In the first draft provided as an example in the article, the student was able to include many of the desired discourse elements for this genre of writing including “reference”, “transitivity”, “conjunction”, “lexis: classification”, and “nominal groups”. However, with the instructor’s scaffolding through the use of models of the appropriate text genre and an exploration of problems and goals for the next draft, students were able to take part in knowledge construction on the content topic as the developed linguistic tools for understanding and expressing this knowledge before writing their next draft. 

 

Huang’s study includes the type of mapping that Pandey (2012) found to be essential in the process-based writing approach and goes further to ensure that the content and construction of knowledge remain a part of the science classroom writing process instead of simply focusing on automaticity through formulated genre-focused structure. The collaborative and constructive nature of the study mirrors Matthiessen’s socio-semiotic process as discussed in Xuan’s study of ESL writing (2017). Xuan’s findings on students’ lack of awareness in regard to the tenor of their writing is also relevant as it would be addressed through this framework for genre-based writing as students begin to see through model texts the tenor that authors of scientific texts maintain with their readers. 

 

As Huang’s article emphasizes, writing in the science classroom requires attention to the genre of the text as well as the process of writing. Marrying these two techniques in a framework of knowledge construction will give students an opportunity to learn science as the learn to write about science, which is an invaluable skill for their future academic careers as they will be expected to constantly demonstrate their knowledge of scientific concepts through writing and will be judged against a subject-specific textual context.

 

 

 

Pandey, A. (2012). Rethinking process-based writing approaches in the ESOL middle school classroom: Developing linguistic fluency via hybrid pedagogies. TESOL Journal, 3(4), 659-697. 10.1002/tesj.39 Retrieved from https://unco.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.unco.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=83585331&site=ehost-live

Xuan, W.W. (2017). An exploratory study of ESL writing by junior secondary students in china: Text type, register and textual features. Functional Linguistics, 4(1), 1-19. //dx.doi.org.unco.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0038-9 Retrieved from https://unco.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.unco.idm.oclc.org/docview/1862236431?accountid=12832

This limitation is the starting point for the students (ZPD) and where the teacher needs to explicitly teach.  Because the class was considered an “advanced” math course for the students, pre-calculus, the difficulty the students faced is understandable.  However, as concepts become difficult, students’ learning increased; as a result, “the language that construes those concepts also become more complex…from ordinary use of language” (Schleppegrell, 2004, p. 155).  The way students expanded on their academic language discourse was the teacher placed them as the teacher (Huang, Normandia, & Greer, p. 45).  Many times the teacher intervened to push for higher-level knowledge structure.  Scaffolding in this context is what Aguirre-Munoz et. al. (2008) promotes on the benefits from rigorous instruction and efficient evaluation.  To achieve this, teachers need beneficial professional development training to support the linguistic needs.  As seen in the math classroom, this was, as Schleppegrell expresses, “visible pedagogy;” the teacher design her instruction to systematically integrate “math thinking” and “math talking” at all levels of knowledge structures.  Ultimately, the teacher became a mathematician and a mentor to structure how to talk math in an academic context.    

 

Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. K. (2008). Developing teacher capacity for serving ELLs' writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1), 295-322. Retrieved from https://unco.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.unco.idm.oclc.org/docview/222027000?accountid=12832

 

language, still and moving images, gestures and physical artifacts" so students need to learn not only the written language of science, but also how to connect those to the various other media used in presenting information. In their study, they found that if the teacher specifically talked about the lexical resources that she was looking for in the students' responses such as asking for "processes" when describing a scientific phenomenon, students improved in their meaning construction because they understood what depth in the content she was looking for. She gave several examples of what "processes" would look like so they had a basis for language use in the scientific field. 

Jakobson, Britt, & Axelsson, Monica. (2017). Building a Web in Science Instruction: Using 

Multiple Resources in a Swedish Multilingual Middle School Class. Language and Education, 31(6), 479-494.

 

On one hand, the classroom activities which are content-involved help simulate students’ interactions in comprehending and actually using the language. By understanding the content, active participation could inspire thinking of the role of grammar, usage of vocabulary, cognitive structures, social functions and so forth. On the other, with the directions of the teacher, students can further investigate the linguistic resources through academic writing. From the example presented (Huang, 2000), it is clearly the truth that after learning the classification of matter, the students’ three drafts have seen great progress with the following discussion and analysis. By analyzing knowledge structure, the content leaning through the language and the learning of language itself become more clarified and deepened. 

 

How does the linguistic resource in the hands of the teacher/students contribute or limit meaning construction?

 

First, under the topic of Classification of Matter, the analysis of students’ written text could help the teachers have a better understanding of how well can they articulate themselves in writing formal texts and expressing the semantic relationship of classification, teachers get the information of what level are the students at and can therefore come up of ways in optimizing the directing strategies (Huang, 2000). Then the teachers can find it practical to introduce related texts, use different kinds of presentations such as graphs and charts in a more explicit way, specify the main semantic relations for constructing KS, pay attention to the key linguistic features concerning certain topic.

 

References:

Huang, J. (2000). Integration of academic content learning and academic literacy skills development of L2 students: A case study of an ESL science class. In YEARBOOK-NATIONAL READING CONFERENCE (Vol. 49, pp. 392-404).

