The Next Generation Science Standards, Common Core State ... · Standards Initiative, 2010) in English language arts and mathematics and the recently released Next Generation Science

Sara Tolbert, Trish Stoddart, Edward G. Lyon, & Jorge Solís 65

Volume 23, Number 1, Spring 2014

The Next Generation Science Standards,Common Core State Standards, and English Learners:

Using the SSTELLA Frameworkto Prepare Secondary Science Teachers

Sara TolbertUniversity of Arizona

Trish StoddartUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Edward G. LyonArizona State University

Jorge SolísUniversity of Texas, San Antonio

Issues in Teacher Education, Spring 2014

Introduction

ThisarticlefocusesonacriticalissueinSTEMeducation:preparingnovicesecondaryschoolteacherstoprovideeffectivescienceinstructiontotherapidlygrowingpopulationofstudentsfromlanguageminoritygroupswhotraditionallyhavebeenunderservedinSTEMeducationandwhoareunderrepresentedinSTEMdegreesandcareers(NationalAcademyofSciences[NAS],2010;Oakes,Joseph,&Muir,2004).Thisissueisbothsalientandtimely.Withthecoincidenceoftheimplementa-

Sara Tolbert is an assistant professor of science education in the Depart-ment of Teaching, Learning, and Sociocultural Studies of the College of Education at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Trish Stoddart is a professor in the Education Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Edward G. Lyon is an assistant professor of science education in the Division of Teacher Preparation of the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona. Jorge Solís is an assistant professor in the Department of Bicultural and Bilingual Studies of the College of Education and Human Development of the University of Texas at San Antonio. Their e-mail addresses are [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]

Using the SSTELLA Framework to Prepare Science Teachers66

Issues in Teacher Education

tionoftheCommonCoreStateStandards[CCSS](CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative,2010)inEnglishlanguageartsandmathematicsandtherecentlyreleasedNextGenerationScienceStandards(NGSS;Achieve,2013),scienceteachersandteachereducatorsalikearefacedwithnewchallengesinregardtotheintegrationofauthenticscientificandliteracypracticesinscienceclassrooms.Moreover,theconvergenceoftheNGSSandtheCCSSaroundtheproductiveuseoflanguageinauthenticcontextsrepresentsamajorshiftintheroleoflanguageinallareasofinstruction (Lee,Quinn,&Valdés,2013).Wepresentan instructionalframework(SecondaryScienceTeachingwithEnglishLanguageandLit-eracyAcquisition[SSTELLA])thatreflectsthereciprocalandsynergisticrelationshipsamongscience,language,andliteracy.WearguethatthisintegratedmodelcanbeinfusedintosecondaryteacherpreparationinwaysthatleadtoimprovedteacherpracticeintermsofteachingEnglishlearners(ELs)andimprovedstudentachievementinscience.

EL Access to Rigorous Scienceand English Language Development

ELsarethefastestgrowingsectoroftheschool-agepopulation,yettheyalsohavetheleastaccesstothecoreacademiccurriculum(Genesee,Lindholm-Leary,Saunders,&Christian,2005;Janzen,2008;U.S.CensusBureau,2010),andtheirachievementinscienceandliteracyhaslaggedbehindthatofnativeEnglishspeakersforover30years(Lee&Luyxk,2006;NationalCenterforEducationStatistics[NCES],2011;Rodriguez,2010).Further,gapsinachievementincreasefromelementaryschooltosecondaryschool(NCES,2011).Thus,itisnotsurprisingthatELsareunderrepresentedinSTEMdegreesandcareersandarelesslikelytoperceivesciencesubjectsasrelevanttotheirlivesoutsideofschool(Buxton,2006).AtthecoreoftheproblemistheassumptionthatELsneedtobeproficientinEnglishbeforebeingintroducedtomorerigor-ous instruction inthecontentareas (Met,1994).This isproblematicbecauseitmaytakeaslongassevenyearsforthesestudentstoacquirealeveloflanguageproficiencycomparabletonativespeakers(Collier,1989;Cummins,1981;Hakuta,Butler,&Witt,2000).ELsfallbehindacademicallyiftheydonotlearnthecontentofthecurriculumastheyacquireEnglish.Thisproblemisexacerbatedbytheeliminationofspe-cializedshelteredandbilingualinstructionprogramsdesignedtoprovideELswithaccesstocontentinstructioninthosestateswiththehighestpopulationsofELs(Markos,2012).Therefore,ELsaremainstreamedviaa“sinkorswim”approach,astheyareplacedinclassrooms,includingscienceclassrooms(Business-HigherEducationForum[BHEF],2006;



CaliforniaCouncilonScienceandTechnology[CCST],2007;Oakesetal.,2004),withteacherswhohavelimitedabilitiestoaddresstheirneedsincontentinstruction(Lucas&Grinberg,2008;Markos,2012). Asignificantbodyofresearchonsecond-languageacquisitionhasdemonstratedthatcontextualized,content-basedinstructioninstudents’secondlanguagecanenhancethelanguageproficiencyofEnglishlearn-erswithnodetrimenttotheiracademiclearning(Cummins,1981;Met,1994;Stoddart,Solís,Tolbert,&Bravo,2010;Thomas&Collier,2012).Thesubjectmattercontentprovidesameaningfulcontextforthelearn-ingof languagestructureand functions,andthe languageprocessesprovidethemediumforanalysisandcommunicationofsubjectmatterknowledge.Inquiryscience,therefore,isanexcellentcontextforlearn-inglanguageandliteracy. IntegratingtheteachingofsciencecontentwiththedevelopmentofEnglishlanguageandliteracythroughcontextualizedscienceinquiryhasbeenconsistentlyshowntoincreaseELs’achievementinbothsci-enceandinthedevelopmentofacademiclanguageandliteracy(Bravo&Garcia,2004;Echevarria,Vogt,&Short,2012;Lee,Maerten-Rivera,Penfield,LeRoy,&Secada,2008;Rivet&Krajcik,2008;Rosebery&War-ren,2008;Stoddart,2005;Stoddart,Pinal,Latzke,&Canaday,2002).TheseadvancesintheknowledgebaseonteachingscienceandEnglishlanguageandliteracytoELsareconsonantwiththediscourseaboutthedevelopmentofNGSS,aswellastheCCSSforEnglishLanguageArts(ELA).TheELAreadingandwritingstandardsforliteracyinscienceandtechnicalsubjectsrequirethatstudentsengagewithtechnical(e.g.,labreports,scientificresearcharticles)andnon-technical(e.g.,news-paperarticles,letterstotheeditor)textsthataredisciplinespecificbywritingarguments,translatingwritteninformationintovisualforms(e.g.,tables,graphs),andcomparing/contrastingfindingspresentedinvarioussources. Similarly, the NGSS represents a major shift from the focus ofscientificliteracyasdecontextualizedcontentandprocessknowledgetowardscientificliteracyastheproductiveandintegrateduseofsci-ence languagewithsciencecontentwhilesimulatingwhatscientistsdo(e.g.,planinvestigations,developmodels,arguefromevidence).TheNGSS,basedupontheNationalResearchCouncil(NRC;2012)report,A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas,identifiescorescienceideasandcross-cuttingthemesthatstudentscouldlearninmorerigorousandrelevantwaysastheyprogressthroughtheirK-12scienceeducation (NRC,2012).Further,theScienceFrameworkprovidesadescriptionofeightscientificandengineeringpracticesthatpromotenotonlyinvestigativecompetence,



suchasaskingquestions,planninginvestigations,andanalyzingdata,butalsorepresentationalthinkingthroughtheuseofmodelsandmath-ematicalrelationships.Fourofthesescienceandengineeringpracticesareparticularlylanguageintensive:developingandusingmodels;con-structingexplanations(science)anddesigningsolutions(engineering);arguingfromevidence;andobtaining,evaluating,andcommunicatinginformation(Leeetal.,2013). Therefore,akeyissueremains.Fewmodelsofscienceteachinghavebeenarticulatedintermsofhowpreservicesecondaryscienceteacherscanlearnto(a)promoteauthenticscientificdiscoursepractices(Shaw,Lyon, Mosqueda, Stoddart, & Menon, 2013; Windschitl, Thompson,Braaten,&Stroupe,2012),and(b)engagestudentsinrigorous,contex-tualizedlearningexperiencesinlinguisticallydiversescienceclassrooms(Rodriguez,2010;Tolbert,2013).Secondaryscienceteachersgenerallyconsiderthemselvestobeteachersofcontentratherthanteachersoflanguage,despitethefactthatscientificargumentation,reasoning,andcommunicationrequireamultitudeofspecializedwrittenandoralliteracypractices(Kelly,2007;Lemke,1990;Rodriguez,2010).TheprominentfocusofNGSSonproductivelanguageuseviatheidentificationoflan-guage-intensivescienceandengineeringpracticeshasopenedupnewpossibilitiesforallscienceteacherstoconsidertheroleoflanguageinscienceandengineering instruction.Thischangerepresentsamajorshiftinthewayscienceteacherswillbeaskedtoteachinsecondaryclassrooms,particularlyinscienceclassroomswithELs.

