Abstract
The dialog excerpt above is what first-grade teacher Laura Hall shared with me, her graduate advisor, as a typical interaction that she had in teacher-student conferences with English language learners (ELLs) about their writing. Ms. Hall stated that it was necessary for her to provide scaffolding for the students to transfer the background knowledge that they had built for writing during class activities into their own written texts. As a mainstream classroom teacher who does not have professional expertise in English as a second language (ESL) and bilingual education, she was not confident in supporting ELLs’ literacy development in academic writing. In our meetings, she sought out pedagogical methods and strategies for addressing difficulties that ELLs had with academic language in contexts of schooling, and for unpacking domain-specific language for their content knowledge development. Like Ms. Hall, many mainstream and content-area teachers face the same pedagogical challenges in teaching reading and writing grade-level texts to growing numbers of ELLs.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- English Language Learner
- Common Core State Standard
- Informational Text
- Academic Language
- Graphic Organizer
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Brisk, M. E., & Zisselsberger, M. (2010). “We’ve let them in on the secret”: Using SFL theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual students. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 111–126). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual education and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill.
de Oliveira, L., & Dodds, K. (2010). Beyond general strategies for English language learners: Language dissection in science. Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science, 9(1), 1–14.
de Oliveira, L., & Lan, S.-W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39.
de Oliveira, L., & Schleppegrell, M. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Rozelle, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association (PETA).
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write. New York: Teachers College 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, 195–210.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. New York: Pearson
Fang, Z., Lamme, L., & Pringle, R. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grades3–8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR).
Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reform in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55.
Gebhard, M., Shin, D., & Seger, W. (2011). Blogging, systemic functional linguistics, and L2 academic literacies in an urban elementary school. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 278–307.
Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2010). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 91–110). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Harman, R. (2013). Literacy intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 125–140.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, M. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R. D., LeRoy, K., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development. Intervention Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 31–52.
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10(3), 423–442.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC.
Newkirk, T. (1987). The non-narrative writing of young children. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 121–144.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Palincsar, A., & Schleppegrell, M. (2014). Focusing on language and meaning while learning with text. TESOL Quarterly, 116–123.
Pearson Education (2015). edTPA. Retrieved from http://www.edtpa.com
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hassan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). London: Longman.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shin, D. (2014). Web 2.0 tools and academic literacy development in a US urban school: A case study of a second grade English language learner. Language and Education, 28(1), 68–85.
Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Young children’s own illustrated information books: Making sense in science through words and pictures. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 95–116). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2000). Teaching science writing to first graders: Genre learning and recontextualization. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 35–65.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 184–201.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 Dong-shin Shin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shin, Ds. (2016). Disciplinary Language Development in Writing: Science Reports and Common Core State Standards. In: de Oliveira, L.C., Silva, T. (eds) Second Language Writing in Elementary Classrooms. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137530981_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137530981_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-70865-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53098-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)