“Ensure pupils continue to practise the scientific vocabulary of forces (gravity, friction, air resistance).” Department of Education (2012) Draft National Curriculum for science Key Stages 1 and 2. Year 5 programme of study notes and guidance “For the purposes of primary level work, pupils should measure mass in grams and kilograms, and the difference between mass and weight should not be addressed.” Where are we heading?

A study to investigate conceptual and language development in primary school science Jon James Graduate School of Education University of Bristol

“ Very often I have seen students praised for thinking like a scientist when it is clear that the students are simply making noises which sound scientific.” Dykstra, D. I., C. F. Boyle, et al. (1992) Studying Conceptual Change in Learning Physics. Science Education 76(6):

“By carefully exploring children's ideas, taking them seriously and choosing appropriate ways of helping the children to test them, the teacher can move children towards ideas which apply more widely and fit the evidence better - those which are, in short, more scientific.” Nuffield - Chelsea Curriculum Trust (1995) Nuffield Primary Science: Science Process and Concept Exploration: Forces and Movement Teachers’ Guide. London. Collins P.6 Pre-2000

“To help pupils do their best you will need to spend time introducing new key words. They need opportunities to pronounce the new words, to explore how they are spelt and used.” DfES (2002) Literacy in science: notes for tutors. P.23 “Teaching should provide opportunities for them to move from using simple scientific language when presenting scientific information to using extended technical vocabulary.” DfES/QCA (2000) Science: a scheme of work for Key Stage 3: Teacher’s Guide. London: QCA ref: QCA/00/445. P.6,7 More recently

Tensions in the literature Scott and Mortimer (2003): Science has its own social language. Meaning making is seen to be a dialogic process in which engagement with this social language is seen to be vital for making progress. Norris (1995): Important to develop the metalanguage of science so that scientific literacy can be developed – reading and writing are at the heart of this. Duit (1993), Gilbert et al (1982), Treagust (1995): recognition of the value of ordinary social language in developing scientific concepts. This built on the work of researchers such as: Vygotsky (1962), Bruner(1964), Barnes (1986): Teachers promoting the use of exploratory student language rather than always emphasising verbal correctness. Martin (1993), White and Welford (1987): Such an approach encourages low expectations of children’s ability to engage with scientific terminology and is likely to introduce inaccurate understanding

Arons (1983), Hake (1995): the “Arons method” postulates that successful science teaching occurs when teachers present scientific ideas in a way that avoids using complex terminology. Brown and Ryoo (2008): Advocated teaching “content first” using vernacular language Going further

* The language of science may marginalise children due to its dissimilarity from their own social language. Language is also linked to cultural affiliation, so encountering complex terminology can impact students’ identity with the discursive practice of the science classroom. * There is evidence that children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds are less prepared to make the switch to using the formal language of science (Lemke) * Pupil focused oral interaction is not widely used in secondary science teaching and little time is given for discussion eliciting pupils’ views in their social language. (Scott and Mortimer) * It is unclear though whether this is the case with primary non-specialist teachers who may identify with the pedagogical approaches, but lack confidence in their scientific knowledge. Other issues

This study Employed ethnographic approaches to investigate the oral discourse that takes place within science lessons in primary schools serving disadvantaged communities. Research questions: How does an approach, that initially separates language and conceptual aspects of science teaching, influence the learning of primary school age children? Will a focus on literacy in science, within a pedagogical context, enhance teachers’ topic specific pedagogy and confidence in using constructivist approaches?

Sample schools School % free school meals % SEN % level 4 in English and maths Ofsted category A Satisfactory (2012) B Satisfactory (2012) C n/a49 Good (2012) % free school meals: National average – 17% % SEN: National average – 8% % level 4 in English and maths: DoE floor target = 60%

Data collection methods Teacher interviews: semi-structured in nature using some pre- set questions, particularly in the initial interviews, to explore teachers’ perspectives on language and science. Classroom observation: unsystematic and broad in nature so that perspectives on classroom culture and dialogical interaction are gained. I was to be a participant in the observation to gain first hand experience. Discussion: Field notes of planning meetings with teachers were recorded.

Year 3/4 Planning meeting: School C “ I like the idea but don’t really feel comfortable with a novel approach. I think children like getting to grips with the key words, though they don’t always really get their meaning. It makes you feel that they are making progress if they know the words.”

School B: Year 5 Teacher (NQT) - forces “ I found it an easy approach at first and it might well have enhanced my enjoyment of the topic. Towards the end though it has felt a bit empty not using the key words. I want to make it “neat” for the finish. I think some of the more able girls might be frustrated as they want to know the words. However I do feel they made progress and that they can use the ideas of forces. It has really motivated the boys with low literacy.”

School C: Year 3/4 teacher “ Initially I was quite worried as it felt quite different as I wanted to use the key words, but then soon got used to it. I’ve then found that we’ve been going at a quicker pace (compared to a parallel group) as we’ve been less concerned about vocabulary. I think it’s changed my teaching approach as I’ve focused more on explanations and discussion. There’s been better engagement, particularly of those with weak literacy or EAL. I’m still concerned about what they will leave the topic knowing – could they re-visit it? Another issue is that there has been some cross-over with the other group – a few pupils keep asking me what words mean.”

School A: Year 3 teacher “ I think it’s worked as an approach and would use it again. I feel that the children have it (though not quite sure what it is). They can describe these words better. I’m unsure if the concept of plant reproduction is any clearer, I was surprised when some of the pupils mentioned it. Stamen and carpel really complicated things – one step too far and it lost the children. Should have just stick with male/female parts. I’m not sure how I would apply it to other science topics. “

Conclusions * Increased focus on explanatory discourse in the classroom with enhanced confidence in explaining concepts using everyday language and possibly scientific language * Increased identity affiliation with the social discourse of science for both staff and pupils * The planning approach has enabled teachers to see the difficulties, misconceptions, language issues, and conceptual problems encountered by children

Issues 1)Weak pedagogical content knowledge or lack of confidence in it may limit use of the “content-first” approach 2) Teachers’ epistemological beliefs about science learning may exert a significant effect on their efforts to adopt a “content-first” approach