See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238721897

Lowering the language barrier in learning and teaching science

Article in The School science review · January 1998

CITATIONS READS

61 28,232

2 authors, including:

Jerry Wellington
The University of Sheffield
77 PUBLICATIONS 3,105 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jerry Wellington on 12 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Henderson and Wellington
Lowering the language
barrier in learning and
teaching science
Jenny Henderson and Jerry Wellington
Some practical strategies to help pupils interpret, learn and use the
‘language of science’ in speaking, writing and reading
Why focus on language?
The thrust of school education has largely been on
science as a practical subject. Our premise here is that
the spotlight should be turned increasingly towards
science education with the emphasis on learning
science as one learns a new language. Osborne (1996:
274) says of learning physics that it is ‘more akin to
the learning of a foreign language than it is to the
learning of historical facts’. This is equally true of the
other sciences.
There is also a strong curricular justification for
an increased emphasis on language in science teaching.
The Science National Curriculum for England and
Wales includes a statement on ‘Use of language’ in its
‘Common requirements’ for all key stages:
ABSTRACT
For many pupils the greatest barrier to learning
science is the language barrier. This article
suggests practical ways in which this barrier can
be lowered and language can be used to
promote the learner’s development in science.
The language of both learners and teachers is
considered, with brief looks at learning through
talking and listening, and learning through
reading and writing. In all areas the way in which
careful attention to language can promote
science teaching and learning is considered, but
also how science education can be yet another
vehicle for enhancing pupils’ general language
development.
Lowering the language barrier
Pupils should be taught to express themselves
clearly in both speech and writing and to
develop their reading skills. They should be
taught to use grammatically correct sentences
and to spell and punctuate in order to
communicate effectively ...
This statement has been interpreted by the School
Curriculum and Assessment Authority (now replaced
by QCA) as a call for ‘clarity and correctness’, in
speaking and writing. The programmes of study also
include a section on ‘Communication’ which states that
pupils should be taught to:
use appropriate scientific vocabulary to describe
and explain the behaviour of living things,
materials, and processes.
Finally, there is a strong justification for a focus on
language if formal science education is to be a major
contributor to the public understanding of science.
Pupils should be taught to read critically and actively
and to develop an interest in reading about science;
they should be helped to develop competence in
scrutinising sceptically claims and arguments made
in the press and on television based on ‘scientific
research’ or ‘scientific evidence’ (see Millar, 1996, for
a full discussion in this area).
The focus of this paper is on offering practical
strategies for developing language use in science; for
an insight into the wider debate on language and
science we strongly recommend Sutton’s work (Sutton,
1989; 1992).
School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288) 35
 Lowering the language barrier
Talking and listening
Transmission and interpretation of
language
Talk in the classroom involves the talk of the teacher
and the talk of the learners, and, as in any relationship,
the one can have a deep impact on the other, for better
or worse.
Teachers may be forgiven for being initially more
self-conscious about their own language competence
in the classroom than concerned about the quality of
their pupils’ language. But it will quickly be seen that
one overlaps with the other. To take an obvious
example: if you are interested in what learners have to
say, you will plan to provide space in the lesson for
this; and you will plan to listen, just as you expect
your pupils to listen to you. In all parts of the
curriculum, the quality of classroom language is bound
up with the quality of learning.
One result of attention given in recent years to the
language of the classroom was to alert teachers to the
importance of letting children speak and think through
speaking; we can gain a good deal from looking at
what happens when learners speak – to the teacher
and to each other. And speaking involves too, of course,
the art of listening, for both teacher and learners.
Some of the most notable work in the area of
thinking and learning through exploratory talk has been
done by Douglas Barnes and his co-workers (Barnes
1973, 1976; Sheeran and Barnes, 1991). We realise
this work is not recent but we feel it is still very relevant
today. Barnes identified two different modes of
classroom teaching, which he termed transmission
and interpretation. When knowledge is seen as some
kind of commodity, owned by the teacher and
displayed to learners only according to the teacher’s
decree, then the teacher seeks to transmit knowledge,
in a kind of restricted shopkeeper–customer relation-
ship. When, however, knowledge is seen as something
to be shared, to be shaped by the act of learning itself,
then the teacher’s task is to interpret learning.
Through classroom observation, Barnes (1973)
showed how the assumptions of teachers about
knowledge and language in learning could be placed
at one point or another along a dimension, thus:
Transmission Interpretation
Most teachers, claimed Barnes, operated well within
the actual boundaries of this dimension, but he
described two imaginary extreme cases.
36 School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288)
Henderson and Wellington
In the first case,
The teacher at the transmission end of the
dimension sees language as a kind of speaking
tube, and the pupil either receives it or fails to
do so.
In the second case,
The teacher at the other extreme of the
dimension will emphasise language as a means
of interpretation. He will see discussion and
writing as ways of helping pupils to think more
effectively, and will credit them with the ability
to make sense of experience for themselves by
talking and writing about it.
Barnes’s work challenged teachers to review their
handling of classroom talk. The message in
‘transmission’ classrooms is that teachers know
everything – or, at least, everything that pupils know;
the pupil therefore has nothing new to tell the teacher.
In the ‘interpretation’ classroom there is shared
discourse, shared learning, shared knowledge.
Promoting talking and listening
As part of learning science, it is important for pupils
to explore their own views and those of others in order
to develop an independent way of thinking. To do this
we must provide opportunities to practise the social
skills of communicating and collaborating. Discussion-
based learning is not without its problems: students
not used to this style of teaching may find it
threatening; traditional laboratories are not conducive
to discussion-based activities; careful structuring will
be required; a reconsideration of the respective roles
of teacher and student will be necessary.
A great deal of science teaching involves the
teacher ‘telling’ and there is little opportunity for pupil
talk. How can we be sure that the class have understood
the science if they are given no chance to discuss,
exchange ideas, interpret?
Puzzling and telling are complementary. A clear
exposition by the teacher, or in the pages of the
book is one component, but the pupils’ learning
is in making sense of what is said or written.
Lessons organised with this in mind should
therefore include time for puzzling, and for
pupils to restate what they understand to be the
key ideas. Although this sometimes occurs
informally in discussion, it will normally require
some structure, and some formal means of public
report about what they have made of the topic.
(Sutton, 1992)
 Henderson and Wellington Lowering the language barrier

