Negotiating science - building thematic patterns of the scientific concept sound in a Swedish multilingual lower secondary classroom

Abstract

In this article we examine a teacher’s and multilingual students’ use of multiple resources and their potential for students’ meaning-making of sound and sound transmission. Students were 14–15 years old, Swedish grade 8, speaking Swedish as a second language. We examine how different strategies and multiple resources interact in creating thematic patterns in a multilingual science classroom. Data comprise 64 hours of video- and audio recordings, digital photos, field-notes, textbooks, worksheets and student notebooks. As analytical tools we use thematic development strategies, control and social interaction strategies as well as strategies of bridging multiple resources. In co-constructing the content using various resources, thematic patterns were developed through a continuous shift between everyday and scientific language due to the teacher’s awareness of the unit’s abstract and technical content. Findings also reveal that a strategy of control performed by the teacher marked the importance of using ‘physics words’. Strategies of social interaction accentuated by earlier experiences as well as personal and humorous connotations expressed in everyday language supported meaning-making. In addition, a number of multiple resources, such as models, gestures, bodily action, drawings, reading and writing were used.

Keywords:

• Multilingual students
• thematic patterns
• sound
• physics education
• lower secondary school
• multiple resources

Introduction

Second language learners are incorporated in regular classes in Sweden before fully mastering academic Swedish. Consequently, teachers have to scaffold both content and language. Science subjects commonly create difficulties especially for second language learners due to use of abstract, generalized and technical lexicogrammar (Lee 2005; Martin 1999). Hence, the purpose of this article is to examine how the topic of Sound is mediated in a lower secondary multilingual science class. Based on Lemke’s thematic patterns (1990), we investigate how a teacher and students co-construct the science content of Sound in classroom dialogues and through other communicative resources.

Explicit science instruction with use of multiple resources benefits second language learners (Cummins 2015). In Sweden, the language of instruction is Swedish, which may pose challenges due to gaps in second language learners’ knowledge of everyday and academic Swedish (Axelsson and Danielsson 2012). In school science, language resources such as lexical, syntactic and discourse features of science are required to express a scientific and often abstract view of the world (Bailey 2007; Halliday and Martin 1993). Furthermore, the scientific language is commonly both expository and analytical (Lemke 1990). Although language is regarded as key to understanding, presenting content and managing activities in the science classroom, additional affordances are needed (Lemke 1990, 1998; Schleppegrell 2004). A combination of and interaction between various resources might scaffold meaning-making (Kress et al. 2001; Wellington and Osborne 2001).

Scholars have examined the role of multiple affordances in science education. Martin (2007) showed how compositional relations of volcanoes are illustrated in schematic drawings with labels. Kress et al. (2001) reported how students chose material when constructing a model of a plant cell as home assignment. Student choices resulted in motivated representations explaining appearance and functions of the cell contributing to a deepened meaning-making. Kress et al. (2001, 14) argue that different strategies and multiple resources ‘interact with and contribute to the other’, creating thematic patterns in the classroom. Thematic patterns are seen as connections between meanings of words in science (Lemke 1990). Another study examining bilingual grade 3- and 7-students’ use of gestures in science class revealed how gestures were vital in the meaning-making process when language was limited (Ünsal et al. 2018). Jakobson and Axelsson (2017) reported how a teacher built a web of resources when teaching science in Grade 5 (students aged 11–12 years) to scaffold students’ meaning-making. However, the resources or combinations of resources may also constitute a hindrance for learning (Jakobson and Axelsson 2017). Zhang (2016) revealed gaps occurring both between multiple representations of science content and everyday and scientific language. Consequently, how students are afforded opportunities of science meaning-making depends on the situation and available resources. In the present study we examine how teacher afforded strategies and multiple resources interact in creating situated thematic patterns in a multilingual science classroom.

Theoretical framework

Along with Halliday (1994) we see learning as a continous and ongoing social process in encounters between people and the surrounding world. However, what is mediated varies as meaning-making is situated and people have different experiences (Säljö 2000). Language is seen as a system of resources for meaning-making and focus is on the linguistic choices people make in different contexts (Halliday 1994). Also it is proposed that language development comprises three components: learning language, learning through language and learning about language (Christie and Unsworth 2005). In this article focus is on learning science through language and multiple semiotic resources. The context of a text is thus seen as ‘a semiotic system manifested in language’ and other resources (Martin 1992, 493). There is a dialectic relation whereby content is seen as activated by the lexicogrammar which in turn construes meaning (Christie and Unsworth 2005). Subsequently, socio-cultural factors influence what people do or mean through language and register (Halliday and Hasan 1985/1989). In the present study focus will be on field (i.e. content), operating along a continuum from everyday to scientific language orienting to purposes from family to society (Martin and Rose 2002).

In science as in all subjects, language is the key to understanding and presenting content as well as managing activities (Lemke 1990; Schleppegrell 2004). Learning how meanings of words are related to each other and to understand what is relevant to talk about in a given situation is by Lemke (1990) stated as thematic patterns. Thematic patterns are defined as ‘the pattern of connections among the meanings of words in a particular field of science’ and as ‘constituted by a web of semantic relations’ (Lemke 1990, 12). However, thematic patterns in science education are often left implicit and rarely talked about leaving science content as well as the difference between everyday and scientific language unclear (Lemke 1990). Subsequently, there is a need of back and forth movement along the register scale and also a need of marking which language is used in the specific situation. Concurrently, Mortimer and Scott (2003) pay attention to everyday thinking as potentially creating a barrier to the understanding of scientific content.

As several researchers (c.f. Halliday and Martin 1993; Jakobson et al. 2018; Schleppegrell 2004; Tang and Putra 2018; Tytler, Prain, and Hubber 2018) have pointed out difficulties within science education, it is of interest to study how language and multiple resources might support co-construction of science content in a multilingual classroom where students’ varied proficiency in the language of instruction might be concealed from the teacher. With the purpose of studying how the content of sound is mediated in a lower secondary multilingual class, our research question is: How do the teacher and the multilingual students co-construct content of sound in classroom dialogues and through multiple resources?

Methodological approach

Data collection

Data presented in this study are part of a three-year project funded by the Swedish Research Council. Data used for the present study comprise 21 hours of video- and 43 hours of audio-recordings from one grade 8-class (14–15 years) in a multilingual suburban Swedish school. In addition, digital photos of the classroom environment, textbooks, worksheets and student notebooks were collected. An aspect when choosing school for the study was the presence of multilingual students: in this school 85% and in the studied classroom 84%. Another aspect was the school’s focus on language when teaching content. The participating teacher was qualified for teaching science subjects in grades 4–9 (students aged 11–16 years old) as well as science studies and biology in upper secondary school (16–19 years old). Moreover, the teacher had participated in a course on genre pedagogy (Dare and Polias 2004). The class was observed throughout the unit Sound, lasting one month. 19 of 22 students agreed to participate in the study and of these 16 were multilingual. 13 students were born in Sweden and 16 reported using two or more languages at home. Three students had Swedish as their sole first language.

The lessons were carried out in whole-class settings with continuous group- and pair-discussions and literacy activities. Student interactions were audio-recorded with microphones at their desks comprising four group- or pair-conversations. Teacher interactions and instructions were audio-recorded with a microphone worn by the teacher. A video-camera recorded the whole classroom from the back. Following ethics of the Swedish Research Council (2017) students’ names are pseudonyms.

Data analysis

The audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and triangulated through data comparison to video-recordings, photographs and field-notes to secure reliability. Recordings and transcriptions were checked by the four members of the research project. The unit of analysis was defined as ‘the discursive and interactive strategies used by teacher and students’ (Lin and Lo 2017, 30). In our analysis, we take our stance in Lemke’s (1990) thematic development strategies (i.e. semantic relationships), strategies of control and social interaction. Moreover, attention is paid to Lemke’s (1998) ways of bridging multiple resources focusing on a wider scope than just teaching and learning science through ‘concepts’. The emphasis is on the ‘role of language and semantics in teaching and learning’ (Lemke 1990, 91) since mastery of science requires mastery of subject specific thematic patterns. Finally, Halliday’s (1994) register model was used in the analysis in order to identify the movements along the contextual variable field.

First, the ‘thematic development strategies’ used were identified: monologue strategies including ‘logical exposition’ and ‘selective summary’, dialogue strategies including ‘asking a series of questions’ and ‘joint construction’ (Lemke 1990, 225). Second, we identified ‘control strategies’ in terms of ‘controlling pace’ and ‘marking importance’ (Lemke 1990, 66–67). Third, ‘social interaction strategies’ as ‘being funny, ‘getting personal’ (Lemke 1990) and ‘drawing on daily life experience’ were identified (Lin and Lo 2017). Fourth, ‘strategies of bridging multiple resources’ were acknowledged: ‘shifting between everyday and academic language’ and related to ‘multiple resources’ (Jakobson and Axelsson 2017).

Findings

Thematic patterns

The analysis revealed that the teacher and the multilingual students continuously negotiated and co-constructed the science content. During whole-class and group-work thematic patterns developed over time and resulted in the distilled content of sound (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Co-constructed overall thematic pattern of sound.

The thematic patterns are:

• sound changes, reflects and attenuates;

• sound arises through vibrating sound sources;

• sound is transmitted through a medium;

• the transmission happens by way of rarefaction and compression.

Examples from whole-class and group-work recordings show how an overall thematic pattern was elaborated and co-constructed through various semantic relations negotiated by the teacher and the students. Common semantic relations identified in the material were (Lemke 1990):

1. Nominal relation - attribute/carrier: when teacher or students described characteristics of sound (For example, ‘the more water there is in the test tubes, the sound gets lighter and with less water it gets darker’.)

2. Taxonomic relation - part/whole: when the teacher asked the students for an example of a sound source (For example, ‘we have a sound source – a spoon’.)

3. Transitivity relation - identified/identifier: when teacher or students identified a relation (For example, ‘sound is sound waves’.)

4. Circumstantial relation - process/reason: when the teacher explained how sound waves occur (For example, ‘then the thread vibrates, but what is happening then is that it starts pushing the molecules sitting in the thread until it reaches your ear’.)

5. Logical relation - item/elaboration: when the teacher added or clarified a specific sound concept (For example, ‘the sound waves are transmitted along the thread. Rarefactions and compressions’.)

In order to build and make the semantic relations appear, the teacher used a number of thematic development strategies comprising iterative monologue and dialogue strategies interspersed with likewise iterative student group-work. A common teaching pattern started with a monologue (a) in the form of ‘logical exposition’ or ‘selective summary’ where thematic items and semantic relations were connected (Lemke 1990, 225). These monologues were always accompanied by the use of various resources as models, visuals and gestures. At times the monologues ended up in short dialogues (b) with the students opening up for both parts to ask questions and jointly construct thematic patterns as in turns 9–13 and the teacher’s logical exposition and selective summary in turn 13. Next step involved student group- or pair-activities (c) such as dialogic interaction, writing, drawing and occasionally investigations. During this co-construction students asked questions and completed or extended each other’s comments building thematic patterns. Meanwhile the teacher circulated asking for explanations, posing open-ended questions or answering students’ questions without valuing their answers as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (d). Students’ reports (e) of the task were instantaneous and often entailed raising the mini-whiteboards for the teacher to read. At this moment the teacher summed up (f) the thematic items and semantic relations were dwelled upon (selective summary). These thematic development strategies were repeated cyclically throughout the unit. At the beginning of every lesson the teacher presented and wrote the purpose of the unit or the actual lesson on the whiteboard. The purposes of the sound unit, as written on the whiteboard in the first lesson, were: ‘1. To develop your understanding of what sound is, 2a. To develop your ability to work with ‘experiments’, 2 b, and to use sound concepts and the sound model in order to explain’ [various phenomena connected to sound].

Turns 1–29 give an example of how teacher and students during a group-activity negotiated and co-constructed how sound waves are transmitted. Earlier during the unit the students investigated how sound is transmitted through different media, such as ‘spoon in the ear’, ‘test tube with water’, ‘can telephone’ and ‘swinging ruler’. The present task was to explain the performed investigation using the sound model and physics words. At this occasion the students worked in small groups and the teacher circulated in the classroom, asking and answering questions. The following discussion concerns the investigation ‘the spoon in the ear’ (semantic relations in italics, Swedish within brackets):

1. Teacher: What you are going to do now is to explain this experiment with the help of the sound model and with the help of physics words.

[Det ni ska göra nu, det är att förklara det här experimentet med hjälp av modellen av ljud och med hjälp av ord från fysiken.]

2. Jowan: The sound goes through the thread somehow. (material/process) Doesn’t it?

[Ljudet går ju i tråden på något sätt. Visst?]

3. Dannah: Through what?

[I vad?]

4. Rewez: Well, you have done this spoon in the ear, haven’t you?

[Alltså, du har gjort den här skeden i örat vá?]

5. Dannah: Yees.

[Jaa.]

6. Rewez: If you hold such a thread, what…Shall we describe the sound or?

[Om du håller i en sån här tråd, vad…Ska vi beskriva ljudet eller?]

7. Jowan: Yes, the sound.

[Ja, ljudet.]

8. Rewez: The sound must go through. (material/process)

[Ljudet måste gå igenom.]

9. Jowan: Mm. Now the sound goes like this through the thread. (material/process)

[Mm. Nu går ljudet så här igenom tråden.]

10. Dannah: Mm.

[Mm.]

11. Teacher: Yeah. Okay. Then you can say like this that sound, we know that sound, we have a sound source. And the sound source in this case, which is it?

[Jaha. Okay. Då kan man ju säga så här att ljud, vi vet ju att ljud, vi har en ljudkälla. Och ljudkällan i det här fallet, vilken är den?]

12. Dannah: The spoon. (part/whole)

[Skeden.]

13. Teacher: It’s the spoon, yes. And then it will start to vibrate. (material/process) Then the thread vibrates, but what is happening then is that it starts pushing the molecules located in the thread until it reaches your ear. (process/reason) So that’s the best way to explain. They push towards the molecules in the thread until it reaches your ear. (material/process)

[Det är skeden, ja. Och då kommer den börja vibrera. (material/process) Då vibrerar tråden, men det som händer då börjar den att knuffa på de molekyler som sitter i tråden tills det kommer till ditt öra. (process/reason) Så det är det bästa sättet att förklara. De knuffar mot trådens molekyler tills det når ditt öra. (material/process)]

14. Dannah: Okay.

[Okej.]

15. Tim: Is there any other word you could use?

[Finns det något annat ord man ska använda?]

16. Teacher: For?

[För?]

17. Tim: [inaudible]

[ohörbart]

18. Teacher: Rarefactions, compressions if that’s what you mean, or?

[Förtunningar, förtätningar om du menar det eller?]

19. Tim: Yees.

[Jaa.]

20. Teacher: The sound waves are transmitted along the thread. (material/process) Rarefaction and compression. (item/elaboration)

[Ljudvågorna transporteras i själva tråden. (material/process) Förtunning och förtätning. (item/elaboration)]

21. Dannah: I don’t understand those words so I can’t write it.

[Jag förstår inte de orden så jag kan inte skriva det.]

22. Teacher: Rarefaction and compression?

[Förtunning och förtätning?]

23. Dannah: Yees.

[Jaa.]

24. Teacher: What is it that’s so difficult to understand then?

[Vad är det som är svårt att förstå då?]

25. Dannah: I don’t know what they mean.

[Jag vet inte vad de betyder.]

26. Teacher: If we look at your little sound wave here.

[Om vi tittar på er lilla ljudvåg här.]

27. Dannah: Mm.

[Mm.]

28. Teacher: So for each time there is a wave peak there and you can see molecules crashing into each other. (process/reason)

[Så för varje gång som det blir en vågtopp så ser man där krockar molekylerna ihop med varandra.]

29. Dannah: The vibrations in the spoon are transmitted in the thread. (material/process)

[Vibrationerna i skeden transporteras i tråden.]

In this sequence the main thematic development strategy was dialogue. Teacher and students co-constructed circumstantial (2, 8, 9, 13, 28, 29), taxonomic (11–12) and logical semantic relations (20). In turn 13 the teacher, in an extended monologue, made a selective summary of the meaning co-constructed so far. Conclusively, it is shown how teacher and students through various thematic development strategies managed to co-construct a number of semantic relations illustrating sound transmission furthering the students’ meaning-making of sound (eg. 8, 9, 29).

In the student group, field was expressed in concrete everyday language (Figure 2, S2–25). When the teacher joined the student group, field expressions moved from everyday language to more scientific language since the teacher iteratively used scientific expressions (T11–28). When Dannah in turns 21 and 25 claimed not to understand the meaning of ‘rarefaction’ and ‘compression’ the teacher made several efforts to familiarize the content. By pointing at the students’ drawn sound wave and by naming it ‘your little sound wave’ the teacher was concrete and everyday (26). In turn 28 the teacher explained how compression comes about. In the final turn (S29) Dannah successfully formulated a circumstantial relation in terms of material/process in scientific language ‘The vibrations in the spoon are transmitted in the thread’.

Figure 2. Student and teacher turns along the field continuum.

Through teacher-student and small-group dialogue students were afforded opportunity to co-construct knowledge of sound. Visible thematic patterns were ‘sound arises through vibrating sound sources’; ‘sound is transmitted through a medium’; ‘the transmission happens by way of rarefaction and compression’ (1–29). However, Dannah was neither comfortable with writing the latter concepts as she did not know their meaning (21–25), nor was she able to internalize the teacher’s explanation (28). Instead she reconstructed and transformed her experiences of investigating the vibrating spoon using scientific language (29).

Strategies of control

A control strategy used by the teacher was ‘controlling pace’. Connected to the thematic development strategies described above the tempo in activity alteration was fast and activities short and varied. An additional strategy of control performed by the teacher was ‘marking importance’ concerning the use of sound concepts expressed as ‘physics words’. In order to facilitate students’ reading of textbooks the teacher posed questions written on the pages. One example is when the teacher, marking the importance of physics words, requested an alternative physics word for ‘sound bump’.

During the subsequent pair-work the teacher circulated listening to the students’ suggestions concerning alternative physics words. The following dialogue unfolded between the teacher and one group:

30. Sanna: Another word! Could you use for sound bump? That’s sound wave. Vibration.

[Ett annat ord! Kan man använda för ljudstöt? Det är ju ljudvåg. Vibration.]

31. Teacher: Sound bump. Yes. They [the textbook] use the word sound bump very much, but I would very much want that you used sound wave.

[Ljudstöt. Jaa. De [läroboken] använder ordet ljudstöt jättemycket, men jag skulle nog gärna vilja att ni använde ljudvåg.]

32. Sanna: Yes, I said sound wave.

[Ja, jag sa ljudvåg.]

33. Teacher: Sound bump. Surely you push, scuffle. It sounds as if you push someone, but I think sound wave sounds better. Sound bump and sound wave is really the same thing. It sounds like pushing, doesn’t it? If you bump into someone, you push someone.

[Ljudstöt. Visst man knuffar, puttar. Det låter som om man knuffar på någon, men jag tycker ljudvåg låter bättre. Ljudstöt och ljudvåg är egentligen samma sak. Det låter ju som knuffar, eller hur? Om man stöter på någon, så knuffar du på någon.]

The teacher continued to ‘mark the importance’ of using adequate physics words by emphazising ‘sound wave’ instead of ‘sound bump’ used in the textbook. Thus, on two occasions (‘sound wave’ instead of ‘sound bump’ and ‘attenuates’ instead of ‘sucks up’, 56–61) the teacher stressed the importance of word choice concerning physics content.

The thematic items forming patterns in turns 30–33 are ‘sound wave, sound bump, vibration, pushes, scuffles, bumps’ (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Student and teacher turns along the field continuum.

Figure 3 shows an increase in student scientific language use when Sanna used ‘sound wave, vibration’ (30, 32) while the teacher alternated between everyday, ‘push, scaffold’, and scientific language, ‘sound wave’ (31, 33). Thus, the teacher did not leave the students alone with the textbook, but instead formulated questions to scaffold meaning-making. In the subsequent group-work it is obvious that the text activities informed students’ use of physics words.

Strategies of social interaction

The social interaction strategies found were ‘getting personal’, ‘being funny’ and ‘drawing on earlier experiences’. The teacher got personal on several occasions. In turns 34–35, when talking about ‘a short while’ (used in the textbook), he referred to an argument he had had with his children concerning time spent using Ipad:

34. Teacher: How long is a short while? It’s short. My children always say like this: I say, take the Ipad away, I say now. Now you have to stop. Yes, but a little longer. Yes, but how long is a short while then?

[Hur lång är en liten stund? Den är kort. Mina barn säger alltid så här: Jag säger, ta bort Ipaden, säger jag nu. Nu får ni sluta. Ja, men en liten stund till. Ja, men hur långt är en liten stund då?]

35. Sanna: It depends. It depends.

[Det beror på. Det beror på.]

In this dialogue Sanna stated the relative meaning of ‘a short while’ leading to estimations between three hours and two seconds. Another example of ‘getting personal’ was when the teacher referred to himself and his loss of hair in an attempt to illustrate the physics concept ‘rarefaction’:

36. Teacher: This is called compression and rarefaction. Compression, something gets thicker, gets more of. Rarefaction, like me, I’m losing my hair. It’s getting thinner. They get fewer.

[Det här kallar man för förtätning och förtunning. Förtätning, någonting blir tjockare, blir mer av. Förtunning, som jag, jag håller på att tappa håret. Det håller på att förtunnas. Det blir färre av.]

This comparison, between the teacher’s loss of hair and rarefaction, was somewhat far-fetched as it only explained the word ‘thinner’ and not the physical phenomenon properly. The comparison might have been confusing to the students as it was not obvious how ‘thinner hair’ and ‘rarefaction’ were related. Accordingly, this might be an occasion when referring to everyday experiences becomes a barrier, obscuring the view of science content being taught (c.f. Mortimer and Scott 2003). On a rare occasion the teacher added humour to his personal experience of his military service and aimed at ‘being funny’ while illustrating the function of the outer ears:

37. Teacher: Now it’s important to be quite silent and really focus and listen. When I did my military service, I learned how I should hear better and that looks a bit silly, but I can show you. It’s like this, in order to hear really good you should cup your hands behind the ears and open your mouths [shows].

[Nu gäller det att vara helt tyst för att verkligen fokusera och lyssna. När jag gjorde min militärtjänst så fick man lära sig hur jag skulle, man skulle höra bättre och det ser ju lite fånigt ut, men jag kan visa er. Då är det så, för att höra riktigt bra så skulle man ta och kupa händerna bakom öronen och gapa [visar].

38. Several: [laughs]

[skrattar]

39. Teacher: And why? Not to look foolish, but for another reason. What do I get now? I get like two big, giant funnels, ears.

[Och varför det? Inte för att man ska se dum ut, utan det var ju för något annat. Vad får jag nu? Jag får liksom två stora jättetrattar, öron]

40. Tanesha: Yes, like elephants. They hear super.

[Ja, som elefanter. De hör jättebra.]

41. Teacher: Yeah! They have fairly good ears, haven’t they?

[Ja visst! De är ju justa öron vá.]

42. Yanis: Now I know! You catch the sound waves coming like that!

[Nu vet jag! Du fångar ljudvågorna som kommer så där!]

43. Teacher: Yes, of course! Now the sound waves are coming.

[Ja, visst! Nu kommer ljudvågorna.]

At this moment the teacher in a humorous way engaged the students in an activity testing if their hearing improved when holding hands behind the outer ears. Accordingly, this sequence led to a co-construction of knowledge where several different memory hooks such as gesture (cupping hands), metaphor (two big giant funnels), example (elephants) and a functional explanation (catch the sound waves) were brought forward while having fun. These dialogues (turns 36 − 43) were mainly performed in everyday language except for the use of the physics words ‘rarefaction, compression, sound waves’ (36, 42, 43).

The students at times humorously twisted an explanatory teacher sequence as in turns 44–50 when the teacher explained how air molecules are transmitted by drawing on students’ everyday experience of standing in a lunch line-up. Dannah associated ‘the first one falls’ to ‘falling in the hot pot’ (49). The teacher did not take Dannah’s humorous remark further, but continued to explain the event as a ‘chain reaction’ (50):

44. Teacher: If we have a sound source vibrating, it will start pushing the air molecules. Did you ever stand in the lunch line-up and someone pushing you from behind?

[Om vi har en ljudkälla som vibrerar nu, så kommer den att börja putta på luftmolekylerna. Har du någon gång stått i matkön och någon puttar på dig bakifrån?]

45. Several: Yeah!

[Jaa!]

46. Teacher: Well, if you push towards each other. And then there is some distance between the one pushing you and the others, isn’t there?

[Om man puttar mot varandra, eller hur? Och så blir det lite avstånd mellan den som puttar dig och de andra, eller hur?]

47. Several: Yeah!

[Jaa!]

48. Rewez. Then the first one falls.

[Så då ramlar den första.]

49. Dannah: Then they fall into the hot pot.

[Så ramlar de i köttgrytan.]

50. Teacher: Yes, there is like a chain reaction that if one is pushed so the next person is pushed too.

[Ja, så det blir som en kedjereaktion att om en blir puttad på så puttas nästa person också.]

In turn 44 the teacher started to build the thematic pattern ‘vibrating sound source’, ‘pushing air molecules’ using mainly physics words. However, when comparing the physical process with the metaphor ‘lunch line-up’ the focus changed from physics to an everyday experience apparently not contributing to the understanding of rarefaction and compression.

The teacher was a keen user of illustrative whiteboard drawings and he considered drawing an important part of being a scientist. On several occasions he emphasized the importance of documenting investigations by saying: ‘write down’, ‘draw’, ‘make some kind of a presentation’, ‘write, draw on the whiteboard’ (mini-whiteboards used by the students). Subsequently, the teacher often demanded that students meticulously should copy his whiteboard drawings in their notebooks. This demand resulted in some grumble among the students leading to the following ironic comment:

51. Benito: Are we supposed to draw?

[Ska man rita?]

52. Feroz: The teacher, he has made himself Picasso.

[Läraren, han har gjort sig till Picasso.]

53. Edin: Picasso.

[Picasso.]

54. Benito: He wants at least one Picasso from his class.

[Han vill ha minst en Picasso från sin klass.]

55. Edin: At least.

[Minst.]

Students’ linking to Picasso might be an expression of scientific exactness learning the aesthetics of science class (Wickman 2006). In science class, being meticulous and exact might refer to positive aesthetic judgements, ‘nice and tidy’, in this situation expressed as ‘at least one Picasso from his class’.

Just like in turns 30–33 the teacher polemicized against the textbook in an attempt to introduce the verb ‘attenuate’ instead of the textbook verb ‘suck up’. Again the teacher asked for alternative expressions and one student came up with ‘captures’ (57). Instead of continuing with ‘capture’ and aligning expressions the teacher returned to ‘sucking up sound’ and asked for things at home that suck up. After the misleading remark ‘capture’ the teacher seemed to give up and simply stated that ‘sound attenuates’ (60):

56. Teacher: ‘When there are carpets, curtains and furniture in the room, they suck up the sound’ [reads]. Why do you write like that? Suck up the sound. Sanna?

[‘När det finns mattor, gardiner och möbler i rummet, suger de upp ljudet’ [läser]. Varför skriver man så? Suger upp ljudet? Sanna?]

57. Sanna: Captures.

[Fångar upp.]

58. Teacher: Captures, yes. It’s good. What do you think then if you suck up the sound? What things do we have that suck up things at home?

[Fångar upp, ja. Det, det är bra. Vad tänker man då om man suger upp ljudet? Vad har vi för något som suger upp saker hemma?]

59. Sanna: Vacuum cleaner.

[Dammsugare.]

60. Teacher: Mm. I would like to use attenuate actually. The sound attenuates.

[Mm. Jag skulle gärna vilja använda egentligen dämpar. Ljudet dämpas.]

In this sequence the teacher ‘drew on the students’ earlier experiences’, a common strategy used by the teacher (c.f. turns 34–43). At this occasion their earlier experiences of vacuum cleaners ‘sucking up things at home’ were re-actualized as to clarify the meaning of ‘suck up the sound’. Although the teacher confirmed that ‘captures’ was a good word to use, he did not further elaborate on it. As on other occasions, the teacher almost never rejected the students’ suggestions, but actively engaged them in answering questions regarding science content and the meaning of scientific concepts. Another example was when the teacher and students negotiated and co-constructed the meaning of ‘spreading out’ in relation to sound. Again the teacher drew on students’ earlier experiences, in this case dandelions:

61. Teacher: Did anyone see a dandelion that you blow on?

[Är det någon som har sett en maskros som man blåser på?]

62. Several: Yeah.

[Jaa.]

63. Sanna: Yes, it spreads.

[Ja, det sprids.]

64. Teacher: Then you spread the seeds.

[Då sprider man ju ut fröerna.]

65. Dannah: Yees, and that’s the same as sound sources. They push. Vibrations.

[Jaa, och det är samma sak som ljudkällor. De puttar på. Vibrationer.]

66. Teacher: Yees.

[Jaa.]

67. Dannah: Then they push things in the air and then they spread.

[Sedan puttar de på saker i luften och då sprids de ut sig.]

68. Teacher: Spread, yes. So it spreads.

[Sprids, jaa. Så det sprids.]

Most of the students had experienced blowing a dandelion running to seed. Sanna expressed this phenomenon as ‘it spreads’, which the teacher confirmed (64). Dannah then related dandelions running to seed to sound sources ‘pushing’ and ‘vibrating’. She continued expressing how sound sources ‘push things in the air’ and then ‘spread’. Although Dannah related this phenomenon to sound sources pushing ‘things’ while vibrating, it is not clear if all students came to the same conclusion. Accordingly, drawing on students’ earlier experiences might not always end in the result intended by the teacher.

Concerning strategies of social interaction the lexicogrammar used was foremost in everyday language with the purpose of understanding content accentuated by earlier experiences, personal and humorous connotations. However, this use of prior experiences and humour was restrictive as the teacher’s purpose was to make the students use scientific language.

Strategies of bridging multiple resources

Other strategies used by the teacher were ‘bridging multiple resources’ and ‘shifting between everyday and scientific language’, to make science content explicit to the students. A central theme during the sound unit was teaching how sound waves are transmitted through compression and rarefaction. By referring to himself losing hair (36) and through the metaphor ‘the lunch line-up’ (44), the teacher explained the transmission in words like ‘the sound waves are transmitted along the thread, rarefaction and compression’ (20). On other occasions the central concepts rarefaction, compression and transmission of sound waves, were illustrated with a drawing on the whiteboard (Figure 4) and by the teacher gesturing and simultaneously walking sideways.

Figure 4. A vibrating sound source resulting in compression and rarefaction.

While gesturing and walking sideways the teacher repeated over and over again, like a chant, the nuclear concepts ‘compression and rarefaction’ as shown in turn 69. A chant copied by the students.

69. Teacher: Thickens here, gap, a little thick here, some compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction, compression, rarefaction until it reaches your ear and makes your eardrum start to vibrate [shows with the body].

[Tjocknar ihop här, mellanrum, lite tjockt här, lite förtätning, förtunning, förtätning, förtunning, förtätning, förtunning, förtätning, förtunning, förtätning, förtunning, förtätning, förtunning, förtätning, förtunning, förtätning, förtunning, förtätning tills det når ditt öra och får trumhinnan att börja vibrera [visar med kroppen].

This ‘chant’ was used unreflected by the students resulting in the teacher, two weeks later, opening up for a joint elaboration and co-construction of a linguistic chain (Axelsson and Slotte 2017) with mainly everyday words:press together > closer to each other > squeeze > sparser > greater distance > sparser > greater distance > far from each other > sparser > far from each other > further away > greater distance > thinner > weaker sound waves > thinner.

The above examples show the teacher’s awareness of the unit’s technical content. Subsequently, he used all possible resources to make content clear to the students. To illustrate sound transmission he also used the metaphor ‘throw-stone-in-water’ which some students draw and wrote on mini-whiteboards instead of the scientific sound wave model. However, the teacher did not point out how the different resources were related or in what way they were suited to clarify the subject matter (Figure 4 showing linear molecule ‘transmission’ and gesturing and walking illustrating the ‘movement’ of the sound wave). All in addition to the drawn sound model.

During group-work the students at several times discussed different phenomena concept cartoons as a starting point. On one occasion students discussed how to make sound more attenuated in a bus. Illustrated in the concept cartoon were travellers’ comments like: ‘It would be quieter if they polished the floor properly’, ‘It would be quieter if the seats were made of hard plastic’ and ‘It would be quieter if there were curtains in the windows’. Additionally, there was an empty speech bubble with just a question mark, leaving the students to come up with alternative answers. The students’ suggestions were then discussed in whole class. Dannah first reactualized the teacher’s whiteboard drawing of a noise barrier (Figure 5) as a suggestion for sound attenuation.

Figure 5. Teacher’s whiteboard drawing of a noise barrier.

Andrew stated that the sound level would not be attenuated if the seats were made of hard plastic, since the sound would still be reflected, something Dannah agreed on:

70. Dannah: He’s right ‘cause then, it reflects back. But the seats they are sitting on and as all municipality buses have. They have sort of something spongy or like that, yes.

[Alltså, han har rätt för att då, alltså det reflekteras tillbaka. Men sätena som de sitter på och som typ alla SL-bussar har. De har typ så här något svampigt eller så här, jaa.]

71. Teacher: Some kind of textile. Some kind of fabric.

[Någon form av textil. Någon form av tyg.]

72. Dannah: Yeah, and it’s like curtains. Then the sound sort of goes in.

[Jaa, och det är som gardiner. Då går typ ljudet in.]

73. Teacher: Why does Dannah say spongy? The seats are sort of spongy. What does she mean then?

[Varför säger Dannah svampigt? Sätena är liksom svampiga. Vad menar hon då?]

74. Andrew: A bit soft perhaps.

[Lite mjuk kanske.]

75. Teacher: Soft, but mushrooms in the woods are not soft.

[Mjuk, men svamp ute i skogen är ju inte mjuk.]

76. Dannah: But not that kind of mushrooms. Like dish washing sponge.

[Men inte sån svamp. Sån här som så här disksvamp.]

77. Rana: Like those in walls.

[Såna som finns i väggar.]

78. Teacher: Sponge in walls?

[Svamp som finns i väggar?]

79. Dannah: Noo, sort of yellow, hollow.

[Neej, alltså så här gul, ihålig.]

80. Teacher: Yellow, hollow. What do you use yellow, hollow sponges for?

[Gul, ihålig. Vad använder man gula, ihåliga svamparna till då?]

81. Dannah: You use them to…

[De använder man för att…]

82. Rana: Attenuate sound.

[Dämpa ljudet.]

83. Dannah: …attenuate sound as to…

[…dämpa ljud för att…]

84. Teacher: Wash the car in any case.

[Tvätta bilen med i varje fall.]

85. Dannah: Yeah.

[Jaa.]

86. Teacher: Don’t you?

[Eller hur?]

87. Dannah: Yeah.

[Jaa.]

88. Teacher: Yes, but that’s quite right. It’s really good attenuating material. But I use them when washing the car. That’s called sponge yes.

[Ja, men det är helt rätt. Det är jättebra ljuddämpande material. Men jag använder dem för att tvätta bilen med. Det kallar man för svamp ja.]

Dannah continued talking about the seats in buses referring to the local community buses stating that they are ‘sort of spongy’ (70), which the teacher confirmed. She then linked ‘spongy’ to ‘curtains’ in which the sound ‘goes in’. The dialogue proceeded with the word ‘spongy’ and its connection to mushrooms, dish-washing sponges and car wash. Rana extended the dialogue by talking about what sponges were used for, namely attenuating sound (82). The discussion ended up in the teacher concluding that those sponges are ‘really good attenuating material’ (88).

When shifting between everyday and scientific language the teacher often referred back to the students’ and his own earlier experiences (c.f. lunch line-up, hair, military service). When describing the transmission of sound in turn 89 the teacher mainly stayed to the right of the everyday – scientific continuum by using physics words (in bold) while everyday words were mainly used to express processes (italics):

89. Teacher: We say that we have some air molecules near to the sound source, near to our bell for example. We have air molecules here. They get pushed by this vib, they start vibrating. The sound source vibrates. Physically speaking, we say that this bell now, the edge of the bell. Look here! It’s the bell. It pushes these air molecules. The ones being nearest. They in turn push the next which pushes the next which pushes the next [draws on the whiteboard, Figure 4]. In certain places there will be many crashing. Compression, there are many molecules in the same place. Rarefaction, there is a little longer distance in between. So compression and rarefaction that’s the way, the words you use when you speak about moleculespushing each other and in certain places so they merge and multiply. They push further and some other, in the front, push the rest. You get a small gap.

[Vi säger att vi har några luftmolekyler nära ljudkällan, nära vår ringklocka till exempel. Vi har luftmolekyler här. De blir puttade på av den här vib, de börjar vibrera. Ljudkällan vibrerar. Rent fysiskt då så, vi säger att det här är ringklockan nu, kanten på ringklockan. Titta här! Det är ringklockan. Den puttar på de här luftmolekylerna. De som är närmast. De i sin tur puttar på nästa som puttar på nästa som puttar på nästa [ritar på tavlan, Figur 4]. På vissa ställen här nu så kommer det vara många liksom som krockar ihop. Förtätning, det är många molekyler på samma ställe. Förtunning, då är det lite längre avstånd emellan på det sättet. Så förtätning och förtunning det är det sättet, de orden man använder när man pratar om att molekylerna puttar på varandra och på vissa ställen så går de ihop och blir väldigt många. De knuffar vidare och några andra, längst fram, knuffar på resten där. Det blir lite mellanrum.]

During the teacher monologue the following thematic patterns appeared: ‘air molecules near the sound source start vibrating’, ‘sound source vibrates air molecules crashing’, ‘many molecules in the same place is compression and rarefaction, there is a little longer distance in between’. The teacher summarized the transmission of sound in both scientific and everyday language.

Discussion

The teacher had a vast teaching experience and physics knowledge, which enabled a solid interplay with the students and created a good-humored and engaged classroom climate. In this atmosphere physics content of sound and sound transmission was co-constructed (Figure 1) using several strategies and resources.

In line with Lemke (1990) thematic development strategies used were monologues and dialogues. Even if the teacher was the only one to use monologues connecting thematic items and semantic relations, he frequently invited students to participate and join discussions. Thematic patterns concerning sound and its characteristics were developed in co-construction including possibilities for both parties to ask questions.

Control strategies were solely executed by the teacher, who frequently implemented a large number of activities alterating at a high speed. Students were engaged in these activities often resulting in instantaneous reports using mini-whiteboards for the teacher to formatively assess. The use of mini-whiteboards ‘forced’ the students to formulate physics content in writing in both everyday and academic language, often supported by drawings. Contrary to the findings of Wellington and Osborne (2001) this multilingual class continuously used reading and writing when expressing science content in physics words, encouraged by the teacher. However, the teacher did not hesitate to use everyday language and everyday experiences when unpacking and packing content.

Both teacher and students were engaged in using social interaction strategies with the sole difference that students mainly shared their personal experiences during group-work. Everyday experiences were used to illustrate and explain physics phenomena and lexicon, for example ‘thinner’ (36), ‘a short while’ (34, 35), ‘vacuum cleaner’ (56–61), ‘lunch line-up’ (44–50) and ‘dandalions’ (61–68). The physics content was at times disregarded when everyday explanations were used, thus obscuring the science content being taught (c.f. Mortimer and Scott 2003). At the same time the joint movement along the mode continuum assisted students to use physics concepts (Figures 2 and 3).

Although the classroom climate was friendly the use of humour was rare in the classroom, possibly due to the teacher’s focus on scientific language. Likewise, the students’ ‘humourous’ contribution was limited to ‘fall into the hot pot’ (49) and ‘at least one Picasso’ (52–55).

The teacher excelled in the use of bridging strategies through the use of multiple resources. By joining different resources to illustrate and explain the science content the purpose was to enhance student learning. In line with Kress et al. (2001) resources in addition to speech used by the teacher were visuals, gestures, bodily action, artefacts, models, reading and writing. As a consequence of the high alteration of different activities the multilingual students were afforded both repetition and several resources for meaning-making (Ipad, mini-whiteboard, concept cartoon, scientific inquiry, reading and writing).

Finally, all classroom activities were performed in Swedish and the analyses show that the teacher’s use of multiple resources profoundly engaged the students in the physics content. The range of multiple resources made it possible for the students to manage and accomplish the tasks despite their varied language profiency, also shown by Jakobson and Axelsson (2017). There are examples from the data of students embracing and reactualizing different resources or visualizations when learning physics content. When asked to draw soundwaves some students used the ‘throw-stone-in-water’-metaphor drawing several circles while other students drew a wave-line. Another example was when a student, when discussing attenuation, reactualized the teacher’s whiteboard drawing of a noise barrier. On this occasion the teacher’s picture stimulated and might have been a prerequisite for expressing the content, something underscored by Schleppegrell (2004) who argues for using multiple resources in combination with language. In multilingual science classrooms, in particular, where the language proficiency varies, different resources illustrating the same phenomenon increase students’ meaning-making opportunities. However, as Jakobson and Axelsson (2017) reported, due to the context and the choice of resource, learning might be obstructed or limited.

The contribution of this study to science education is to highlight how a joint assisted movement along the mode continuum enforces students’ use of scientific concepts. Furthermore, as multilingual students are in developmental stages of both everyday and scientific language, an interplay between content and language is essential. As science teachers are experts in science content, but not in language, there is a need of collaboration with language teachers resulting in more opportunities to formulate science content in speech, writing and drawings extending students’ meaning-making (c.f. Jung 2019; Seah 2016). Moreover, teacher’s and students’ everyday experiences present an entrance to unpacking science content and language. However, since everyday language and experience cannot embrace the full scientific content, teachers need to return to the scientific expression (Halliday 2004). Furthermore, multilingual students benefit from the exposure of different resources. However, students also need to be made aware of the meaning potential of each resource and how the resources are related in explaining science content.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).