Science SOS: Teaching the
Language of Science in
Elementary Classrooms
2014 WIDA Conference – Thursday, October 23rd – Dae Selcer & Rachel Durkee
Introduction of Presenters: Dae Selcer
- Taught grades 1, 2, and 4-12
- Has worked in Cambodia, Viet
Nam, and Minneapolis
- Loves otters
Introduction of Presenters: Rachel Durkee
- Has taught grades K and 5
- Originally from North Dakota,
but currently lives and works in
Minneapolis.
- Does not like potatoes.
Why are we here?
What drew you to this session today?
Objectives – Teachers Will be Able To
(TWBAT)
 TWBAT critique current Language of Science instruction in their own
programs by applying knowledge of best practices in Elementary
Science.
 TWBAT define what accountable talk is and why it may be useful in
teaching Language of Science.
 TWBAT identify and practice best practices for using accountable
talk in the classroom by taking part in sample lessons/activities.
Part 1: Science in the Elementary
Classroom
Guiding Question: What does current
research and experience tell us about what is
and is not effective K-4 science instruction?
Objective: TWBAT critique current Language of Science instruction in their own programs by
applying knowledge of best practices in Elementary Science.
Background: Science in Elementary
Classrooms
 Iris Weiss et al. (2003) studied 360 lessons in math and science at the K-12 level. The study
found that high-quality science lessons:
 Are intellectually rigorous
 Make ample use of teacher questioning
 Are standards based
 Are interactive and engaging for learners
Out of those 360 lessons, 15% were “high quality” lessons.
59% of the lessons were of “low
quality.”
What else do successful elementary
science lessons do?
 Successful science lessons at all levels find out
what students know through formative assessment
(Keeley 2008).
 Successful science lessons are “community
centered.” Sharing ideas – not just right answers –
are valued. The community supports risk-taking
(Bransford et al, 1999).
What about for ELLs?
 The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Model (SIOP Model) provides content
teachers with guidelines for teaching ELLs in all subject domains, including science.
 Content and language objectives clearly defined, displayed, and reviewed with students
 High degree of use of supplementary materials
 Differentiation for student levels
 Address all four modalities (Speaking, Listening, Reading, and Writing) of language
 Meaningful activities that build on students’ background knowledge and integrate language
practice (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short 2008)
This is all pretty maddeningly vague.
Let’s get more specific!
Elementary Science SOS: Sample School
Context
Eleanor S. Leaf is excited to
begin teaching push-in science
for grades 1 and 3 in School B.
She consults with the classroom
teacher and learns that the
school has mandated that all
lessons be based on a prebought, prestigious curriculum.
Ms. ESL receives a copy of the
student book and teacher’s
guide and excitedly sits down
to read the first unit.
During Reading:
As you see what Ms. ESL found, jot
down your thoughts on how the
materials do (or do not) meet Weiss’
criteria for “high quality” science
lessons (below)
- Intellectually rigorous
- Make ample use of teacher
questioning
- Are standards based
- Are interactive and engaging
for learners
- Address all 4 modalities (SIOP)
Ms. ESL in
action…
Turn and Talk (5 minutes)
 Turn and talk to someone next to you about what you saw. Consider these guiding
questions:
 What were some difficulties that Ms. ESL might encounter in trying to create high-quality
science lessons out of this unit?
 What tasks are students expected to do in this unit? What beliefs do these expectations show us
about how student learning is conceptualized?
 What supports are available to students to complete the tasks required of them? What could be
better?
Our Opinions
High-Quality Lesson Criteria
Representation in Curriculum?
Intellectually rigorous
Students are essentially passive – they match
(vocab to pictures), identify (numbers of living
things) and select (answers to test questions).
Make ample use of teacher questioning
Students are told information – they do not
apply it (the experiment in this chapter is
related to how sea monkeys grow and is
unrelated).
Standards based
The lessons here are compliant with 1st grade
MN standards
Interactive and engaging for learners
Though photo quality is high, interaction is low
Use all four modalities
Speaking is totally neglected. Not enough
scaffolding for writing.
Reflection (3 minutes)
 Take a few minutes to think about your experiences with
elementary science in your own context.
 How do the materials (or lack thereof) compare to those shown
here?
 Do the materials used at your school meet Weiss’ criteria for highquality science lessons? In what areas?
Part 2: Moving Towards a Solution in
Accountable Talk
Guiding Question: How can we create
high-quality Language of Science
instruction that is rigorous, yet still meets
our students where they are at?
 Objective: TWBAT define what accountable talk is and why it is useful in teaching
Language of Science.
What is accountable talk?
 Accountable Talk has been most discussed in Middle School settings (Goldenberg 1993,
Resnick 2007, Elizabeth et al 2012).
 Following Resnick, Irvin et al (2007) argue that accountable talk is accountable on three
levels
 Classroom-wide acceptance of norms of conversation (ie, all can make valuable contributions)
 Students recognize their responsibility to speak accurately about what they are learning
 Students use higher level thinking to formulate arguments and clarify ideas
….more concretely?
 Middle School version
often a little too
advanced for Elementary
school.
I agree with you,
_______ because
______.
 However, accountable
talk is often used in the
form of sentence stems.
 Any kind of protocol for
student interaction that
improves S to S language
can be accountable talk.
I disagree
because
_____.
Why should we pay attention to
accountable talk in science?
 Last year, an entering 1st grade ESL class had an average
Kindergarten writing score of 1.8, and an overall score of 1.6.
 Using accountable talk-focused writing instruction in science
as the primary mode of ESL instruction, the class grew an
average of 1 level – making the average writing score 2.8.
 The average growth in their composite score was 1.5 levels
(up to 3.1).
Part 3: Getting Practical. What do we do,
exactly?
Guiding Questions: What exactly does
accountable talk look like in Language of
Science lessons at the elementary level?
 Objective: TWBAT identify and practice best practices for using accountable talk in the
classroom by taking part in sample lessons/activities.
Moving Beyond Sentence Stems
-
Sentence stems are not enough. Consider the following:
Why do you think that we
should eat cake, Fenan? Use
the sentence stem: “I think
____ because ____.”
“I think eat cake
because good.”
Specific language needs to be used and blanks chosen carefully so students can
practice targeted forms.
Creating Accountable Talk Plans in Four
Steps
Step 1: Stick to your specific language objective. What language do you need?
Step2: Build an Accountable Talk Word Wall (3 Tiers) and use Student-Owned
Bubbles
Step 3: Create Extended Dialogue
Step 4: Have Students Self- and Peer-Monitor for Accountability
Step 1: Stick to Your Language
Objective
We will skip this step in the interest of time – however, feel free to ask questions during work
time! Also, see Academic Language for Achievement in the Collaborative (PushIn)Classroom, Friday at 1:15.
Step 2:
Accountable Talk Walls
Tie language to specific functions, and
always clearly define blanks.
What do I want to do?
(Function)
What words do I need
(vocabulary)
What do I say or write
(Accountable Talk)
I want to ask about
something.
Help
Assist
Could you ____ me with
(topic)?
I want to suggest something.
Might
I think (person) ______ (action)
because (why).
Could
Should
Must
I want to add something.
Agree
Disagree
Concur
Do not concur
I _____ with you (name),
because (why).
I want to explain my idea
Because + Person + Thinking
Word + Subject + Idea about
Subject
I agree with you, Ms. ESL,
because I think candy is
delicious.
As students gain more proficiency, fine
distinctions can be made and content
can get specific
What do I want to do?
(Function)
What words do I need?
(Vocabulary)
What do I say or write?
(Accountable Talk)
I want to explain my idea
Because + Person + Thinking
Word + Subject + Idea about
Subject
I agree with you, Ms. ESL,
because I think candy is
delicious.
I want to show why thing A
made thing B happen.
Because of
As a result of
Due to
_________ (action A), (action
B) occurred.
I want to form a hypothesis,
and I need help with actions.
Present verb
Comma (,)
Will + present verb.
If (topic) (present verb) (first
event), then (second event)
(will + present verb).
I want to form a hypothesis,
and I need help with the
order.
If + first event
Then + second event
______ the bread stays on the
shelf for 10 days, _____ mold
will form.
Sample Accountable Talk Wall Elements
Step 2: Ownable Accountable Talk
“Bubbles”
Accountable Talk works best when students “own” the most
frequently used sentence stems and can choose when to use
them (within parameters of class discussion).
Students keep bubbles in folders and have access to them
when needed.
Students then “own” the conversation and can monitor their
own use of language.
Use pictures to remind students of what bubbles go with what
ideas.
Go from general to specific
See sample being
passed around.
Step 2: Sample Accountable Talk Cards –
General (kept in “ESL” folder)
What did you observe?
Can you add to that?
Can you build on that?
What made you think that?
Step 2: Sample Accountable Talk Cards –
Specific (Kept in Science Folder)
As (first event/person) is/are (action +ing),
(second event/person) is/are (action +ing).
As the butterfly’s wings are drying, the
butterfly is resting in the sun.
I observed that (subject + past action). What
did you observe, (name?)
I observed that the ship sank. What did you
observe, Sameera?
See sample going around the room.
Step Three: Accountable Talk Rings – Use
for Repeated Tasks
Used to create entire conversations or extended writing – ex: using scientific method.
1. (Question from board)
2. My hypothesis is that if (event 1) (action), then (event 2) (action). What is your hypothesis,?
3. Let’s make an experiment. Can you help me set it up?
4. I observed that (action + past). What did you observe, ____? (x3)
5. Where should we record your observation that (action + past)? We should record it ____.
6. I conclude that my hypothesis was (correct/incorrect) because (experiment part)
(action). What was your conclusion?
See sample being passed around!
Step Four:
The Buddy Sign-Off and Self Evaluation
 Students can become accountable for
what others have written/said through
the buddy sign-off.
 With explicit instruction, students can
evaluate themselves honestly and be
accountable for improving their
performance.
See samples going around the room!
Your Turn: Using Accountable Talk
Ms. ESL has decided to try and use some accountable talk strategies in her first unit with her
1st graders. She knows the content objective her colleague is using: SWBAT be able to explain
the difference between living and non-living things.
The only problem is that the students don’t actually do much explaining in the content lesson.
Use your handout to plan some accountable talk strategies that Ms. ESL can use in her unit.
We will be coming around to answer questions.
Contact Us
 Dae Selcer – dselcer@thebestacademy.org
 Rachel Durkee – rdurkee@thebestacademy.org
Works Cited

Works Cited

Alexander, R. (2010). Speaking but not listening? Accountable talk in an unaccountable context. Literacy. 44(3), pp. 103-111.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model. Boston: Pearson.

Keeley, P. (2008). Science formative assessment. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Goldenberg, C. (1993). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through instruction. The Reading Teacher. 64(4). pp. 316-326.

Holwell, P.B., Thomas, S., & Ardasheva, Y. (2011). Talk in the classroom: Meeting the developmental, academic, and cultural needs of middle school students.
Middle Grades Research Journal. 6(1), pp. 47-63.

Irvin, J.L, Buhel, D.R. & Radcliffe, B. J. (2007). Strategies to enhance literacy and learning in the Middle School content area classrooms. Boston: Pearson.

Martin, R., Sexton, C., Franklin, T. & Gerlovich, J. (2005).Teaching Science for all children: An inquiry based approach. Boston: Pearson.

Michales, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in
Philosophy of Education. 27, pp. 283-297.

Richardson, A. E. (2010). Exploring text through student discussions: accountable talk in the Middle School classroom. The English Journal. 100 (1). pp 83-88.

Weiss, I.R., Pasley, J.D., Smith, P.S., Banilower, E.R., & Hecht, D.J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the
United States. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Horizon Research.