual ELL students with opportunities to participate in the practices of science while strengthening both their English and scientific literacy skills. This type of language-intensive instructional approach can also help bilingual ELL students develop and maintain science identities.


  1. Alim, H. S., Rickford, J. R., & Ball, A. F. (2016). Raciolinguistics: How language shapes our ideas about race. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning). In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 3–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Francis, D. J., Powell, J., Moore, S., & Haynes, E. F. (2014). Helping ELLs meet the common core state standards for literacy in science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 54–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). Number and growth of students in US schools in need of English instruction. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Bunch, G. C. (2009). “Going up there”: Challenges and opportunities for language minority students during a mainstream classroom speech event. Linguistics and Education, 20(2), 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calderón, M. E., Slavin, R. E., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callahan, R. M., & Shifrer, D. (2012). High School ESL placement: Practice, policy and effects on achievement. In Y. Kanno & L. Harklau (Eds.), Linguistic minority students go to college: Preparation, access, and persistence (pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Crandall, J., Jaramillo, A., Olsen, L., & Peyton, J. K. (2002). Using cognitive strategies to develop English language and literacy. Washington, DC: Eric Digest.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S.-W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diaz-Rico, L. T. (2013). The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A complete k-12 reference guide. Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  11. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durán, R. P. (2008). Assessing English-language learners’ achievement. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 292–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.Google Scholar
  14. Fry, R. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  16. Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know--and don’t yet know--about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–11.Google Scholar
  17. Gonsalves, A. J. (2014). “Physics and the girly girl—There is a contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 503–521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  20. Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurie, A. H., & Callahan, R. M. (in press). Integration as perpetuation: Learning from race evasive approaches to ESL program reform. Teachers College Record Google Scholar
  22. Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Integrating science and English proficiency for English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(1), 36–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core ctate ctandards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Martin, A. D. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 453–474). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). Something to shoot for: A systemic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, X., & Crawford, B. A. (2011). Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: Merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 525–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Motha, S. (2014). Race, empire, and English language teaching: Creating responsible and ethical anti-racist practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. (2011). Racial and ethnic minority student success in STEM education (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 36(6)). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 123–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riegle-Crumb, C., & King, B. (2010). Questioning a white male advantage in STEM: Examining disparities in college major. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 656–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: American community survey reports (Vol. ACS-22). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  35. Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Students’ conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Shanahan, C. (2004). Better textbooks, better readers and writers. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  39. Valdés, G., Kibler, A., & Walqui, A. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Interational Association.Google Scholar
  40. Varelas, M., Martin, D. B., & Kane, J. M. (2012). Content learning and identity construction: A framework to strengthen African American students’ mathematics and science learning in urban elementary schools. Human Development, 55(5–6), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wallace, C., Hand, B., & Yang, E.-M. (2005). The science writing heuristic: Using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca M. Callahan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Victor Sampson
    • 2
  • Stephanie Rivale
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership & Policy, Population Research CenterUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum & Instruction; Center for STEM Education, College of EducationUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  3. 3.College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas, San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations