1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
  4. Volume 7, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines teachers’ attempts to enhance students’ content learning in Biology through the use of talk centred on concept sketches. Of specific interest is how teachers provide scaffolding through purposeful classroom discourse (Lemke, 1990) with the use of talk moves (Chapin, O’Connor, & Anderson, 2013), drawing on concept sketches (Johnson & Reynolds, 2005) annotated by students. Informed by socioconstructivist (Vygotsky, 1978/86) perspectives and grounded in multimodal literacy (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) underpinnings, the study acknowledges the teacher’s role in productive classroom discussions to guide students’ thinking and facilitate meaning-making. Qualitative analysis of classroom discourse illustrates how teachers’ classroom talk can scaffold and address the gaps in students’ learning. Pedagogical implications are discussed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18020.ho
2019-09-25
2023-03-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18020.ho
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R.
    (2011) Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. 10.1126/science.1204153
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, R.
    (2008) Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. InN. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson, (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp.91–114). London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, J. C.
    (2014) Visual literacy skills of students in college-level Biology: Learning outcomes following digital or hand-drawing activities. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). doi:  10.5206/cjsotl‑rcacea.2014.1.6
     https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2014.1.6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennet, D.
    (2011) Multimodal representation contributes to the complex development of science literacy in a college biology class. University of Iowa Iowa Research Online. 10.17077/etd.dhati9dz
     https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.dhati9dz [Google Scholar]
  5. Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D.
    (1999) Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of research in education, 24, 61–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N.
    (2013) Classroom discussions in Math: A teacher’s guide for using talk moves to support the common core and more, Grades K-6: A Multimedia Professional Learning Resource (third edition). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chia, B. P., Tay, H. M., Ho, C., Ho, J., & Lee, G. B.
    (2014) Scaffolding scientific explanation in Chemistry through language-specific support. InLee, Y.-J., Lim, N. T.-L., Tan, K. S., Chu, H. E., Lim, P. Y., Lim, Y. H., & Tan, I. (Eds)., Proceedings from the International Science Education Conference (ISEC) 2014 (pp.316–353). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chin, C.
    (2007) Teacher questioning in Science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of research in Science teaching, 44(6), 815–843. 10.1002/tea.20171
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171 [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins, A. M., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K.
    (2004) Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2 [Google Scholar]
  10. Curriculum Planning and Development Division
    Curriculum Planning and Development Division (2016) Biology syllabus. Pre-university. Higher 1. Syllabus 8876. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2013) A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dawes, L.
    (2004) Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 677–695. 10.1080/0950069032000097424
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000097424 [Google Scholar]
  13. Driver, R., & Easley, J.
    (1978) Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84. 10.1080/03057267808559857
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857 [Google Scholar]
  14. English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS)
    English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS) (2011) Whole school approach to effective communication in English. Retrieved from www.elis.moe.edu.sg/professional-learning/subject-literacy
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Esiobu, G. O., & Soyibo, K.
    (1995) Effects of concept and vee mappings under three learning modes on students’ cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 971–995. 10.1002/tea.3660320908
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320908 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ford, M., & Forman, E. A.
    (2006) Refining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–33. 10.3102/0091732X030001001
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M.
    (1983) Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98. 10.1080/03057268308559905
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M.
    (1997) Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Jaipal, K.
    (2009) Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A multimodal semiotics discourse analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C.
    (2001) Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5–18. 10.1080/00131910123753
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910123753 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J.
    (2005) Concept sketches – Using student- and instructor-generated, annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in Geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 85–95. 10.5408/1089‑9995‑53.1.85
     https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.85 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J.
    (2013) Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027. 10.1080/09500693.2011.604684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.604684 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kress, G.
    (2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C.
    (2001) Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T.
    (2001) Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lemke, J. L.
    (1990) Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (1998) Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. InJ. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp.87–113). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (1998) Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. InJ. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp.87–113). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lin, A. M. Y.
    (2016) Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (ELAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑1802‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1802-2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, Y.
    (2018) Literacy challenges in chemistry: A multimodal analysis of symbolic formulas. InK. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp.205–218). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑69197‑8_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_13 [Google Scholar]
  31. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N.
