Science Language Accommodation in Elementary School Read-Alouds

References

• Andersen, C., Scheuer, N., Perez-Echeverria, M. P., & Teubal, E. V. (2009). Representational systems and practices as learning tools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Arons, A. B. (1973). Toward wider public understanding of science. American Journal of Physics, 41, 769–782. doi: 10.1119/1.1987384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. doi: 10.1126/science.1736359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–520. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as language: A ‘content-first’ approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 529–553. doi: 10.1002/tea.20255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, L. G. (2010). Tracking trash: Flotsam, jetsam, and the science of ocean motion. Singapore: Sandpiper.
   Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, oral literature. In TannenD. (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, (pp. 35–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale–Chall readability formula. New York, NY: Brookline Books.
   Google Scholar
• Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, J. (1996). Socialization to text: Structure and contradiction in schooled literacy. In SilversteinM.UrbanG. (Ed.), Natural histories of discourse, (pp. 203–228). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Common Core State Standards. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social sciences, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards and glossary of key terms. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. doi: 10.2307/3587951
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (1995). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 271–287. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0
   Google Scholar
• Dale, E., & Chall, J. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 11–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, R. A. (1992). Scientific English: A guide for scientists and other professionals. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
   Google Scholar
• Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (2011). How to write and publish a scientific paper (7th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2001). Genre and other factors influencing teachers’ book selections for science instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 412–440. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.36.4.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 659–672. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730750606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (1991). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with different levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1891–1914. doi: 10.1080/09500690701587028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In McKayS. L.HornbergerN. H. (Ed.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching, (pp. 283–306). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 571–596.
   Google Scholar
• Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). ‘You're going to want find out which and prove it’: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8, 527–548. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00033-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. In H. Giles, N. Coupland, & J. Coupland (Eds.), Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences (pp. 7–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. M. (1987). Language, social comparison, and power. In BergerC. R.ChaffeeS. H. (Ed.), The handbook of communication science, (pp. 350–384). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Glynn, S. M. (2008). Making science concepts meaningful to students: Teaching with analogies. In Mikelskis-SeifertS.RingelbandU.BruckmannM. (Ed.), Four decades of research in science education: From curriculum development to quality improvement, (pp. 113–125). Munser: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 530–544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Grotzer, T. A., & Baska, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding?. Journal of Biological Education, 38, 16–29. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2003.9655891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grotzer, T. A., & Mittlefehdlt, S. (2012). The role of metacognition in students’ understanding and transfer of explanatory structures in science. In ZoharA.DoriY. J. (Ed.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research, (pp. 79–99). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Grotzer, T. A., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). A taxonomy of causal models: The conceptual leaps between models and students’ reflections on them. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In AndersenR. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition, (pp. 64–86). Newbury: House Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, J., Roser, N., & Battle, J. (1993). Reading aloud in classrooms: From the modal towards a ‘model’. The Reading Teacher, 46, 496–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433–454. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.4.433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hynson, C., & Atkinson, M. (2002). Machines: Over 100 questions and answers to things you want to know. New York, NY: Parragon Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39–44. doi: 10.1177/0956797610392928
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. S., Morrison, T. G., & Swinyard, W. R. (2000). Reading aloud to students: A national probability study of classroom reading practices of elementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21, 171–193. doi: 10.1080/02702710050144331
   Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader's workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Konfetta-Menicou, C., & Scaife, J. (2000). Teachers’ questions—types and significance in science education. School Science Review, 81, 79–85.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. H. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Martins, I. (1998). A satellite view of language: Some lessons from science classrooms. Language Awareness, 7, 69–89. doi: 10.1080/09658419808667102
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 123–228). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In MartinJ. R.VeelR. (Ed.), Reading science, (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Love, A. (1993). Lexo-grammatical features of geology textbooks: Process and product revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 197–218. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(93)90002-6
   Google Scholar
• Maki, C., & Sekido, I. (1993). Snowflakes, sugar and salt: Crystals up close. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner.
