Cover not available

Article published In: Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 6:1 (2025) ► pp.23–52

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Identifying language requirements of pre‑scientific writing for learners in science education using a task‑based needs analysis

ORCiD logo with link | Universität Innsbruck
 | Universität Innsbruck
 | Universität Innsbruck
 | Universität Innsbruck
 | Universität Graz
Published online: 14 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23004.tag
Abstract
In science, subject-specific languages have a communicative and epistemic function. Thus, in science education learners need to both learn the language of science and learn through this specific language. Based on the assumption that learning subject-specific languages can be compared to second language acquisition, the study transfers Task-based Language Teaching to science education and explores the language needs of Austrian upper secondary school learners in science education when writing a Pre-Scientific Paper (PSP), using multiple methods (semi-structured interviews, online questionnaires) and data sources (curriculum, learners, teachers). The study reveals pre-scientific writing as a relevant overall task, identifies over 30 target tasks, describes subject-specific linguistic challenges students face when performing these tasks and shows how they are supported in their pre-scientific writing skills. Altogether, the paper shows the importance of having a more regular and systematic implementation of subject-specific language tasks in upper secondary science education.
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.The study
    • 2.1Preliminary curriculum analysis
    • 2.2Analysing the subject-specific language needs for the target task from the learners’ and teachers’ perspective: A task as unit of analysis
    • 2.3Method
      • 2.3.1Qualitative approach
      • 2.3.2Quantitative approach
    • 2.4Research questions
    • 2.5Participants
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1RQ1: Which TTs do students perform?
    • 3.2RQ2: Which subject-specific linguistic challenges do students face when performing the TTs?
      • 3.2.1Finding a Topic
      • 3.2.2Literature review
      • 3.2.3Writing
      • 3.2.4Revision
    • 3.3RQ3: Which preparatory measures (e.g., PTs) are currently put in place to support students’ pre-scientific writing skills?
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Limitations
  • 6.Conclusion and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (71)
References
Beerenwinkel, A., Lindauer, T., & Schmellentin, C. (2016). Schreiben im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. In C. Maurer (Chair), Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik Jahrestagung, Zürich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bettoni, C., Di Biase, B. (2015). Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory. Eurosla Monograph Series, 3. Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BMB. (2016). Die kompetenzorientierte Reifeprüfung: Vorwissenschaftliche Arbeit: Unverbindliche Beurteilungshilfe für das Prüfungsgebiet “vorwissenschaftliche Arbeit” (VWA). Retrieved from [URL]
Bundesgesetzblatt II. Änderung der Verordnung über die Lehrpläne der allgemeinbildenden höheren Schulen; Änderung der Bekanntmachung der Lehrpläne für den Religionsunterricht sowie Bekanntmachung der Lehrpläne für den Religionsunterricht (216/2018).
. Prüfungsordnung AHS (174/2012).
Bühner, M. (2011). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3rd ed.). Hallbergmoos: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bushati, B., Ebner, C., Niederdorfer, L., & Schmölzer-Eibinger, S. (2018). Wissenschaftlich schreiben lernen in der Schule. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014). Task-Based Language Learning – Insights form and for L2 Writing. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, S., & McDonnough, J. T. (2009). Meeting the Needs of High School Science Teachers in English Language Learner Instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 385–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and Mixed-Methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism. (19), 197–205.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising content-language integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation: Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (5th ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drennan, J. (2003). Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 42(1), 57–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2015). Manual (on) Transcription: Transcription Conventions, Software Guides and Practical Hints for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Marburg. Retrieved from [URL]
East, M. (2017). Research into practice: The task-based approach to instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 50(3), 412–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Foundational Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching. New York, London: Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Task-Based Language Teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 108–125). Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evnitskaya, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions in CLIL classrooms: eliciting and analysing students’ oral categorizations in science and history. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific Literacy: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary Literacy. What You Want to Know About it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 627–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education 95(1), 168–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., & Joham, B. (2018). Professionalising physics teachers in doing experimental work. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8(1), 9–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasson, E., & Yarden, A. (2012). Separating the research question from the laboratory techniques: Advancing high-school biology teachers’ ability to ask research questions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(10). 1211–1344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, L. (2016). Theoretische Überlegungen zur Modellierung und Erforschung von integrativem Fach- und Sprachenlernen. In B. Hinger (Ed.), Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Fachdidaktik 2, Zweite “Tagung der Fachdidaktik” 2015: Sprachsensibler Sach-Fach-Unterricht – Sprachen im Sprachunterricht (pp. 75–93). innsbruck university press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, L. (1985). Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huerta, M., & Garza, T. (2019). Writing in Science: Why, How, and for Whom? A Systematic Literature Review of 20 Years of Intervention Research (1996–2016). Educational Psychology Review, 311, 533–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iizuka, T. (2019). Task-based needs analysis: Identifying communicative needs for study abroad students in Japan. System, 801, 134–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaewpet, C. (2009). A Framework for Investigating Learner Needs: Needs Analysis Extended to Curriculum Development. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(2), 209–220.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kafipour, R., Mahmoudi, E., Khojasteh, L., & Khajavi, Y. (2018). The effect of task-based language teaching on analytic writing in EFL classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1496627. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kohnen, A., Saul, W. E., & Singer, N. R. (2015). Developing support for teachers and students in secondary science classrooms through writing criteria. In Crem (Ed.), Recherches Textuelles: Vol. 13. Recherches en écritures: regards pluriels (pp. 213–232). Université de Lorraine, Metz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2010). A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 99–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Buxton, C., Penfield, R., & Secada, W. G. (2009). Urban Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives on Teaching Science to English Language Learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(3), 263–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leisen, J. (2013). Handbuch Sprachförderung im Fach: Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht in der Praxis: Grundlagenwissen, Anregungen und Beispiele für die Unterstützung von sprachschwachen Lernern und Lernern mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte beim Sprechen, Lesen, Schreiben und Üben im Fach. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. Language and educational processes. Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S., Yuqin, Zhao, & Brindley, G. (2013). Needs analysis. In M. Byram & A. Hu (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 500–505). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. In: System, 541, 69–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second Language Needs Analysis (pp. 19–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markic, S. (2015). Chemistry Teachers’ Attitudes and Needs When Dealing with Linguistic Heterogeneity in the Classroom. In M. Kahveci & M. Orgill (Eds.), Affective Dimensions in Chemistry Education (pp. 279–295). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Chemistry Teachers’ Pedagogical Scientific Language Knowledge. In O. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, & P. E. Childs (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference: Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education (pp. 178–185). Dublin: Dublin City University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (Eds.) (2013). TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships Among Reading, Mathematics, and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade-Implications for Early Learning. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solutions. Klagenfurt. Retrieved from [URL]
McComas, W. F. (2020). Nature of Science in Science Instruction. Rationales and Strategies. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müllner, B., & Möller, A. (2019). Entwicklung eines Analyseinstruments zur Erfassung der sprachlichen und fachlichen Qualität von Versuchsprotokollen. In D. Krüger, A. Möller, A. Dittmer, J. Zabel, S. Nitz, & A. Scheersoi (Chairs), Frühjahrsschule 2019 in Bonn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and leraning. System, 541, 14–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2002). Science Without Literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özcan, N. (2012). Zum Einfluss der Fachsprache auf die Leistung im Fach Chemie: Eine Förderstudie zur Fachsprache im Chemieunterricht (Dissertation). Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg-Essen.
Petersen, I. (2017). Schreiben im Fachunterricht: mögliche Potenziale für Lernende mit Deutsch als Zweitsprache. In B. Lütke, I. Petersen, & T. Tajmel (Eds.), DaZ-Forschung: Vol. 8. Fachintegrierte Sprachbildung: Forschung, Theoriebildung und Konzepte für die Unterrichtspraxis (pp. 99–125). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2020). Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating & St. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction (pp. 162–191). London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riebling, L. (2013). Sprachbildung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Eine Studie im Kontext migrationsbedingter sprachlicher Heterogenität. Interkulturelle Bildungsforschung: Vol. 20. Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rincke, K. (2011). It’s Rather like Learning a Language: Development of talk and conceptual understanding in mechanics lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 229–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roelcke, T. (2020). Fachsprachen (4th ed.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rous, M. (2016). Fachsprache im Biologieunterricht. Dissertation. Biologie lernen und lehren: Vol. 16. Berlin: Logos.
Schmölzer-Eibinger, S., & Langer, E. (2010). Sprachförderung im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht in mehrsprachigen Klassen: Ein didaktisches Modell für das Fach Chemie. In B. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Fachunterricht und Deutsch als Zweitsprache (pp. 203–217). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, 401, 11–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon, U. K., Steindl, H., Larcher, N., Kulac, H., & Hotter, A. (2016). Young science journalism: writing popular scientific articles may contribute to an increase of high-school students’ interest in the natural sciences. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 814–841. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suchań, B., & Breit, S. (Eds.) (2016). PISA 2015: Grundkompetenzen am Ende der Pflichtschulzeit im internationalen Vergleich. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taglieber, J.; Kremmel, B.; Tuna, M. H.; Hoffmann, T. D.; Takim, A.; Schreiner, C.; Kapelari, S. (2022). Fragenkatalog Ethik. Selbstevaluation zur Einhaltung ethischer Rahmenrichtlinien und rechtlicher Vorgaben bei der Durchführung von Forschungsprojekten an der Fakultät für LehrerInnenbildung. Universität Innsbruck. Retrieved from [URL]
Tajmel, T. (2010). DaZ-Förderung im naturwissenschaftlichen Fachunterricht. In B. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Fachunterricht und Deutsch als Zweitsprache (pp. 167–184). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, K., & Danielsson, K. (2018). The Expanding Development of Literacy Research in Science Education Around the World. In K. Tang & K. Danielsson (Ed.), Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education (pp. 1–11). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2016). Task-based language teaching. In G. Hall (Ed.), Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics. The Routledge Handbook of English language teaching (pp. 238–251). London, New York: Routledge Taylor & FrancisGroup. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K., & Van den Branden, K. (2015). Teachers, pupils and tasks: The genesis of dynamic learning opportunities. System, 541, 28–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open Univ. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The Literacy Component of Mathematical and Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 51, 559–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue