Content uploaded by Fang Yu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fang Yu on Sep 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Multiple Case Study of Adolescent English Language Learners’ Socialization into the Written
Discourse of Science
Fang Yu
University at Albany
Kristen Wilcox
University at Albany
1
Introduction
The recently published Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasize that literacy skills
are critical to building knowledge in science. These standards emphasize developing students’
capacities to understand the nature of evidence used; pay attention to precision and detail; make
and assess arguments; synthesize complex information; and follow detailed procedures and
accounts of events and concepts (NGSS, 2013). These standards also correspond with the new
shifts in Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for literacy, which highlight writing in the core
disciplines – including science (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Prior studies on science achievement indicate American students perform relatively
poorly on science measures and these measures indicate persistent achievement gaps between
native English speakers (NESs) and English learners (ELs) (Lee, 2011). The National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reports that the average score of EL students in
science is 106, 48 points lower than their English native peers’ in the year of 2011 (NAEP,
2011). Further, NAEP data show that the gap is partially attributed to ELs’ insufficient academic
language proficiency and their lack of human and financial resources. It suggests that test
accommodations should be adopted to ensure that “all students should have the opportunity to
demonstrate their knowledge of the concepts and ideas that the NAEP Science Assessment is
intended to measure” (p. 130). This achievement gap in science is a social justice issue as the
United States, like many other industrialized nations, educates increasingly large numbers of ELs
who have the potential to contribute to science in a variety of ways, yet may receive inequitable
opportunities to develop advanced competencies in science discourse.
2
The two challenges for EL students highlighted in the NAEP report are consonant with
literature on linguistic minority students’ science learning experiences (Campbell, Hombo, &
Mazzeo, 2000; Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1997; Lee, 2011). Lee argues that ELs may not
have “equitable learning opportunities” as NESs because of their different cultural and linguistic
backgrounds. She further points out that the current educational policy and practice context does
not support ELs' science learning, as it "severely limits subject area instruction in languages
other than English" (p. 493). Therefore, English proficiency becomes a prerequisite for science
learning, and thereby limits ELs’ opportunities to develop scientific knowledge.
Although many studies on ELs’ science learning highlight the importance of improving
general language proficiency, research on developing ELs’ expertise in scientific discourse
specifically is scant. According to Lemke (1990), scientific discourse comprises not only the
semantic resources of language, but also the attitudes and values embedded in the language
(Lemke, 1990). Similarly, Martin (1993) asserts that scientific writing differs markedly from
everyday language in terms of its unique disciplinary lexicon, grammar, and rhetorical structure.
He suggests that scientific discourse should be explicitly taught to novice learners so as to build
awareness of its distinct features. For ELs to become competent in the discourse of science, they
need more than basic language proficiency: They need instruction in science discourse
encompassing scientific inquiry, explanation, and argumentation – the skills that are emphasized
in both the CCSS and the NGSS.
Developing Scientific Discourse through Writing
A growing body of literature suggests that writing, as a kind of social activity, can be used as an
efficient tool to socialize learners into particular discourse communities (Graham & Hebert,
2010; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Keys, 1998; Langer, 1995; Langer & Applebee, 1987;
3
MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006; O’Neill, 2001; Rijlaarsdam et al., 2006). Based on the
premise of “learning language” and “learning through language”, Martin (1993) identifies 21
features of child language development and claims that language “functions as the “signifier for
higher level systems of meaning such as scientific theories” (p. 113). Extended from this
language-based learning theory, Martin and Halliday (1993) focus on the discipline-specific
features of science writing, which also represent the values, methods, purposes, and “hidden
rules” in science. They argue that novice learners should gain their expertise in this particular
written discourse through constant analysis, imitation, and practice of the conventional scientific
genres.
In the study of a group of high school students, O’Neil (2001) suggested that students
should be explicitly engaged in joining the scientific community of practice through writing in
such genres as a persuasive essay, and engaging in email conversations with professional science
writers in order to learn to engage critically with a scientific audience. Likewise, through
reviewing the history and theoretical paradigms associated with writing to learn in science, Keys
(1999) reveals that the unique features of writing in transitional scientific genres promote
reflection and the production of new knowledge. Keys concludes that “the requirements for
logical presentation, linear organization, explicitness in connections between concepts, and
coherence in conventional scientific genres can foster deep thinking about science” (p. 122).
Nevertheless, research that focuses on ELs’ experience of science writing practice is
scant, even though these students are confronted with greater challenges in engaging in the
community of school science than their NES peers. One of the major challenges is attributed to
discontinuity between the prior linguistic and cultural knowledge of ELs and the practices of
Western science (Lee, 2005, p. 496). Unfortunately, science instruction is often undertaken
4
exclusively in English, and that is unsupportive for young EL science learners to be smoothly
socialized into oral and written discourse in science (Lee, 2005). In a study of a secondary ESL
science class, Huang (2004) identifies that teachers’ scaffolding, mentoring, and instructional
practices play an important role in mitigating the initial conflicts between EL students’ original
and the target ways of thinking and writing in science. From a perspective of culture as
intellectual resource, Hammond (2001) proposes a community-based science project that helps to
make scientific knowledge accessible to linguistic minority students. Through engaging in the
project, ELs learn to speak, think, and act as members of the community of school science.
With an awareness of ELs’ particular challenges and special needs, this study sought to
understand the “context of situation” of three adolescent ELs who were successfully socialized
into science discourse as evidenced in their writings. The study’s overarching question was: How
are more successful adolescent ELs socialized into science discourse? The study focused on the
following research questions: What linguistic resources of science discourse were ELs exposed
to in their science classrooms? What aspects of advanced science discourse were evident in their
writings?
L2 Language Socialization into Academic Discourse
This study draws upon language socialization theory (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011) as it explains
how children and other novices apprehend and enact new competencies in the “context of
situation” (p. 1). Through the lens of language socialization theory, worldviews, ideologies, and
values are seen as embedded in interactions between novices and experts who are more
proficient in the language and cultural practices of scientists. As a lifespan process beginning
from the existence of an individual, children start to be socialized into a particular social
community through engaging in a variety of community practices with guidance of community
5
members such as their caretakers (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). Grounded in Vygotsky’s (1986)
work Thought and Language, language socialization theory stresses that language as well as
other semiotic forms serve to mediate the development and transformation of identity as novice
to expert. Ochs and Schieffelin (1986) expound on this idea stating that language socialization
embraces “socialization through the use of language and socialization to use language” (p. 163).
From this perspective, language is both the mediator and the product of one’s socialization into a
particular discourse community. This becomes even more complex for ELs because multiple
languages and various norms and principles encapsulated in these languages are involved in the
apprenticeship process.
In the investigation of L2 acquisition, Ellis (1997) identifies a variety of factors that
influence the novices’ actual attainment of a language, such as age at which they start to learn the
language, the residence time, intensity, effectiveness of instruction, and their motivation and
opportunities to practice it. The learners’ self-investment and agency plays a significant role in
the socialization process, as “some aspiring to high levels of proficiency and community
engagement and others seeking functional, but relatively low levels depending on their
circumstances” (Duff, 2014, p. 4). Other challenges of L2 socialization include L2 learners’
complex histories of prior language exposure, learning experience, and multiple identities – all of
these can be different from, and even conflict with the target language and its embedded cultures
and principles.
The complexity of L2 socialization is magnified in academic settings, where language
use is very different from daily practice in terms of disciplinary lexicon, grammar, rhetorical
structure, and genre (Duff, 2010; Martin, 1999). A salient feature of academic discourse
socialization that differentiates it from socialization in daily life and at workplace is that the
6
academic context is often “multimodal, multilingual, and highly intertextual” (Duff, 2010). This
is a double-edged sword situation for young EL students. On the one hand, it offers EL novices a
variety of linguistic sources and socialization practices that may facilitate their acquisition of
academic discourse. This is especially true in the scientific discourse because of its particular
learning context and nature of epistemology. By examining the language, learning, and values of
science, Lemke (1990) proposes a term “semiotic hybrid” to convey the idea that scientific
concepts are presented, communicated, and delivered in multiple modes such as verbal, visual,
mathematical, and actional. Each of the modes and the interaction between different modes make
it possible for science learners to construct meaning of content, principle, and discourse in the
community of science (Marquez, Izquierdo, & Espinet, 2006).
