Academic Language in Science: Examining Fourth and Fifth Grade English Learner's Explanations of Moon Phases

Academic Language of Science

Prepared for The American Educational Research Association annual meeting, April 2012, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Running Head: ACADEMIC LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE

Academic Language of Science: Examining Fourth and Fifth Grade

English Learners’ Explanations of Moon Phases

Carrie Strohl, University of California, Davis

Alison K. Billman, University of California, Berkeley

Marco Bravo, Santa Clara University

DRAFT: Please do not distribute or cite without permission from the authors.

Academic Language of Science 2

Abstract

Fourth and fifth grade students were interviewed as part of a research project investigating

pedagogical supports for English learners in the context of integrated science and literacy

instruction. Eight teachers and sixteen students were selected for qualitative analysis of academic

language use related to the phenomenon of lunar phases. Structured interviews conducted before

and after instruction intended to capture academic language and scientific vocabulary use. Open

and axial coding of student responses reveals increased use of scientific vocabulary related to

space science, such as rotate and orbit, but not necessarily more scientifically accurate

understandings of lunar phases. Analysis of observational records of instruction highlight the

challenges associated with promoting academic language of science within a sociocultural

context.


Introduction

Science is a discipline with unique and distinct ways of thinking, modes of

communicating, and styles of discourse (Lemke, 1990). Notably, scientific language differs from

everyday classroom language in both content and form (Yore, 2004). Members of the scientific

community adhere to the norms of scientific communication and readily integrate these genres

into their work (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). For instance, they engage in scientific explanation

and argumentation, the genres by which scientific knowledge is created. Scientists and science

educators agree that students who develop facility with these genres, that is, those who develop

the academic language of science, are not only are more successful in school, but also become

more science-literate (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; Draper &

Siebert, 2009). Nonetheless, the discipline of science challenges many teachers as well as

students, especially students who are learning English as a second language. Integrated science

and literacy instruction offers meaningful opportunities to engage teachers and students in the

practices of science in ways that sharpen academic language and literacy abilities.

Practices of science

Science is a sociocultural activity grounded in investigating and explaining the natural

and physical world. Although science is partially represented as a body of knowledge, it also

consists of collaborative processes that are used to construct knowledge. Whereas past reforms in

science education treated science as a fragmented set of factual truths, current trends in science

education embrace scientific activity as an acquired set of situated practices. For example,

National Research Council’s report on science education, Taking Science to School (2007),

promotes the epistemological stance that science knowledge is collectively constructed based on

the accumulation of evidence. As such, scientific activity in classrooms is captured in


descriptions of prevailing practices, including: making and interpreting scientific explanations,

generating and evaluating scientific evidence, and participating productively in scientific

discourse. Additionally, one dimension in the recently released Framework for K-12 Science

Education (NRC, 2012) focuses on scientific and engineering practices such as asking questions

and defining problems, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data

and engaging in argumentation and informative communication.

Reframing school science as situated practices prompts reexamination of the ways in

which individuals participate in science and highlights the discursive nature of scientific

practices. Thus, analysis of science teaching and learning calls for theoretical tools that capture

science as sociocultural activity, particularly in formal settings. The purpose of the current study

is to examine how integrated science and literacy instruction about the solar system supports

students’ academic language development in science. We first apply open and axial coding

scheme (Strauss, 1987) to analyze student explanations of the complex phenomenon of lunar

phases. We then rely on rich description to highlight key examples of firsthand (i.e., materials

based) and secondhand (i.e., text based) engagement in the practices of science.

The increased emphasis on collaboration and communication in science and science

education warrants modes of instruction that acknowledge the essential role of language and

literacy in learning and practicing science. Yet, not all students are familiar with language and

literacy demands of science; demands that are often implicitly learned through immersion in

situated activity. Furthermore, the everyday discourses that students use outside of school may

not include the academic language privileged in school settings (Valdes, Bunch, Snow, Lee, &

Matos, 2005). Moreover, several scholars note the overall lack of preparation teachers have in

science teaching (Johnson, 2009) or lack of understanding of the nature of science (Cullen,


Akerson, & Hanson, 2010) as barriers to creating high-quality science instruction. Furthermore,

others cite unpreparedness in reaching non-native speakers of English (Buxton, Lee, & Santau,

2008; Johnson & Marx, Lee, et al.) as a primary concern. Curricular materials that intentionally

integrate literacy and science practices present a promising approach for mitigating the language

and literacy demands of learning science, especially for students with dual language

backgrounds. This paper examines instructional opportunities that English learners have to

develop the academic language of space science in the context of integrated science and literacy

instruction. Drawing from sociocultural and situated perspectives of academic language and

literacy, we present qualitative analysis of scientific language used in student explanations of

lunar phases.

Theoretical Perspectives

Academic language in science

The scientific community has notably distinct ways of thinking and communicating

(Lemke, 1990). In fact, Gee (2004) asserts, “No domain represents academic sorts of language

better than science” (p. 13). When scientists engage their work, they employ specialized

vocabulary and distinct patterns of speech (Cervetti, Pearson, Barber, Hiebert, & Bravo, 2007).

Scientists’ command of scientific language enables them to engage in practices associated with

the discipline of science, as well as assume a social and professional identity as a scientist (Gee,

2002). Not only does scientific discourse differ from the language of other disciplines, but

scientists communicate for a wide range of purposes (Yore, 2004). In addition, scientists vary in

the ways they approach texts. In a study of how expert mathematicians, historians, and chemists

approach reading texts in their discipline, Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) found that experts read

in nuanced ways. For instance, chemists reported strategically reading across textual and visual


displays of information to comprehend, whereas historians emphasized reading to critically

analyze authors’ perspectives (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Shanahan and Shanahan label this

discipline-specific awareness as disciplinary literacy. Disciplinary literacy relies not only on the

domain knowledge of the discipline, but also on the awareness of disciplinary traditions and

perspectives that are used to construct and communicate that knowledge (Shanahan, 2008).

Disciplinary literacy

Disciplinary literacy entails far more than simply decoding and comprehending text to

extract a few factual tidbits for use on an exam. Disciplinary literacy in science involves other

specialized abilities. In fact, Yore (2003) argues that reading, comprehending, and evaluating

media reports and diverse forms of scientific writing are part of the collection of abilities,

strategies, and metacognition that individuals need to be scientifically literate in the fundamental

sense. This perspective provides rationale for the recent call for a more explicit role of print

literacy in scientific literacy (e.g., Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010; Snow, 2010). With the

increasing diversity of texts available (e.g., digital as well as textual), and the burgeoning

accumulation of scientific knowledge, it is more important than ever for a scientifically literate

person to be able to critically interpret an author’s stance and purpose, distinguish relevant from

irrelevant evidence, and integrate new information into the decisions they make on a daily basis.

Colombi and Scheppengrell (2002) describe these types of skills as “advanced literacy,” stating,

“students need to move beyond the basics to do science, history and other subjects; to construct

arguments and critique theories; and to integrate print, visual, interactional, and electronic means

of developing and sharing knowledge” (p. 2). The demands of disciplinary literacy warrant close

examination of the instructional contexts in which these skills develop, especially for students

with dual language backgrounds.


Researchers in the field of academic language and literacy (e.g., Enright, 2011; Valdes,

et.al., 2005) situate literacy practices within a sociocultural context in which multiple forms of

discourse are used for a range of purposes. Colombi and Schleppegrell (2002) contend that

academic language and literacy development results from “enculturation into the values and

practices of specialist communities” (p. 2), so it makes sense that scholars believe that students

will better develop the academic language of science if they engage in practices that mimic the

activities of scientists – that is, if they do what scientists do (Draper & Siebert, 2009; Moje,

2004). In such contexts, Hawkins (2004) asserts the role of the literacy teacher is to provide dual

language learners “access to the range of knowledge, abilities, and forms of language

(discourses) that will enable them to lay claim to the social identities that afford them a

participant status in the social communities” (p. 23). Like scientists, students who use language

to engage in socially situated science activity adopt an identity associated with that activity (Gee,

2004). Integrated instruction that attends equally to scientific conceptual development as well as

academic language and disciplinary literacy provides an ideal context for examining science

learning for English learners.

Integrated Science and Literacy Instruction

While many interpretations of integrated instruction exist (see Gavelek, Raphael Biondo,

& Wang, 2000 for a review) we define integrated science and literacy instruction as instruction

designed to simultaneously support literacy and science learning. Within this interpretation,

literacy is viewed as a set of tools that support knowledge acquisition (Pearson, Moje, &

Greenleaf, 2010). This approach engages students in hands-on inquiries as well as text-based

inquiries in ways that mirror scientific practices and foster development of oral and written

language structures relevant to science—academic language skills. As such, integrated


instruction provides purposeful opportunities to engage with others using English in supportive

contexts. Results from recent studies of integrated curriculum in early childhood settings suggest

that science provides a context for oral language development. Several approaches show that

even preschool-aged children can and do develop oral language and vocabulary when science-

rich curriculum includes language development goals (French, 2004; Gelman & Brenneman,

2004; Klein, Hammrich, Bloom, & Ragins, 2000; Peterson & French, 2008). Likewise, research

with older elementary students suggests that literacy and science integration increases learning in

both domains (Anderson, West, Beck, MacDonnell, & Frisbie, 1997; Guthrie, Anderson, Alao, &

Rinehart, 1999; Lee, Deaktor, Enders, & Lambert, 2008; Palincsar & Magnusson, 2001;

Romance & Vitale, 1992; 2001).

While beneficial for all students, meaningful and authentic contexts for language use and

development can have a particular benefit for students who are learning English as a second

language (Echevarria, Short & Powers, 2006). Recent evidence suggests that English learners

benefit from thoughtful immersion in and exposure to the academic language of science early

and often (Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke & Canady, 2002; Bravo & Garcia, 2004; Moje, Callazo,

Carrillo, & Marx, 2001). Moreover, studies of science instruction crafted to demystify the

discourse of science show that explicit teaching of the discourse of science has promise for

English learners. Furthermore, integrated instruction designed to intentionally embed

opportunities for language development in the context of scientific investigation show

exceptional promise for vocabulary development in English learners (Carlo, August,

McLaughlin, Snow, Dressler, Lipman, Lively, & White, 2004; Stoddart et al., 2002). For

example, Stoddart, Canaday, Clinton, Erai, Gasper, Latzke, Pinal & Ponce (1999) studied the

benefits of integrated language and science instruction on ELLs’ science knowledge and


vocabulary development. Science instruction, infused with opportunities to hear and practice key

science vocabulary, made significant increases in ELLs’ use of complex science vocabulary

(e.g., species, fossil, habitat) as well as significant gains in the accuracy of scientific

propositions.

The integrated curriculum under investigation in this study, Seeds of Science/Roots of

Reading (Cervetti, Pearson, Barber, Hiebert, & Bravo, 2007) also shows effectiveness with

English Language Learners. An early study examined vocabulary growth for ELLs experiencing

a Seeds/Roots unit found statistically significant differences from pre- to post-test in ELL

students’ use of the vocabulary terms targeted in instruction (Bravo, Cervetti, Hiebert & Pearson,

2007). Based on the promise of these results, researchers conducted a larger efficacy study

comparing the Seeds/Roots approach to control classrooms with high-ELL populations and found

that ELLs in Seeds/Roots classrooms made greater gains between pre- and post-measures of

science vocabulary, science content, and reading comprehension than their ELL peers in

comparison classrooms (Bravo, Cervetti, & Barber, 2009).

Model of integration in the present study

The present study investigates the instructional opportunities that fourth and fifth grade

English learners experienced in the context of an integrated science and literacy unit about space

and the solar system. This unit instantiates a research-based model of integration that capitalizes

on shared cognitive processes in science and literacy (e.g., making inferences). Within the

context of a coherent body of conceptual knowledge, the instructional model integrates

systematic opportunities for reading (encounters with text—focused on science content and

processes), writing (documenting investigations through journals and class charts), talking

(discussions to make sense of investigations and texts), and doing science (engaging in firsthand


experiences). Additionally, instruction includes explicit attention to meaning-making strategies

shared by scientific inquiry and reading comprehension.

The multimodal emphasis is highly congruent with research about the development of

language and background knowledge for ELLs (August & Hakuta, 1998; Short & Echevarria,

2005). Many features of the curriculum represent practices known to meet the linguistic needs of

ELs, such as use of routines, realia, and graphic representations of abstract concepts (Cervetti,

Bravo, Duong, Hernandez & Tilson, 2008). Further supports for ELLs include instructional

attention to linguistic blindspots—those nuances of language that often go unnoticed by native

speakers of a target language but, when encountered by ELLs, can derail comprehension (e.g.,

idiomatic expressions or multiple-meaning words, such as property or solution) (Wong-Fillmore

& Snow, 2000).

Methods

Research context of the present study

The data analyzed for this paper were collected as part of a larger research project

investigating the role of educative curriculum materials (ECMs) and teachers’ practices in

meeting needs of English language learners (ELLs) in the context of the Seeds of Science/Roots

of Reading integrated science/literacy curricular unit Planets and Moons1. This four year NSF-

funded study aimed to 1) determine how curriculum materials designed to support teacher

learning impact teacher knowledge, efficacy, and instructional practices, specifically related to

supporting ELLs; and 2) determine the effects of ECMs on ELLs learning and attitudes toward

science. Dubbed SEMILLA (Science Educative Materials Innovation for Language Learner

1 The first and second authors for the present study are currently employed at the institution where the


Advancement), this research project represents a multi-institution collaboration with data

collection spanning three years and three states (Oregon, California and Colorado).

Data collection

The data analyzed herein were collected during the second year of the SEMILLA project,

at which time 59 fourth- or fifth-grade teachers from three states were recruited to teach 30

sessions of an integrated unit about the solar system called Planets and Moons. Prior to teaching

the unit, teachers received four hours of professional development introducing the integrated

curricular framework, notable components and features, relevant science content, and

representative curriculum activities. Each classroom teacher was observed at three mutually

arranged times during the course of the 30-sessions: once at the beginning of the unit, once in the

middle of the unit, and once near the end of the unit.

Observers documented array of teaching practices using the Science Classroom

Observation Protocol (SCOP)—an electronic data capture tool designed as part of the larger

study. The two-part protocol focuses on literacy and language development activities. The first is

a Classroom Observation Scheme designed to describe instruction using narrative notes and code

instruction using a 5-level coding scheme during the observation. The second part is an

Implementation Questionnaire—a series of questions that ask the observer to reflect on and code

for what was observed and then document the implementation of ELL accommodations. Coding

for this part of the protocol included five levels: Instructional Groupings, Major Focus,

Activities, Teacher/Interaction, and Student Engagement. Observations were 60 minutes with

observers alternating between part one of the protocol (recording notes for 7 minutes) and part

two (categorizing observations for 3 minutes) for a total of six coded segments per observation.

The observer also noted the presence or absence of specific EL accommodations and highlighted


the instructional segments that the teacher completed in the written session outline. Observers

attended two days of training and interrater reliability for coding instruction was 89-100%

agreement.

In addition to observing teachers, we interviewed two randomly selected English learners

from each participating class before unit began and after it ended. Each interview was conducted

one-on-one using a structured protocol—Student Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI)—a measure

developed specifically for the SEMILLA project. The SOPI consists of four sections: science

vocabulary, science reading, discourse, and efficacy for science learning. The purpose of the

SOPI is to capture science knowledge and English language development that may not be

captured in paper pencil tests. An additional purpose is to gather insights into the strategies that

ELL students’ use to make sense of academic language. These interviews were audio recorded

and transcribed.

Research questions and data selection

Based on our interest in student learning about one complex scientific understanding—

the shape of the moon during its cyclical phases—our analysis focuses on a subset of the data

from the SEMILLA project. We center our analysis on interview responses from 16 students

from the classrooms of eight teachers in California. In addition, we selected two specific

instructional sessions for analysis. Our selection was guided by our understanding of the unit

content; as such, we identified the two sessions that most closely match the content of the

interview question about moon phases. Four of the eight teachers were observed teaching one

session (Observing the Moon) and four others were observed teaching the second session

(Modeling Lunar Phases). Our inquiry is guided by the following set of research questions, data

sources, and analytic tools:


Table 1: Research Questions, Data Sources, and Analytic Tools

Research Question(s) & Subquestions Instruments and Sources of Data

Analytical Tools

How do fourth and/or fifth grade English learners define or explain scientific concepts related to moon phases? [What changes are evident between pre- and post- interviews (i.e., interviews before and after instruction)?

SOPI: Audio recording of student interview

Selected segments of transcribed student interview

Open and Axial Coding of Interview Transcript (Strauss, 1987)

What characteristics of instruction might promote the development of academic language related to moon phases? [What opportunities do students have to rehearse or engage in talk about these topics?]

SCOP: Annotated lesson plan and coded observation notes from selected instructional sessions

Comparison of curricular lesson and enacted lesson

Data analysis

Student interviews. Responses selected for analysis were based on students’ placement in

classrooms of teachers who were selected for analysis in this study. A total of 16 pre- and post-

instruction responses to one interview question were selected for analysis of scientific language.

The topic of the interview question we selected is a key concept of the curricular unit. In

addition, responses to this question offered a particularly rich opportunity to observe evidence of

students’ use of academic language. The selected question presented students with eight color

images, each representing a different moon phase (new, waxing crescent, first quarter, waxing

gibbous, waning gibbous, last quarter, waning crescent and full). The manipulative intended to

prepare students for the question in the context of the complete interview protocol. Students were

asked to manipulate the images and respond to the prompt: What do we call these? Can you put

the images in order and tell why you think the moon changes that way? Student responses were

analyzed using an open and axial coding paradigm described by Strauss (1987).


The first author made multiple passes through the student responses, highlighting notable

patterns across all responses. In the first pass, it was noted whether or not students used specific

science vocabulary words associated with the phenomenon of moon phases, such as rotate or

orbit. In addition, she noted “everyday” versions of these words, such as spin. During a second

pass, she looked at the length of each response, to discern which students answered in just a few

words and which used longer phrases or descriptions. In addition, she tagged certain responses

that stood apart from the rest, such as those that appeared to incorporate language from the

curriculum. For example, in the curricular unit, one lesson begins with the guiding question

“Why does the moon appear to change shape?” A few students used the phrase “appears to

change shape” in their response, to distinguish it from the moon “actually” changing shape, so

this was captured in the coding process.

After these cursory passes, the first author began open coding (Strauss, 1987) the

responses for nuances between content and the initial codes devised to characterize this content.

Example codes from this pass included descriptions of dark/light/shadows; field of view/vision;

giving/getting light; time; movement and uncertainty (e.g., student response of “I don’t know” or

silence). The next step in the coding process compared pre-interview and post-interview

responses to better discern any changes made in how students described the cause of the changes

in the moon’s appearance and to confirm that initial codes applied equally well across the

dataset. The intent was not to compare individual students. In addition, we did not aim to make

substantive comparisons between students in teachers assigned to the treatment group and

control group conditions of the larger SEMILLA study. Instead, the comparison more closely

examined student responses with similar codes to discern any discrete differences. The final

stage of analysis involved axial coding (Strauss, 1987) intended to “more intensively and


concertedly” (p.64) group the open codes into clustered categories. Three distinct, but not

mutually exclusive categories captured the coded responses: explanations that include what we

see, how objects move, and changes over time.

Teacher Observations. In the context of the 30-session Planets and Moons unit, students

engage in ten sessions related to Earth’s shape and movement, followed by ten sessions devoted

to investigating lunar phases and the scale of the solar system. The last ten sessions provide deep

coverage of solar system objects, including comparison of characteristics. Although five sessions

(approximately one sixth of all sessions) of the unit were dedicated to building students’ content

knowledge about lunar phases, we selected two primary instructional sessions to analyze in this

study. We analyzed teacher observation records for evidence of opportunities to use academic

language related to moon phases. Four of the eight teachers were observed teaching Session 2.1,

during which students read Observing the Moon (Baker & Erickson, 2007), a book that

introduces students to the moon’s cycle of phases. Four different teachers were observed

teaching Session 2.2: Modeling Lunar Phases, during which students investigated moon phases

using two different models.

The second author analyzed the observation data. This involved a close reading of the

narrative field notes and an examination of the assigned codes for each of the six segments for

each selected observation. The narratives were first read for alignment with the intentions of the

integrated science literacy curriculum lesson and for degree of completion of the lesson as

written. Inclusion of key elements of the lessons were noted as well as missing elements or

significant additions of content that were not part of the curriculum. A second read examined

similarities and differences in implementation of the lessons across teachers. The third pass noted

use of academic vocabulary and specifically science vocabulary related to understanding moon


phases. And finally, in the last pass the narratives were examined for opportunities that teachers

provided or perhaps missed to engage in discourse around sense making or problem solving.

Findings

Student interviews

When presented with lunar phase image cards, students were prompted to place them in

the correct order, beginning with the new moon. Although students were not asked to name each

phase, they were asked to name the images as “moon phases.” During the pre-interview, only a

quarter of the students (4) correctly identified the images with the expected response. Most

students (7) responded with only, “moons,” implying that each image was a distinct or separate

moon. One student responded, “I don’t know.” During the post-interview interaction, all except

three students did not correctly identify the images as moon phases, Two students gave accurate,

but alternate responses; One accurately named each phase as he put them in order, which was

accepted as a correct response. The last student called the images “moon faces.” Because it could

not be determined if the student’s pronunciation of phase as |fās|, rather than |fāz| was an

allophonic variation influenced by the student’s native Spanish language (in which there is no

voiced phoneme for /s/), or representative of a misconception similar to “the man in the moon,”

we opted to count this response as correct due to the phonologic similarity between the word

phase and face and oral (vs. print) modality of the task. The following findings report on the

most common understanding captured in students’ explanations.

What we see. Common pre-interview explanations that were characteristic of the what we

see category typically described where the sun was shining on the moon, or the position of the

sun or Earth in relation to the moon (i.e., blocking light, creating a shadow). For instance, one

student stated that the moon appears to change shape, “because the sun’s covering it” (S31, pre),


while another said, “cause when the sun goes like around (gesturing an orbiting movement) it

makes us see just a little” (S90, pre). The notion of seeing “just a little” is a common

misunderstanding that students have about lunar phases (Stahly, Krockover, & Shepardson,

1999). Another misconception relates to students’ description of shadows, as noted in the

following: “at first when it goes like this (pointing to the full moon), the moon is in front of us

and casts a shadow on us and then when it kind of goes like this (pointing to the crescent) we

cast a shadow on it.” (S79, pre). Although fewer post-interview responses include ideas about

blocked light, some students do maintain this understanding. For example, this same student

(S79, post) explained at post-interview:

Because at different angle the moon and the sun do; the different it gets, the Earth casts a shadow on the Moon and makes is kind of glow and when the sun gets in front of the Earth its a new moon and it changes phases because it has different angles from the sun, where it moves it starts to change shape

Another student explained, “because of how it rotates and the shadows of the earth” (S30, post).

As several examples exemplify, students who talked about what we see also often referenced

how objects move in space.

How objects move. In general, student explanations demonstrate an understanding that

movement is related to the moon’s changing appearance, as evidenced by the number of students

who mention objects rotating or orbiting. However, most students include these words in their

explanations as a declarative fact, not as a causal explanation, as in the following: “because the

Earth rotates” (S93, pre). Few students explained the relationship between this motion and the

phases of the moon. If a students attempted to make the connection between rotating and phase

change, the relationship was often underdeveloped, as in the following example: “I thought that

it changed like that because it kept getting dark sides on it; everyday it rotates not all of it shines

(S30, pre).” At times, students did not specify whether the sun, Earth or moon rotates. Notably,


only one student talked about orbiting at the pre-interview stage, whereas multiple students

talked about orbiting at the post-interview juncture. These responses signaled a more developed

understanding of the relationship between movement and phases, suggesting that some students

perhaps replaced their understanding of rotation with a more detailed concept of orbiting.

Comparing one student’s pre- and post-interview responses illustrates this possibility:

the sun, earth might block it, it rotates (S94, pre)

we orbit the sun and the moon orbits us; the sun hits one side of the moon, the other side is dark (S94, post)

In fact, this student provides a fairly accurate, albeit abbreviated explanation of the moon’s

changing appearance. Although most students we selected to analyze explained what we see or

how objects move, a few students also referenced changes over time.

Changes over time. The most common pre-interview explanation related to change over

time revealed the misconception that the moon appears to be different shapes at different times

of day. For instance, one student identified some phase images as “morning” and others

“afternoon” (S71, pre). Another student described the changes as happening, “maybe every

month, or every week,” (S33, pre) but not that all of the phases happened in a single month, as it

gradually changes appearance. Fewer students referenced change over time during post-

interviews, and those who did typically named the phases. For instance, one student responded,

“I think it's because it starts with this one (pointing the image new moon) because the shadow

comes at the left it's um, starting to come into waxing, so first it's like all shadow, so it's new

moon, then it's waxing crescent, first quarter, waxing gibbous, then full, waning gibbous” (S34,

post). Although this student named the phases, she made no explanation of why the moon

appears to change phases.


As the above examples show, students explanations often described lunar phases in terms

of what we see, how objects move, and changes over time, but most explanations included

aspects of two categories. Only a few responses touched on concepts related to all three

categories. Overlap in categories changed at the two time points. Overall, ten pre-interview

responses fell in the most prevalent category of what we see. Four of these students mentioned

only what we see, but three also discussed how objects move. Two more mentioned change over

time, in addition to the other two categories. Only one student mentioned both what we see and

change over time. Five students talked only about how objects move. Three students explained

how objects move as well as change over time, while two students only talked about change over

time. Post-interview responses shifted slightly, with only two students naming only what we see.

One student talked only about how objects move and no students described only change over

time. Seven of the 14 students who talked about what we see, also included information about

how objects move, while three additional students included both of these categories and change

over time. Two students discussed what we see and change over time. One student explained how

objects move in relation to change over time. Regardless of how many categories each student

response fit, many students included specialized vocabulary in their explanations.

Specialized vocabulary use. Comparison of pre- and post-interview responses revealed an

overall increase in the use of vocabulary terms associated with moon phases. Overall, eight of 16

students used at least one science word in their responses at pre-interview. Another two students

used two science words, while two more students used three science words. Only one student

each used four and five words, respectively. Two students used no science words. During the

post-interview, no students excluded science words completely, and only one student was

observed using just one word. Seven students (five more than during pre-interview) used two


words and four students used each three or four words, respectively. No students used five or

more words during the second interview. Word counts for specific key science terms are

summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: vocabulary words related to lunar phases

Word Pre-interview Responses

Post-interview Responses

Sun 8 12

Earth 6 7

Moon 3 9

Rotate (spin) 6 (2) 7 (1)

Orbit 1 4

Phase 0 3

Reflect 1 2

At both time points, the word sun was the most frequently used word, included in eight

(50%) of the student responses during the pre-interview and twelve (75%) of student responses

during the post-interview. For students who used one word at pre-interview, four out of eight

(50%) used the word sun. Likewise, four out of eight students who used one or two words at

post-interview included the word sun. The word sun was used in various ways, which will be

discussed in more detail below. When pre-interview responses that included sun typically

described it as showing or not showing (on the moon), moving up or down, or covering or being

covered by another object. Overall, out of the eight students who included sun in their pre-

interview response, five mentioned what we see; five described how objects move; and four

referenced changes over time. In contrast, post-interview responses including sun, were slightly

more sophisticated in describing how the sun, Earth and moon move in relation to each other,


where the sun hits the moon, or the reflection of the sun on the moon. Ten out of twelve post-

interview responses used the word sun in relation to what we see, while nine students described

how objects move, and four students referenced changes over time.

In addition to specialized vocabulary terms, a few student responses included words that

describe lunar phases, but also carry non-scientific meaning in other contexts. We refer to these

words as ‘everyday’ substitutes for science vocabulary. For example, the word spin means

almost the same thing as rotate, but rotate is considered a more precise word in the context of

learning about the solar system. Two students used ‘everyday’ words in their responses, one at

pre-interview and one at post-interview. Both students used the ‘everyday’ word spin to describe

rotation. Interestingly, both students appeared to use the word spin to mean orbit rather than

rotate, as in the two following examples:

“maybe every month, or every week it changes because it [the moon] spins around Earth.” (S33, pre) “because maybe when it [the moon] spins, it's not orbiting that fast, and you can’t see it…because of the orbation [sic] (S31, post) In the first example, the use of “spins around Earth” implies orbiting, in contrast to spins

in place, which more closely describes rotation. Although the moon does rotate, as well as orbit,

the ambiguous pronoun reference (it) makes it difficult to discern the students’ intended meaning

for spin. The same vague pronoun reference confounds the second example, making it unclear

whether the second “it” refers to the moon or to another solar system body. (In fact, the

referential use of the pronoun “it” was unclear in numerous student responses.) Another student

uses spin to refer to the Earth, but illustrates a slightly different, yet very common misconception

about moon phases. He states, “it [the moon] goes toward the Earth, the Earth spins around

slowly and blocks out light, more light” (S71, post).


As the above examples illustrate, use of ‘everyday’ language can confound student

understanding if the word is not sufficiently grounded in a scientific concept, such as movement

of solar bodies (i.e., rotate or orbit). However, use of ‘everyday’ language does not necessarily

correlate to inaccurate understanding any more than use of ‘scientific’ language represents

accurate explanations. For example, 50% of students utilized the word rotate during the pre-

interview and post-interview (although, not necessarily the same 50% of students), many of

which depict inaccurate, incomplete or unrelated understandings of moon phases.

Apart from replacing scientific words with everyday words, such as spin for rotate, a few

students used science words that were key vocabulary in the curricular unit, but not necessarily

used during the instructional sessions about moon phases. For example, the word planet is taught

during sessions not analyzed herein. In fact, planet is not formally introduced in the unit until

after the sessions about moon phases. Although planet is a familiar word for many students, only

one student used it in response to the question. In addition, two students used a scientific term

that is not taught at all in the unit, but is highly related to an accurate understanding of lunar

phases. This word is reflection and used by two students from the same class in the following

examples in their post-interview responses.

“Because when the moon gets light from the sun's reflection, because when the-- the darkness comes from the part that the sun is not getting reflection from, which causes lunar phases.” (S36) “It changes because when it [the moon] orbits the Earth, the Earth's, um...it's like farther from the sun, and it doesn't have the reflection of the sunlight.“(S37, post) Although these responses still contain slight inaccuracies (e.g., darkness comes from

somewhere, distance from the sun causes phases), the idea of reflection is the most accurate

description of light illuminating the moon. Also, at least for this student, the response shows a

more accurate understanding than pre-interview response, which was, "I don't know." When


probed, the student responded, “Because sometimes they block the Sun and then they might get

dark. And sometimes they're not right in front of the Sun and they're bright.” Clearly, this student

made some progress in her explanation of lunar phases.

An anomalous example. As previously mentioned, one student included the word planet

in his response. The use of the word planet is not the only feature that made the following

explanation stand out:

Interviewer: Can you put the images in order and tell why you think the moon changes that way? Student: Because the moon is rotating its planet. Interviewer: Can you say more about that? Student: Moons rotate planets because like planets orbit the Sun. Moons have to orbit their planet because...because the Sun has to shine and the Moon has to shine but like the day and night. This one (pointing to the new moon) is dark because it's becoming nighttime and the Sun is not showing that much. And these three (pointing to the .. .. and .. moon) are when it's...this one shows when it's broad daylight (pointing to full Moon), this one shows when it's getting late (pointing to quarter moon), this one shows a half moon. This one shows a full Moon (pointing to full Moon). And these two are almost about the same (pointing to crescent and new moon cards), but this one is less because there is less of the sun is showing.

In fact, this particular student’s response was notable for a number of reasons. First, the

student included five scientific terms in his explanation, the highest of any other student. In

addition, it contains 108 words, noticeably more than most responses, which ranged from three

to sixty-two words. In addition, it is one of the few responses that straddle all three main coding

categories into which all other student responses fell. That is, it includes components that

describe what we see, how objects in the solar system move, and changes over time. Finally, this

student’s response reveals several misconceptions in a single response. Whereas most students’

erroneous explanations typically revealed ideas about shadows and blocked light or phase change

throughout a single day, this student also includes the idea that the moon generates its own light.


Towards a more perfect understanding. Despite inaccurate ideas about lunar phases

prevalent in so many students’ explanations, many responses did actually reveal movement

towards a more perfect understanding. Even if students maintained in accurate ideas, many

incorporated new language to demonstrate their knowledge. In addition, almost all students

increased their use of specific vocabulary terms representative of academic language in science.

Two students, in particular, acknowledged that the moon only appears to change shape, which

indicates the ease with which some students adopt specific discourse characteristics to represent

concepts:

It doesn't change, it just sometimes shows part of it; when the earth and moon are rotating the sun and some parts are facing Earth and the other is facing the sun (S32, post) It seems like it's changing shape but it doesn't; it moves and parts of them get shaded by the sun because the dark side is facing left for 1, 2, then waxing gibbous, waning, first quarter, full (S35, post)

Although these responses still contain inaccurate understandings, the fact that students

distinguished between actually changing shape and appearing to change shape signals a move to

a more argumentative stance, an important genre in science.

In summary, student interview responses to the question of why the moon appears to

change shape fell into three main categories of what we see, how objects move, and change over

time. These categories were not mutually exclusive at either time point. Instead, student

responses typically overlapped two of the categories and patterns within the overlapping

categories were evident. For instance, students who talked about the position of the moon in

relation to the sun or Earth might also mention rotation, but students who talked about the parts

of the moon that we see, typically did not. Unique outcomes were also evident. For example,

only a few students named moon phases and only one student described moon phases in terms of


angles from which sunlight came. Examination of student vocabulary use further characterizes

student explanations and notes increased use of both taught or untaught, specialized or everyday

science vocabulary. Only close analysis detects the ever-so-slight differences in the ways

students use the same vocabulary word. More science terms did not necessarily yield more

accurate understanding of the phenomenon. In addition, many of the examples already presented

reveal the pervasive misconceptions students have about moon phases, both before and after

instructional experiences. In most cases, students’ inclusion of terms demonstrated nuanced

differences in use, which reinforces the need to closely examine how students use academic

language when explaining complex phenomena.

Teacher Observations.

Observing the Moon. During Session 2.1, students are asked to write a short entry about

what they already know about the moon, followed by paired talk in which they describe a time

when they observed the moon in the sky. The teacher then prompts students to think about

questions about the moon that remain and introduces a book that models systematic observation

of the moon through the eyes of a young scientist. Students set a purpose for reading the book,

Observing the Moon, which they do with partners, while also attending to photographs and

diagrams of the moon. In a whole group discussion students share some information they

gathered from reading the book and explain how they used the secondhand data contained

therein.

Examination of observational records reveal that teachers are often not comfortable with

or fully fluent in scientific discourse, and therefore they can tend to miss opportunities to

promote the use of scientific language in a classroom setting or they may focus students on

learning definitions for academic vocabulary rather than promoting a deep understanding of the


concepts that the words represent (e.g., rotate and orbit). For example, a student was describing

her partner’s description of firsthand moon observations, explaining that the moon sometimes

appears as different shapes. The teacher probed the student’s response, but the focus of her probe

was on the procedure of the routine, not on conceptual knowledge.

T: Did you ask what she meant by different shapes? S: Yes, like sometimes like a sphere. T: You are an excellent listener. You can get a sticker.

Instead of highlighting the use of the scientific word, sphere, the teacher praises the student for

her listening skills. This excerpt clearly shows what Edelsky, Smith, and Wolfe (2002) define as

the “culture of school” that inhibits authentic scientific practices in the classroom. The teacher’s

response suggests that more emphasis is placed on adherence to behavioral norms than on

promoting deeper thinking from a fellow member of the classroom community of ‘scientists.’

In another session a teacher conducted a review of previous lessons in the unit. While the

field notes for this teacher include more references to specialized science vocabulary than in all

other sessions examined for this project, the teacher’s prompts focus the students on providing a

correct word or label and do not include follow-up prompting to provide explanations of the

concepts that the words represent.

T: We have been talking about what? S: about planets T: about planets . . . . S: how the earth rotates T: It rotates and what else does it do? S: orbits T: orbits.

While the students appear to be able to provide words (rotate, orbit) that scientists use to label

two ways that the Earth moves, the teacher does not prompt the students to explain the two

different motions or the distinct differences between them. While this teacher goes on to make


connections between academic and everyday words (observing/looking closely) and to model

using a glossary for gathering definitions, the lesson is presented in a recitation mode.

In addition, teachers often conceptualize science as a body of knowledge or a set of facts

versus a set of practices. If so, teachers may engage students in recitation of facts rather than a

sense making discussions around concepts. For example in one observation of Session 2.1 a

teacher asks to students to share what they learned from reading Observing the Moon. In bidding

for their contributions the teacher notes that he/she is going to “write down some facts” and goes

on to prompt by asking questions such as does the moon always stay a sphere? and how often

does the moon go through different shapes?

Modeling Lunar Phases. During Session 2.2, students revisit the book, Observing the

moon, but this time, the teacher poses a guiding question, why does the moon appear to change

shape? Following the description provided in the book, the teacher then introduces the use of a

paper model to demonstrate where in the sky each moon phase can be seen at a certain time of

year. The group discusses the relative usefulness of this model, compared to reading the book or

to observing the moon directly, after which the teacher introduces a three-dimensional sphere

model. To simulate moon phases, each student holds a pencil with a polystyrene ball on the end

and stands in a circle facing a light bulb (the Sun). Students then rotate their bodies (Earth) while

observing the way the reflected light changes on the ‘moon.’ Students discuss the moon’s orbit

and are guided to explain that the light we see from Earth is reflected from the Sun.

Analysis of these sessions demonstrate that there was more focused talk on the usefulness

and limitation of the models than on the causal relationship between the movement of the Earth

and moon in relation to the sun and how this affects the proportion of the moon that is

illuminated by reflected light from the sun. For example, in the following exchange, the teacher


is focusing on what the model did and did not show with respect to the motion of the sun, Earth,

and moon. A large focus of the instruction in the unit is focused on models because scientists use

models to understand scientific phenomena, especially things that cannot be observed firsthand.

Challenges with enacting certain portions of complex lessons can interfere with moving

through a lesson and can inhibit opportunities to engage in discourse. In Session 2.2, the

expectation is that the students participate in the using two different models. One goal of the

lesson is to evaluate different models that are used to show why the moon appears to change

shape in the sky in a sense making activity. Narrative notes suggest it was difficult to create the

first model in the lesson to the extent that time spent on this section of the lesson appeared to

prevent teachers from finishing the lesson as written. The missing portion of the lesson involved

engaging the discussion related to evaluating the models.

Discussion

Our results demonstrate that the encouraging results of previous studies notwithstanding,

integrated instruction does not guarantee success for students with language backgrounds other

than English, especially as science content becomes more complex and abstract. These findings

are consistent with Moje, et al. (2001), who found that even when curricular efforts attempt to

demystify academic language, students are left out of the classroom discourse for multiple

reasons. For example, competing discourse practices often coexist in the classroom if the

language the teacher uses contrasts from the language students bring to the classroom. The rapid

pace of instruction, coupled with new and unfamiliar vocabulary words demonstrate just two

ways academic discourse overwhelms students.

In response to these findings, Moje et al. (2001) argue that English learners require even

more explicit attention to academic language forms and functions in order to learn the language


registers necessary to be successful in school. For example, they recommend explicitly teaching

students strategies for leveraging everyday vocabulary as a vehicle for constructing science

understanding. One example includes highlighting the difference between ‘look’ in everyday use

and ‘observe’ in science. Whereas ‘observe’ refers to careful use all of your senses, the term

‘look’ does not connote this same precision of meaning. Although Gee (2004) contends that

different meanings are gained and lost when using what he refers to as “lifeworld” language, the

curricular Seeds/Roots curricular program does explicitly teach corresponding “everyday” words

for certain scientific terms. In fact, the curriculum includes an instructional support called the

Science/Everyday Word Chart, on which teachers are recommended to record examples of

science vocabulary and near equivalent everyday words. Our analysis demonstrates that, in fact,

some students did take on the ‘everyday’ language to makes sense of lunar phases.

Among others, Stahly, Krockover, and Shepardson (1999), Dove (2002), and Sherrod &

Wilhelm (2009) conducted studies of students’ scientific misconceptions related to the moon.

Dove conducted a case study of 12-year old students’ responses to an end-of-year science

examination. Dove’s review of research provided several potential explanations for why

astronomical phenomena are difficult to understand, including the influence of everyday

experiences, difficulty with representational models, and ambiguous vocabulary, to name a few.

Stahly, et al., interviewed third grade students before and after instruction using two- and three-

dimensional models of lunar phases and found that even when students’ conceptual

understanding changes, they often hold on to ideas that are inconsistent with “the scientific

perspective” (p. 159). of why the moon appears to change shape that were identified by Baxter

(1989), and cited in Stahly, et al., which are:

1. Clouds cover the part of the moon that we cannot see. 2. Planets cast shadows on the part of the moon that we cannot see.


3. The shadow of the sun falls on the moon, blocking our view of it. 4. The shadow of the earth falls on the moon, blocking our view. 5. The phases are explained in terms of the portion of illuminated side of the moon visible from the earth (scientific viewpoint). A critical question remains with respect to how disciplinary instruction in science find a

balance between what the “standards” dictate that children learn and what students are actually

interested in and motivated to talk about. If we took more time to listen, we may learn how to

better socialize them into academic social languages. Does content of classroom discourse matter

as much as simply mastering the register of intellectual interaction? Draper and Siebert (2009)

argue that it does matter, if the goal of science education is to create a science-literate citizenry.

However, others argue being able to explain moon phases represents complex and obscure

knowledge . Is this understanding merely a set of discrete facts, the moon does x because of y?

Or, does it contribute to greater understanding about patterns, movement, expansiveness, and

systems, crosscutting themes in the discipline of science?

Engaging students in meaningful and authentic scientific activity in which they use

language for real communicative purposes is not always consistent with how science is taught in

school, no matter how well-designed a curricular program is. Furthermore, scientific discourse in

the classroom is often stifled by the dominant culture and language of the classroom. As

Edelsky, Smith, and Wolfe (2002) point out, “the paradox of schooling is that, by and large,

schools purport to teach the practices of out-of-school communities (e.g., scientists) but the

culture students enter is school culture, not scientists’ culture” (p. 3). Nonetheless, students

deserve a chance to acquire the firsthand tools of inquiry-based science that enables them to also

acquire the language of science. Among its many benefits, the acquisition of scientific discourse

supports students’ entry into valued disciplines of academic learning.


Implications

There are two main implications for these findings reported here. First, the field of

academic language must continue to explore and extend research in the disciplines for all

students K-12. Science is a particularly vexing discipline because of the role that cultural and

familial knowledge can play in bridging students verbal meanings and situated meanings (Gee,

2002). By that, we mean the ways in which students engage in scientific discourse does not

always draw on their experiential backgrounds in ways that could support their development of

scientific discourse (Moje, 2004). Moreover, classroom routines are not always consistent with

the social practices of the scientific community. For instance, research shows that IRE also

dominates talk in the science classroom. Stahly, Krockover, and Shepardson (1999), attribute this

default pattern to the fear that “losing control of the conversation opens the door to chance that

students will continue to embrace naïve conceptions rather than adopt the ‘scientific

perspective’. An alternate explanation recognizes that some adults (e.g., teachers) maintain

inaccurate understandings about scientific phenomena, such as moon phases, which potentially

impacts their ability to promote scientific discourse in their classrooms.

This reality leads to the second implication of this analysis, which is to continue to

explore ways to support teachers in their delivery of science so they can better support students

academic language development. Cervetti, et al., describe their efforts as having three foci:

supporting student science learning with authentic uses of reading and writing, pushing for

increased standing for science in the school day, and build on teachers strengths in literacy to

support their science teaching. Integrated science and literacy curriculum is one way, but as

demonstrated in this analysis, teachers do not always follow instructional plans exactly.

Professional development, or better yet, more authentically socializing teachers into the practices


of science (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008), can enhance their creation of contexts that promote the

academic language of science.

Limitations

There are many different ways to capture student understanding of content, but to capture

students’ use of language, we have to hear them speak! Therefore, this analysis is limited in the

respect that the student input was not collected during the context of instruction. Although

interviews can be useful for noting changes in student thinking, comparing and contrasting

student responses to find evidence of more or less accurate understanding can confound

conceptual understanding and linguistic sophistication (that is, students can use very

sophisticated language, yet not fully grasp a concept). In addition, since students use different

types of models to investigate, it would be useful to have those models available when

interviewing (Stahly, et al, 1999). We recognize that there are more authentic ways to collect

language samples, however, it is also often difficult to capture all spontaneous uses of academic

discourse in an integrated approach because of the ways in which words are intentionally

embedded into multiple modalities of doing, talking, reading, and writing (Cervetti, Pearson,

Barber, Hiebert, & Bravo, 2007).

A methodological limitation lies in the nature the observation data. Although interrater

analysis was established based on observers coding of instruction, the narrative note procedure

was not standardized. In fact, the quality of the narrative notes varied. While the goal of the

narrative notes was to capture the most complete representation of the classroom instruction as

possible, observers differed in the documenting exact dialogue between teachers and students. In

addition, the nature of the observation protocol—seven minutes recording narrative notes


followed by three minutes of coding—means that three minutes of classroom activity for every

ten-minute period resulting in missing information.

Conclusion

This paper draws on a sociocultural perspective of language development and use within

the context of integrated science and literacy instruction. Although some academic registers are

generalizable (e.g., information sharing), others are distinct (e.g., scientific argumentation).

Science is a discipline with exceptionally distinct discursive activity. Above and beyond

specialized vocabulary and usage, scientific communication involves certain ways of talking,

writing, and being. The term “scientific discourse” refers to the various ways in which scientists

describe, explain, predict, synthesize, argue, and ensure that explanations are supported by

evidence. Members of the scientific community have tacit understandings about the myriad

purposes of scientific communication and the norms of explanation and argumentation, the

genres by which scientific knowledge is created (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Engaging

students in scientific investigation while incorporating language as both a tool and an outcome

for learning shows exceptional promise for developing students’ academic language of science.

As the findings of our analysis illustrate, engaging students in meaningful and authentic activity

that promotes academic language is challenging.


References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Project 2061: Science

for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, T. H., West, C. K., Beck, D. P., MacDonnell, E. S., & Frisbie, D. S. (1997).

Integrating reading and science education: On developing and evaluating WEE science.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(6), 711-733.

August, D. & Hakuta K. (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington, D.C.,

National Academy Press.

Baker, J. & Erickson J. (2007). Observing the Moon. Berkeley, CA: The Regents of the

University of California.

Bravo, M. A., Cervetti, G. N. Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2007). From passive to active

control of science vocabulary. In D. W. Rowe, R. Jiménez, D. Compton, D., D.

Dickinson, Y. Kim., K. Leander, & V. J. Risko (Eds.), Fifty-third yearbook of the National

Reading Conference (264-275). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Buxton, C., Lee, O., & Santau, A. (2008). Promoting Science Among English Language

Learners: Professional Development for Today’s Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

Classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 495-511.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, D., Lipman, D. N., Lively, T.

J., & White, C. E., (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing vocabulary needs of English-

language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly,

39(2), 188-215.

Cervetti, G., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. (2009). Integrating science


and literacy: A value proposition? Paper presented at the American Educational

Research Association.

Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Duong, T., Hernandez, S., & Tilson, J. (2008). A research-based

approach to instruction for English language learners in science. Report prepared for

the Noyce Foundation.

Cervetti, G.N., Pearson, P.D., Barber, J., Hiebert, E.H., & Bravo, M.A. (2007). Integrating

science and literacy: The research we have, the research we need. In M. Pressley,

A.K.Billman, K.H.Perry, K.E.Reffitt, & J.M. Reynolds (Eds.). Shaping Literacy

Achievement. New York: Guildford.

Colombi, C., & Schleppegrell, M. (2002). Theory and practice in the development of advanced

literacy. In M. Schleppegrell & C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First

and Second Language: Meaning with Power (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cullen, T. a, Akerson, V. L., & Hanson, D. L. (2010). Using Action Research to Engage K-6

Teachers in Nature of Science Inquiry as Professional Development. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 21(8), 971-992.

Dove, J. (2002). Does the man in the moon ever sleep? An analysis of student answers about

simple astronomical events: A case study. International Journal of Science Education

24(8), 823-834.

Draper, R.J., & Siebert, D. (2009). Content literacy in math and science classrooms. In S. Parris,

D. Fisher, & K. Hadley (Eds.) Adolescent Literacy, Field Tested: Effective Solutions for

Every Classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.


Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school:

Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies

Press.

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: An

instructional model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99 (4),

195-210.

French, L. (2004). Science as a center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138-149.

Gavelek, J. R., Raphael, T. E., Biondo, S. M., & Wang, D. (2000). Integrated Literacy

Instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook

of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 587-605).

Gee, J. (2002). Decontextualized language: A problem, not a solution. Paper presented at the

Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic, and Pedagogical Considerations of Language

and Science Literacy: Empowering Research and Informing Instruction, University of

Victoria.

Gee, J. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of

school-based literacy. In E.W. Saul (Ed.) Crossing Boarders in Literacy and Science

Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading

Association and Arlington, VA: National Science Teacher’s Association Press.

Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150-158.

Greenleaf, C., & Freedman, S. W. (1999). Linking classroom discourse and classroom content:


Following the trail of intellectual work in a writing lesson. Discourse Processes, 16, 465-

505.

Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-oriented

reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary

School Journal, 99(4), 343-366.

Hawkins, M.R. (2004). Researching English language and literacy development in schools.

Educational Researcher, 33(3), 14-25.

Klein, E. R., Hammrich, P. L., Bloom, S., & Ragins, A. (2000). Language development and

science inquiry: The head start on science and communication program. Early Childhood

Research and Practice, 2(2), 1-22.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking Science: Language, learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex

Publishing.

Moje, E.B., Callazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R.W. (2001). “Maestro, What is ‘Quality’?”:

Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.

Moje, E.B., Ciechanowski, K.M., & Kramer, K. (2004) Working toward third space in content

area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse. [Feature],

Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.

Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature

on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education 2007 31: 1-44.

National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Crosscutting

concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand


investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and

reasoning. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five Years of

Progress (pp. 151-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: each in the service of the

other. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5977), 459-63. doi:10.1126/science.1182595

Peterson, S. M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children's explanations through inquiry

science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 395-408.

Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth

elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-

long study in grade 4. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545-554.

Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in

elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications.

International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373-404.

Shanahan, C. (2008). Disciplinary comprehension. In S.E. Isreal & G. G. Duff (Eds.), Handbook

of research on reading comprehension (pp. 140-176). New York: Routledge.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking

content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2005). Promoting academic literacy for English language learners.

Educational Leadership. 62 (4) 8-13.

Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science.

Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5977), 450-2. doi:10.1126/science.1182597.

Stahly, L.L., Krockover, G.H., & Shepardson, D.P. (1999). Third grade students’ ideas about the

lunar phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 159-177.


Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: University Press.

Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canady, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and

language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39(8), 664-687.

Stoddart, T., Canaday, g., Clinton, M., Erai, M., Gasper, E., Latzke, M., Pinal, A., & Ponce, E.

(1999). Language acquisition through science inquiry. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal Canada.

Valdes, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., Lee, C., & Matos, L. (2005). Enhancing the developmentof

students’ language(s). In L.Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers

for a Changing World: What Teacher Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 126-168).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yerrick, R., & Beatty-Adler, D. (2011). Addressing Equity and Diversity with Teachers Though

Informal Science Institutions and Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 22(3), 229-253.

Yore, L., Bisanz, G.L., Hand, B.M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science

literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science

Education, 25(6), 689-725.

Academic Language in Science: Examining Fourth and Fifth Grade English Learner's Explanations of Moon Phases

Documents