1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Identifying language requirements of pre‑scientific writing for learners in science education using a task‑based needs analysis
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In science, subject-specific languages have a communicative and epistemic function. Thus, in science education learners need to both learn the language of science and learn through this specific language. Based on the assumption that learning subject-specific languages can be compared to second language acquisition, the study transfers Task-based Language Teaching to science education and explores the language needs of Austrian upper secondary school learners in science education when writing a Pre-Scientific Paper (PSP), using multiple methods (semi-structured interviews, online questionnaires) and data sources (curriculum, learners, teachers). The study reveals pre-scientific writing as a relevant overall task, identifies over 30 target tasks, describes subject-specific linguistic challenges students face when performing these tasks and shows how they are supported in their pre-scientific writing skills. Altogether, the paper shows the importance of having a more regular and systematic implementation of subject-specific language tasks in upper secondary science education.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23004.tag
2023-11-14
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.23004.tag
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beerenwinkel, A., Lindauer, T., & Schmellentin, C.
    (2016) Schreiben im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. InC. Maurer (Chair), Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik Jahrestagung, Zürich.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bettoni, C., Di Biase, B.
    (2015) Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory. Eurosla Monograph Series, 3. Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BMB
    BMB (2016) Die kompetenzorientierte Reifeprüfung: Vorwissenschaftliche Arbeit: Unverbindliche Beurteilungshilfe für das Prüfungsgebiet “vorwissenschaftliche Arbeit” (VWA). Retrieved fromhttps://bildung.bmbwf.gv.at/schulen/unterricht/ba/reifepruefung_ahs_vwa_beurteilungshilfe.pdf?5l51un
  4. Bundesgesetzblatt II
    Bundesgesetzblatt II. Änderung der Verordnung über die Lehrpläne der allgemeinbildenden höheren Schulen; Änderung der Bekanntmachung der Lehrpläne für den Religionsunterricht sowie Bekanntmachung der Lehrpläne für den Religionsunterricht (216/2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bundesgesetzblatt II
    Bundesgesetzblatt II. Prüfungsordnung AHS (174/2012).
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bühner, M.
    (2011) Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3rd ed.). Hallbergmoos: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bushati, B., Ebner, C., Niederdorfer, L., & Schmölzer-Eibinger, S.
    (2018) Wissenschaftlich schreiben lernen in der Schule. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bygate, M.
    (2016) Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, (), –. 10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566 [Google Scholar]
  9. Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M.
    (2014) Task-Based Language Learning – Insights form and for L2 Writing. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cho, S., & McDonnough, J. T.
    (2009) Meeting the Needs of High School Science Teachers in English Language Learner Instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, (), –. 10.1007/s10972‑009‑9136‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9136-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Creswell, J. W.
    (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and Mixed-Methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cummins, J.
    (1979) Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism. (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 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, (), –. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  14. Döring, N., & Bortz, J.
    (2016) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation: Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (5th ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑41089‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5 [Google Scholar]
  15. Drennan, J.
    (2003) Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. Journal of Advanced Nursing, (), –. 10.1046/j.1365‑2648.2003.02579.x
     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02579.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Dresing, T., & Pehl, T.
    (2015) Manual (on) Transcription: Transcription Conventions, Software Guides and Practical Hints for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Marburg. Retrieved fromhttps://www.audiotranskription.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/manual-on-transcription.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  17. East, M.
    (2017) Research into practice: The task-based approach to instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, (), –. 10.1017/S026144481700009X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481700009X [Google Scholar]
  18. (2021) Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching. New York, London: Taylor and Francis. 10.4324/9781003039709
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039709 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, R.
    (2017) Task-Based Language Teaching. InS. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp.–). Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑7
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-7 [Google Scholar]
  20. Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2020) Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, –. 10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804824 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fang, Z.
    (2004) Scientific Literacy: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective. Science Education, (), –. 10.1002/sce.20050
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S.
    (2013) Disciplinary Literacy. What You Want to Know About it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (), –. 10.1002/JAAL.190
     https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.190 [Google Scholar]
  23. Feinstein, N.
    (2011) Salvaging science literacy. Science Education(), –. 10.1002/sce.20414
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20414 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., & Joham, B.
    (2018) Professionalising physics teachers in doing experimental work. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, (), –. 10.26529/cepsj.333
     https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.333 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hasson, E., & Yarden, A.
    (2012) Separating the research question from the laboratory techniques: Advancing high-school biology teachers’ ability to ask research questions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (). –. 10.1002/tea.21058
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21058 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hattie, J. A. C.
    (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Heine, L.
    (2016) Theoretische Überlegungen zur Modellierung und Erforschung von integrativem Fach- und Sprachenlernen. InB. Hinger (Ed.), Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Fachdidaktik 2, Zweite “Tagung der Fachdidaktik” 2015: Sprachsensibler Sach-Fach-Unterricht – Sprachen im Sprachunterricht (pp.–). innsbruck university press. 10.15203/3122‑51‑2‑05
     https://doi.org/10.15203/3122-51-2-05 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoffmann, L.
    (1985) Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Huerta, M., & Garza, T.
    (2019) Writing in Science: Why, How, and for Whom? A Systematic Literature Review of 20 Years of Intervention Research (1996–2016). Educational Psychology Review, , –. 10.1007/s10648‑019‑09477‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09477-1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Iizuka, T.
    (2019) Task-based needs analysis: Identifying communicative needs for study abroad students in Japan. System, , –. 10.1016/j.system.2018.11.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaewpet, C.
    (2009) A Framework for Investigating Learner Needs: Needs Analysis Extended to Curriculum Development. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kafipour, R., Mahmoudi, E., Khojasteh, L., & Khajavi, Y.
    (2018) The effect of task-based language teaching on analytic writing in EFL classrooms. Cogent Education, (), . 10.1080/2331186X.2018.1496627
     https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1496627 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kohnen, A., Saul, W. E., & Singer, N. R.
    (2015) Developing support for teachers and students in secondary science classrooms through writing criteria. InCrem (Ed.), Recherches Textuelles: Vol. 13. Recherches en écritures: regards pluriels (pp.–). Université de Lorraine, Metz.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Lambert, C.
    (2010) A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, (), –. 10.1177/1362168809346520
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346520 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Buxton, C., Penfield, R., & Secada, W. G.
    (2009) Urban Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on Teaching Science to English Language Learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, (), –. 10.1007/s10972‑009‑9133‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9133-z [Google Scholar]
  36. Leisen, J.
    (2013) Handbuch Sprachförderung im Fach: Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht in der Praxis: Grundlagenwissen, Anregungen und Beispiele für die Unterstützung von sprachschwachen Lernern und Lernern mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte beim Sprechen, Lesen, Schreiben und Üben im Fach. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lemke, J. L.
    (1990) Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. Language and educational processes. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, S., Yuqin, Zhao, & Brindley, G.
    (2013) Needs analysis. InM. Byram & A. Hu (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp.–). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2015) The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. In: System, , –. 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Loewen, S., & Sato, M.
    (2021) Exploring the relationship between TBLT and ISLA. TASK, (), –. 10.1075/task.00003.loe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00003.loe [Google Scholar]
  41. Long, M. H.
    (2005) Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. InM. H. Long (Ed.), Second Language Needs Analysis (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667299.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667299.002 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2015) Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Markic, S.
    (2015) Chemistry Teachers’ Attitudes and Needs When Dealing with Linguistic Heterogeneity in the Classroom. InM. Kahveci & M. Orgill (Eds.), Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education (pp.–). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑45085‑7_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45085-7_14 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2018) Chemistry Teachers’ Pedagogical Scientific Language Knowledge. InO. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, & P. E. Childs (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference: Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education (pp.–). Dublin: Dublin City University.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S.
    (Eds.) (2013) TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships Among Reading, Mathematics, and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade-Implications for Early Learning. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Mayring, P.
    (2014) Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solutions. Klagenfurt. Retrieved fromnbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
     [Google Scholar]
  47. McComas, W. F.
    (2020) Nature of Science in Science Instruction. Rationales and Strategies. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑57239‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Müllner, B., & Möller, A.
    (2019) Entwicklung eines Analyseinstruments zur Erfassung der sprachlichen und fachlichen Qualität von Versuchsprotokollen. InD. Krüger, A. Möller, A. Dittmer, J. Zabel, S. Nitz, & A. Scheersoi (Chairs), Frühjahrsschule 2019 in Bonn.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Nikula, T.
    (2015) Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and leraning. System, , –. 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  50. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M.
    (2003) How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, (), –. 10.1002/sce.10066
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066 [Google Scholar]
  51. Osborne, J.
    (2002) Science Without Literacy: A ship without a sail?Cambridge Journal of Education, (), –. 10.1080/03057640220147559
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640220147559 [Google Scholar]
  52. Özcan, N.
