Cover not available
Article published In:
Teaching, Learning and Scaffolding in CLIL Science Classrooms
Edited by Yuen Yi Lo and Angel M.Y. Lin
[Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 7:2] 2019
► pp. 233–260

Supporting students’ content learning in Biology through teachers’ use of classroom talk drawing on concept sketches

| English Language Institute of Singapore, Ministry of Education
| Academy of Singapore Teachers, Ministry of Education
| Murdoch University
This article examines teachers’ attempts to enhance students’ content learning in Biology through the use of talk centred on concept sketches. Of specific interest is how teachers provide scaffolding through purposeful classroom discourse (Lemke, 1990) with the use of talk moves (Chapin, O’Connor, & Anderson, 2013), drawing on concept sketches (Johnson & Reynolds, 2005) annotated by students. Informed by socioconstructivist (Vygotsky, 1978/86) perspectives and grounded in multimodal literacy (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001) underpinnings, the study acknowledges the teacher’s role in productive classroom discussions to guide students’ thinking and facilitate meaning-making. Qualitative analysis of classroom discourse illustrates how teachers’ classroom talk can scaffold and address the gaps in students’ learning. Pedagogical implications are discussed.
Keywords: classroom discourse, concept sketch, multimodal literacy, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), science teaching, Biology, teacher questioning, talk moves
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical underpinnings
  • 3.Review of studies in the field
    • 3.1Concept sketch in the field of science
    • 3.2Classroom talk in science
  • 4.Research focus
  • 5.Background setting and subjects
  • 6.Methodology
  • 7.Examination of classroom talk based on concept sketch
    • 7.1Reformulating with specifics amplified for directionality focus
    • 7.2Scaffolding content learning undergirded by purpose
    • 7.3Drawing on repeated uptake of students’ response to sharpen focus and direct attention
    • 7.4Sharpening precision in language use
    • 7.5Limitations in classroom talk
  • 8.Implications
    • 8.1Beyond the visual and the textual- the place of classroom talk
    • 8.2Implications for teachers’ professional learning
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 25 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18020.ho
References (61)
References
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson, (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 91–114). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bell, J. C. (2014). Visual literacy skills of students in college-level Biology: Learning outcomes following digital or hand-drawing activities. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennet, D. (2011). Multimodal representation contributes to the complex development of science literacy in a college biology class. University of Iowa Iowa Research Online. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of research in education, 241, 61–100.Google Scholar
Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2013). Classroom discussions in Math: A teacher’s guide for using talk moves to support the common core and more, Grades K-6: A Multimedia Professional Learning Resource (third edition). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.Google Scholar
Chia, B. P., Tay, H. M., Ho, C., Ho, J., & Lee, G. B. (2014). Scaffolding scientific explanation in Chemistry through language-specific support. In Lee, Y.-J., Lim, N. T.-L., Tan, K. S., Chu, H. E., Lim, P. Y., Lim, Y. H., & Tan, I. (Eds)., Proceedings from the International Science Education Conference (ISEC) 2014 (pp. 316–353). Singapore: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in Science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of research in Science teaching, 44(6), 815–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. M., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curriculum Planning and Development Division (2016). Biology syllabus. Pre-university. Higher 1. Syllabus 8876. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 677–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 51, 61–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
English Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS). (2011). Whole school approach to effective communication in English. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Esiobu, G. O., & Soyibo, K. (1995). Effects of concept and vee mappings under three learning modes on students’ cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 971–995. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, M., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Refining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 301, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 101, 61–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
Jaipal, K. (2009). Meaning making through multiple modalities in a biology classroom: A multimodal semiotics discourse analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). Concept sketches – Using student- and instructor-generated, annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in Geology courses: Journal of Geoscience Education , 53(1), 85–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (ELAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media Singapore. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y. (2018). Literacy challenges in chemistry: A multimodal analysis of symbolic formulas. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 205–218). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2015). Getting used to content and language integrated learning: What can classroom interaction reveal? The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 239–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Centers (TERC).Google Scholar
Michell, M., & Sharpe, T. (2005). Collective instructional scaffolding in English as a second language classrooms. Prospect, 20(1), 31–58.Google Scholar
Ministry Of Education (MOE) & University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES). (2015). Biology Higher 2 (2017) (Syllabus 9744). Singapore: Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, MOE and Cambridge international Examinations.Google Scholar
Moje, E. (2018). Foreword. In K. S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. v–vii). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novak, J. D., & Wandersee, J. (Eds.) (1991). Concept mapping [Special issue] Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10).Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 141, 71–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Learning science through learning to use its languages. In Hand, B. & McDermott, M. (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the Science classroom (pp. 1–11). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prinou, L., Halkia, K. (2003). Images of cell division on the Internet. In Constantinou & Zacharia (Eds.), Computer based learning in science, New technologies and their applications in education (pp. 1103–1113). Nicosia: University of Cyprus.Google Scholar
Reynolds, S. R., & Tewksbury, B. (2005). On the cutting edge. Exploring teaching strategies: Concept sketch. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Roam, D. (2008). Back of the Napkin: Solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Roth, W.-M. (2005). Talking science: Language and learning in science classrooms. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Scwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 461, 632–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, P. (1997). Developing science concepts in secondary classrooms: An analysis of pedagogical interactions from a Vygotskian perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds.Google Scholar
(1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in Science classrooms: A Vygotksyan analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singapore Department of Statistics (2015). General Household Survey 2015. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1),101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamir, P. (1985). Causality and teleology in high school biology. Research in Science and Technological Education, 31, 19–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, K. S. (2016). The interplay of representations and patterns of classroom discourse in science teaching sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2069–2095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temple, S. (1994). Thought made visible – the value of sketching. Co-Design Journal, 11, 16–25.Google Scholar
The Straits Times. (1983). It’s English for all. Alfred, H. & Tan, J. The Straits Times, p.1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.Google Scholar
Tytler, R., & Hubber, P. (2016). Constructing representations to learn Science. In B. Hand & M. McDermott (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the Science classroom (pp. 159–181). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Wise, N. (2006). Making visible. Isis, 97(1), 75–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, C.-W. (2009). Causal and teleological explanations in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 43(4), 149–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Nashaat-Sobhy, Nashwa, Eva M. Mestre-Mestre & Penny MacDonald
2024. A review of a decade of scaffolding practices for learning in CLIL science classrooms. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education DOI logo
Seow, Tricia, Caroline Ho & Yunqing Lin
2022. Thinking and Talking Like a Geographer: Teachers’ Use of Dialogic Talk for Engaging Students with Multimodal Data in the Geography Classroom. In The Role of Language in Content Pedagogy [Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice, 4], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
An, Jiangshan & Nathan Thomas
2021. Students’ beliefs about the role of interaction for science learning and language learning in EMI science classes: Evidence from high schools in China. Linguistics and Education 65 ► pp. 100972 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Jiajia Eve & Angel M. Y. Lin
2021. (Re)conceptualizing “Language” in CLIL. AILA Review 34:2 ► pp. 240 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.