   Google Scholar
• Mertz, E. (1996). Recontextualization as socialization: Text and pragmatics in the law school classroom. In SilversteinM.UrbanG. (Ed.), Natural histories of discourse, (pp. 229–249). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, S. (1999). Scientific discourse and its history: Reflections and prospects. In ScanlonE.HillR.JunkerK. (Ed.), Communicating science: Professional contexts (reader 1), (pp. 27–31). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, G. A. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–35. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, G. A. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 3–17. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(92)90003-S
   Google Scholar
• Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In GivónT. (Ed.), Discourse and syntax, (pp. 51–80). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335. doi: 10.1525/aeq.1993.24.4.04x0063k
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W. (2010a). Developing elementary teachers’ understandings of hedges and personal pronouns in inquiry-based science classroom discourse. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 103–126. doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9157-4
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W. (2010b). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422–453. doi: 10.1002/tea.20345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W. (2011). Science communication in teacher personal pronouns. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1805–1833. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.510541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2012). The implicit communication of nature of science and epistemology during inquiry discussion. Science Education, 96, 652–684. doi: 10.1002/sce.21005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A. W., Colak, H., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). ‘Who polluted the Potomac?’ The translation and implementation of a US environmental story in Brazilian and Turkish classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 89–132. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9103-3
   Google Scholar
• Pappas, C. C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2003). Dialogic inquiry around information texts: The role of intertextuality in constructing scientific understandings in urban primary classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 13, 435–482. doi: 10.1016/S0898-5898(03)00004-4
   Google Scholar
• Pappas, C. C., Varelas, M., Barry, A., & Rife, A. (2004). Promoting dialogic inquiry in information book read-alouds: Young urban children's way of making sense in science. In SaulW. (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice, (pp. 161–189). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pardo, J. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2382–2393. doi: 10.1121/1.2178720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. Discourse Studies, 23, 379–396.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., & Adendorff, R. (2005). Science books for children as a preparation for textbook literacy. Discourse Studies, 7, 213–236. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce, C. S. (1955). Logic as semiotic. In BuchlerJ. (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Pierce, (pp. 98–119). New York, NY: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Rockwell, A., & Meisel, P. (2006). Why are the ice caps melting? The dangers of global warming. New York, NY: Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148. doi: 10.1002/tea.20408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). Language is not a physical object. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 295–302. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00008-2
   Google Scholar
• de Saussure, F. (1972). Course in general linguistics. La Salle, IL: Open Court Classics.
   Google Scholar
• Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631. doi: 10.1002/sce.20131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour, J. R., & Lehrer, R. (2006). Tracing the evolution of pedagogical content knowledge as the development of interanimated discourses. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 549–582. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1504_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidner, C. L. (1983). What the speaker means: The recognition of speakers’ plans in discourse. International Journal of Computers and Mathematics, 9, 71–82. doi: 10.1016/0377-0427(83)90029-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 419–441. doi: 10.2307/3588398
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, D., & Smath, J. (2003). Almost invisible Irene. New York, NY: Kane Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. (1977). Mothers’ speech research: From input to interaction. In SnowC.FergusonC. (Ed.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition, (pp. 31–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 23, 450–452. doi: 10.1126/science.1182597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344.
   Google Scholar
• Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 11, 107–125. doi: 10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7
   Google Scholar
• Street, R. L., & Giles, H. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive approach to language and speech behavior. In RoloffM.BergerC. R. (Ed.), Social cognition and communication, (pp. 193–226). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Strube, P. (1989). The notion of style in physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 291–299. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660260403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2008). Knowledge building and vocabulary growth over two years, grades 3 and 4. Instruction and Science, 38, 147–171. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9082-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, C. R. (1989). Writing and reading in science: The hidden messages. In MillarR. (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education, (pp. 137–159). London, UK: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, C. R. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/0950069960180101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swales, J. M. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 3–18. doi: 10.1016/0889-4906(94)00028-C
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393–429. doi: 10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58, 1–21. doi: 10.2307/413530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral, written discourse. In OlsonD. R.TorranceN.HildyardA. (Ed.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, (pp. 124–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1988). The commingling of orality and literacy in giving a paper at a scholarly conference. American Speech, 63, 34–43. doi: 10.2307/455421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 113–132. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-X
   Google Scholar
• Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., Joslin, P., & Lindauer, I. (1992). Science teachers’ use of analogies: Observations from classroom practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 413–422. doi: 10.1080/0950069920140404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. J. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for preservice and inservice teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 85–101. doi: 10.1023/A:1009423030880
   Google Scholar
• Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 177–200. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6
   Google Scholar
• Waring, A. E. (1992, September 14–16). Organizational culture, management, and safety. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management 6th Annual conference, Bradford University.
   Google Scholar
• Waring, H. Z. (2002). Displaying substantive recipiency in seminar discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 453–479. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3504_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar