Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

Concepts and language: Developing knowledge in science

Tracy Hodgson-Drysdale ∗
Boston College, Lynch School of Education, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study of language and knowledge in the elementary science classroom was part of a
Available online 17 August 2014 larger three-year research project on teaching writing informed by systemic functional lin-
guistics (SFL) theory (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). This article analyzes the experiential
function of language and its impact on knowledge in the context of the science classroom.
The teaching of a science integration specialist learning about systemic functional linguis-
Keywords: tics theory was analyzed throughout a unit on rocks and minerals. Student writing was
Systemic functional linguistics analyzed for clause-level knowledge of content and language. Findings showed how the
Science teacher engaged 5th grade students in learning content and language through discussions,
Language
creating models and writing. Findings also showed that throughout the unit students grad-
Content
Elementary
ually developed language and content knowledge and the ability to express it in writing
through clauses. Implications highlight the importance of understanding the functional role
of language in learning science content.
© 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Introduction

“[L]anguage is the essential condition of knowing, the process by which experience becomes knowledge” (Halliday, 1993,
p. 94). When people engage in new experiences they learn new concepts through the language associated with them. In
school, many new concepts are learned across the curriculum each day. “Learning in school is done primarily through
language, yet the language of school tasks is seldom explicitly discussed or taught in schools” (Schleppegrell, 2004, p. 19).
This school-specific language has been referred to as the “hidden curriculum” (Christie, 1985 as cited in Schleppegrell, 2004).
By not making such language explicit, schools are privileging those students with an awareness of the dominant culture or
the culture of the school, and excluding others who either lack that cultural knowledge or are unfamiliar with those uses of
language (Lemke, 1990; Schleppegrell, 2004).
One reason for the lack of explicitness regarding the language of school is that some teachers are not familiar with the
linguistic aspects of the content they teach such as science, mathematics, social studies, and even language arts, and they
therefore lack the tools necessary to teach students about language and its functions in these areas (Fillmore & Snow, 2000;
Lemke, 1990; Schleppegrell, 2004; Snow, 2010). Teachers need to understand how language functions to build meaning in
the content areas if they are to teach students to use domain-specific language to make meaning (Lemke, 1990). Systemic
functional linguistics theory can help teachers gain this understanding (Schleppegrell, 2004).
The necessity of teaching language is true for elementary generalists and specialists alike (Christie & Derewianka, 2008;
Fillmore & Snow, 2000; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Schleppegrell, 2004). In the teaching of science, a paradigm
shift must occur that embraces “strategic language activity, critical thought, and social relevance at the core of science

∗ Current address: Lesley University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States. Tel.: +1 617 349 8256.
E-mail addresses: drysdalt@bc.edu, tdrysdal@lesley.edu, tracy@lrn2read.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.07.004
0898-5898/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.
 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67 55

learning” if science literacy is to be recognized as a key feature in the construction of scientific knowledge (Yore et al., 2004,
p. 347). When teachers understand how “[l]anguage is a means of doing science and of constructing science understandings”
(Yore et al., 2004, p. 348), they can teach students to build knowledge through language using a functional understanding
of language (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). This view of language can empower students and
help them to succeed in school and beyond because it goes beyond the rule-based traditional grammar to view “language
as a resource, a meaning-making system through which we interactively shape and interpret our world and ourselves”
(Derewianka & Jones, 2012, p. 9). Understanding language as a meaning making tool is essential because “the ability to
see how language shapes our construction of the world and experience, our relationship with others and the packaging
and organizing of our messages and meanings places teachers and students in a strong position to reflect critically on the
language interactions they participate in, [and] the texts they read and they write” (Coffin, 2010, p. 3). However, in order
to accomplish this, teachers need to have a strong grasp of language and how it is functional. For example, while being
able to explain scientific concepts in everyday language is an important part of learning content, it is insufficient. Students
must also be able to explain scientific concepts in appropriate technical language to show understanding of scientific ways of
conceptualizing knowledge about the world around them (Lemke, 1990). “[L]earning new ways of using language is learning
new ways of thinking. Learning content means learning the language that construes that content as students participate in
new contexts of learning” (Schleppegrell, 2004, p. 18).
The goal of this study is to analyze the teaching practice in fifth grade science when instruction is informed by systemic
functional linguistics (SFL) theory. The analysis will focus on the development of knowledge through language by examin-
ing how a teacher uses language while engaging students in discussions, creating models and writing, and how students’
knowledge is revealed in their writing. SFL theory will be used to analyze the teacher’s use of language to teach content and
student learning of content and language in elementary school science to understand how meaning is made at the level of
the clause through processes (verb groups), participants (noun groups) and circumstances (adverbials).

Theoretical framework

Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language which describes how people use language to make meaning
(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). In order to make meaning, people are constantly making choices about the language they
use to express themselves in both oral and written texts. SFL theory has the potential to help teachers and students become
aware of the linguistic choices available to them when they are using language and to increase those resources leading to
greater meaning making potential (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Coffin, 2010; Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell,
2004). Language is used to create texts which are based in both the culture and the specific context of the situation in which
they are used (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). For example, a text created in the context of English language teaching in
North America would follow structures and patterns consistent with North American ways of communicating in English,
called genres. Taking this example one step further, creating this same text in a science class would entail understanding
both the culture of North American English and also the culture of the domain of science. The context of the situation would
be that of the classroom and the particular unit being taught.
According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2004), creating texts involves making language choices in order to convey the
author’s intended meaning (Fig. 1). On a theoretical level, these language choices depend on three metafunctions of language
called the ideational function, the interpersonal function and the textual function (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp. 29–30).
On a more practical level, the ideational function enables people to use language in specific contexts to share experiences,
the interpersonal enables us to interact with others, and the textual supports us as we combine the first two functions to
make coherent oral or written texts.

The ideational metafunction

It is primarily through the notion of the ideational metafunction that experience is expressed through language and
knowledge is created (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). The ideational metafunction can be further divided into the logical
and experiential metafunctions. The logical concerns relationships between clauses and how language is used to create
logical connections among various elements of a text to create a coherent whole. The experiential concerns how language
represents experience of the world at the level of the clause. The experiential metafunction is the focus of this paper.
Within the experiential metafunction, each clause is constructed around a process or event (Halliday & Matthiessen,
2004). Clauses can be expanded by adding various combinations of processes, participants and, in some cases, circum-
stances. Processes and participants constitute “the experiential centre of the clause. Circumstances augment this in some
way. . . but their status in the configuration is more peripheral and unlike participants they are not directly involved in the
process” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 176; emphasis in original). It is important to note that processes, participants and
circumstances are not simply verbs, nouns and adverbs, but that they are verb groups, noun groups and adverbial groups,
and each one can consist of a single word or several words working together to create more nuanced meaning. When used
together to form clauses, these participants, processes and circumstances constitute the lexico-grammar of the language;
the words and the grammar realize the meaning. Language is “fundamentally a tool for thinking with, a meaning-making
resource (as opposed to, for example, a set of rules)” (Coffin, 2010, p. 2).
56 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67

Fig. 1. Systemic functional linguistics.

Processes refer to verb groups which include several types of verbs, such as action, saying, sensing and relating (Droga &
Humphrey, 2003). The role of processes is to tell what is happening during an experience and that it “consists of a flow of
events, or ‘goings-on”’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 170). For example, “I think (sensing) the circuit conducted (action)
electricity because it was (relating) closed,” she said (saying). Processes are the central focus of the ideational metafunction,
and they are essential to our understanding of experience because they constitute the event which is the main focus of the
experience being described (Thompson, 2004).
Participants refer to noun groups which include nouns (who or what) and adjectivals (which include determiners and
many different functions of adjectives) (Droga & Humphrey, 2003). The term participant is used to illustrate that the function
or role of the noun group is important. For example, the role of noun groups used with action verbs is one who performs the
action (the student poured, the circuit conducted). This is different from that of noun groups used with saying verbs where
the role is one who says (she said, the closest student exclaimed), with sensing verbs where the role is one who senses (fifth
grade students think, the first student knew), and with relational verbs where the role is that of an entity (crayfish are, the
diagram is labeled) (Droga & Humphrey, 2003).
Clauses can also include circumstances, and although they are not the central focus of the clause, they can provide essential
information (Thompson, 2004). Circumstances are adverbials which add specificity to processes through concepts such as
time (on Tuesday), place (in the science laboratory), manner (on time), cause (because it was closed) and accompaniment
(with your group) (Droga & Humphrey, 2003). They can be single-word adverbs, or adverbial phrases. Because of the variety
of ways in which language can constitute circumstances it can be helpful to identify them by their function or by the role
they play in the clause (Thompson, 2004).
Understanding language and its functions through SFL changes the way we view and understand the world around us.
It expands the language resources of both teachers and students so that they can make meaning in new and varied ways
across content areas. As we learn new language on a topic and the ways of using that language to create clauses, we actually
have new knowledge of the topic. This is especially important for bilingual learners who need explicit knowledge of how the
English language functions. When bilingual learners are taught through the lens of SFL the emphasis on functional language
teaches students about the linguistic choices available to them and how they can use that knowledge to create meaningful
texts (Schleppegrell, 2004).
The relationship between content and language is also essential in the domain of science. Consider the following two
sentences, “Bits of rocks, sand and dirt fall from a mountain into lakes, rivers and ponds” and “Sediment is washed into
bodies of water.” They both describe a similar experience of the world but the first uses everyday language and the second is
more scientific. While both describe movement and change, they do it differently. In the first text, the “bits of rocks sand and
dirt” are the actors that “fall” into water. The actors are listed in great detail and the action is clear. In the second, “sediment
is washed” away, the actor “water” is implied by the verb “washed” but not stated and the process is passive. In the first
text, the circumstances are described in detail as “from a mountain into lakes, rivers and ponds” while in the second they
are more technical, abstract and dense. This allows for more to be said in fewer words but it also makes the content more
complex and potentially more difficult to understand. The experiential function reveals different ways of understanding the
world through language and it is through language that we choose the lens through which we experience the world.
 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67 57

Review of literature

The literature reviewed explores language in relation to science, child development, and multimodal learning in order
to illustrate the ways language is used in schools and the importance of teaching the functions of language in the context of
the science classroom.

Language and science

Language in science involves not only new vocabulary or technical language, but also different ways of using language
to make meaning (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). The discipline of science offers a unique way of examining the world and its
phenomena, and it requires its own language to do that in a specialized, concise manner (Lemke, 1990; Yore et al., 2004). In
science, language can be used to give concrete information, however, gradually as students get older and use more varied
genres, they are required to produce language that is more “technical, abstract, dense, and tightly knit” (Fang & Schleppegrell,
2008, p. 20).
Technical language can consist of words unique to science (sedimentary, pressure, erosion) or everyday words which have
new and technical meanings in science (form, stage). Abstract language can be achieved through the use of grammatical
metaphor such as nominalization, which occurs when verb groups or adjectivals are made into nouns in order to pack more
information into clauses, such as changing forming to formation or eroding to erosion (Schleppegrell, 2004; Zwiers, 2008).
Density can be achieved by increasing the amount of information in sentences, without creating run-on sentences, by using
technical terms and nominalizations. The language of science must be objective when demonstrating an authoritative stance,
as opposed to being subjective and showing the speaker or writer’s personal thoughts and ideas (Christie & Derewianka,
2008; Schleppegrell, 2004). Focusing on language is an essential component of teaching in all subjects, including science
(Fillmore & Snow, 2000).
The focus on language can be used to help construct a different view of the world in which scientists classify the natural
world as a means of organizing it and making sense of it as they document changes in it. However, the focus on language
can also be used as a tool for alienating people from the study of science in two ways. The first is that it makes the discipline
seem to exist separately from human experience and the second is when it favors one social class, dominant language group
or view of the world (Lemke, 1990). This is in direct contrast to reality in science. Teachers need to be aware of this and level
the playing field by recognizing the discrepancy and by understanding different ways of making meaning in science.
The experiential metafunction relates to how people understand and experience the world and the language they choose
to construe that experience. Students may use colloquial language when initially exploring concepts in science, then progress
to an “interlanguage” which integrates colloquial and scientific language, and eventually students may speak in purely
scientific terms (Lemke, 1990, p. 173). “As children proceed through the school years, the expectations for particular linguistic
choices increase and children are challenged to increasingly adopt ways of structuring their spoken and written texts to meet
more advanced demands (Schleppegrell, 2004, p. 38). Teachers must make these demands explicit and teach students to
use increasingly complex language. This is especially true for bilingual students for whom the linguistic demands of school
may vary significantly from home.
It is also important that teachers understand that knowledge of content and academic language should not invalidate
personal ways of knowing through experience. They need to recognize that the language people choose will depend on
the context they are in and the information they wish to express. For example, when students engage in science while
using everyday language they may position themselves as novices or they may be attempting to explain scientific concepts
using their own experience and socialization as a basis for their understanding (Michaels, 2005). However, using personal
experiences to relate to science has sometimes been misconstrued and has resulted in students’ comments being labeled
as unscientific or even wrong. In one study, working-class students used language related to their personal experiences to
present valid knowledge of content, but personal experiences were an unrecognized source of potential knowledge and
not considered a school genre in the classroom or even in the initial study and thus their contributions were disregarded
(Michaels, 2005). Students who are socialized to rely on personal experience may actually develop a stronger understanding
of the principles of the science because, as they attempt to align their learning in science with experiences in real life,
they struggle to explain the science more accurately and they may be more likely to realize when their explanations are
insufficient than students who merely accept science language and knowledge without question (Michaels, 2005).
A balance must be achieved between helping students bring personal experiences to support their growing understanding
of the world around them (Michaels, 2005) and actively engaging them in the behaviors, activities, and literacy practices
of science, where the need for scientific discourse becomes meaningful to students (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Lemke, 1990;
Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). As students engage in activities such as discussions, creating models, and writing they can learn
to use language to position themselves within the scientific community by engaging in the scientific discourse appropriate
to the concepts they are learning (Fang, Lamme, & Pringle, 2010; Yore et al., 2004).
Understanding the scientific community and its discourse means understanding how scientists use language in their
work (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Researchers in different disciplines have very different experiences, analyze information
differently, and use language for different purposes. For example, Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) explain how mathematics
researchers may emphasize looking for truth and accuracy of calculations, while in history researchers analyze documents
from multiple sources with a keen awareness of the perspective of the author and the potential for bias by both author
58 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67

and reader. Scientists, on the other hand, seek to understand various phenomena, to visualize and model how they occur, to
understand and create diagrams and charts, and to examine how something was done in order to replicate it. These examples
illustrate differences in the use of language which demonstrate differences in the “kind of knowledge being created by the
disciplines” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008, p. 48). Teaching students from an early age how language works in each content
area to express ideas and knowledge is an integral part of learning because content and language are inseparable (Rothery,
1996).

Language and development

Language in any culture is a tool for making meaning. Its development begins at birth and continues throughout life
(Halliday, 1993). By the time children enter school they have developed the ability to understand and to use various aspects
of language. They are able to communicate information orally about what they have experienced and are generally ready
to learn the abstract concept of written text (Halliday, 1993). Part of preparing students for writing is increasing their
knowledge of and ability to use academic language orally. Such instruction can be made more comprehensible for students
when words are grouped in meaningful ways (Fillmore & Snow, 2000), for example by a theme being studied in a content
area. However, bilingual children are developing two or more languages and individual children may be at different levels
of language development in their first and second language. These children will experience different challenges in school
depending on how much academic language they have developed in each language.
Since oral language is the system children learn first, it is also what they rely on when learning to write (Christie &
Derewianka, 2008), however, it should be noted that children’s language ability in writing may be up to three years behind
their oral language ability (Halliday, 1993). While children’s initial attempts at writing may seem to closely follow patterns
of speech and their writing is very concrete, the academic writing they will need to succeed in school is much more complex
than “oral language written down” (Fillmore & Snow, 2000, p. 25) and they will need to learn to use language to create texts
that meet high expectations. This can be especially challenging for bilingual learners as they attempt to learn oral language
in English as well as academic language for writing simultaneously (Schleppegrell, 2004).
Throughout the primary and secondary years, children are progressively learning to use language in more complex ways.
Recent research into language and writing development has led to greater understanding of phases of development in
writing, which can be used for planning writing curricula in a comprehensive manner in all subjects across grade levels
(Christie & Derewianka, 2008). For example, between the ages of nine and twelve children enter a new phase of making
meaning through language in writing in which they begin to learn to use processes, participants and circumstances in more
abstract ways with the eventual goal of packing information more densely. Children progress from using language to describe
concrete experiences to using it to describe more abstract experiences through phenomena and theories. While students
begin learning these abstract constructions in late childhood, the process continues through adolescence and beyond, with
students in middle school and high school continuing to work on becoming proficient at producing more complex academic
language to convey more complex ideas (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008; Fillmore & Snow, 2000; Snow, 2010).

Language and multimodal learning

The teaching of content and language can occur through different modes, three of which are discussion, creating models,
and writing. Students need to engage in more than listening and reading to learn science; it is crucial that they also engage
in speaking and writing about science on a regular basis in a variety of ways that support the learning of science (Halliday
& Martin, 1993; Lemke, 1990). “[M]ultiple representations of an idea through sequential transformations of inquiry and
sensory experiences into group discussions, data tables, graphs, pictures, diagrams, and written descriptions, arguments
or explanations have demonstrated positive influences on elementary” students’ understanding of science concepts (Yore
et al., 2004, p. 351). These teaching strategies also allow students to experience multiple exposures to the language of a unit
(Dawes, Dore, Loxley, & Nicholls, 2010), while allowing a teacher to gain insight into students’ levels of understanding.

Discussion
Discussion is an important element of language and knowledge development in schools. However, discussions are some-
times structured as an initiation for talk by the teacher, a student response, and a teacher evaluation of that response as
correct or incorrect, also known as “IRE dialogues” (Shwartz et al., 2009). While this type of discussion may be practical for a
brief review of information, it does not focus on promoting student learning (Lemke, 1990). “A real discussion, on the other
hand, is an interplay of meanings and ideas from both the students and the teacher” where the teacher can scaffold learning
for students while engaging in the social construction of knowledge (Shwartz et al., 2009, p. 44). Discussions allow students
to “express their own ideas (even if they are not always correct or well-structured), listen to their peers’ ideas, evaluate and
critique ideas, and revise and integrate them” (Shwartz et al., 2009, p. 45).
Discussions can enable students to brainstorm ideas, to synthesize information and to make sense of complex topics.
When students brainstorm they share experiences, they learn from each other, and they formulate ideas on new concepts or
topics (Dawes et al., 2010). This is an essential part of helping children to understand what they do and do not know about
a topic and it can motivate students to understand the science behind their questions (Dawes et al., 2010). Discussions can
also help students to make sense of and synthesize information by enabling them to integrate new learning with previous
 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67 59

knowledge and to begin to use the language of science to explain their experiences. This also provides an opportunity for
teachers to identify and clarify misconceptions by helping students compare their own ideas with more scientific ones
(Dawes et al., 2010; Lemke, 1990; Yore et al., 2004). Such discussions also enable teachers to determine what students still
need to learn (Dawes et al., 2010).
When used in ways that focus on promoting student learning “discussions are powerful mechanisms that allow students
to construct meaning of abstract scientific concepts, connect an activity to the main learning goals of an investigation,
and reflect on their own experiences” (Shwartz et al., 2009, p. 47). Discussions are also an important way of enculturating
students into the scientific community. By initiating students into these practices through classroom discussions teachers
are helping prepare students for long-term success in science.

Creating models
The creation of both physical and conceptual models can enhance the learning of science because they “can represent
theoretical structures (as in abstract/conceptual) such as energy pyramids in ecosystems, or those simply inaccessible to
direct observation, such as the interior of the earth” (Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2008, p. 944). An example of a
conceptual model is a labeled diagram, while a physical model is a three dimensional model and can be made of any variety
of materials. Scientific models are used to predict and to test ideas, or to explain phenomena and should “help students
develop their scientific ideas, think critically, and understand the nature of science” (Kenyon, Schwarz, & Hug, 2008, p. 41).
They should help students explore ideas that can be applied to explanations of other phenomena (Windschitl et al., 2008)
because they provide students with the conceptual tools to understand the world around them in more than one context.
Models are an important part of learning science because they allow students to think about phenomena and test their ideas
either through observations or by creating their own representation of an otherwise abstract phenomenon. Engagement with
models offers a greater understanding of the relationships among the important parts of a system and how they function
(Kenyon et al., 2008).

Writing in science
Writing is an essential skill for science and as students learn how science texts are constructed in ways that are unique
to the discipline, they become enculturated into those discourse practices (Yore et al., 2004). Students must understand
what it means to learn and to be literate in science so that they can produce texts that represent scientific experiences
(Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010). Engaging students in writing texts that represent such experiences using science genres
also teaches students the thinking and reasoning involved in science (Yore et al., 2004). However, students need explicit
instruction in how to make meaning in science and how to construct scientific genres of text (Pearson et al., 2010). The
process of learning to write can be made explicit through the cycle of teaching and learning which includes four iterative
phases: negotiating field, deconstruction, joint construction and independent construction of text (Rothery, 1996). However,
it is important to note that merely teaching the linguistic features related to genres may not improve writing for students.
One study of students in second and third grade found that explicit teaching of linguistic features did not improve student
writing of informational text, however student writing did improve with authentic literacy practices (Purcell-Gates, Duke,
& Martineau, 2007). This may indicate that students need to be older to benefit from explicit teaching of linguistic features
(Christie & Derewianka, 2008).
The negotiation of field includes students becoming aware of prior knowledge of a topic, defining what they want to
learn, exploring how they will acquire new information, and deciding how it will be organized (for example, into subtopics)
(Rothery, 1996). This phase needs to be scaffolded so that students can move beyond generalized information gathering to
a more focused researching of specific information (Derewianka & Jones, 2012; Rothery, 1996). The deconstruction phase
involves the teacher and students analyzing mentor texts written by authentic writers to familiarize students with high
quality texts and to scaffold them in learning the metalanguage necessary for talking about how authors create such texts.
When teachers guide students through understanding the process of building knowledge and how high quality texts are
created, they prepare students for the joint construction of text where the teacher engages students in composing a text (as
a class or in groups), guiding them through the process and acting as a facilitator in the construction of meaning. The teacher
incorporates students’ ideas into the text, using the students’ language when possible and rephrasing their contributions
when necessary to teach them the “language of the written mode” (Rothery, 1996, p. 105). Independent construction is the
phase in which students construct their own texts, however, they are encouraged to consult with peers and the teacher to
revise and edit texts.
A functional approach to language and content can help both teachers and students go beyond traditional lessons in
grammar and vocabulary and help them understand how language is used to create meaning in science. Teachers of science
need to teach a combination of content-specific technical language and strong literacy skills in order to prepare their stu-
dents to learn science content (Fang, Lamme, & Pringle, 2010). Both are necessary to create spoken and written texts that
demonstrate understanding of scientific concepts (Halliday & Martin, 1993). Writing and language are essential to science
because they allow students to enhance their learning of new concepts while enculturating them into ways of thinking and
participating in the science community (Fang et al., 2010).
60 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67

Table 1
Student demographics.

Student Age Gender Language Achievement Years at school Years in study

in science

Group 1
Magda 10 Female English High 2 2
Samantha 12 Female English Low 2 2
Krystal 10 Female Spanish High 6 3
Elias 10 Male Spanish High 2 2

Group 2
Evan 10 Male Spanish Average 6 3
Britney 10 Female English High 5 3
Manuel 10 Male Spanish Average 6 3

The study

Context

This study was part of a three-year, school-wide, action research project at an urban elementary school in the northeastern
United States. The student body of the school is diverse with 55.2% Hispanic, 27.7% African American, 11.3% Asian American,
and 3.9% White American students. Each grade level has a sheltered English immersion class to help recently immigrated
students transition to schooling in English. These classrooms support 21.2% of the student body. The school-wide project
combined professional development in writing based on SFL theory (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) and classroom support
for teachers during the implementation of new writing practices based on SFL theory. The study that informed this paper
was part of the school-wide project and it focused on the use of language in science to help deepen students’ knowledge
of content learned through discussion, building models and writing. In this district, elementary science is taught by science
integration specialists who are trained in the teaching of science, and each class attends science twice a week. It was in this
context that I met weekly with a science integration specialist to discuss her plans for teaching and how she would like to
incorporate writing into her lessons.

Participants

Heidi, the science integration specialist (all names used are pseudonyms) was in her third year of teaching. She worked
as a high school chemistry teacher in her first year of teaching, then she became an elementary science integration specialist
and this was her second year at the school. She majored in biology and teaching, and she considered herself a scientist as
well as a teacher. She frequently told students that they were scientists and that they would learn to think like scientists.
It was important to her that students be engaged in learning through activities such as creating models, discussions, and
group work.
The students were part of a fifth grade regular education classroom of twenty-two students. Students were assigned seats
at tables in the classroom resulting in groups of three or four students of mixed abilities in science. I decided to analyze the
writing of two of the groups based on students who had received consent to participate in the study (Table 1). There were
four students in one group and three in the other, for a total of seven students.

Procedures

Heidi taught all lessons based on the state curriculum frameworks. The study focused on the teaching of the rocks and
minerals unit which was centered on the rock cycle and how each type of rock was formed. Heidi wanted to ensure students
had the appropriate foundational knowledge and language for a subsequent unit on landforms, weathering and erosion. Her
rationale was that teaching them rock formation and the concept of the rock cycle prior to the landforms unit would prepare
them to understand how rocks break down. Heidi strategically used whole and small group discussions, creating models
and writing to enable students to explore concepts deeply and to engage them in building knowledge.

Data collection and analysis

The decision to conduct this study as an action research project emerged naturally from the goal of working in concert with
teachers to help them improve practice. Action research can be used to engage participants in the process of conducting
research to create meaningful and sustainable change that is relevant to their current environment (Stringer, 2007). In
educational contexts, involving teachers in research on improving practices is a crucial part of both understanding the
problems they face daily in the classroom and finding solutions that teachers can enact to increase student learning.
Data were collected over a period of ten weeks and included seven classroom observations, and written texts from seven
students. All observations took place in the science classroom. Each of the seven science classes observed was approximately
 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67 61

Table 2
Processes, participants and circumstances.

Processes Participantsa Circumstancesa

(what is happening) (who is participating) (when, where or how)

action (falls, compresses) everyday (bits of rock) /technical (sediment) time (after millions of years)
saying (says, yells) concrete (bits of rock) /abstract (sediment) place (from a cliff)
sensing (thinks, feels) objective (smooth rocks) /subjective (nice rocks) manner (slowly)
relating (is, have)

a
These are just some examples of the possible classifications.

45 min in length and observations included both teacher and student talk from lectures, discussions, modeling activities,
and occasionally group work. In my role as a research assistant, I took detailed field notes of all whole class interactions in
which I attempted to capture discussions verbatim to the extent that it was possible. It should be noted that since video and
audio recording were not used it is possible that some words were missed. I also sat with individual groups during group
work observing, taking notes, asking students questions, and answering questions from students.
Observations were coded and analyzed using SFL theory and codes related to the experiential function, including pro-
cesses, participants and circumstances (Droga & Humphrey, 2003). The seven observations were analyzed to see which
aspects of the experiential function were taught and how the teaching cycle applied to teaching in the science classroom.
The observations included one class on tests used to identify minerals, two classes on igneous rock formation, two classes
on sedimentary rock formation, one class on metamorphic rock formation, and one class on the group writing projects on
sedimentary rocks.
Seven students contributed writing samples for the study. One set of texts was written by individual students in the
fourth lesson of the unit prior to instruction on that topic and six samples were collected since one student was absent. The
second set of texts was written in groups at the end of the unit after instruction, class discussions, and joint construction
of texts with the teacher and two texts were collected. While each group did have students who represented a range of
abilities, the group texts were written with input from each student in the group. I selected these eight texts because they
were all on the topic of sedimentary rocks.
Student writing samples were analyzed for evidence of knowledge of the experiential function through the language
used by students. The language analysis focused on how students used processes, participants and circumstances to create
meaningful clauses which demonstrated knowledge of the content learned in the science classroom (Droga & Humphrey,
2003). First student texts were divided into clauses, each clause was read to determine what event the process described
(action, saying, sensing, relating), whether participants and/or circumstances were included in the clause, and if they were,
what function they served.

Results

In this section I present the teaching in the science classroom focusing on Heidi’s teaching and her use of language.
Heidi’s main goal as a science integration specialist was to develop students’ scientific knowledge and scientific ways of
using language in order to initiate them into the scientific community. However, she also wanted to know how SFL could
improve her teaching which led her to focus on news ways of conceptualizing language informed by SFL and new ways of
writing for science. The current analysis focuses on her use of language in the classroom to develop knowledge and whether
evidence of that focus on language could be found in the student writing.

The experiential function and language

Heidi’s teaching was based in a belief that her students could be acculturated into the community of science. Heidi used a
variety of strategies to scaffold their thinking about science and teach the content of science lessons through language. The
role of the experiential function is to use language to understand our experience of the world including what is happening
to whom and how. An explanation of the rock cycle requires language to show the logical progression of the ways in which
rocks are formed over time. At the heart of the explanation is the use of action and relating processes to convey those changes
(see Table 2). The role of participants is to classify the three different types of rock, to define the different components of
each type of rock, and together with the processes, to explain how rocks are broken down and formed. Greater specificity
can be achieved by adding in circumstances to explain the time, place and manner in which these changes occur. While
circumstances are not essential to the experiential function for all topics, they are important in understanding the rock
cycle.
The observations showed that Heidi used several very specific processes to teach about the formation of the three different
types of rocks within the rock cycle. The process which she emphasized the most throughout the unit was form or formed
which is a material process that shows the action central to the rock cycle. She began the unit with a discussion of what
rocks are made up of when students were observing rocks in the classroom. For example, she asked, “Who thinks this rock
is made up of three different things?” (Obs 9/30). While “made up of” suggests attention to the components of the rock it
62 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67

Table 3
Content-specific language for sedimentary rock.

Processes Participants Circumstances

Heidi’s use of language form (action) sedimentary rock (technical) millions of years (time)
when teaching break (action) sediment (technical) underneath (place)
(from observations)a press (action) landforms (technical) from a mountain (place)
fall (action) erosion (technical) to the bottom (place)
compress (action) weathering (technical) together (manner)
become (relating) pressure (technical)
cause (relating) layers (technical)
change (relating) weight (technical)
are (relating) bodies of water (technical) broken
rocks (everyday)
specks of sand (everyday)
mountain (everyday)
water (everyday)

a
Note: These are just from the days Heidi was observed. However, she did teach this topic on other days as well.

does not suggest a process by which it is created. In the second observation she used the process formed when referring
to rock formation in volcanoes and did not refer to how rocks were made at all. The use of form and formed was consistent
throughout the rest of the unit and it was a specific way to refer to the action or processes in the rock cycle that resulted in
the three types of rocks. Then other content-specific processes such as melt, erupt, cool, expand, and compress were used to
explain the specific processes by which a certain type of rock was formed.
The experiential function enables us to use language to reflect on and understand our experience of the world and in
this instance the use of form enabled students to understand the changes occurring during the rock cycle in a more specific
manner. It is important to note that the different types of rock are not being made by actors (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004).
Heidi used a variety of non-human, generalized participants associated with the rocks and minerals unit in every class to
help familiarize students with the language of science and to help them make meaning (Table 3). For example, in the clause
Sedimentary rock is formed by pressure over time the sedimentary rock does not function as an actor. This clause states that
sedimentary rock is being created through the process formed, but it does not yet explain how the rock forms. A more specific
process such as compress is then needed to explain the specific processes by which sedimentary rock is formed, for example,
the clause Sediment is compressed by other layers over time shows that the process of compressing is what actually transforms
the sediment into rock.
The experiential function helps students understand how the language of science is utilized to show specific actions, and
how these processes demonstrate the different types of changes occurring throughout the rock cycle. This is essential in
helping students go beyond memorizing vocabulary to using processes in functional ways to deepen content knowledge.
Heidi used relational verbs (such as is or are) to help define concepts throughout the unit, but students only used them in
activities scaffolded by Heidi, such as when they jointly constructed the statement “Sediment is small pieces of rocks that
broke off from larger rocks or landforms” (Obs. 11/4/10).
Heidi used specific participants relating to the rocks and minerals unit. She began with words such as rocks and minerals
and gradually built up to igneous rock, then sedimentary rock and finally metamorphic rock. Each rock type had key language
associated with it. For sedimentary rock, she used participants such as erosion, sediment, layers, and pressure. For metamorphic
rock she used igneous rock, sedimentary rock, heat, and pressure. For igneous rock, she frequently used various participants
associated with volcanoes since igneous rocks are formed in and around volcanoes, such as lava, magma, mountain, landforms,
pressure, central vent, side vent, molten rock, earth’s crust, hardened rock. When these participants are used with processes
such as form, melt, erupt, and cool students begin to understand the similarities and differences in how each type of rock
is formed through the phases of the rock cycle. The experiential function enables students to move beyond classifying the
three types of rock to understanding the various components of each type of rock and the different processes that lead to
their formation.
Heidi used circumstances to explain processes when it was relevant, although they occurred much less frequently than
participants or processes. Some examples include together on the land, underneath, after millions of years, and from the earth’s
crust. Circumstances support processes by conveying accurate and detailed information about a process or an event, such
as the time, place or manner in which it occurred (Droga & Humphrey, 2003). One example of circumstances supporting
processes occurred when Heidi clarified the difference between magma and lava for students within the context of the
discussion of volcanoes (Obs. 10/14, Fig. 2). The process was formed and the circumstances were inside and outside of the
volcano. The two participants, magma and lava share the role of forming igneous rock when they cool. Heidi asked students
to show her where on the model of the volcano igneous rock had formed after the eruption, one student stated that there
was igneous rock on the inside of the volcano. Heidi asked what formed the igneous rock inside the volcano and the students
discussed whether it was lava or magma. The crucial concept is that magma only exists within volcanoes and lava only
exists outside volcanoes, but when they cool they both form igneous rock. The circumstances located the processes in space
by explaining where the formation of igneous rock occurred, which allowed students understand at a more complex level
how igneous rock is formed. The use of these processes, participants and circumstances to create clauses helps them to use
 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67 63

15 H1: [Student name]

n said tthere is actuually igneouus rock insidde the volcano. Who elsse can
16 coome point too where therre is igneouss rock?
17 Saa2: [The studdent came uup to projecttor and poinnted outside the volcanoo.] Right herre outside
18 thhe volcano mmost of it is formed arouund the volccano.
19 H: one difference I want to point out. Some lava is on the land. What about [student
20 name]’s idea, was that formed by lava?
21 Sb: I think it was formed inside the volcano [inaudible]
22 H: but was there lava inside the volcano?
23 Sb: no, [it was] magma inside.
24 H: discuss that at your tables. Was it lava that formed igneous rock inside the volcano?
25 Sc: I think that when we put the baking soda and vinegar in the volcano it was lava but
26 when we put it in the bucket [to dry] it turned to magma.
27 H: who can answer my question and expand?
28 Sd: we think both because [of] the observation it erupts and then the magma came out of
29 the [volcano] and then it went into the lava.
30 H: I just want to know about the igneous rock that formed in here [inside the volcano]
31 Se: it came from the lava, I think.
32 H: anyone think anything different?
33 Sf: I think it came from the magma.
34 H: why?
35 Sg: I think it is the magma because you said it is only lava when it comes out of the
36 volcano but when it stays in the volcano it is magma.
37 H: magma is inside the volcano, it is only lava when it comes out, so that is very important,
38 very important. Igneous rocks can form from lava or they can form from magma. Flashing
39 lights should go off, that is a very important idea.

1
H=Heidi (teacher)
2
S=student with a lowercase letter to indicate different students

Fig. 2. Classroom discussion of where igneous rock formed.

language to realize these meanings. This is the lexico-grammar that constitutes the language of science and this is what
teachers must teach if students are to understand content as it becomes more complex and abstract.
This excerpt highlights the importance of discussions in actively involving students in using relevant processes, partic-
ipants and circumstances in meaningful ways in order for teachers to assess what students know and what they need to
learn. The discussion format allowed Heidi to identify the issue of where and how igneous rock is formed by having students
explain their thought processes. By having them discuss the concept of igneous rock formation briefly at their tables, she
allowed students to think about the concept of where lava and magma existed and how that led to the formation of igneous
rock. It is possible that some students had either not considered the formation of igneous rock within the volcano or that it
could form from anything other than lava prior to this discussion. It is also possible that they held misconceptions, which
is seen in the incorrect answers students provided to her questions. Heidi was then able to clarify which information was
correct and direct the students’ attention to it, while also assisting them in correcting their misconceptions. In addition to
focusing students’ attention on the importance of the location of the rock in determining how it had formed, the discussion
also emphasized the use of participants. The participants (igneous rock, volcano, lava, magma) are technical and objective.
They are crucial in discussing how igneous rock is formed since it can form from both lava and magma. Taken together, the
use of processes, participants and circumstances in this discussion shows how the teacher used specialized content specific
language to guide students in building knowledge. The goal of the discussion was to use language to create meaning and
students were actively engaged in using language for authentic purposes as they debated the concepts.
Another example of the importance of processes, participants and circumstances in creating meaning is found in the
conceptual models students created of igneous rock formation. Once the physical models of the volcano were created
students drew conceptual models and labeled the parts of the volcano (side vent, central vent, earth’s crust, lava, ash) which
are all participants. After creating eruptions in the clay models using baking soda and vinegar and allowing them to dry
overnight, the students drew a second diagram of the volcanoes. On the second conceptual model they showed where
igneous rock had formed (as shown by the dry baking soda residue on the physical models), and indicated whether it had
formed from lava or magma. For example, one student wrote “The Igneous Rock came from the Magma” with an arrow
pointing to the central vent of the volcano and “Igneous Rock from Lava” with an arrow pointing to the area surrounding the
exterior of the volcano. The second conceptual models use processes, participants and circumstances to describe the event
of the volcano erupting. Without the use of models the eruption of a volcano might have remained an abstract concept that
students would not experience directly. The use of models enabled them to interact with the concept of an eruption and
understand how such a system works to form igneous rock.
64 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67

Table 4
Individual and group writing.

Individual writing
10/28/10
Prompt: “Tell me everything you know about sedimentary rocks.”
Group 1 Group 2
Magda I think Sedimentary Rocks are rocks that are like Manuel I think sedimentary rock is a cined [kind] of
pomice because I think it means rocks that could mirneral [mineral] in the middle of it’s stage
float.
Samantha I think sedimentary rock is an magnetick rock Britney I think sedimentary rock is like a rock that sincetist
because it has the word (mentary) between the yous [scientists use] or a volcanic rock maybe the
word (sedimentary) name is is becuse it mite come from a volcano.
Krystal I think that sedimentary rocks are a kind of rocks Evan That Sedimentary Rocks are made of cement and
that are special i think is glassey if you let it go/let the Luster is classy and its texture is soft and the
it fall. it will brake. You have to be carefull with it I shape is like a roundtop and square bottom. Also
think this rock wasen’t made here in [city name]. the streak Color is gray and white. And the
Hardness is Medium. Also other it is made for the
People who died and the mineral is Granite.
Elias (absent)

Part of the process of using language to construct knowledge of content was to have students write individually to elicit
what they knew about a topic, share their ideas as a class and then jointly construct a text that integrated their ideas. For
example, when Heidi asked students to define sediment students offered definitions such as, “I think sediment means a rock
that’s broken into different parts” and “I think sediment is a kind of rock or a part of a rock”. She wrote all of their ideas
on the board and they discussed which ideas might be right. As a class, they used their ideas to create a jointly constructed
written answer: “Sediment is small pieces of rocks that broke off from larger rocks or landforms” (Obs. 11/4/10). Students
wrote the class answer in their notebooks and then compared their initial independent answers to the class answer.
At the end of the unit, when students were preparing to write their group texts, Heidi created two handouts which
supported developing knowledge of content through scientific language. One handout was a list of content words for each
type of rock to guide students in their writing, which included the processes and participants explained throughout the
unit. For example, the sedimentary rocks list included vocabulary such as the participants sediment, pressure, erosion, and
the process compress. She also created a comparison chart titled “Everyday phrases to scientific phrases” which contrasted
examples of everyday language the students might use in their writing to ways to write those same ideas more scientifically.
For example, instead of the everyday phrase “Rocks are made by. . .” students could use “Rocks are formed by. . .”. These
scaffolds supported students in using the language of the unit in their writing by reminding them of technical terms they
had learned and also by demonstrating meaningful technical phrasing.

The experiential function and student writing

The writing of the seven focus students was analyzed at the level of the clause through processes, participants and
circumstances to understand how they were using the lexico-grammar of the language to convey their knowledge of the
rock cycle and their ability to express that knowledge through writing.
The individual student texts were written at the beginning of the unit and they show students’ attempts to explain the
concept of sedimentary rock formation (Table 4). The texts demonstrate how students tried to conceptualize and explain
the formation of sedimentary rock but that they were unable to do so without the necessary content knowledge and lexico-
grammatical resources. The students used language which did not realize scientific experience: the processes, participants
and circumstances they used in their writing did not relate to the topic and they were unable to explain the formation of sed-
imentary rock. These resources were provided through Heidi’s instruction on concepts and language, ways of understanding
science and ways of expressing their knowledge throughout the unit.
The group texts did realize more scientific meaning than the individual texts from earlier in the unit because students
were beginning to use the lexico-grammar of science. They used many science terms to convey their growing knowledge
of the formation of sedimentary rock, although both texts also included some everyday terms. Group 1 used generalized,
technical participants such as sedimentary rock, sediment, and pressure from water and other rock layers and circumstances
such as from a cliff or mountain and straight into water like a lake or ocean which helped to realize scientific meaning (Table 5).
However, the processes they used were from everyday language such as falls, goes and to make and although these processes
did show events occurring they did not convey them as precisely as would have been possible using other terms such as
explaining that bits of rocks are blown or washed into lakes or oceans, or that pressure from water and other rock layers
compress the sediment to form sedimentary rock. Group 2 used processes such as compresses and forms, generalized, technical
participants such as sedimentary rock, and sediment, and circumstances such as into seas, lakes, ponds, and rivers and after
millions of years in their text. The use of the lexico-grammar creates clauses which realize a more scientific experience of the
processes involved in sedimentary rock formation.
 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67 65

Table 5
Group writing and language.

Prompt: “How are sedimentary rocks formed?”

Processes Participants Circumstances

Group 1
To form sedimentary rocks you have to to form sedimentary rocks with sediment
start with sediment. The sediment falls have to start the sediment from a cliff or mountain
from a cliff or mountain. It goes falls it straight into the water
straight into water like a lake or ocean. goes a lake or ocean then
Then pressure from water and other take pressure from water and other rock layers
rock layers take a while to make to make sedimentary rocks a while
sedimentary rocks.

Group 2
Sediment falls from larger rock’s and in falls sediment from larger rock’s
to seas, lakes, ponds, and rivers. Then sinks sedimentary rock into seas, lakes, ponds, and rivers
sinks in the sand. And compresses. compresses then
After millons of years sedimentary forms in the sand
rock forms. after millions of years

Summary of results

Heidi’s use of language during instruction invited her students into the community of scientific ideas and ways of knowing.
Students still needed to know the technical language but Heidi’s goal was to have them to understand it, speak it, read it
AND write it. Her teaching emphasized using content-specific language to make meaning in science, through processes,
participants and circumstances.
The individual student writing was unrelated to the topic of sedimentary rocks even when students attempted to use
language related to the rocks and minerals unit, and conveyed that students did not yet have knowledge of sedimentary
rocks. The group texts were meaningful texts which contained clauses created using content-specific language. The use of
processes, participants and circumstances in the group texts allowed the students to demonstrate growing knowledge of
content. The processes conveyed action related to the participants, and elaboration was provided by circumstances of time,
place and manner where it was appropriate. These texts demonstrated the students’ increased knowledge of sedimentary
rock formation and their ability to express it in writing. Although there were opportunities for students to use abstract
language to explain the concept of sedimentary rock formation, these texts were very concrete.

Discussion

A focus on language using systemic functional linguistics theory reveals the extent to which language and content are
intertwined; as students learn content, they must simultaneously learn language in order to make meaning (Rothery, 1996).
Making explicit the language of the discipline and how to use it to make meaning are also essential parts of teaching bilingual
learners the same high level of content as their peers (Schleppegrell, 2004). It is therefore essential that teachers move beyond
focusing on language as isolated vocabulary, and instead use language to teach students how to view the world differently
and express information about the world in different ways as they engage in making meaning in science (Lemke, 1990;
Michaels, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004).
The lessons in the rocks and minerals unit incorporated a rich variety of language. Analysis of the teaching revealed that
while Heidi focused on explicit aspects of language every time she taught, she did not teach vocabulary in isolation but as
part of a larger system of meaning which was essential in demystifying the language of school (Christie & Derewianka, 2008;
Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004). Instead of language being a hidden curriculum, analysis of Heidi’s use of
the experiential function of language showed that she used her increasing awareness of teaching language to make her own
language choices more visible to students. She also encouraged students to make language choices that would help them
explain concepts more accurately by realizing scientific meanings. Instead of alienating students through scientific language,
this approach can guide them to a better understanding of both the content and language of science thereby socializing them
into the language of science (Lemke, 1990; Michaels, 2005). This is an essential part of preparing all students for the more
complex demands of the genres of the upper grades, and could even influence the chances of students continuing on to
advanced education (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004).
Teaching the functions of language requires that teachers provide students with both the experience and the language to
realize scientific meaning (Schleppegrell, 2004). Teachers must scaffold students’ learning of science language and content
through the use of multimodal teaching strategies and multiple exposures to the language of a unit so that students can
explain the science in meaningful ways (Dawes et al., 2010; Rothery, 1996) with students eventually taking ownership
of the language of a discourse and using it in authentic ways to construct meaning independently (Lemke, 1990). As the
complexity of the content of schooling increases students must be able to understand how increasingly abstract concepts
relate to themselves and the world around them and be able to express that through the genres of schooling (Michaels,
66 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67

2005). The concept of rock formation is very abstract, but Heidi used content-specific language to gradually build students’
knowledge of the topic through discussions, creating models and the joint construction of writing thereby giving them
experiences involving the concepts of rock formation and also the language to understand and describe their knowledge in
more abstract ways.
The process of learning to use language to make meaning in writing is gradual and happens over the course of the
years of schooling, and often beyond (Christie, 2010; Halliday, 1993). Joint construction of written texts serves to teach
language and build conceptual understanding when writing about the content of the unit through the negotiating of ideas,
allowing teachers to scaffold the writing experience and to reformulate the language and ideas presented by students as
needed (Rothery, 1996). Heidi used joint construction of writing to scaffold students’ learning of content-specific knowledge
through language and to facilitate the process of expressing that knowledge in writing on several occasions during the
unit. When students wrote their group texts, she continued to support their use of content-specific language by providing
handouts which emphasized technical language and technical phrasing associated with the unit. While the group writing still
showed instances of interlanguage rather than purely technical descriptions, the groups did use content-specific language
in meaningful ways to demonstrate their learning. As teachers in all content areas learn about the functions of language
and writing, they will have a deeper understanding of what students can do independently and where they need continued
teaching and support (Christie & Derewianka, 2008).
Using a metalanguage in teaching helps teachers make the language of schooling explicit and increases students’
awareness of the functions of language, while providing a common language for class discussions of language (Christie
& Derewianka, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004). However, the metalanguage should be introduced over the course of the years of
schooling and it must support thinking and learning about language (Christie & Derewianka, 2008). Heidi was still learning
about SFL and metalanguage and she did not incorporate the SFL terms processes, participants and circumstances in the class-
room. In future work it will be important to understand what forms of metalanguage are functional for the science classroom
to facilitate explanations of scientific phenomena and make explicit the language choices that realize those explanations.
Gradually, as students get older and use more and varied genres, they are required to produce more abstract, technical
language (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004). However, in order for students to be successful, these expecta-
tions must be in line with what students are developmentally able to do with language in writing (Christie & Derewianka,
2008). Students demonstrated their understanding of the demands of written language and their knowledge of the content
and the language of the unit through the creation of meaningful written texts in developmentally appropriate ways. The fact
that they had difficulty moving from writing clauses using concrete language to creating clauses using abstractions is also
developmental. Fifth graders are able to include generalized and technical participants to some extent, but the abstraction of
concepts such as erosion, weathering and bodies of water may be beyond what they are capable of including in written texts
(Christie & Derewianka, 2008), especially since student writing may be up to three years behind what students are able to
produce orally (Halliday, 1993). However, this writing did teach students to think of language and content in new and more
demanding ways related to the writing required of the upper grades.

Conclusions and implications

This study contributes to the growing body of research on the teaching of content and language informed by SFL theory
in elementary school science and its impact on student learning. The focus on language reveals that good teaching includes
consciously and explicitly teaching language, and that emphasis on the experiential function to make meaning enables
students to express that knowledge orally and in writing (Droga & Humphrey, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2004). Multimodal
learning is a central element of the science classroom because of the nature of the discipline, but it also provides essential
support to the development of literacy and language skills (Pearson et al., 2010). Today’s students need to go beyond the
memorization of facts in learning science to building knowledge through language in order to become part of the culture
of science (Fang et al., 2010). This means that teachers need to be prepared to teach science through language in order to
engage students in making meaning (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004). Learning to teach language through
SFL enables teachers to make explicit the overall language of schooling and of the content areas in particular. It also enables
teachers to teach students the importance of learning content and language to make meaning (Schleppegrell, 2004). It is
essential for teachers to know and understand the developmental nature of writing if they are to design appropriate materials
and hold appropriate expectations (Christie & Derewianka, 2008).
This study presents a view of teaching which strives to make the language of schooling more explicit by teaching students
to use processes, participants and circumstances related to content to build knowledge in science. It demonstrates that when
teachers make language the focus of content instruction, students can transform their experiences into knowledge (Halliday,
1993).

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Drs. Maria Estela Brisk and Kate McNeill for their advice and support throughout this process.
 T. Hodgson-Drysdale / Linguistics and Education 27 (2014) 54–67 67

References

Christie, F. (2010). The ontogenesis of writing in childhood and adolescence. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The international handbook of
English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 146–158). London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Coffin, C. (2010). Language support in EAL contexts. Why systemic functional linguistics? Reading, UK: Special Issue of NALDIC Quarterly.
Dawes, L., Dore, B., Loxley, P., & Nicholls, L. (2010). A talk focus for promoting enjoyment and developing understanding in science. English Teaching: Practice
and Critique, 9(2), 99–110.
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2012). From traditional grammar to functional grammar: Bridging the divide. Special Issue of NALDIC Quarterly.
Droga, L., & Humphrey, L. (2003). Grammar and meaning: An introduction for primary teachers. Berry, NSW, Australia: Target Texts.
Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., & Pringle, R. M. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms grades 3–8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Special report from ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40–44.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Michaels, S. (2005). Can the intellectual affordances of working-class storytelling be leveraged in school? Human Development, 48, 136–145.
Pearson, D. P., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching.
Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). New York:
Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1),
40–59.
Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Sutherland, L., Merrit, J., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Talking science: Classroom discussions and their role in inquiry-based
learning environments. The Science Teacher, 5(76), 44–47.
Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–452.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school scientific
investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
Yore, L. D., Hand, G., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research.
Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, grades 5–12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.