Inadequate Science Teacher Preparation

In2010,acombinedreportoftheNationalAcademyoftheSciences,NationalAcademyofEngineering,andtheInstituteofMedicineproposedthatimprovingthepreparationofSTEMteachersinhigh-needsecondaryschoolswithlargenumbersofminoritystudentswasthekeytoincreasingtheirsuccessfulparticipationinSTEMcareersanddegreeprogramsandshouldbeanationalpriority(NAS,2010).However,despitetheseverityandpersistenceoftheachievementgapbetweenmainstreamstudentsandELs,fewteachersreceiveeducationinhowtoteachSTEMsubjectstostudentsforwhomEnglishisnottheirfirstlanguage(Ballantyne,Sanderman,&Levy,2008;Darling-Hammond,2006;Gándara,Maxwell-Jolly,&Driscoll,2005).Itisnotsurprising,therefore,thatfewnoviceorexperiencedteachersfeelpreparedtoteachELs(CaliforniaLegislativeAnalyst’sOffice,2007-2008;Gándaraetal.,2005;NCES,2001)andthatELsarethegroupleastlikelytohaveaqualifiedorexperiencedmathorscienceteacher(BHEF,2006;CCST,2007).Eachyear,thousandsof



newteachersentertheprofessionfeelingunderpreparedtoteachthisrapidlygrowingstudentpopulation(Ballantyneetal.,2008). ThechallengeforteachereducatorsistoprepareteacherstoteachELsbyintegratingrigorousscienceinstructionwiththedevelopmentof English language and literacy. However, most teacher educationprogramsdonotprovidesuchpreparation.Coursesonsubjectmatterteaching typically give little attention to the importance of valuingandincorporatingthelinguisticneedsandculturalexperiencesofthestudentswhoarebeingserved(Godley,Sweetland,Wheeler,Minnici,&Carpenter,2005;Trent,Kea,&Oh,2008).Issuesrelatedtoculturalandlinguisticdiversity,whentaught,arepresentedinseparatecoursesthatoftenfocusonsocialconditionsandnotondiscipline-specificpedagogy(Trentetal.,2008).Whatisneededisthedevelopmentofteachereduca-tionprogramsthatprovideexplicitinstruction,modeling,andcoachingof integratedpedagogy,whichshowpreserviceteachersthehowandwhyofintegratingthedevelopmentofacademiclanguageandliteracyintotheteachingofrigoroussciencecontent.

From Elementary to SecondaryScience Teacher Preparation for ELs

Priorresearchonprofessionaldevelopmentwithexperiencedandpreserviceteachershasdemonstratedthatteacherscanbepreparedtouseanintegratedpedagogyandthatteachers’useofthisapproachim-provestheachievementofELsinscience,language,andliteracy(Bravo&Garcia,2004;Bunch,2013;Ku,Bravo,&Garcia,2004;Ku,Garcia,&Corkins,2005;Leeetal.,2008;Shawetal.,2013;Stoddart,2005,2013;Stoddart&Mosqueda,inpress).Forexample,inourpreviousresearchproject,Effective Science Teaching for English Language Learners(ES-TELL),werestructuredelementarysciencemethodscoursesatthreedifferentuniversitysites(Stoddartetal.,2010).Thecoreinterventionfocusedonengagingnoviceelementaryteachersinpersonallearningexperiencesofsciencethroughintegratedsciencecontent/sciencemeth-odslessons.ThepreserviceteachersthenusedanESTELLlessonplantemplatetodesignandimplementsciencelessonsduringtheirstudentteaching in classroomswithELsand received coachingandsupportfromanESTELL-trainedmentorteacher.WefoundthattheESTELLintervention(a)moreeffectivelypreparedelementarystudentteacherstouseintegratedscience-languagepedagogywithELsascomparedtoa control groupof student teachers ina“businessasusual” teachereducationprogram(Stoddart,Bravo,Solís,&Mosqueda,2011;Stoddart,Bravo,Solís,Stevens,&VegadeJesus,2009);and(b)improvedELs’sci-



encelearning,includingsciencewriting,intheclassroomsofESTELLfirst-yearteachersatthesamerateasforthenon-ELs(Shawetal.,2013;Stoddart,2013;Stoddart&Mosqueda,inpress).WebuiltuponthisresearchtodevelopaframeworkforpreparingsecondaryscienceteacherstoteachELs.

Differences between Elementary and Secondary ELs Asthecontentgetsmorespecializedandadvancedinthetransitionfromelementarytosecondaryschool,thereisevenmoreofaneedfortheconceptualizationandoperationalizationofEnglishlanguagesup-portandopportunitiesfordevelopmentforELstobeembeddedinthecontentareasthemselves(Leeetal.,2013).Themajortransitionforolderschool-agechildrenwhoareELsisthetransitiontovariedacademicgenresastheymovethroughtheschoolsystem(Bunch,2013;Lucas&Grinberg,2008).Whilethisliteracytransitionispartofthesecondaryschoolexperience,itisasignificantlygreaterchallengeforsecondaryELstoengagewithvariedtextsthatincludetheuseoftechnicallow-frequency,content-basedvocabularyandwritingforspecialpurposeswhilestillacquiringEnglishlanguageproficiency.Recognizingthedif-ferentacademictrajectoriesofthesestudentsisimportantindesigningappropriateeducationalsupportandteachertraining.Inthisregard,infusingliteracyandlanguageinstructionacrosscontent-areasubjectswould address the need to explicitly teach academic language tasksauthentictoeachacademicdiscipline(Bunch,2013;Janzen,2008).Inaddition,while elementary school teachers expect to teach languageandliteracy,secondaryschoolteachersdonot(Stoddartetal.,2002).Our current project, based on a framework described next, engagessecondarypreserviceteachersinanin-depthanalysisoftheacademiclanguageandliteracydemandsofsecondaryscienceinstructionandthespecificstrategiesneededtoscaffoldandcontextualizeacademicsciencelanguage,literacy,anddiscourse.

The SSTELLA Framework:Synergistic and Reciprocal Relationship

between Language and Science for Secondary Teachers

TheSSTELLAframeworkprovidesamuch-neededresponseinsci-enceeducationtothemanychallengesthatsecondaryschoolELsface.SSTELLAisaframeworkforaddressinginadequateteachercapacityforimprovingELs’scienceachievementbyadvancingresearch-basedinstructional practices in the classroom.August and Hakuta (1997)reportedthatextendingexistingtheoriesandmethodologiesofcontent



area learningandsecond-language literacyare thehighestresearchprioritiesforimprovingtheschoolingforlanguage-minoritychildrenastheymoveacrossthecurriculum.OnereasoncitedisthatattentiontolanguageinstructionhasoftenbeenforegroundedovercontentlearningforELs(August&Hakuta,1997;Echevarriaetal.,2011). SSTELLAreflectsprinciplesfromtheScienceFrameworkandisdesignedtoprepareteacherstoeffectivelyintegratescience,language,andliteracyinstructionforELsbypromotingtheproductiveuseofsci-encelanguageinauthenticcontexts,whereby“studentsaresupportedinusingmultipleresourcesandstrategiesforlearningscienceandde-velopingEnglish”(Leeetal.,2013,p.229).TheSSTELLAframeworkisrepresentedvisuallyinFigure1tohighlighttherelationshipsamongthefourSSTELLApracticesandanticipatedstudentlearningoutcomes. Theframeworkviewscontextualizedscienceactivity(the“doorway”)asthegatewaythroughwhichELscancometounderstandrelationshipsbetweenschoolsciencelearningandtheirlivedexperiencesoutsideofschools.Teacherspromotescientificsense-making,scientificdiscourse,andEnglishlanguageandliteracydevelopmentthroughthesecontextu-alizedlearningexperiences.Sciencecontentandlanguagethenintersectasstudents,forexample,constructoralandwrittenexplanationsandengageinargumentfromevidence(Cheuk,2012;Leeetal.,2013),two

Figure1SSTELLA Framework



practicesthatechoCCSSforEnglishLanguageArts.Thus,therela-tionshipbetweensciencelearningandEnglishlanguageandliteracydevelopmentcanbeviewedasreciprocalandsynergistic.Throughthecontextualized and authentic use of language in scientific practices,studentsdevelopandpracticecomplexlanguageformsandfunctions.Simultaneously,throughtheuseoflanguagefunctionssuchasexplana-tionsandargumentsinscienceinvestigations,studentsmakesenseofabstractcorescienceideasandenhancetheirconceptualunderstandingaswellasunderstandingofthenatureofscience(Driver,Newton,&Osborne,2000;Stoddartetal.,2002,2010). The four interrelated SSTELLA practices mediate two primarystudentlearningoutcomes.First,studentsusecorescienceideas(e.g.,thecycleofmatterandenergytransferinecosystems)whileengaginginauthenticscientificpracticesandtexts.Theymaybecarryingoutandreportingonaninvestigationrelatedtoecosystemsorusingdouble-entryjournals(Gomezetal.,2010)asareading-to-learnstrategyinanonlinearticlethatprovidesadescriptionoftheusesofalternativeenergies.Second,studentswillproductivelyuselanguagewhileengaginginau-thenticscientificpracticesandtexts:Insteadofjustpayingattentiontothescience“content”whilecarryingoutaninvestigationandreadinganonlinearticle,thestudentsalsocommunicateawell-structuredexplana-tionfortheirinvestigationandidentify,withsupportingevidence,thetoneandprimaryaudienceoftheonlinearticle.

SSTELLA Instructional Practices Scientific sense-making through scientific/engineering practices.Scientificsense-makingreferstohowstudentsnegotiateeverydayandscientificwaysofknowing,whiledevelopingincreasedawarenessofthenatureandpracticesofscienceviaengagementinscientific/engineeringpractices.Scientificsense-makingisenhancedwhenteachersmakeexplicittostudentswhattheyaretolearn(i.e.,a“bigidea”),makeconnectionsbetweenthebigideaandclassroomactivityandpriorknowledgeorex-periences(August&Hakuta,1997;Kelly,2007;Rivet&Krajcik,2008),andmakestudentsawareofhowtheywilldemonstratemasteryofthebigidea(i.e.,thelearningobjective;Wiggins&McTighe,1998).Studentscanbetterrelatetothebigideawhenitiscouchedwithinapuzzlingquestion,ill-definedproblem,and/ormodel-basedinquiry(e.g.,studentdevelopment,refinement,and/oruseofmodels;NRC,2012;Passmore&Stewart,2002;Windschitletal.,2012).ExpectationsandclassroomrigorforELsaremaintainedthroughdeliberateandsustainedscaffolding(Walqui&vanLier,2010),whichmayincludemodelingofinstruction,graphicorganiz-ers,visualrepresentations,realia,anduseoftechnology.



Scientific discourse through scientific/engineering practices.Devel-opingacoherentunderstandingofsciencerequiresthatstudentslearnhowscienceknowledgeisconstructed,presented,andsharedthroughspecializedscientificoralandwrittenlanguageforms,i.e.,thediscourseofscience(Graham&Perin,2007;Kelly,2007;Pearson,Moje,&Greenleaf,2010;Snow,2010;Veel,1997).Thiscanoccurthroughstudents’useofscientific/engineeringpractices,wherebystudentsareexposedtoandencouragedtoengagewithdisciplinaryspecificusesoflanguage(e.g.,scientificdiscourse),suchascommunicatingscientificexplanationsandarguments, andengineering solutions.These formsof oraldiscoursepromoteconceptualunderstanding,investigativecompetence,andanunderstandingoftheepistemologyandsocialnatureofscience(Driveretal.,2000).Scientificdiscourseis,initself,asocialandcollaborativepracticethatcanhelpstudentsmakesenseofbothscienceconceptsanddeveloplanguage(Kelly,2007;Lemke,1990).

English language and literacy development.Scientificgenresarecharacterizedbydenseclauses,technicalandgeneralacademicvocabu-lary,andtheuseofthepassivevoice(Pearsonetal.,2010;Snow,2010).Tobecomeindependentconsumersandproducersofscienceknowledge,studentsneedtobeabletobothcomprehendandusescientificdiscourses,withattentionnotonlytotechnicalsciencevocabularybutalsotogeneralacademicwordsandEnglishlanguagestructurescommonlyusedinsci-ence(August,Carlo,Dressler,&Snow,2005;Snow,2010).Insecondaryschools,however,allstudents,particularlyELs,faceboth(a)anincreaseincomplexityoflanguagegenresandregistersassociatedwithdisciplin-aryreading,writing,speaking,andlistening(Scarcella,2003);and(b)adecreaseinauthenticcontentlearningopportunities(Bruna&Gomez,2008).Englishlearnerscanengageinauthenticliteracypracticesthatpromotebothcontentlearning(e.g.,corescienceideas)andlanguageandliteracydevelopment(Krajcik&Sutherland,2010;Pearsonetal.,2010).Targetedcomprehension,composition,andvocabularydevelop-mentstrategiescansupportELsinunderstandingandcommunicatingcomplexscienceconcepts(Rodriguez,2010).Someofthesestrategiesincludereciprocalteaching(Palinscar&Brown,1984),annotationandsummarization(Gomezetal.,2010),andinteractivesciencenotebooksandwritingheuristicsaswellasnon-traditionalwritingactivities(e.g.,blogentries,letters;Hand,Prain,Lawrence,&Yore,1999;McDermott,2010;Wallace,Hand,&Prain,2004;Weiss-Magasic,2012)andafocusonprocess-orientedwritingskills(Graham&Perin,2007;Olsonetal.,2010).Vocabularydevelopmentcanbesupportedthroughtheuseofwordwalls,facilitatingwordconsciousness/analysis,andprovidingrepeated



exposuretoandmultipleopportunitiestousenewwords(Augustetal.,2005).

Contextualized Science Activity.Finally,akeyaspectofsupportingELsinlearningacademiccontentistheincorporationoftheirculturalandlinguisticbackgroundintoclassroomlearningexperiences;theseexperiencesshouldbenotonlyrigorousbutalsomeaningfulandrel-evant.Teachers and schools often have positioned underserved ELsasdeficientandinneedofremediationpriortoengaginginrigorouscoursework,whichessentiallysetsstudentsupforfailurebeforetheyevenstepfootintoasecondaryscienceclassroom(Oakesetal.,2004).Teachers must understand that ELs are quite capable of grapplingwithauthenticandcontextualizedreal-worldproblemsthatenhancebothlanguagedevelopmentandconceptualunderstandings,andtheyshouldprovideopportunitiesforthemtodoso(Lee&Luykx,2006;Leeetal.,2013;Moll,Amanti,Neff,&Gonzalez,1992;Rosebery&Warren,2008).Byengagingstudentsinscienceinvestigationsandengineeringdesignproblemsinauthentic,real-worldproblems,teacherscanlever-agestudents’fundsofknowledgefromtheirhomesandcommunities,thelocalphysical(e.g.,schoolbuilding,communitycenter)orecologicalenvironment(e.g.,localstream,watershedissues),and/orsocio-scien-tificissues(e.g.,stemcellresearch,sustainabilityscience)asawaytoengageELsinmeaningfulandrigoroussciencelearningexperiences(Rivet&Krajcik,2008;Rosebery&Warren,2008).Tosummarize,thefour interrelated instructional practices just described highlight thereciprocalandsynergistic relationshipbetweenscience learningandEnglishlanguageandliteracydevelopment.Thechallengeforteachereducatorsistoinfusethesepracticesintoteachereducationprogramsinwaysthatsupportsecondarysciencepreserviceteachersinlearninghowtoeffectivelyteachsciencetoallstudents,includingELs.

Infusing SSTELLA into Secondary Teacher Preparation

Inthissection,wedescribehowSSTELLAcanbeinfusedproductivelyintosecondaryscienceteacherpreparation.Anextensivebodyofliteraturehasdemonstratedthatthedevelopmentofexpertiseinnoviceteachers,inbothelementaryandsecondaryteacherpreparation,isfacilitatedbyengagingtheminobservation,analysis,andexperiencewithexplicitmodelsoftheinstructionalapproachesthattheyarebeingpreparedtoutilize(Abell&Cennamo,2004;Rothetal.,2011)aswellasbyprovid-ingthemwithopportunitiestopracticeinstructionalapproaches,withintensivefeedback,coaching,andsupport,withthestudentpopulation



whomtheyarebeingpreparedtoteach(Loucks-Horsley,Hewson,Love,&Styles,1998;Speck&Knipe,2001).Thisrequiresrestructuringofthepedagogicalmodeloftheteachereducationcourseworkbydevelopingcur-riculumthatengagesstudentteacherswithexplicitmodelsofinstructionalpracticeandestablishingcoherenceamongthevariouscomponentsoftheteachereducationprogram:coursework,practicum,andsupervision(Stoddart,2013).Thefirststepistodevelopexplicitinstructionalexem-plarsofintegratedpracticeinsecondaryschoolclassroomsthatexplainthehowandthewhytostudentteachersandtoarticulatethesemodelsintoteachereducationcurriculummaterialsandpractice. Elementaryandsecondaryteachers,however,alsocomewithdiffer-entsubjectmatterbackgroundsandexpectationsofwhattheywillbeteaching.ThepreservicesecondaryteachersinourcurrentSSTELLAproject all have majors in the science subject they are preparing toteach:Biology,Chemistry,Physics,orEarth/EnvironmentalSciences.Incontrast,prospectiveelementaryschoolteacherstypicallyhavelesssciencecontentpreparation.OurpreviousNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)elementaryschoolscienceteacherpreparationproject(ESTELL)includeda strongemphasisonpersonal learningof content throughextensivecontentlearningexperiencesthroughESTELLpedagogy.InSSTELLA,theemphasisisonusingintegratedinstructionalapproachestoexplicitlyscaffoldlanguagelearningforspecificconceptlearninggoalsrelatedtoNGSS.

Explicit Exemplar of the SSTELLA Integrated Framework ThevignettebelowwasgeneratedbySSTELLAprojectmembers(theauthorsandJoanneCouling,achemistryteacher,SSTELLAgraduate,andstudentresearcher)todemonstratehowasecondaryscienceteachercouldintegratetheSSTELLApracticesintoathermochemistrylesson.ThevignetteisfollowedbycommentaryonhowthelessonexemplifiesspecificelementsofSSTELLAinstructionalpractices.Wealsodescribehowthevignette,whichmodelsSSTELLApractices,cantakeforminmultipleteachereducationcomponents:videocases,instructormodeledunits,andpreserviceteacher-developedand-implementedlessons. Ms.Cisteachingathermochemistrylessonfortenthandeleventh-gradestudents,includingcurrentandre-designatedELswithvariedlevelsofEnglishlanguageproficiency.ThelessonisamidpointlessonintheEnergytopicandbuildsonphysicalpropertiesofmattertocre-ateaheating/coolingcurvemodelforwaterthatstudentswilllateruseforenergycalculationstoapplythemathematicalequationq=mc∆T.Inpartialpreparationforthatlesson,students,duringthislesson,will“de-velopanduseamodelbasedonevidencetoillustratetherelationships



betweencomponentsofasystem”(seeHS-PS3-2,HS-PS3-5,ScienceandEngineeringPractices,NGSS). Ms.Cbeginsbyintroducingthebigidea,“Howisenergytrans-ferredandconserved?”Herlessontodayispartofaseriesoflessonsthatwillhelpstudentsdevelopanunderstandingthatthemacroscopicscaleofenergycanbeaccountedforas“motionsofparticlesorenergyassociated with the configuration of particles,” based on the NGSSDisciplinary Core Idea that“energy is aquantitativeproperty of asystemthatdependson themotionand interactionsofmatterandradiationwithinthatsystemandthatthetotalchangeofenergyinanysystemisalwaysequaltothetotalenergytransferredintooroutofthesystem”(PS3.A).Toorientherstudentstowardthislearninggoal,Ms.Ccommunicatesthebigideaatthestartofthelessonbytellingstudentsthattheywillbelookingattherelationshipbetweenenergyandphasechangesforwater.Ms.Cinitiatessmallgroupdiscussionsinwhichstudentsthink-pair-share(Gunther,Estes,&Schwab,1999)about water in different phases in everyday life. Students suggestswimming,waterparks,ice-skating,drivingonicyroads,gaseouswatermoleculesintheair,andusingsteaminthehome.Ms.Cbuildsonthelattersuggestionasabridgetotheremainderofthelesson. Ms.CusesadocumentcameratoprovidevisualsthatsupportELs’understandingofthedrivingquestion.Shedisplaysthephrase,“Useofsteaminthehome”andaphotoofsteamcomingupfromateapot.Sheasksforstudentsuggestions,andtheyoffer“cookingvegetables”and“ironing.”Onestudentstates,“Mymomonceusedsteamtocleanastainonthecarpet.”Ms.Crecordsthesesuggestions,thenshowsstudentsacontaineroficecubes:“Let’ssayIneedsomesteamtocleanmycarpet,butallIhaveisthisice.How could I turn this into steam?”Studentsof-fer:“heatit”and“putitinapotofboilingwater.”Ms.Cprobesfurther:“Howlongwouldittake?”and“WhatfactorsmightIneedtoconsider?”ShemakessurethatJuan,anEL,participates(e.g.,“Juan,whatcouldyouaddtowhatCindyhasjustsaid?”)andencouragesstudentstobuildoneachother’sideasusinganoptionalsentenceframeasacontextuallanguagesupportforELs,ifneeded(e.g.,Ithinkthat...because...).Thesharedperspectivesleadstudentstogenerate,collectively,ahy-pothesizedvisualmodel(Figure2)ofthephasechangesofwaterwhenenergyisapplied. Ms.Crefinestheproblem:“Wereallywanttoknowtherelation-shipbetweenenergyandtemperatureinthesephasechanges.Istherelationshiplinear?”Shewritesthequestionwiththedoc-u-camandinvitesanotherELinherclasstowritethequestioninSpanish:“¿Cuál es la relación entre la energía y la temperatura, es la relación lineal?”



Studentsrecordbothversionsintheirsciencenotebook.Cause-and-ef-fectrelationshipsareanimportantNGSSCross-Cutting Concept(HS.PS.35).Exploringphasechangeswithstudentshelpsthemtodevelopanunderstandingofthephysicalpropertiesofwater.Studentsoftenconsiderheatandtemperaturetobeanalogous;thislessonhelpstodistinguishheatasaformofenergyandtemperatureasamethodofmeasuringtheeffectsofchangingenergy.Discoveryofthelinear/non-linearrelationshiplinkstoandbuildsonintermolecularforcesand,thus,alsobuildsonthebigideaofthattopic.Thelessoncontinueswithstudents’workingwithwater,ice,aheatingdevice,andathermometerinheterogeneousandpurposefullygroupedteams(byELproficiencylevelandclassgrade)totestthemodel.Somestudentsobservetheiriceatatemperaturelowerthan0˚C.Whilewalkingaroundtheclass,Ms.Cencouragesstudentsinonegrouptothinkaboutwhatthismeansforthevisualmodeltheyhavecreated.Thestudentsrecognizetheneedtorelocatethepositionofthefirstbeakerinthediagram.Additionalobservationsleadstudentstonoticethattheirthermometerstaysat0˚Cwhiletheicemelts. Attheendoftheactivity,Ms.CagaindisplaysanoptionalsentenceframetohelpsupportELstoconstructargumentsfromtheevidence:“Iclaimthatthediagramshouldreallylooklike....because...”Sheremindsstudentsthattheyarenotrequiredtousethesentenceframe

Figure2Drawing of how energy is transferred and conserved.



butthattheymustuseevidencefromtheirinvestigationtosupportanychangestothediagramthattheclassconstructedatthebeginningofthelesson.Shealsoremindsstudentsthatscientistsconstructknowledgebymakingclaimsthattheysupportwithevidence.TofurthersupportELs’newvocabularydevelopment,Ms.Calso refersstudents to theclass-generatedsciencewordwallandthe“studentfriendly”definitionsofclaimsandevidencepreviouslyrecordedintheirsciencenotebooks.Movingaroundtheclassroom,sheasksstudentstosharewhattheyhavewrittenandprovidesfeedbackontheirwriting. Finally,Ms.Cusesacooperativestructure,e.g.,Numbered-Heads-Together(Kagan&Kagan,2009),toensureequitableparticipationandindividualaccountabilityasstudentgroupssharetheirexplanationstothewholeclass,whichleadstoadiscussionabouthowtoamendtheinitialheating/coolingcurvediagram.AsMs.Cdrawstherevisedmodeltomatchthemodelthestudentshavedeveloped(Figure3),sheremindsstudentsthatmodelsareusefulforexplanationandfordevelopingun-derstandingandthattheycanberevised.Shethenreturnstotheques-tionoftheenergyandtemperaturerelationshipduringphasechangesandinvitesstudentstoshareexperiencesoutsidetheclassroomwheretheycanapplytheirmodeltotheirowneverydayexperiences.Ms.Ciscarefultoincorporateintothediscussionthesuggestionsthatstudentsmadeinthebeginning(e.g.,waterparks, ice-skating).Inafollow-uplesson,studentswilluseReciprocalReading(Palinscar&Brown,1984),acollaborativereading-to-learnstrategythathasbeendemonstratedtohelpstudentsdevelopmoreactivecomprehensionofcomplextext.

Figure3Drawing of heating curve for water.



Usingthisstrategy,studentsworkingroupstoreadscientificstudiesofrelatedtopics(e.g.,howwaterisusedtoabsorbheatfromnuclearreactors).Additionally,eachyear,Ms.Ctakesherstudentstoalocal(within45miles)hotspringssite,whereshehelpsstudentsapplytheirknowledgeaboutthermochemistrytoareal-world,localcontext.

Scientific sense-making through scientific/engineering practices.Intheabovevignette,Ms.Chelpsstudentsmakesenseofanaturalphenomenonthroughexplicitcommunicationandreflectionofa“bigidea,”drivenbyanill-definedproblem:“HowcouldIturnthis[ice]intosteam?”Ill-definedproblemsinvolvemorethanopen-endedquestions;beyondtheirhavingmorethanonerightanswer,theyareconstrainedintermsofinformationpresentedandtheassumptionsthatneedtobemade(Fortus,2008).Inthiscase,studentsdonothaveinformationaboutwhattoolstouseorprinciplestodrawonwhileexplaining;thereisnoprescribedpathfromproblemtosolution.Often,ill-definedproblemsconnectwithsomereal-worldproblemorcontroversialissuethatalsocouldhaveframedthelesson.Thecollaborativegenerationofapartialmodel(firstheating/coolingdiagram),followedbythetestingandre-finingofthemodel,pressesstudentengagementinscientificpractices,usingcomplexEnglishlanguagefunctions.Attheendofthelesson,Ms.Cprovidesopportunitiesforstudentstoreflectonhowtheirconceptionshavechanged,withattentiontothebigidea,aswellashowtheirworkisrepresentativeoftheworkof“doingscience”inauthenticcontexts.

Scientific discourse through scientific/engineering practices.Ratherthangivingclosedevaluationstostudentresponses(Cazden,1988),Ms.Cfacilitatesproductivestudenttalkbyelicitingstudentconceptionsandhypothesesthroughoutthelesson(e.g.,howtoturniceintosteam)andactivatingcollaborativetalkamongallstudents,includingtheELs(via,e.g.,mixedgroups,cleargroundrules,waittime),whichincreasesstudentaccesstosciencediscourseandconcepts.Studentsdevelopsci-entificdiscoursethroughdiscussionswithpeersandtheteacherthatpromotearguingfromevidence(e.g.,justifyingwhytheyagree/disagreewithapeer,supportingclaimswithevidencefromtheinvestigation).

English language and literacy development.Individuallyandthroughsmallgroups,Ms.Cpressesstudentstoexplainanddiscuss/critiquetheirmodelsaswellastoproduceanauthenticscientifictext.Shescaffoldsstudents’languageandliteracydevelopmentthroughstrategiessuchasusingsentenceframes,havingstudentswriteinsciencenotebooks,drawinguponstudents’proficiencylevels(e.g.,L1),andgivingtargetedfeedback(Hanauer,2006;Lemke,1990).Sentenceframesalsoareatype



of talk that facilitatesstudentelaborationoneachother’s responses(Maata,Dobb,&Ostlund,2005).Ms.Cprovidesmultipleopportunitiesforstudentstousegeneralacademicandcontent-specificvocabulary,e.g.,throughdiscussionsandwrittenproductsthatemphasizecommonwords, such as “intermolecular forces,” “energy,” “claim,” “evidence,”“cause,”and“effect.”Shedrawsattentiontotheeverydayusesofscientificwordssuchas“heat,”“energy,”and“temperature”andhowtheeverydayusesofwordsareoftendistinctfromscientificdefinitions.Thefocusonrelationshipsalsohelpsstudentstobetterunderstandtheconnectionsbetweenwords.

Contextualized science activity. Ms. C contextualizes the scienceactivitybymakingconnectionstostudents’observationsofsteamintheirhomes,whichsheusedtoextendthelessonbydrawingonaspecificexperience(usingsteamtocleanthecarpet).Sheclosesthelessonbyonceagaininvitingstudentstosharewaysinwhichtheycouldapplywhattheyhavelearned,i.e.,leveragetheirexperiencesasameanstolearncomplexsciencecontent(Molletal.,1992;Rosebery&Warren,2008).Shealsoprovidesopportunitiesthroughoutthelessonforstudentstousetheirownsense-makingandlanguageprocessesasresourcesforscience learning in school (Lemke, 1990; Rosebery &Warren, 2008).Finally,shehelpsstudentstoapplytheirknowledgetoalocalcontextduringafuturetriptoapopularhotspringssite.

Relevant Program Components for SSTELLA Framework

WeseetheSSTELLAframework,instantiatedinthevignetteabove,asbeingmostproductivelyinfusedintotwomaincomponentsofteachereducation:(a)asecondarysciencemethodscoursethatmodelstheuseofintegratedpedagogy,and(b)afieldpracticumwithcoachingandsup-portbytrainedteachersupervisorsandcooperatingteachers.

SSTELLA Science Methods Course TheSSTELLAsciencemethodscourseaddressesthecorecontentofsciencemethodsinstruction,i.e.,theoryandresearchonsecondaryscience teaching,aswellasappropriate state sciencestandardsandNGSS.Inaddition,thecourseaddresseslanguageandliteracyintegra-tionforELs,aswellasappropriateCCSSforEnglishLanguageArts.SSTELLA practices are presented through multiple vehicles: videocases, instructor modeled science-language-literacy integrated units,andpreserviceteacher-developedand-implementedscience-language-literacy-integratedlessons. Observation and analysis of video cases.Theuseofvideocasesisef-



fectiveindevelopingnoviceandexperiencedteachers’abilitytoidentify,analyze,andusenewteachingstrategiesthroughfocusingtheirattentiononspecificclassroomevents,inthiscase,theSSTELLApractices(Abell&Cennamo2004;Rothetal.,2011;Sherin,2004).Videocasesfromtheclassroomsofexperiencedsecondaryscience-ELLteachersincludethedetailedfootageneededtoprovidevisualexemplarsofthefourSSTELLAinstructional practices.The video cases contain both successful andfailedepisodessothatnoviceteacherscandiscernmore-effectivefromless-effectivestrategiesandtransformtheirownconceptionsandprac-ticestoapproximatethoseofexpertteachers(Ash,2007;Sherin,2004).Thepresentedvignettecouldbeanexampleofepisodessharedwithpreserviceteachersandusedtopromoteproductivediscourseforbothindividualandcollaborativereflection(Sherin,2004;Zhang,Lundeberg,Koehler,&Eberhardt,2011).

Application in integrated science units.InformedbyunitspreviouslydevelopedintheESTELLproject,sciencemethodsinstructorsimplementSSTELLA-infusedsecondaryscienceinstructionalunitsthatintegrateNGSSandCCSS(thepreviouslydescribedvignettemightrepresentonemodeledlesson).Throughoutthelesson,instructorsengagein“meta-talk”todiscussSSTELLApracticesandwaystoenhancelearningforlinguisticallydiversestudents.Forinstance,afterthelesson,theinstruc-tormightprompt students to reflect onhow literacywas integratedthroughout,aspartofthefocalscienceactivities,andconsiderwaystosupportlanguagedevelopmentthatwouldespeciallybenefitELs.

Development of integrated science lessons.PreserviceteachersdrawonthemodeledvideocasesandinstructionalunitstodeveloptheirownSSTELLA-infusedscienceandengineeringactivitiestobetaughtinthecourseandintheirstudentteaching(tobevideotaped).Thevignettepresentedearlierexemplifiesthetypeoflessonwewouldhopetosee,eveninthesenoviceteachers.Thesciencemethodsinstructorandotherstudentsanalyzeandprovidefeedbackonthelessonsusingtheproject-developedSSTELLAClassroomObservationRubric(SCOR).

SSTELLA Teaching Practicum with Coaching and Support AllSSTELLAstudentsreceivecoachingandsupportfromtheSSTEL-LA-trainedcooperatingteacherinwhoseclassroomtheyareplacedandaresupervisedbyaSSTELLA-traineduniversitysupervisorwhovisitsthemintheirclassrooms,observestheirteachingperformance,givesthemfeedback,andprovidesafinalevaluation.AllofthecooperatingteachersandteachersupervisorsparticipateinprofessionaldevelopmentactivitieswherebytheyexperienceanddebrieftheSSTELLAframework



viaasequenceofactivitiesthatparallelthoseincludedintheSSTELLAsciencemethodscourse.Inparticular,thisincludes(a)anintroductiontothetheorybehindlanguage-scienceintegration,(b)participationinSSTELLAlessonactivities,(c)studyoftheSSTELLAframeworkthroughanalysisofvideocases(onceagain,thevignettereflectsthetypeofpracticeshigh-lighted),and(d)curriculumanalysis(deconstructionandreconstruction)andlessonplandevelopmentusingtheSSTELLAframework.Additionally,cooperatingteachersanduniversitysupervisorsreceivetraininginhowtousetheSSTELLArubricforassessingstudentteachers’performanceandprovidingcoachingandfeedback.

Next Steps:Researching the Impact of the SSTELLA Framework

AlthoughtheSSTELLAframeworkisgroundedinempiricalresearch,westillmustdetermine the impact that it couldhaveonpreservicescienceteachersandtheirfuturestudents.WearecurrentlyusingtheSSTELLAframework inaquasi-experimental longitudinalstudy1atfouruniversityteacherpreparationprogramsacrossthewesternandsouthwesternUnitedStates.Thedesigncallsforustotracktwosecondarysciencecohortsateachprogram(~180teachers),oneduringthe2013-2014academicyearandoneduringthe2014-2015academicyear.Thefirstcohortservesasourbaselinecontrol,i.e.,teacherswhoreceivenocurricularintervention,whereasthesecondcohortwillreceivespecial-izedinstructionandmentoringfocusedontheSSTELLAinstructionalpractices.OurtheoryofchangestatesthatScience Methodinstructors’increasedimplementation(andmodeling)ofSSTELLApracticeswillleadtopositivechangesinpreservicesecondaryteachers’knowledgeofSSTELLApracticesandbeliefsaboutteachingsciencetoELs.This,inturn,willleadtoincreasedimplementationofSSTELLApracticesasstudentandnoviceteachers,whichwillultimatelyimprovestudentlearning.Thus,wewillknowwhetherourframeworkiseffectiveifwesee(a)asignificantincreaseinSTELLA-trainedteachers’knowledge,beliefs,andpracticesofteachingsecondarysciencetoELs,ascomparedtoabaselinecontrolgroup;(b)arelationshipbetweenScience Methodsinstructors’ fidelity of implementation (FOI) of SSTELLA practicesandtreatmentteachers’knowledge,beliefs,andpracticesofteachingsciencetoELs;and(c)arelationshipbetweentreatmentteachers’FOIofSSTELLApracticesandtheirstudents’scienceachievementinthesecondyearofteaching. Wearecollectingquantitativeandqualitativedatafromthreeprimarysources.First,weareusingasurveythatconsistsofLikertitemsand



open-endeditemstotrackchangesinteacherbeliefsbeforetheirsciencemethodscourse,attheendoftheirteacherpreparationprogram,andduringtheirfirstandsecondyearsofteaching.Second,wewillfollowupwithaninterviewimmediatelyaftertheadministrationofeachsurveytoelicitamorenuancedunderstandingofteacherbeliefsthatcanthenbecomparedtothesurveyresults.Finally,wewillobserveandvideotapeteachersfourtimes(twiceduringstudentteachingandtwiceduringtheirfirsttwoyearsofteaching),usingSCORtogatherquantitativeandqualitativedataonhowtheirteachingpracticeschangeovertime.AllthreeinstrumentsarealignedtothefourSSTELLApractices. Inadditiontoobservingthepreserviceteachers,weareobservingtheteachers’methodinstructorateachprogramsite,usingSCORtoanalyzerelationshipsbetweenwhatthemethodinstructorsdoandwhatthepreserviceteachersthenimplementintheirclassrooms.Finally,forasmallersubsetofsecond-yearteachers(bothcontrolandtreatment),wewilladministerandanalyzestudentachievementdatabeforeandafteraninstructionalunitrelatedtostudents’productiveuseofcore science ideasandlanguagewhileengaginginauthenticscientificpracticesandtexts.Thus,wewillattempttomeasurethe impactof implementingtheSSTELLAframeworkthroughananalysisandcomparisonofstu-dents’scienceachievement.Ourmixedmethodresearchdesignallowsforstatisticalanalysisofprogramimpact,aswellasamorein-depthqualitativeanalysisofthisimpactandchangesovertime.WeanticipateusingthesefindingstorefinehowpreservicesecondaryscienceteachersarepreparedtoteachELs.Forinstance,wemayfindthatteachers,andperhapsevenmethodinstructions,demonstratelowerlevelsofimple-mentingcontextualizedinstructionthanotherpractices.Wecouldthenadjustourcurriculumtoaddresscontextualizationmoreintensely.

Concluding Remarks

Inthisarticle,weproposeaframework,SSTELLA,fordevelopingapreserviceteachereducationprogramdesignedtopreparesecondaryteacherstointegratetheteachingofacademiclanguageandliteracywithrigoroussciencecontentinstructionfortherapidlygrowingpopula-tionofEnglishlearners.Noviceteachersbenefitfromexplicitmodelsofintegratedinstructionalpracticesthatuseexemplarinstructionalunitsandvideocasesthatlinkthemodelsusedinteachingsciencemethodswiththoseinteachingpracticumactivities.Coherencewouldbeachieved,aspreserviceteachersreceivecoachingandfeedbackwhiledevelopingintegratedteachingpracticesbyexpertmentorswhothemselveshavebeencoached.WeseetheSSTELLAframework,whichbuildsonthe



NGSSandCCSS,ascentraltothisintegratedmodelofpreservicesec-ondaryteacherpreparation. Although thisarticlehas focusedon thepreparationof teacherstoworkwithELs,thenewstandardsrecognizethecriticalrolethatlanguage,literacy,anddiscourseplayinthelearningofscienceforallstudents.Onecannotlearnsciencewithoutalsolearningthescientificregister: the specialized, cognitively demanding language functions,andstructuresneededtounderstand,conceptualize,symbolize,discuss,read,andwriteabouttopicsinacademicsubjects.Similarly,onecannotdosciencewithoutusingscientifictoolsforsense-makingandthinkingthataremediatedthroughlanguage.Thus,secondaryscienceteachersalsoneedtounderstandhowELsandEnglishproficientstudentsben-efitfromtheintegrationofsciencewithacademiclanguageandliteracydevelopment. Finally,althoughwedevelopedourargumentinthecontextofscience,itmayextendtoothersubjectareas,suchasmathematicsandsocialstudies.Studentscanbenefitfromlearningexperiencesthatenablethemtouselanguagefunctionssituatedineachoftheircontentareas.Thecriticalpointsarethatlanguageprocessespromoteunderstandingofcontentacrossallsubjectmatterdomains,andthatlanguageuseshouldbecontextualizedinauthenticandconcreteactivity.Wesuggestthat,acrosstheUnitedStates,wherelanguageminoritystudentsrepresentasignificantpercentageoftheschool-agepopulation(U.S.CensusBureau,2010),methodsofEnglishlanguagedevelopmentshouldbeintegratedintoallelementaryandsecondarysubjectmattermethodsclassesandstaffdevelopmentprograms.IntegratedinstructionwillassistlanguageminoritystudentsinmasteringtheEnglishlanguageandsimultane-ouslyimprovetheirachievementinacademicsubjects.

Note 1ThismaterialisbasedonworksupportedbytheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)DiscoveryResearchK–12ProgramunderGrantNo.DRL-1316834.Anyopinions,findings,conclusions,orrecommendationsexpressedinthismaterialarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheNSF.

ReferencesAbell,S.K.,&Cennamo,K.S.(2004).Videocasesinelementaryscienceteacher

preparation.InJ.Brophy(Ed.),Advances in research on teaching: Using video in teacher education(Vol.10,pp.103-130).NewYork:ElsevierJAI.

Achieve.(2013).Next generation science standards.Washington,DC:Author.Ash,D.(2007).Usingvideodatatocapturediscontinuoussciencemeaningmak-



inginnon-schoolsettings.InR.Goldman,R.Pea,B.Barron,&S.J.Derry(Eds.),Video research in the learning sciences(pp.207-226).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

August,D.,Carlo,M.,Dressler,C.,&Snow,C.(2005).Thecriticalroleofvo-cabularydevelopmentforEnglishlanguagelearners.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20,50-57.

August,D.,&Hakuta,K. (1997).Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity roundtable report.NationalClearinghouseforEnglishLanguageAcquisition&LanguageInstructionEducational Program. Washington, DC: George Washington University,GraduateSchoolofEducationandHumanDevelopment.

Bravo,M.,&Garcia,E.(2004).Learning to write like scientists: English language learners science inquiry and writing understanding in responsive learning contexts.Washington,DC:NationalClearinghouseforEnglishLanguageAcquisition.

Bruna,K.R.,&Gomez,K.(Eds.).(2008).The work of language in multicultural classrooms: Talking science, writing science.NewYork:Routledge.

Bunch,G.C.(2013).Pedagogicallanguageknowledge:PreparingmainstreamteachersforEnglishlearnersinthenewstandardsera.Review of Research in Education, 37(1),298-341.

Business-HigherEducationForum.(2006).Collaborating to address the math and science shortage: A state university-business partnership(IssueBrief).Re-trievedfromhttp://www.bhef.com/publications/Winter06IssueBrief3.pdf

Buxton,C.A.(2006).Creatingcontextuallyauthenticsciencein“low-perform-ing”urbanelementaryschools.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7),695-721.

CaliforniaCouncilonScienceandTechnology.(2007).Critical path analysis of California’s science and mathematics teacher preparation system.Sacra-mento,CA:Author.

CaliforniaLegislativeAnalystsOffice(LAO).(2007,February).Analysis of the 2007-2008 budget.Sacramento,CA:Author.

Cazden,C.(1988).Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.

Cervetti,G.N.,Pearson,P.D.,Barber,J.,Hiebert,E.,&Bravo,M.A.(2007).Integratingliteracyandscience:Theresearchwehave,theresearchweneed.InM.Pressley,A.K.Billman,K.Perry,K.Refitt,&J.Reynolds(Eds.),Shaping literacy achievement(pp.157-174).NewYork:Guilford.

Cheuk,T.(2012).RelationshipsandconvergencesfoundintheCommonCoreStateStandardsinMathematics(practices),CommonCoreStateStandardsinELA/Literacy(studentportraits),andaFrameworkforK-12ScienceEdu-cation(science&engineeringpractices).Unpublishedmanuscript.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity,UnderstandingLanguageInitiative.

Collier,V.P.(1989).Howlong?Asynthesisofresearchonacademicachievementinasecondlanguage.TESOL Quarterly, 23,509-531.

CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative.(2010).Retrievedfromhttp://www.



corestandards.orgCummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority-language children. Toronto,

Ontario,Canada:OISEPress.Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3),300-314.Driver,R.,Newton,P.,&Osborne,J.(2000).Establishingthenormsofscientific

argumentationinclassrooms.Science Education, 84(3),287-312.Echevarría,J.,Vogt,M.,&Short,D.,J.(2012).Making content comprehensible

for English learners: The SIOP model(4thed.).Boston:Pearson.Fortus,D. (2009).The importanceof learning tomakeassumptions.Science

Education, 93(1),86-108.Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll,A. (2005). Listening to teachers of

English language learners: A survey of California’s teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs.SantaCruz,CA:CenterfortheFutureofTeachingandLearning.

Genesee,F.,Lindholm-Leary,K.,Saunders,W.,&Christian,D.(2005).EnglishlanguagelearnersinU.S.schools:Anoverviewofresearchfindings.Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10(4),363-385.

Godley,A.,Sweetland,J.,Wheeler,S.,Minnici,A.,&Carpenter,B.(2006).Pre-paringteachersfordialectallydiverseclassrooms.Educational Researcher, 35(8),30-37.

Gomez,K.,Sherer,J.,Herman,P.,Gomez,L.,Zywica,J.W.,&Williams,A.(2010).Supportingmeaningfulsciencelearning:Readingandwritingscience.InA.J.Rodriguez(Ed.),Science education as a pathway to teaching language literacy(pp.93-112).Rotterdam,Netherlands:Sense.

Graham,S.,&Perin,D.(2007).Ameta-analysisofwritinginstructionforado-lescentstudents.Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3),445.

Gunter,M.,Estes,T.,&Schwab,J.(1999).Instruction: A models approach(3rded.).Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

Hakuta,K.,Butler,Y.G.,&Witt,D.(2000).How long does it take English Learners to attain proficiency?(TheUniversityofCaliforniaLinguisticMinorityRe-searchInstitutePolicyReport2000-1).PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversity.

Hanauer,D.(2006).Scientific discourse: Multiliteracy in the classroom.London,UK:ContinuumPress.

Hand,B.,Prain,V.,Lawrence,C.,&Yore,L.(1999).Awritinginscienceframe-workdesignedtoimprovescienceliteracy.International Journal of Science Education, 21,1021-1035.

Janzen, J. (2008).Teaching English language learners in the content areas.Review of Educational Research, 78(4),1010-1038.

Kagan,S.,&Kagan,M.(2009).Kagan cooperative learning.SanClemente,CA:KaganPublishing.Retrievedfromwww.KaganOnline.com

Kelly,G.(2007).Discourseinscienceclassrooms.InS.K.Abell&N.G.Lederman(Eds.),Handbook of research on science education(2nded.,pp.443-470).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Krajcik,J.S.,&Sutherland,L.M.(2010).Supportingstudentsindevelopingliteracyinscience.Science, 328(5977),456-459.

Ku,Y.M.,Bravo,M.A.,&Garcia,E.E.(2004.)Scienceinstructionincultur-



allyandlinguisticallydiverseclassrooms.NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1),20-44.

Ku,Y.M.,Garcia,E.E.,&Corkins,J.(2005).Impactoftheinstructionalin-terventiononscienceachievementofculturallyandlinguisticallydiversestudents.PaperpresentedattheAmericanEducationalResearchAssocia-tion,Montreal,Canada.

Lee,O.,&Luykx,A.(2006).Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lee,O.,Quinn,H.,&Valdés,G.(2013).ScienceandlanguageforEnglishlan-guagelearnersinrelationtoNextGenerationScienceStandardsandwithimplicationsforCommonCoreStateStandardsforEnglishlanguageartsandmathematics.Educational Researcher, 42(4),223-233.

Lee,O.,Maerten-Rivera,J.,Penfield,R.,LeRoy,K.,&Secada,W.(2008).ScienceachievementofEnglish language learners inurbanelementaryschools:Resultsofafirst-yearprofessionaldevelopmentintervention.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1),31-52.

Lemke,J. (1990).Talking science: Language, learning, and values.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.

Loucks-Horsley,S.,Hewson,P.W.,Love,N.,&Stiles,K.E.(1998).Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.

