Advertisement

Using Communication Models to Teach ELLs Science

  • Alandeom W. OliveiraEmail author
  • Molly H. Weinburgh
Chapter
Part of the English Language Education book series (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.

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do thing with words. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Ellis, R. (1991). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Glass, R., & Oliveira, A. W. (2014). Science language accommodation in elementary school read-alouds. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 577–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Leggo, C. (1998). Living un/grammatically in a grammatical world: The pedagogic world of teachers and students. Interchange, 29, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21, 205–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. University of Colorado. (2015). PhET interactive simulations. Retrieved from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/chemistry
  25. 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
  26. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Theory and Practice DepartmentState University of New York at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.William L. & Betty F. Adams Chair of Education, Andrews Institute of Mathematics & Science EducationTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations