Analyzing Diverse Learners’ Writing in Mathematics: Systemic Functional Linguistics in Secondary Pre-Service Teacher Education

Authors

  • Kathryn Accurso University of Massachusetts Amherst
  • Meg Gebhard University of Massachusetts Amherst
  • Stephanie B. Purington University of Massachusetts Amherst

Abstract

This article analyses the experiences of 55 secondary pre-service teachers (PSTs) in a mandated professional development course that used Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and related pedagogical practices to support PSTs’ development of disciplinary linguistic knowledge for working with linguistically diverse students in the United States. Of specific interest is how the course influenced the manner in which PSTs responded to a student’s attempt at writing a mathematical explanation. We begin with a brief description of Halliday’s theory of language and learning with particular reference to the semiotic demands of mathematics. Next, we provide a description of the professional development course and the mixed methods approach to analysing changes in PSTs’ pre- and post-course responses to a student writing sample about linear equations. Third, we discuss findings that suggest PSTs’ emerging understanding of the linguistic and multimodal demands of mathematical explanations supported them in providing more cogent and precise written feedback. We conclude by discussing the potential of SFL conceptual and pedagogical tools to support PSTs’ professional development in the context of globalization.

Author Biographies

Kathryn Accurso, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Teacher Education & Curriculum Studies

Doctoral Candidate

Meg Gebhard, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Teacher Education & Curriculum Studies

Professor

Stephanie B. Purington, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Teacher Education & Curriculum Studies

Doctoral Student

References

Accurso, K., Gebhard, M. & Selden, C. (2016). Supporting L2 elementary science writing with SFL in an age of school reform. In L. C. de Oliveira & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, content-area writing and teacher education (pp. 126–150). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B. D. (2014). Tracking movement toward academic language in multilingual classrooms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 60–71.

Adamson, F., Arstran, B., & Darling Hammond, L. (2016). Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence educational outcomes. New York: Routledge.

Adu-Gyamfi, K., Bossé, M. J., & Faulconer, J. (2010). Assessing understanding through reading and writing in mathematics. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/adugyamfi.pdf

Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. (2008). Developing teacher capacity for serving ELLs’ writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31(1/2), 295–323.

Applebee, A. N. (1984). Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Arkoudis, S. (2005). Fusing pedagogic horizons: Language and content teaching in the mainstream. Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 173–87.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barwell, R., Leung, C., Morgan, C., & Street, B. (2005). Applied linguistics and mathematics education: More than words and numbers. Language and Education, 19(2), 141–146.

Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 395–421.

Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.

Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge.

Bunch, G. C., Kibler, A., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Realizing opportunities for English learners in the common core English language arts and disciplinary literacy standards. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 1–16.

Burns, M. (2004). Writing in math. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 30–33.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced L2 writing development in collegiate FL education: Curricular design, pedagogy, and assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94(s1), (Monograph Issue).

Calvert, L. (2016). Moving from compliance to agency: What teachers need to make professional learning work. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward and NCTAF.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge.

Cavanagh, S. (2005). Math: The not-so-universal language. Education Week, 24(42), 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/07/13/42math.h24.html

Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crowhurst, M. (1994). Language and learning across the curriculum. Scarborough, Ontario: Allyn and Bacon.

de Oliveira, L. C., & Iddings, J. (Eds.). (2014). Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts. London: Equinox Publishing.

de Oliveira, L. C., & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2013). L2 writing in secondary classrooms: Student experiences, academic issues, and teacher education. London: Routledge.

Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520–529.

Fang, Z., & Wang, Z. (2011). Beyond rubrics: Using functional language analysis to evaluate student writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(2), 147–165.

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339.

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.

Gebhard, M., Chen, I., & Britton, B. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization”: English language learners’ use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106–125.

Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H., & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 107–124.

Gebhard, M., Habana Hafner, A., & Wright, M. (2004). Teaching English-language learners “the language game of math”: Insights for teachers and teacher educators. In M. Sadowski (Ed.), Teaching immigrant and second-language learners (pp. 33-46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing Group.

Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to high-stakes school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 45–55.

Gebhard, M., & Willett, J. (2015). Translingual context zones: Critical reconceptualizing of teachers’ work within the context of globalism. Linguistics & Education, 32, 98–106.

Gee, J. P. (2009). A situated sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Gibbons P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching ESL children in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gleeson, M. (2015). 'It's the nature of the subject': Secondary teachers’ disciplinary beliefs and decisions about teaching academic language in their content classes. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(2), 104–114.

Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Gorgorió, N., & Planas, N. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics: An International Journal, 47(1), 7–33.

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2013). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116.

Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longmans.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. New York: Edward Arnold.

Harklau, L. (1994). Tracking and linguistic minority students: Consequences of ability grouping for second language learners. Linguistics and Education, 6(3), 217–244.

Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35–67.

Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Otten, S. (2011). Mapping mathematics in classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 451–485.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 185–212.

Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge.

Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304.

Kosko, K. W. (2016). Writing in mathematics: A survey of K-12 teachers’ reported frequency in the classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 116(5), 276-285.

Kress, G., & Knapp, P. (1992). Genre in a social theory of language. English in Education, 26(2), 4–15.

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Love, K. (2010). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(4), 338–355.

Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.

Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Morgan, C. (1996). “The language of mathematics”: Towards a critical analysis of mathematics texts. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(3), 2–10.

Morgan, C. (2001). The place of pupil writing in learning, teaching and assessing mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in Teaching Mathematics (pp. 232–244). London: Routledge.

Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1/2), 219–245.

Moschkovich, J. N. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.

Moschkovich, J. N. (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Moschkovich, J. N. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 17–31.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most: Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Kutztown, PA: Author.

Nichols, S. N. & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral Damage: The effects of high-stakes testing on America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 442–463.

O’Hallaron, C. L., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2016). “Voice” in children’s science arguments: Aligning assessment criteria with genre and discipline. Assessing Writing, 30, 63¬–73.

O’Halloran, K. L. (2003). Educational implications of mathematics as a multisemiotic discourse. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 185–214). Brooklyn, NY: Legas.

O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.

Pajares, M. F., & Graham, L. (1998). Formalist thinking and language arts instruction: Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about truth and caring in the teaching conversation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 14(8), 855–870.

Patthey-Chávez, G. G., Matsumurra, L. C., & Valdés, R. (2004). Investigating the process approach to writing instruction in urban middle schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 462–477.

Perrine, R. M. (1999). Please see me: Students’ reactions to professor’s request as a function of attachment and perceived support. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(1), 60-72.

Pimm, D., & Keynes, M. (1994). Mathematics classroom language: Form, function and force. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Sträßer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline (159–169). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 236–245.

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Bristol, CT: Equinox.

Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. UC Berkeley: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139–159.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63(s1), 153–170.

Schulze, J. M. (2016). Understanding the developing persuasive writing practices of an adolescent emergent bilingual through systemic functional linguistics: A case study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(10), 163–179.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

Shavelson, R., Webb, N. & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1–36). New York: Macmillan.

Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325–342.

Thwaite, A. (2015). Pre-service teachers linking their metalinguistic knowledge to their practice: A functional approach. Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 1–17.

Turkan, S., de Oliveira, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(3), 1–30.

Turkan, S., & Schramm-Possinger, M. (2014). Teaching content to English learners in the era of the Common Core standards. R & D Connections, 23, 1–10.

van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the Common Core State Standards. Commissioned paper by the Understanding Language Initiative. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/papers/language

Veel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 185–216). London: Continuum.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101.

Zeichner, K. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Downloads

Published

2017-05-14