There are many strategies and activities that can be

Table 1
used to promote discussion:
Understanding of some non-technical terms in
■ groups research a topic and present their findings science at different ages (figures represent
to the rest of the class; percentage of pupils understanding the word)
(Gardner, 1972)
■ groups discuss their ideas and present a short talk
or a poster; Age
■ individuals or groups plan an investigation and 12 13 14 15
share ideas with the rest of the class;
accurate 75 79 88 92
■ the use of carousels, role play, simulation or drama; action 46 57 64 76
■ individuals or groups interpret graphs or tables and adjust 64 75 77 73
present ideas; analysis 68 78 81 92
■ small groups design a solution to a technological average 35 54 60 61
problem and share ideas with the class. complex 52 64 77 82
(A fuller account is given in Henderson, 1994.) composition 49 61 81 91
concept 32 45 61 74
Teacher talk
contract 39 59 70 80
Most of the talk in science classrooms is still teacher devise 53 65 69 84
talk, and this has been the focus of much of Barnes’s external 53 68 82 90
(1976) and Sutton’s (1992) work. We cannot do justice
factor 35 62 67 76
to that work here – we merely offer concrete examples,
function 88 94 96 95
with suggestions for teachers, of two areas where
illuminate 49 71 84 89
awareness and self-scrutiny may make a difference.
illustrate 56 59 70 76
A focus on non-technical words in science
incline 47 47 61 63
Technical terms present obvious barriers to effective
interpret 56 67 77 83
communication for science teachers. A cursory
examination of any science textbook reveals a plethora maximum 63 74 84 90
of technical terms. A more neglected problem is that minimum 52 67 82 81
of the non-technical words which are nevertheless modify 57 61 76 87
essential to learning science. A major study in Australia observation 74 77 92 88
over 25 years ago (Gardner, 1972) used multiple-choice partial 39 51 59 68
tests to investigate pupils’ understanding of 600 such positive (test) 64 72 78 81
words. A few of the results are given in Table 1. rate 25 39 47 58
It is worth looking closely at the results portrayed significant 83 86 93 94
in this table. Certain commonly spoken and written tend 82 87 94 94
words – such as accurate, tend and observation – seem theory 67 78 78 74
to pose difficulty for pupils. Others appear to pose less
valid 30 50 65 79
difficulty. Words like ‘rate’, ‘factor’, ‘average’ and
‘valid’ appear to be a major problem – yet science
teachers tend to sprinkle these around like confetti. Giving instructions
Gardner’s findings from 25 years ago may be a surprise Similarly, it is tempting in a busy classroom to fall
to readers – but has the situation really changed? His into the ‘I’ve told you so now you know’ approach.
findings also raise the issue of progression: in what This presents extra problems for learners with a variety
sense is there any linguistic progression from ages 12 of special needs (not least those with hearing
through to 15? Some words show little evidence of impairment) and is not good practice anyway. To
progression – the word ‘adjust’, for example, goes the develop understanding and interpretation, instructions
other way from 14 to 15. need to be given using a variety of visual or aural
It is clear that there is still a need for science support materials:
teachers to be careful and vigilant with all age groups,
not only with technical terms but also the non-technical ■ drawings, diagrams and pictures as support for the
terms of science, to encourage interpretation. spoken word;

School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288) 37

 Lowering the language barrier
■ written instructions on a workcard/worksheet, the
board or an OHP;
■ for certain practicals, an example set up on the front
bench, which can be referred to, will help;
■ in some cases, especially for those with specific
special needs, instructions in the form of audio-
tape can provide extra help;
■ for some practicals, prepared pictures with words
of different stages in an investigation, can be given
and pupils asked to sequence them correctly and
perhaps label them (obviously the sequence will
need to be checked before starting).
Box 1 gives a list of possible teaching strategies for
aiding comprehension by pupils, which we produced
with the help of a communication therapist with an
interest in helping the dyslexic student – however, they
apply equally well to all science teaching situations.
Box 1 Possible teaching tactics to
aid comprehension
1 Try to give explicit information and instructions
in short manageable chunks.
2 Try to give a ‘mental’ set for the lesson by
outlining what the whole lesson is about.
Review the lesson at the end. This allows the
child to tune in and pull everything together as
a whole.
3 Try to structure your lesson around a number
of ‘main ideas’ and put these on a handout.
4 Help structure the student’s listening by giving
questions at the beginning. Cloze procedures
can also be used.
5 Encourage students to read the questions
before reading a passage so they are aware of
what points are important to mention and of
what they should take special note.
6 Discuss subject-specific vocabulary and give a
written list so the child does not have to spend
time thinking about these spellings but can
concentrate on the content of the lesson (these
can be selected from the Word Bank).
7 Use illustrations/diagrams wherever possible,
rather than just talking.
Learning through writing
Pupil writing in science
By far the most common model of writing in science
has been the detached, objective report or essay
presented in a final, finished, and logical form. As a
38 School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288)
Henderson and Wellington
result, pupils have been restricted to a narrow range
of assignments designed almost exclusively to test
what they have learned, and even here they have been
left unaware of many of the factors which in any
situation outside school would help them to plan the
form, content and style of what they write. Moreover,
there seems to be an explicit or implied demand that
every piece of work should be in ‘final draft’ form,
using the kind of language found in textbooks. This
may rob pupils of the chance to sort out for themselves
their own understanding of what they are learning.
In Barnes’s terms, most writing in school still
seems to fall into the ‘transmission’ category where
the teacher sees its purpose primarily as the acquisition
or recording of information. A teacher whose approach
emphasises the interpretative use of language would
see the purpose of writing either in terms of the
cognitive development of the writer, or more generally
as aiding his or her personal development. In setting
the work, the teacher would be concerned with pupils’
attitudes to the task, and aware of aspects of the context
in which the writing is to be done, such as the audience
to be addressed and the range of choices available.
The teacher would then see marking primarily in terms
of making replies and comments, and would be
concerned to publish his pupils’ work by various
means, and to use it as the basis of future teaching.
A lot of written work in science involves writing
up investigations. When the purpose of science
education is primarily as a training for future scientists,
learning to present evidence in the style of a scientific
paper is valuable. However, for the majority of pupils,
the scientific language may hinder their understanding
of the science. It is worth exploring different ways of
getting pupils to present written records of their
investigations and observations and to give them the
opportunity of showing that they understand a
scientific topic or concept. For example, encourage
them to attempt different ways of writing up
investigations (formal, descriptive, journalistic), do a
piece of creative writing or describe some scientific
event via poetry or prose. Figures 1 and 2 show
examples of written work by pupils who had been
asked to write creatively about scientific events.
Spelling and the use of word banks
Spelling is an issue which seems to generate as much
hot air as any. The Bullock report described spelling
as a ‘convention’ (Bullock, 1975: 181) but went on to
say: ‘in our view it is a convention that matters’. The
report’s view was that the ability to spell is part of the
‘common responsibility’ of all teachers, in all subjects.
 Henderson and Wellington Lowering the language barrier

Figure 1
An example of pupils’ creative writing about scientific events

School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288) 39

 Lowering the language barrier Henderson and Wellington

Figure 2
Another example of pupils’ creative writing about
scientific events

40 School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288)

 Henderson and Wellington
One specific strategy is to ‘develop a word bank
for storing words which have been used in talking and
writing so that these can be drawn upon and copied
on later occasions.’ (Bullock, 1975: 103).
A list of ‘important’, commonly used words in
science could be produced and displayed in large
lettering on the laboratory wall. These could be of great
help to those who have difficulty in ‘finding words’ as
well as those who need help with spelling. The word
list could include: common items of apparatus used in
practicals; important labelling words, such as parts of
a device, parts of the human body; words for important
concepts and processes, such as photosynthesis,
electrolysis, evolution; the common units, for example,
joule, newton, metre, etc. These key words could be
referred to whenever pupils are doing a written task.
For home use they could be written in a ‘Science Word
Bank’ at the end of the pupil’s book. For lessons with
especially new and difficult language, a sheet could
be given out at the start with a clear list of all the words,
terms, etc., to be used during the course of the lesson.
Figure 3 shows (much reduced in size) an example
of a word bank with a collection of about 300 words
for 11 to 16 year-olds. This is a list formed from
examining the National Science Curriculum for
England and Wales and a sample of recent science
textbooks, and from talking and listening to pupils and
teachers. This rather daunting list contains most of the
words and terms pupils will encounter in their linguistic
journey through the science curriculum. A word bank
poster (84 cm × 59 cm) has been designed to go on the
walls of school science and preparatory rooms (and
an A4 sheet in pupils’ books/files) to serve the
following purposes:
■ As a guide to pupils and teachers to the key words
of the science curriculum for 11 to 16 year-olds.
■ As a ‘spell checker’ (and a key word list) for pupils
when writing up science work; and also for teachers
when writing on the board/OHP or preparing
worksheets.
■ As a revision aid for pupils and teachers – in a
way it acts as a checklist for coverage of the
curriculum.
■ As a ‘memory jogger’ for pupils when writing, and
for teachers when teaching and writing materials
for pupils.
■ As a way of highlighting the key words of science,
serving as a reminder to both teachers and pupils,
e.g. whilst planning and preparing lessons; while
using teaching materials such as videos.
Lowering the language barrier
■ To help pupils with limited reading skills develop
a subject-specific ‘sight’.
The poster and pupils’ sheet have been tried in several
schools – feedback shows that it seems to be creating
a heightened awareness of language and the difficulties
posed by scientific language when learning science.
(The word bank poster and A4 sheet shown in Figure
3 can be obtained from ASE Book Sales – see
‘Sources’.)
A glossary of science words
Figure 4 shows examples from a glossary currently
being developed of key science words, which is being
published regularly by Primary Maths + Science (see
‘Sources’). A glossary of this kind can be used in many
ways in the primary or secondary classroom. For
example, the definitions can be pasted on to laminated
cards and kept in an index box. Learners (and teachers)
could then consult them, use them and talk about them
whenever the need arises – as part of a writing, reading
or talking activity.
Learning through reading
Since reading is a major strategy for learning in
virtually every aspect of education ... it is the
responsibility of every teacher to develop it.
(Bullock, 1975)
Despite the Bullock plea, reading is still largely a
neglected activity in science classes. Textbooks (if
schools can afford such a luxury) are often used to
provide homework, to guide a practical, to keep pupils
busy if they finish too soon or, at worst, to prop up a
piece of apparatus. Traditionally science teachers have
had little concern for text. This is unfortunate for many
reasons: practising scientists spend a lot of their time
reading; much science can be learnt more efficiently
from reading than from (say) observing or listening;
many pupils enjoy reading; there is a wide range of
reading on science available in children’s books,
magazines and newspapers.
DARTS
How can pupils be encouraged to read in science for
longer periods? How can their reading become more
active, reflective, critical and evaluative? The old
cliché, that ‘pupils need to learn to read in order to
read to learn’, still holds. A project described in Lunzer
and Gardner (1979) suggested that passive reading
occurs when reading tasks are vague and general, rather
School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288) 41
 Lowering the language barrier Henderson and Wellington

Figure 3
A science word bank for 11 to 16 year-olds

42 School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288)

 Henderson and Wellington Lowering the language barrier

Figure 4
Examples of entries in the ‘Words of science’ glossary (Questions, 7(1), 9)

School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288) 43

 Lowering the language barrier
than specific, and when reading is solitary rather than
shared. In contrast, active reading involves reading for
specific purposes, and the sharing of ideas and small-
group work. The project, therefore, developed a
number of strategies for use by teachers. These were
called Directed Activities Related to Text, or DARTS
(Lunzer and Gardner, 1979; Davies and Greene, 1984).
Directed reading activities make pupils focus on
important parts of the text, and involve them in
reflecting on its content. They involve the pupils in
discussion, in sharing ideas, and in examining their
interpretation of a text. DARTS fall into two broad
categories.
1 Reconstruction (or completion) DARTS. These
are essentially problem-solving activities that use
modified text. The text or diagram has parts
missing (words, phrases or labels deleted), or,
alternatively, the text is broken into segments
which have to be re-ordered into the ‘correct’
sequence. These activities are game-like and
involve hunting for clues in order to complete the
task. Pupils generally find them very enjoyable and
the results can feed into pupil writing.
2 Analysis DARTS. These use unmodified text and
are more study-like. They are about finding targets
in the text. The teacher decides what the
‘information categories’ of the text are and which
of these to focus on. These are the targets which
pupils are to search for, and this involves the pupils
in locating and categorising the information in the
text. When the targets are found they are marked
by underlining and/or labelling. The search for
targets can be followed by small-group and class
discussion in which the merits of alternative
marking are considered and pupils have a further
opportunity to modify or revise their judgements.
In each case the text has to be prepared for pupils, or
small groups of pupils, so that they can work with it.
Many DARTS will involve marking or writing on the
text itself. Box 2 shows a classification of the various
DARTS which could be used with a piece of writing
in science. Notice that the analysis DARTS can be done
with the straight, unmodified text – by, for example,
underlining of certain types of work, labelling
segments of the text, or making up questions to ask
about the text. The reconstruction DARTS require
modification of text before use – by, for example,
deleting key words from the text or labels from a
diagram, or by chopping up a passage into segments
which need re-sequencing to make sense.
44 School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288)
Henderson and Wellington
Text from any source can be used to encourage
students to read actively and critically. Government
pamphlets, supermarket leaflets, magazine
advertisements, propaganda from pressure groups, and
cuttings from newspapers can all be used. Further ideas
on the use of newspaper articles have been published
in Wellington (1993).
Word games: using laminated cards
Science textbooks have certainly improved in the last
decade, thanks partly to the research which showed
that the language level of most common texts was far
too high. But a page of text on science can still be a
daunting prospect to many pupils. One practical
strategy for making reading more active, more
sociable, and less daunting is to use cards of various
kinds to go with a piece of text. This can involve a lot
of preparation and adaptation by the teacher but can
pay off not just for pupils with ‘special needs’ but for
all learners from the written word. Here are some
examples.
■ True/false cards. Statements from the text are
either transcribed straight on to laminated cards or
adapted slightly so that they are false. Using the
text, for example a page from a book, students have
to sort the cards into two categories – true or false.
They discuss these and then perhaps compare their
results with another group or present them to the
teacher.
■ Agree/disagree cards. On a more value-laden,
sensitive or controversial topic, statements, for
example from different pressure groups or parties,
can be made into cards and then, during group
discussion, placed into disagree/agree/not sure
categories.
■ Matching pairs. A variety of activities can be done
with cards which form matching pairs. The pairs
might be:
– a part of a body and its function
– part of any device, e.g. a car, and its function
– types of teeth and the job they do
– a picture and a word
– a common name and its scientific name
– a material and a common use for it
– a chemical name and its symbol (elements or
compounds).
There are many other possibilities in science. The
activity can then involve lining the cards up as a
group or it could be done as a memory game often
called ‘Pelmanism’. This involves placing all the
 Henderson and Wellington
Box 2 Directed Activities Related
to Text (DARTS)
Reconstruction DARTS (using modified text)
1 Completing text, diagram or table
(a) Text completion. Pupils predict and
complete deleted words, phrases, or
sentences (cf. Cloze procedure).
(b) Diagram completion. Pupils predict and
complete deleted labels and/or parts of
diagrams as sources of information.
(c) Table completion. Pupils use the text to
complete a table using rows and columns
provided by the teacher.
2 Unscrambling and labelling disordered
and segmented text
(a) Pupils predict logical order or time sequence
of scrambled segments of text, e.g. a set of
instructions, and rearrange.
(b) Pupils classify segments according to
categories given by teacher.
3 Predicting
(a) Pupils predict and write next part(s) of text,
e.g. an event, an instruction, with segments
presented a section at a time.
Analysis DARTS (using un-modified text)
1 Marking and labelling
(a) Underlining/marking. Pupils search for
specified targets in text, e.g. words,
sentences, and mark them in some way.
(b) Labelling. Pupils label parts of the text, using
labels provided for them.
(c) Segmenting. Pupils break the text down into
segments, or units of information, and label
these segments.
2 Recording and constructing
(a) Diagram construction. Pupils construct
diagrams showing content and flow of text
using, for example: a flow diagram, a
network, a branching tree, a continuum.
(b) Table construction. Pupils construct and
complete tables from information given in the
text, making up their own headings (rows and
columns).
(c) Question answering and setting
(i) Teachers set questions, pupils study text to
answer them.
(ii) Pupils make up their own questions after
studying text (either for the teacher to answer,
or other pupils).
(d) Key points/Summary. Pupils list the key
points made by the text and/or summarise it.
Lowering the language barrier
cards face down on the table in two separate
groups, for example with names in one group and
chemical symbols in another. By gradually
uncovering cards players form pairs which they
then keep if they form a pair but replace (face
down) if they don’t.
■ Putting words or terms into groups. Words can
be placed on to cards, for example names of a range
of animals, and then sorted into classes or groups
with a heading on another card (underlined or in
upper case) at the top of each group, for instance
mammals/non-mammals. This could be done with:
metals and non-metals; solids, liquids and gases;
conductors and insulators; vertebrates and
invertebrates ... and so on.
■ Sequencing. Sentence cards describing, for
example, a process or an experiment, are jumbled
up. They are placed by groups into their version of
the correct sequence.
There are many other examples of reading activities
that can be done with cards, such as sorting the ‘odd
one out’ and explaining why. Other word activities or
word games that we have seen used effectively are: a
science version of the game ‘Pictionary’; anagrams;
‘Twenty Questions’ (e.g. to guess an animal); ‘Word
Bingo’; ‘Hangman’ with science words; a science
version of ‘Dingbats’.
In conclusion
The ideas and findings of Barnes’s work and the
suggestions in the Bullock report (1975) are still as
important as ever for science education. Little has
changed. Textbooks have become more ‘readable’,
certainly in terms of standard readability tests
(although we have heard teachers say that many of
them look like colourful comics). In addition, teachers
have become more aware of the language they use in
speaking and writing. But for the pupil, the language
barrier remains as real as ever in science and for many
continues to be the main obstacle to their learning.
Teachers still need to concentrate on how language is
interpreted rather than just its transmission. It is hoped
that the practical strategies offered here will help in
overcoming the language barrier to learning science.
Perhaps the messages, the spirit and the sheer
enthusiasm of Barnes and the Bullock report are ready
for a revival.
School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288) 45
 Lowering the language barrier
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the pupils of Birley School, Sheffield and our PGCE students of 1995–96 for their
contributions to this article.
References and further reading
Barnes, D. (1973) Language in the classroom. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
Barnes, D. (1976) From communication to curriculum.
Harmondsworth, Mddx: Penguin.
Bullock, A. (1975) A language for life. London: DES/HMSO.
Bulman, L. (1985) Teaching language and study skills in
secondary science. London: Heinemann.
Carré, C. (1981) Language teaching and learning: science.
East Grinstead, W. Sussex: Ward Lock.
Davies, F. and Greene, T. (1984) Reading for learning in the
sciences. Harlow, Essex: Oliver and Boyd.
Gardner, P. L. (1972) Words in science. Melbourne: Australian
Science Education Project.
Hand, B. and Prain, V. (1995) Using writing to help improve
students’ understanding of science knowledge. School
Science Review, 77(278), 112–117.
Henderson, J. (1994) Teaching sensitive issues in science: the
case of sex education. In Secondary science: contemporary
issues and practical approaches, ed. Wellington, J. J.
London: Routledge.
Sources
Words of science – a pictorial glossary of science
words is published in Primary Maths + Science
(formerly Questions and then QMS magazine). The
glossary entries began in May 1994 (Questions, 6(5),
4–8). For details contact: Questions Publishing, 27
Frederick Street, Birmingham, B1 3HH.
Jenny Henderson and Jerry Wellington are both lecturers in the Division of Education, University of Sheffield,
388 Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JA.
46 School Science Review, March 1998, 79(288)
View publication stats
Henderson and Wellington
Lunzer, E. and Gardner, K. ed. (1979) The effective use of
reading. London: Heinemann (for the Schools Council).
Millar, R. (1996) Towards a science curriculum for public
understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7–18.
Osborne, J. (1996) Untying the Gordian Knot: diminishing the
role of practical work. Physics Education, 31(5), 271–278.
Sheeran, Y. and Barnes, D. (1991) School writing. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Sutton, C. (1989) Writing and reading in science: the hidden
messages. In Doing science: images of science in science
education, ed. Millar, R. London: Falmer Press.
Sutton, C. (1992) Words, science and learning. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Watkins, O. (1981) Active reading and listening. In
Communicating in the classroom, ed. Sutton, C. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.
Wellington, J. J. (1993) Using newspapers in science
education. School Science Review, 74(268), 47–52.
Wellington, J. J. ed. (1994) Secondary science: contemporary
issues and practical approaches. London: Routledge.
Science Word Bank, in poster and A4 sheet form,
can be obtained from: ASE Book Sales, College Lane,
Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AA (£3, cash with order).