    (2012) Zum Einfluss der Fachsprache auf die Leistung im Fach Chemie: Eine Förderstudie zur Fachsprache im Chemieunterricht (Dissertation). Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg-Essen.
  53. Petersen, I.
    (2017) Schreiben im Fachunterricht: mögliche Potenziale für Lernende mit Deutsch als Zweitsprache. InB. Lütke, I. Petersen, & T. Tajmel (Eds.), DaZ-Forschung: Vol. 8. Fachintegrierte Sprachbildung: Forschung, Theoriebildung und Konzepte für die Unterrichtspraxis (pp.–). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110404166‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110404166-005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pienemann, M.
    (1998) Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.15
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A.
    (2020) Processability Theory. InB. VanPatten, G. D. Keating & St. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction (pp.–). London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 10.4324/9780429503986‑8
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986-8 [Google Scholar]
  56. Riebling, L.
    (2013) Sprachbildung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Eine Studie im Kontext migrationsbedingter sprachlicher Heterogenität. Interkulturelle Bildungsforschung: Vol. 20. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Rincke, K.
    (2011) It’s Rather like Learning a Language: Development of talk and conceptual understanding in mechanics lessons. International Journal of Science Education, (), –. 10.1080/09500691003615343
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003615343 [Google Scholar]
  58. Roelcke, T.
    (2020) Fachsprachen (4th ed.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Rous, M.
    (2016) Fachsprache im Biologieunterricht. Dissertation. Biologie lernen und lehren: Vol. 16. Berlin: Logos.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Schmölzer-Eibinger, S., & Langer, E.
    (2010) Sprachförderung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht in mehrsprachigen Klassen: Ein didaktisches Modell für das Fach Chemie. InB. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Fachunterricht und Deutsch als Zweitsprache (pp.–). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H.
    (2015) Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2015.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  62. Simon, U. K., Steindl, H., Larcher, N., Kulac, H., & Hotter, A.
    (2016) Young science journalism: writing popular scientific articles may contribute to an increase of high-school students’ interest in the natural sciences. International Journal of Science Education, (), –. 10.1080/09500693.2016.1173260
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1173260 [Google Scholar]
  63. Suchań, B., & Breit, S.
    (Eds.) (2016) PISA 2015: Grundkompetenzen am Ende der Pflichtschulzeit im internationalen Vergleich. Graz: Leykam.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Taglieber, J.; Kremmel, B.; Tuna, M. H.; Hoffmann, T. D.; Takim, A.; Schreiner, C.; Kapelari, S.
    (2022) Fragenkatalog Ethik. Selbstevaluation zur Einhaltung ethischer Rahmenrichtlinien und rechtlicher Vorgaben bei der Durchführung von Forschungsprojekten an der Fakultät für LehrerInnenbildung. Universität Innsbruck. Retrieved fromhttps://umfrage.uibk.ac.at/limesurvey/allgemein/index.php/629795?lang=de
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Tajmel, T.
    (2010) DaZ-Förderung im naturwissenschaftlichen Fachunterricht. InB. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Fachunterricht und Deutsch als Zweitsprache (pp.–). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Tang, K., & Danielsson, K.
    (2018) The Expanding Development of Literacy Research in Science Education Around the World. InK. Tang & K. Danielsson (Ed.), Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education (pp.–). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑69197‑8_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_1 [Google Scholar]
  67. Tenopir, C., & King, D. W.
    (2004) Communication patterns of engineers. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; Wiley Interscience.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Van den Branden, K.
    (2016) Task-based language teaching. InG. Hall (Ed.), Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics. The Routledge Handbook of English language teaching (pp.–). London, New York: Routledge Taylor & FrancisGroup. 10.4324/9781315676203‑21
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676203-21 [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Gorp, K., & Van den Branden, K.
    (2015) Teachers, pupils and tasks: The genesis of dynamic learning opportunities. System, , –. 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.018 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J.
    (2001) Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open Univ. Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L.
    (2007) The Literacy Component of Mathematical and Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, , –. 10.1007/s10763‑007‑9089‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23004.tag
Loading
Identifying language requirements of pre‑scientific writing for learners in science education using a task‑based needs analysis
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23004.tag
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23004.tag
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23004.tag
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: needs analysis ; science education ; Task-Based Language Teaching ; pre-scientific writing

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