On the other hand, these semiotic forms and practices that promote NES learners’ progress
in acquiring scientific discourse may cause resistance and contestation in the socialization
process of ELs. In a study of eight dedicated-ESL classes, Talmy (2008) foregrounds
contingency and multidirectionality in the language socialization process by exploring EL
students’ opposition to participating in the mainstream acts, stances, and activities of Western
school culture. The ELs in this study adhered to their original academic values and learning
practices, and resisted to be assimilated into the new academic discourse or to be assigned a new
identity.
Despite ELs’ possible resistance to a new culture and language, their limited academic
English proficiency can be another challenge for socialization. Lee (2011) reminds science
educators that when they use a variety of semiotic forms to mediate their NES students to
communicate and think in science, the same tools may become an extra workload to their EL
students because of the extra information input.
7
Methods
As the language socialization process is a holistic one, it is particularly important to analyze the
contextual conditions within which a phenomenon is situated, as contexts are always relevant to,
and sometimes are the phenomenon of interest themselves (Yin, 2009; Baxter & Jack, 2008). For
this reason this study used a multiple case design drawing on a variety of data sources.
This study emerged from a prior national study (Wilcox, Yu, & Nachowitz, 2015)
investigating the qualities of adolescents’ science writing. The prior study found that NESs’
writing generally reflected a higher level of complexity in terms of explanation and
argumentation than ELs’. Rather than looking for the cases that further proved this pattern, the
current study purposely selected “counter-cases” that offered an explanation of more successful
ELs’ socialization into advanced science discourse (Miles, Humberman, & Saldana, 2014).
Sample
Two criteria applied in the selection procedure: (1) the EL had at least one NES peer who was in
the same school context with whom he/she could be compared; and 2) the ELs’ writing reflected
a higher level of complexity than the writing of his/her NES peer’s. Three ELs, two from Texas
and one from New York, were selected from the larger sample. Participants’ characteristics are
displayed in Table 1.
Table 1
Participants’ Characteristics
Julio1
Louis
Chin
State
TX
TX
NY
School
Garber
Garber
Bettina
1
All student and school names are pseudonyms
8
Grade
6th
8th
10th
No. of Writing Pieces
14
6
27
Levels of Writing Quality
1.4
1.48
1.66
The unit of analysis for this study was school rather than individual student in the larger study as
the study sought to understand the “context of situation” where students received writing
instruction and practice.
The three participants were from two schools, Garber Middle School in the State of
Texas, and Bettina High School in the State of New York . Garber MS is a higher-performing
public school in an urban school district in Texas. It served approximately 700 students in
Grades 6th through 8th , with demographics of 60% White, 20% Hispanic, 15% Asian, and 5%
African American. Although the number of EL students was small (about 5%), Garber put an
emphasis on serving disadvantaged students by offering individual tutorials to them. Moreover,
Garber MS was part of a local science collaborative, and it provided high-intensity professional
development to pre-K-12 teachers of science and mathematics (Nachowitz, 2013). The two focal
students from Garber were Julio and Louis, 6th and 8th graders respectively.
The population of Bettina HS in New York was mainly White middle class, with a small
number of EL students. Bettina devised and implemented their own benchmark data system, to
track every student’s performance and ensure their success in state exams. Analogous to Garber
MS, Bettina aimed to provide equal learning opportunities to all students. Students of a variety
levels of academic performance were placed in heterogeneous classes for the sake of promoting
peer-interaction. The third participant in this study was Chin, a 10th grader studying at Bettina.
9
Multiple data sources were collected and analyzed in this study including student,
teacher, and administrator interviews, classroom field notes, researchers’ memos, and
documents. Data were analyzed in a four-step process using grounded theory strategies
(Charmaz, 2006). NVivo 10 was utilized in the first coding phase to generate provisional codes.
Constant comparative methods and memo-writing (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) were also used to
check the coherence and validity of the provisional codes. Axial coding was used to collapse the
26 provisional codes (e.g. GWA: General writing attitude) (see Appendix A) into eight major
categories: Student Agency (GWA, SWA, VSW, SEG); Student Strategies; (SWS, SWPR,
GWS); School/teacher Expectations (SG, STG, ESW); Science Writing Related Activities
(GWP, SWP, SWAM, SCP, STP, SAD, EP); Supports for Science Writing (PI, TS, SSSW);
Science Learning Resources; (TUS, STM, SAO); General School Features (CRS, SDI, SF).
Relationships between the major categories were mapped in the theoretical coding phase.
Finally, cross-case analysis (Yin, 2009) was conducted to identify similarities and differences
across cases.
Findings
As will be discussed next, two characteristics of the context were identified as relating to the
more successful ELs’ development of advanced science discourse: Engagement through multiple
modalities and interactive socializing classroom practices.
Multimodal Resources
In response to the first research question: What linguistic resources of science discourse were
ELs exposed to in their science classrooms? Multiple modalities of sight, hearing, touch, and
motor actions were identified as salient features of the science learning environment in the
10
schools where the three focal ELs studied. Students were exposed to linguistic resources in the
form of text as well as other symbolic representations, like drawings, diagrams, gestures, videos,
etc. For example, in an Earth Science class, students were instructed to watch a video on rock
formations for an intuitive understanding of this topic. When they did short-answer questions on
worksheet, the teacher was constantly reminding them of the information from the video,
encouraging them to connect what they watched to what they wrote.
In the interview with Julio, the 6th grader from Garber discussed one of his “least favorite
writing assignment”—a rainforest project (Student Interview, 2009). He disliked it because it
was “time-consuming and required a lot of work” (Student Interview, 2009). To complete this
project, Julio had to “write a ton of notes” (Student Interview, 2009) on rainforest, and to learn a
lot of new terms like “deforestation”. Then, he was instructed to choose a forest animal from the
list provided by his teacher, and to seek further information on this animal from “books and the
internet and anything we could find research out of it” (Student Interview, 2009). When all
necessary knowledge and information was accumulated, Julio was guided by his science teacher
to write an essay on his research in a structure of hypothesis, topic, evidence, findings, and
conclusion. Finally, students were encouraged to use Windows Media or PowerPoint to share
their research findings with the whole class.
This Rain Forest project represented a process of doing real scientific research. Although
the requirements were a little bit too high a 6th grader, teacher’s guidance and multiple resources
of linguistic input (notes, handouts, books, internet etc.) well prepared Julio to complete the final
writing product. This project depicted a successful scenario of how teacher used multimodal
resources to help a 6th grade EL to understand and acquire complex scientific knowledge, despite
of his undeveloped skills in English language and science discourse (Shein, 2012).
11
As another example, in Bettina HS, a Biology teacher indicated that he was willing to
provide any opportunity for students to be creative and have fun in class. He invited students to
alter popular song lyrics and replace them with Biology terms. This practice resonates with
findings of some scholars (Hand, Lawrence, & Yore, 2010; Lemke, 1990; Prain, 2006) that note
the importance of connecting emerging science content knowledge and technical vocabulary to
students’ past experiences and everyday language.
Another characteristic of the selected ELs’ instructional context is an emphasis on
technology use in scientific writing. Educators in both schools (Garber & Bettina) used
technology to support multiple modalities and multiple sources of information delivery. Both the
students and the science teachers reported that they often used internet to research information or
simulate scientific phenomena. It is worth noting that the science teachers from both schools
would use real research articles as reading material. In this way, students were not constrained to
static “knowledge-out-of-context”, but had the opportunity to be exposed to dynamic
“knowledge-in-action” which was closely related to the real world and recommended in the
research literature (see Applebee, 1996).
Socializing Practices
To address the second research question (What aspects of advanced science discourse were
evident in their writings?), three patterns were identified. First, writing was not implemented as a
single activity in the science classes at the two schools. Rather, a series of pre- and post-writing
practices were also implemented to support students’ writing. Students would participate in
teacher-guided discussions to brainstorm topics and exchange ideas for their writing projects. In
some cases, they would read textbooks, scientific articles or other students’ writing samples to
get the idea of what they were expected to write.
12
For example, in a biology class in Bettina, students were required to read handouts aloud
in round robin, and then to respond to Essential Thought questions on worksheet. Their answers
to these questions served as a source of reference for their following writing task. When students
finished their writing, the science teacher then would discuss and review the writing work with
the whole class, and “critically point out the places that need to be improved” (Teacher
Interview, April 28, 2009). In this way, students would be able to constantly review the target
knowledge, share and reorganize their ideas, and finally enhance their comprehension and
conceptualization of science content and ways of communicating it.
Another initiative in Bettina HS was an interdisciplinary writing project, and that project
engaged students in a series of writing-related activities. The biology teacher collaborated with
the ELA teacher at the same grade level to guide students read the Life of Pi – a book contained a
lot of science knowledge, like animal behavior, brain physiology. “They [teachers] tried to wave
that flag…and celebrate cross-curricular study”, noted the Science Department Chair, indicating
a support from the school administrators for the cross-disciplinary writing project (Administrator
Interview, April 27, 2009). In this semester-long project, students were required to finish tasks
including reading the book, selecting relevant quotes, analyzing scientific knowledge from the
book, and producing reading reflections.
Teacher’s scaffolding and peer-interaction occurred throughout. Teachers offered
detailed writing instructions, goals, and timelines, along with the handouts (e.g. list of
terminology) and other resources (e.g. suggested reading materials) for students to refer to when
completing their writing task. In addition to prompts, teachers explicitly taught students basic
writing skills (e.g., organizing ideas and proofreading) as well as for science writing such as
constructing hypothesis and conclusion. Teachers also provided feedback to critically point out
13
strengths and weaknesses in their writing. This whole process of teachers’ involvement
represents an apprenticeship learning model, where novice learners can observe, imitate, and
practice in supervised-participation in social activities.
Although the amount of ELL students was quite small at both schools, teachers were
aware of students’ special needs and various levels of literacy proficiency. For example, Julio
regularly participated in an after-school program, which offered him individual tutorial for
science learning. At Chin’s school, teachers dedicated extra time and support to the students who
needed individual assistance in a form of final “activity block” – a group of teachers from all
disciplines rotated to help students with their academic work after school on daily basis. In
science class, teachers purposely set up different learning goals for individual students, and
avoided “random assigning” of scientific readings, since they took students’ personal
backgrounds and needs into consideration.
Active interactions with peers was another integral part of the focal students’
socialization into scientific discourse. According to Duff (2010), social process, negotiation, and
interaction is placed as the premise of discourse socialization. Both the ELs and the NESs gained
expertise through constant group discussion and collaboration. Students in the two schools were
encourage to negotiate meanings of scientific knowledge with their peers, and challenged each
other’s solutions to problems. A substantial amount of pair and group work were observed, like
brainstorming, sharing writing, peer-grading and quizzing, etc.. The science department chair in
Bettina emphasized on the importance of peer-interaction as, “the kids are grouped by being
totally blended…I think it helps kids that are struggling. They get to see how other kids are doing
it – better role models. They’re exposed more”. (Administration Interview, April 27, 2009)
14
A unique characteristic of the writing context in Bettina HS was a strong emphasis on test
preparation, as writing in science was required in the New York State Regent and AP exams.
Nevertheless, science teachers avoided overstressed on the requirements of state exams at the
cost of their own teaching goals and students’ specific needs. Rather, they wisely incorporated
the State exam requirements into their long-term teaching goals, and prepared students from
cradle to career – “continuing on in science”, in a science teacher’s word. (Teacher Interview,
April 28, 2009). Science teachers at Bettina used AP exams as a supplementary tool to train their
students to “read, understand, and be used to the timeline [of writing]” (Teacher Interview, April
28, 2009) – or in other words, learn to be a member in the community of science. It shows that
preparation for standardized test does not necessarily conflict with student authentic intellectual
growth, if with teachers’ careful and considerate rapport (Newmann, Bryk & Nagaoka, 2001).
Conclusions
By investigating the instructional context of three ELs’ successful socialization into
science discourse this study revealed the value of multimodal linguistic resources and interactive
socializing classroom practices that facilitated the focal ELs achievement in science writing.
These results are consonant with the Common Core State Standards for Science and
Technology subjects. For example, one of the standards require students to be able to “translate
quantitative or technical information expressed in words in a text into visual form (e.g., a table or
chart) and translate information expressed visually or mathematically (e.g., in an equation) into
words.” (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2012). In this study, multimodal resources of
knowledge input avoided the situation that English proficiency was a prerequisite for science
learning (Lee, 2005), and therefore, allowed alternative access for the three EL participants to
15
understand, acquire, conceptualize, and communicate scientific knowledge, despite their
developing English proficiency and scientific knowledge. Meanwhile, constant interactive
socializing classroom practices offered ELs an opportunity to negotiate meanings of science
knowledge and discourse with their NES peers and teachers. Through engaging in these
practices, young EL science learners were able to share their already-constructed knowledge,
including their home language and cultural values. Although some aspects of students’
experience may be discontinuous with traditionally defined Western science, they can still serve
as a framework for their science teachers to understand their background and to help them to
make transitions between their home cultures and the culture of science (Lee, 2005; Snively &
Corsglia, 2001).
Due to the nature of student interview data, this study did not particularly examine the
three participants’ agency and investment on their socialization process, however, this is
discussed in another study relying upon the same data set (see Wilcox & Jeffery, 2015). Future
study will focus more on how EL students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and how their interplay
effects the process and outcome of their academic discourse socialization.
16
Appendix. Provisional Codes
GWA: general writing attitude
GWP: general writing practice
SWP: science writing practice
SWAM: science writing amount
SWS: science writing strategy
SWA: science writing attitude
SWPR: science writing process
PI: peer interaction
TS: teacher support/scaffolding
TUS: technology use for science
VSW: value of science writing
SSSW: school support for science writing
GWS: general writing strategy
SEG: self-efficacy of general writing
SCP: science classroom practice/activity
SG: goal of science learning
STP: science teaching practice
STG: science teaching goal
SAD: science teaching across discipline
ESW: Evaluation of students' science writing
EP: exam prepare
STM: science teaching materials
17
CRS: classroom setting
SAO: student access and opportunity
SDI: school demographic information
SF: school features
18
References
Agee, J. (2002). ''Winks upon winks'': Multiple lenses on settings in qualitative educational
research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(5), 569-585.
Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and
learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577-
596.
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP Trends. National Center for
Education Statistics, 2(4), 31-36.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. CA: Sage.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
Duff, P. A. (2014). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 564-586). West Sussex, England:
Wiley Blackwell.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Problematising academic discourse socialisation. Learning discourses and
the discourses of learning, 1(1), 1-1.
Duff, P. A. (2003). New directions in second language socialization research. Korean Journal of
English Language and Linguistics, 3, 309-339.
19
Duff, P. A. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL students
in mainstream courses. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des
langues vivantes, 58(1), 103-132.
Ellis, Rod. 2008. The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M., & Martin, J. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London:
Falmer Press.
Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (2000). A writing in science framework designed to
enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.
Huang, J. (2004). Socializing ESL students into the discourse of school science through
academic writing. Language and Education, 18(2), 97-123.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge
production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching
and Learning. Urbana, IL: Natioanl Council of Teachers of English.
Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research
agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research.
New York: Guilford Press.
20
Martin, J. (1999). Mentoring semiogenesis: “genre-based” literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie
(Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp.
123–155). London: Cassell.
Márquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers' discourse in
modeling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202-226.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. CA: Sage
publications.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. CA: Sage publications.
Nachowitz, M. (2013).Writing in science. In A. N. Applebee & J. A. Langer (Eds.), Writing
instruction that works: Proven methods for middle and high school classrooms (pp. 94-
110). New York: Teachers College Press.
National Assessment Governing Board U.S. Department of Education (2011). Science
Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from
http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science/2011-science-framework.html
National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and
literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from
www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and
standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence?. Retrieved from Consortium on Chicago
School Research website:
https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/p0a02.pdf
21
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2014). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E.
Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1-21).
West Sussex, England: Wiley Blackwell.
O'Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you've brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and
communities of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223-264.
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing
experiment manuals in science education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 203-233.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford
University Press.
Scardamalia, M, & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in
written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: vol.
2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142-175). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Raizen, S. A., Jakwerth, P. M., Valverde, G. A., Wolfe, R.
G., ... & Houang, R. T. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and
mathematics education (Vol. 3). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shein, P. P. (2012). Seeing with two eyes: A teacher's use of gestures in questioning and
revoicing to engage English language learners in the repair of mathematical errors.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(2), 182-222.
22
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science
education. Science Education, 85(1), 6–34.
Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds High: Contingency,
multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 619-644.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilcox, K. C., & Jeffery, J. V. (2015). Adolescent English learners’ stances toward content-area
writing. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 44-56. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2014.11.006
