Language and Literacy in Science Education

By Jerry Wellington, Jonathan Osborne. 2001

796 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1969f5751ad8781ae9a830d240cb35c7a51fe7c8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Improving Middle School Students’ Science Literacy Through Reading Infusion (2010, methodology): “For a long time, secondary science is perceived as a hands-on subject that has little to do with reading, and reading was by and large a neglected activity in the science classroom (Wellington & Osborne, 2001).”
Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science (2015, background): “In essence to engage in a much more deliberative and conscious dialog with the text for which there are standard meta-cognitive strategies which must be taught (Davies & Greene, 1984; Wellington & Osborne, 2001).”
Understanding the Language Demands of Schooling: Nouns in Academic Registers (2006, background): “In fact, as Wellington and Osborne (2001) noted, “For many pupils the greatest obstacle in learning science—and also the most important achievement—is to learn its language” (p. 3).”
A study of students' construction of science knowledge: talk and writing in a collaborative group (2007, background): “Wellington and Osborne (2001) described several structured experiences and tasks to support students’ interactions, discussions and debates.”
The Language Demands of Science Reading in Middle School (2006, background): “Explicit attention to the specialized language of science is needed, for, as Wellington and Osborne (2001) have suggested, without a conscious understanding of the peculiar grammar of science, science will remain a foreign language to many students.”
Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction (2020, background): “…whereas the language of science contains a number of distinctive features including grammatical metaphor, nominalisation and lexical density (Halliday 2004; Wellington and Osborne 2001) although these features are not absent from humanities subjects (see Llinares, Morton, and Whittaker 2012, 176).”
Tracing the Effects of Teacher Inquiry on Classroom Practice. (2010, unknown): “Other definitions: multi-semiotic ¼ verbal, mathematical, and/or graphical modes of scientific communication (Wellington & Osborne, 2001).”
Improving science education : the contribution of research (2000, background): “With the publication of this volume Open University Press added to its emerging substantial collection of science education research texts (Monk and Osborne 2000, Wellington and Osborne 2001).”
Intertextuality in Read-Alouds of Integrated Science-Literacy Units in Urban Primary Classrooms: Opportunities for the Development of Thought and Language (2006, background): “However, such discourse reflects the academic social language of science that allows students to understand science and engage in it (Gee, 2004; Wellington & Osborne, 2001).”
Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2006-011. (2006, background): “From this perspective, discussion, writing, and reading are just as much a part of “doing science” as carrying out experimental, hands-on work (AAAS 1993; Goldman and Bisanz 2002; Halliday and Martin 1993; Hand et al. 2003; Wellington and Osborne 2001), and students should have the opportunity to do”
Talking Science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching (2010, unknown): “Lemke and others (e.g. Sutton, 1992; Wellington & Osborne, 2001) criticise the approach for leading to talk that focuses on what the teacher wants to hear, rather than promoting genuine communication, and all argue for increased use of discussion work in science lessons.”