    (2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E.
    (2015) Getting used to content and language integrated learning: What can classroom interaction reveal?The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 239–255. 10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mercer, N.
    (1995) The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C.
    (2012) Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Centers (TERC).
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Michell, M., & Sharpe, T.
    (2005) Collective instructional scaffolding in English as a second language classrooms. Prospect, 20(1), 31–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Ministry Of Education (MOE) & University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES)
    Ministry Of Education (MOE) & University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) (2015) Biology Higher 2 (2017) (Syllabus 9744). Singapore: Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, MOE and Cambridge international Examinations.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Moje, E.
    (2018) Foreword. InK. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp.v–vii). Cham: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Novak, J. D.
    (1998) Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410601629
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601629 [Google Scholar]
  39. Novak, J. D., & Wandersee, J.
    (Eds.) (1991) Concept mapping [Special issue]Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10).
     [Google Scholar]
  40. O’Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., & Hall, R. H.
    (2002) Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86. 10.1023/A:1013132527007
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013132527007 [Google Scholar]
  41. Prain, V., & Hand, B.
    (2016) Learning science through learning to use its languages. InHand, B. & McDermott, M. (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the Science classroom (pp.1–11). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑16450‑2_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Prinou, L., Halkia, K.
    (2003) Images of cell division on the Internet. InConstantinou & Zacharia (Eds.), Computer based learning in science, New technologies and their applications in education (pp.1103–1113). Nicosia: University of Cyprus.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Reynolds, S. R., & Tewksbury, B.
    (2005) On the cutting edge. Exploring teaching strategies: Concept sketch. Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/coursedesign/tutorial/strategies.html
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Roam, D.
    (2008) Back of the Napkin: Solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. New York, NY: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Roth, W.-M.
    (2005) Talking science: Language and learning in science classrooms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Scwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J.
    (2009) Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632–654. 10.1002/tea.20311
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311 [Google Scholar]
  47. Scott, P.
    (1997) Developing science concepts in secondary classrooms: An analysis of pedagogical interactions from a Vygotskian perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds.
  48. (1998) Teacher talk and meaning making in Science classrooms: A Vygotksyan analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45–80. 10.1080/03057269808560127
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127 [Google Scholar]
  49. Singapore Department of Statistics
    Singapore Department of Statistics (2015) General Household Survey 2015. Retrieved from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/publications/publications_and_papers/GHS/ghs2015/ghs2015.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S.
    (2013) A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1),101–129. 10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa [Google Scholar]
  51. Tamir, P.
    (1985) Causality and teleology in high school biology. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3, 19–28. 10.1080/0263514850030103
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514850030103 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tang, K. S.
    (2016) The interplay of representations and patterns of classroom discourse in science teaching sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069–2095. 10.1080/09500693.2016.1218568
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1218568 [Google Scholar]
  53. Temple, S.
    (1994) Thought made visible – the value of sketching. Co-Design Journal, 1, 16–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. The Straits Times
    The Straits Times (1983) It’s English for all. Alfred, H. & Tan, J.The Straits Times, p.1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tytler, R., & Hubber, P.
    (2016) Constructing representations to learn Science. InB. Hand & M. McDermott (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the Science classroom (pp.159–181). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑16450‑2_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16450-2_9 [Google Scholar]
  56. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Walsh, S.
    (2013) Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Wise, N.
    (2006) Making visible. Isis, 97(1), 75–82. 10.1086/501101
     https://doi.org/10.1086/501101 [Google Scholar]
  60. Yip, C.-W.
    (2009) Causal and teleological explanations in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 43(4), 149–151. 10.1080/00219266.2009.9656174
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2009.9656174 [Google Scholar]
  61. Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M.
    (2011) Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18020.ho
Loading
Supporting students’ content learning in Biology through teachers’ use of classroom talk drawing on concept sketches
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7, 233 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18020.ho
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18020.ho
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.18020.ho
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Biology; classroom discourse; concept sketch; content and language integrated learning (CLIL); multimodal literacy; science teaching; talk moves; teacher questioning

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error