Lucas,T.,&Grinberg,J.(2008).Respondingtothelinguisticrealityofmainstreamclassrooms:PreparingallteacherstoteachEnglishlanguagelearners.InM.Cochran-Smith,S.Feiman-Nemser,&D.J.McIntyre(Eds.),Handbook of research on teacher education(3rded.,pp.606-636).NewYork:Routledge.

Maata,D.,Dobb,F.,&Ostlund,K. (2006).Strategies for teachingscience toEnglishlearners.InA.Fathman&D.Crowther(Eds.),Science for English language learners: K-12 classroom strategies (pp 37-60). Arlington, VA:NSTAPress.

Markos,A.M.(2012).Mandatedtolearn,guidedtoreflect:Preserviceteachers’evolvingunderstandingofEnglishLanguageLearners.Issues in Teacher Education, 21,39-57.

McDermott, M. (2010). More than writing-to-learn. The Science Teacher, 77,32-36.

Met,M. (1994).Teaching content througha second language. InF.Genesee(Ed.),Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole cur-riculum, the whole community(pp.159-182).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Moll,L.,Amanti,C.,Neff,D.,&Gonzalez,N. (1992).Fundsofknowledge:Aqualitative approach to developing strategic connection between homesandclassrooms.Theory Into Practice, 31,132-141.

NationalAcademyofSciences. (2010).Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.(2001).The condition of education in 2001(U.S.DepartmentofEducation.OfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovement,NCES2001–072).Washington,DC:InstituteofEducation



Sciences.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.(2011).The nation’s report card: Sci-

ence 2009.Washington,DC:InstituteofEducationSciences.National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education:

Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.

Oakes,J.,Joseph,R.,&Muir,K.(2004).Accessandachievementinmathematicsandscience:Inequalitiesthatendureandchange.InJ.Banks&C.Banks(Eds.),Handbook of research on multicultural education(2nded.,pp.69-90).SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.

Olson,C.B.,Kim,J.S.,Scarcella,R.,Kramer,J.,Pearson,M.,vanDyk,D.A.,Collins,P.,&Land,R.E.(2012).EnhancingtheinterpretivereadingandanalyticalwritingofmainstreamedEnglishlearnersinsecondaryschool:ResultsFromarandomizedfieldtrialusingacognitivestrategiesapproach.American Educational Research Journal, 49,323-355.

Palinscar,A.,&Brown,A.(1984).Reciprocalteachingofcomprehension-foster-ingandcomprehension-monitoringactivities.Cognition and Instruction, 1,117-175.

Passmore,C.,&Stewart,J.(2002)Amodelingapproachtoteachingevolution-arybiologyinhighschools.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3),185-204.

Pearson,P.D.,Moje,E.,&Greenleaf,C.(2010).Literacyandscience:Eachintheserviceoftheother.Science, 328(5977),459-463.

Rivet,A.,&Krajcik,J.(2008).Contextualizinginstruction:Leveragingstudents’priorknowledgeandexperiencestofosterunderstandingofmiddleschoolscience.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45,79-100.

Rodriguez,A.J.(Ed.).(2010).Science education as a pathway to teaching lan-guage literacy.Rotterdam,Netherlands:Sense.

Rosebery,A.S.,&Warren,B.(2008).Teaching science to English language learn-ers.Alexandria,VA:NationalScienceTeachersAssociation.

Roth,K.J.,Garnier,H.E.,Chen,C.,Lemmens,M.,Schwille,K.,&Wickler,N.I.Z.(2011).Videobasedlessonanalysis:EffectivesciencePDforteacherandstudentlearning.Journal of Research in Science. Teaching, 48,117-148.

Scarcella,R.(2003).Academic English: A conceptual framework(TheUniversityofCaliforniaLinguisticMinorityResearchInstituteTechnicalReport2003-1).Retrievedfromhttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pd082d4#page-2

ShawJ.,Lyon,E.,Mosqueda,E.,Stoddart,T.,&Menon,P.(2013).Preparingpre-serviceteacherstoteachsciencetoEnglishlanguagelearners:Prelimi-naryanalysesofimpactonstudentlearning.Proceedings of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference,SanJuan,PuertoRico.

Sherin,M.G.(2004).Newperspectivesontheroleofvideointeachereducation.InJ.Brophy(Ed.),Advances in research on teaching: Using video in teacher education(Volume10,pp.1-27).NewYork:ElsevierJAI.

Snow,C.E.(2010).Academiclanguageandthechallengeofreadingforlearningaboutscience.Science, 328,450-452.

Speck,M.,&Knipe,C.(2001).Why can’t we get it right? Professional develop-



ment in our schools.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.Stoddart,T.(2005).Improving student achievement with the CREDE five stan-

dards pedagogy(TechnicalReportNo.J1).SantaCruz,CA:UniversityofCalifornia,CenterforResearchonEducation,DiversityandExcellence.

Stoddart,T.(2013).Restructuringpre-serviceteachereducationtorespondtoincreasing student diversity. Research in Higher Education Journal, 9,1-14.

Stoddart,T.,Bravo,M.,Solis,J.,&Mosqueda,E.(2011).Preparingpre-serviceelementaryteacherstoteachsciencetoEnglishlanguagelearners.Proceed-ings of the International Conference on Education,Honolulu,HI.

Stoddart,T.,Bravo,M.,Solís,J.L.,Stevens,M.,&VegadeJesús,R.(2009).Pre-paringpre-serviceteacherstointegrateinquirysciencewithlanguageandliteracyinstructionforEnglishlanguagelearners:Anexperimentalstudy.Conference Proceedings: Improving Recruitment, Development & Retention through Effective Pedagogy.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley:CenterforResearchonEducation,Diversity&Excellence.

Stoddart,T.,&Mosqueda,E.(inpress).TeachingsciencetoEnglishlanguagelearners:Astudyofpre-serviceteacherpreparation.Teacher Education & Practice.

Stoddart,T.,Pinal,A.,Latzke,M.,&Canaday,D.(2002).IntegratinginquiryscienceandlanguagedevelopmentforEnglishlanguagelearners.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8),664-687.

Stoddart,T.,Solís,J.,Tolbert,S.,&Bravo,M.(2010).AframeworkfortheeffectivescienceteachingofEnglishLanguageLearnersinelementaryschools.InD.Sunal,C.Sunal,&E.Wright(Eds.),Teaching science with Hispanic ELLs in K–16 Classrooms(pp.151-181).Charlotte,NC:InformationAge.

Thomas,W.P.,&Collier,V.P.(2012).Dual language education for a transformed world.Albuquerque,NM:FuentePress.

Tolbert,S. (2013).Becomingmoreresponsiveand inclusivescience (teacher)educators.Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication.

Trent,S.C.,Kea,C.D.,&Oh,K.(2008).Preparingpreserviceeducatorsforculturaldiversity:Howfarhavewecome?Exceptional Children, 74,328-350.

U.S.CensusBureau.(2010).American community survey (2005-2009).Retrievedfromhttp://www.census.gov/acs/www

Veel,R.(1997).Learninghowtomean—scientificallyspeaking:Apprenticeshipintoscientificdiscourseinthesecondaryschool.InF.Christie&J.R.Martin(Eds.),Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school(pp.160-195).London,UK:Cassell.

Wallace,C.S.,Hand,B.,&Prain,V.(2004).Writing and learning in the science classroom.Dordrecht,Netherlands:KluwerAcademic

Walqui,A.,&VanLier,L.(2010).Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners.SanFrancisco:WestEd.

Weiss-Magasic,C.(2012).Writingandscienceliteracy.Science Teacher, 79(1),41-43.

Wiggins,G.&McTighe,J. (1998).Understanding by design.Alexandria,VA:AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment.

Windschitl,M.,Thompson,J.,Braaten,M.,&Stroupe,D.(2012).Proposinga



coresetofinstructionalpracticesandtoolsforteachersofscience.Science Education, 96(5),878-903.

Zhang,M.,Lundeberg,M.,Koehler,M.,&Eberhardt,J.(2011).Understandingaffordancesandchallengesofthreetypesofvideoforteacherprofessionaldevelopment.Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2),454-462.

Documents

The Next Generation Science Standards, Common Core State ... · Standards Initiative, 2010) in English language arts and mathematics and the recently released Next Generation Science