IMPLEMENTACIÓN EFECTIVA DE LA ESTRATEGIA

Osborne focused on the important role that science teachers play in helping their students to become scientifically literate. He suggested that science teachers are responsible for focusing on discipline-specific literacy and need specific knowledge and teaching strategies to achieve it, stating:

The basic point that I think I would like science teachers to have is that if you are talk- ing about making people scientifically literate, literacy means what it means. . . . There is a fundamental sense of literacy . . . which is the ability to construe meaning from text and to construct meaning with text, as well. . . . The job of a teacher is to help people or students learn how to construct that particular meaning . . . and the way in which that is done is different depending on which discipline you happen to be in.

Osborne identified key pedagogical content and strategies that science teach- ers need related to helping students understand the language of science text. First, he stressed that knowledge of pedagogical strategies matters for student outcomes, citing the work of Sadler and his colleagues (2013). Teachers need knowledge of instructional and diagnostic tasks, knowledge of student cognition, and common

difficulties that students often manifest, as well as knowledge of a range of expla- nations for and ways of representing and communicating scientific ideas. He also argued that teachers need a repertoire of instructional strategies, including how to activate prior knowledge, promote comprehension, and build recall abilities. As illustrated in Figure 3-1, each aspect of teacher knowledge enables the application of practices that continue to inform teacher knowledge in an ongoing cycle.

Osborne explained some specific methods that teachers can use with sci- ence texts to promote recall of information: “Anticipation Guides” to identify and build on prior knowledge (Smith, 1978), Directed Activities Related to Text (DARTs)1 _{to promote comprehension, and the Frayer model (Frayer et al., 1969)}

and Cornell notes (Pauk et al., 2008). All emphasize the need for students to be reflective when they engage with science texts. Further, Osborne stressed that teachers can help students become critical readers of science texts, but cautioned

1_{For more information on DARTs, see https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/interacting-} texts-directed-activities-related-texts-darts [March 2014].

FIGURE 3-1 How knowledge of pedagogy supports teaching practices.

SOURCE: Osborne (2013). KNOWLEDGE of the Methods of ASSESSING Student Understanding ENABLES Elicitation of STUDENT THINKING KNOWLEDGE of Common STUDENT DIFFICULTIES ENABLES Interpretation of Level of STUDENT UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE of a Repertoire of INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES ENABLES Informed PEDAGOGIC DECISIONS

that this guidance requires teachers to have sufficient expertise and subject-matter knowledge, a current challenge that requires realistic expectations. He ended his remarks emphasizing that science is about ideas that have to be communicated in written and oral language practices specific to the discipline. He said these over- arching principles frame the need for a set of core knowledge and strategies that teachers can use to help their students succeed.

O’Connor emphasized that teachers need not focus on teaching grammar, but rather devote class time to allowing students to grapple with the meaning of complex sentences. She shared strategies that are being used in Lily Wong Fillmore’s work with English language learners. In Fillmore’s work, teachers can have students paraphrase a text using their own words, by encouraging them to “look up” to the storyline and “look down” into the details. Although teachers may be tempted to summarize and present the meaning of a text to students when it involves challenging language, allowing students to dig deeper into science texts can impart particular benefits to them, according to O’Connor. Namely, the over- arching messages of these texts impart knowledge about the work of science/engi- neering, the texts provide facts and arguments needed to support these story lines, and finally, the contents of these texts help structure teachers’ efforts to support students grappling with complex language. Paraphrasing complex text and the resulting discussions can be key parts of the meaning-making process in science.

Mary Schleppegrell and Annemarie Palincsar of the University of Michigan expanded upon ways that elementary teachers can help students understand lexi- cally dense texts by analyzing the language and patterns that authors use in sci- ence writing. Several bodies of literature have informed the development of the curriculum Functional Grammar Analysis, including systemic functional linguis- tic theory (Halliday, 1994; Schleppegrell, 2001, 2004), as well as theories that emphasize the linkages between form and meaning in reading situated within a sociocultural context (August and Shanahan, 2008; García and Cuellar, 2006; Goldman and Rakestraw, 2000; Graesser et al., 2003; Sweet and Snow, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986). Further, Schleppegrell and Palincsar have drawn upon the work of Putnam and Borko (2000), which has shown the importance of using teachers’ own classrooms as powerful contexts for their learning.

Informed by these theories of linguistics and learning, Functional Grammar

Analysis is a curriculum for elementary school teachers to be used in the context

of language arts, Palincsar explained. It is one tool to help teachers use text and learn to read with students in ways that engage students in thinking about scien- tific concepts. This is accomplished by focusing detailed attention on the language

the author chose and how these choices build meaning. The curriculum involves interactive reading and discussion of text, first-hand investigations, demonstra- tions of phenomena, and support for writing about the phenomena.

Palincsar noted the effectiveness of this curriculum with a diverse group of students has been supported through research (Palincsar et al., 2013). She described a study in which 26 teachers from grades 2 through 5 participated with 12 coaches/resource teachers to implement this curriculum in their classrooms in Dearborn, Michigan, home to the largest population of Arab Americans in the United States. Over 90 percent of children in these participating classrooms were bilingual, with a high proportion classified as English language learners, and over 90 percent of the students in the schools in their research qualified for free and reduced-cost lunch. After using Functional Grammar Analysis, which constituted the only science teaching most students received, students’ science content knowl- edge increased. In addition, analysis of student writing showed an increase, on average, of five idea units from the pre to postwriting assessment, an increase in the range of ideas children included in their explanations, and more use of writing with connectors and author attitude.

With Functional Grammar Analysis, Palincsar explained, teachers address the technical nature of science texts by helping students identify certain patterns in the language. For example, a paragraph that includes a series of sentences with “being” or “having” verbs tends to convey a definition. Similarly, students are guided to look for sentences that include the phrase “is called” to further build on definitions. Teachers can also point out the ways in which even the word “or” can be used to indicate a definition. Using these tools, she said, teachers help students see how meanings of technical words become clearer as the text evolves from beginning to end.

A focus on “doing” processes rather than “being” or “having” is charac- teristic of explanatory text, Palincsar explained. Teachers encourage students to identify meaningful “chunks” of text, purposefully using the words participants and processes, rather than on nouns and verbs, to emphasize conceptual under- standing over parts of speech. In these texts in which the purpose is to describe how something happens, the flow of ideas often follows an identifiable pattern. A concept named at the end of one phrase is used at the beginning of the next, and ideas build upon one another. Connections between phrases also have particular meaning in science texts. They can convey present time, cause, condition, contrast, or other linkages. Examples of these various text patterns are shown in Box 3-1.

Last, Schleppegrell indicated that although science texts can seem objective and impersonal, author word choice conveys a perspective on a range of ideas. Authors choose words to convey their ideas about certainty or likelihood or their attitude about a concept. Connecting words, such as “but,” “although,” or “in fact,” can convey author perspective as well. Examining these texts for author perspective is part of the process of identifying claims an author makes and the evidence used to support that claim, which encourages students to be critical readers of text. According to Palincsar (2013, p. 14), “Students who have been supported to learn the scientific practices identified in the NGSS are equipped to bring such a critical stance to text.”

BOX 3-1

EXAMPLES OF SCIENCE TEXT PATTERNS:

DEFINITION, EXPLANATION, CONJUNCTIONS, AND ATTITUDES

Definition: Looking for “having” or “being” words

When a material has electrons that are able to move very freely, it conducts electricity. We call it a conductor. Most metals are good conductors.

Explanation: Looking for “doing” verbs

The electric current provides energy that makes things run. The electrons flow through wires that are made of metal (conductors) and covered in plastic (an insulator).

Conjunctions: Looking for words that explain how ideas are connected

The energy of the electrons is converted to heat or light as the electrons make resisters run.

Attitudes: Looking for words that express the author’s perspective Likelihood—could, might, perhaps

Attitude—unfortunately, surprisingly

Connectors that convey perspective—in fact, but, although