Halliday, M. A. K., Matthiessen, C., & Halliday, M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.

 

In Huang’s (2000) research, when the students wrote the first draft following the model text they were able to include many of the scientific elements including “reference”, “transitivity”, “conjunction”, “lexis”, “nominal groups”. After the first draft, students conducted an agreed-upon understanding of the writing standards about language and content for second draft. Later with more scaffolding from the teacher, though draft 1 and draft 3 shared a similar Knowledge Structure, the graphic representations are different. The use of the definition or explanation of terms and the specific examples illustrating those terms have helped make Draft 3 more elaborated in message content. During writing, students gradually get to know the certain features about classification writing, which should be, for example, accurate, objective and clear using formal language.  

 

Huang’s study reminds me of one article that I read before. The study (Slater & Mohan, 2010) is about how there was skillful cooperation between science teacher and ESL teacher based on the science tasks they selected that applied theory to practice and developed meanings in the register of science. From Slater and Mohan’s analysis, based on SFL concept of the meaning potential of register, not only the content teacher’s contribution to language support, but also the contributions to science and language teaching through register development that the ESL teacher provides despite not being a content specialist.

Reference:
Huang, J. (2000). Integration of academic content learning and academic literacy skills development of L2 students: A case study of an ESL science class. In YEARBOOK-NATIONAL READING CONFERENCE (Vol. 49, pp. 392-404).
Slater, T., & Mohan, B. (2010). Cooperation between science teachers and ESL teachers: A register perspective. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 91-98. 

What seemed the most beneficial to the students in the science classroom example was going through multiple drafts and multiple steps in order to solidify their understanding of the content and of the language necessary to discuss the content.  I think too often teachers give a brief definition of a new concept and will often accept less developed definitions from their students.  However, in this classroom by having students create multiple versions of the graphic organizers, the students were able to correct their less accurate definitions, and in the process were able to also develop the academic language that they were using.  Again, this shows that the process of learning academic language and content are one and the same; they should not be separated.  By developing the language necessary to talk about classification, the students are able to understand the differences between organisms better.

I particularly liked the idea of using a graphic organizer to not only help students understand how to classify organisms, but also how it helped them develop the necessary language for the classification genre.  The students were able to improve their definitions and linguistic choices by comparing them to the model text.  This allowed them to analyze their responses for inconsistencies in their definitions and in their language usage.

In order to create accurate definitions, the students had to understand the linguistic resources that allow a writer to create a classification text.  Without understanding the explicit nature of classification texts and the textual resources such as different kinds of conjunctions that connect and distinguish ideas, the students would instead only produce an informational text instead of one that categorizes objects.  The use of graphic organizers is a useful resource for students as it gives them insight into how to talk about classification and how to categorize items.

Huang, J. (2000). Integration of academic content learning and academic literacy skills development of L2 students: A case study of an esl science class. NRC.

In Huang’s emphasis, writing and content knowledge are co-related to each other, for students who have a better understanding of content knowledge can produce academic writing of high quality.

     As for KS approach mentioned in Huang’s research, it reminds me thinking an article wrote by Mohan also focus on KS to offers a way to link wok on academic discourse, also provides me with a perspective that the difference between KS study and genre study. The former one is text-based, starts from the analysis of text, the latter one is more like a situation-based, start from the analysis of situation into KSs.  Thus teachers can work with real content while developing language awareness of academic discourse.

References：
1.Huang, J. (2000). Integration of academic content learning and academic literacy skills development of L2 students: A case study of an ESL science class. In YEARBOOK-NATIONAL READING CONFERENCE (Vol. 49, pp. 392-404).

2.Mohan, B. A. (1989). Knowledge structures and academic discourse. Word, 40(1-2), 99-115.

Knowledge structure analysis is used to examine the integration of language development and content knowledge learning. Six basic knowledge structures are used to analyze. The topic of the content knowledge is of the classification of matters, which requires classification structure analysis, determines the linguistic resources to be selected. The written discourses reflect both students’ sophistication of writing academic discourse and understanding of the content knowledge. The written discourses from students are to be analyzed to examine the students’ knowledge, writing skills, and understanding expressed through linguistic devices. In this case, the student’s ability to classify matters and give examples are examined. In their written drafts, the use of lexicon devices such as nominal groups, conjunctions, reference, transitivity, etc. are evidence of their understanding of the content and English language development.

 

How does the linguistic resource in the hands of the teacher/students contribute or limit meaning construction?

In this case, the linguistic resource in the hands of the teacher/students contribute to the meaning construction. First, when students are introduced to new content knowledges, they might not have the prior knowledge to support their understanding of the new knowledge. When students organize their first drafts, they lack knowledge of certain items and concepts. Then, classroom discussion and the engagement of other written sources are important to the meaning construction. Second, when teacher assess how deep the students understand the content knowledge, the source of the assessment would be the drafts from students. The sophistication of writing and semantic features of the drafts show the degree of the students’ achievements on this topic. Then, the teacher will focus and emphasize on the weaknesses the students have, and contribute to the meaning construction for the students.

 

Huang, J. (2000). Integration of academic content learning and academic literacy skills development of L2 students: A case study of an ESL science class. In YEARBOOK-NATIONAL READING CONFERENCE (Vol. 49, pp. 392-404).