Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

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

Teacher questions: Learning the discourse of science in a linguistically

diverse elementary classroom
Gisela Ernst-Slavit ,1 , Kristen L. Pratt
Washington State University Vancouver, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Ave., Vancouver, WA 98686, United States

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

Article history: Using ethnographic and sociolinguistic perspectives the authors examined the quality and quantity of
Received 27 May 2016 questions asked by one teacher in a diverse fourth grade classroom with a large number of emergent
Received in revised form 10 May 2017 bilinguals and low-income students during a six-week science unit in a school located in the Pacic
Accepted 10 May 2017
Northwest of the United States. This study illustrates how teacher questions played a pivotal role in
facilitating students access to both the content and the genre specic language of science.
Keywords:
2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Classroom discourse
Teacher questions
Emergent bilinguals
Science instruction
English language learners
NGSS

1. Introduction
Research on classroom discourse, including asking questions,
has been an important area of study beginning with the ground-
breaking work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), Mehan (1979), and
Cazden (2001) and spanning the subsequent contributions, particu-
larly in science classrooms, of Chin (2006, 2007), Chin and Osborne
(2010), Kelly (2014), Lemke (1990), Tan and Wong (2012), Van
Booven (2015), van Zee and Minstrell (1997), and several others.
As a whole, this body of work points to the centrality of classroom
discourse in knowledge construction. Discourse is at the core of
how communities and classrooms develop community norms and
expectations, dene what counts as knowledge for the group, build
afliation, and provide or limit access both to disciplinary content
and language knowledge (Cazden, 2001; Gee & Green, 1998; Long,
van Es, & Black, 2013). Teacher questions, a central part of the teach-
ing and learning process, have the potential to enhance or hinder
students access to the content to be learned and the language to
access and demonstrate content knowledge.
The new vision for science teaching and learning established
in the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gernst@wsu.edu (G. Ernst-Slavit), klpratt@wsu.edu
(K.L. Pratt).
1
Both authors contributed equally to this paper.
Council, 2012) and set forth by the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) stresses the importance of creating content-
rich and discourse-rich classroom environments. For example, a
main component of the standards are the eight science and engi-
neering practices: (1) asking questions and dening problems;
(2) developing and using models; (3) planning and carrying out
investigations; (4) analyzing and interpreting data; (5) using math-
ematics and computational thinking; (6) constructing explanations
and developing designs; (7) engaging in argument from evidence;
and (8) obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.
Clearly, engagement in any of these practices involves both scien-
tic sense-making and language use (Lee, Quinn, & Valds, 2013),
especially practices # 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8. Without question, teach-
ers play a crucial role in translating science, including the use of
questions, into reform-based classroom practice (Forbes & Davis,
2010).
This study centers on the rst practice, asking questions. The
NGSS underscore that asking questions is critical to developing
expertise in science. A major goal of the NGSS is for students to learn
how to generate questions about the texts they read, the features
of the phenomena they observe, and the conclusions they draw
from their models or scientic investigations (NRC Framework,
2012, p. 56). Given the importance of asking questions in science
classrooms, teacher questions can serve as models for the kinds of
questions we want students to ask.
Within this context, and given the importance of the teachers
role in generating discourse norms and practices, especially for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.05.005
0898-5898/ 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110
students who are learning English as a second language, the
following questions guided this study:
1. What is the nature of teacher talk during content area instruc-
tion?
2. What kinds of questions do teachers ask during content area
instruction?
3. What purposes do teacher questions serve during content area
instruction?
We address the above questions by presenting a ne-grained
analysis of the types of questions asked by one teacher during a
six-week science unit on rocks and minerals in a Grade 4 class-
room located in a low-income neighborhood. The diversity in this
classroom, where about half of the students speak a language other
than English at home, is of particular importance in considering
how students from a variety of backgrounds engaged in science
discourse.
1.1. Learning the discourse of science
Discourse is central to the ways communities develop their own
norms and expectations, dene and frame knowledge, build afl-
iation, provide access to disciplinary ways of knowing, and invite
or limit participation (Cazden, 2001; Gee & Green, 1998). Thus, the
nature of science discourse shapes the ways of thinking, knowing,
doing and being that occur within the classroom (Gee & Green,
1998). The language of science, characterized by abstraction of
reasoning, precision of expression, conciseness achieved by avoid-
ing redundancy, and avoidance of personal opinions and relations
(Snow, 2010), is essential for doing science (Lemke, 1990). Students
cannot conduct experiments, write lab reports, or understand a lm
on neuroimaging if they cannot use the appropriate terminology
(e.g., zygote, ferrous), grammatical structures (e.g., passive voice,
syntactic ambiguity), and specic genres (e.g., research reports, lab
directions) that characterize the language of science (Gottlieb &
Ernst-Slavit, 2014). The role of such characteristics in the classroom
is best summarized by Stoddart, Pinal, Lazke, and Canaday (2002):
The relationship between science learning and language learn-
ing is reciprocal and synergistic. Through the contextualized use
of language in science inquiry, students develop and practice
complex language forms and functions. Through the use of lan-
guage functions such as description, explanation, and discussion
in inquiry science, students enhance their conceptual under-
standing. (Stoddart et al., 2002, p. 667).
Earlier research on classroom discourse indicates that teacher
talk dominates classroom talk and teacher questions constitute
a key component of teacher talk. Typical school conversations
involve initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) cycles (Cazden, 2001;
Mehan, 2001, 1979), as illustrated in the following dialog:
Teacher: What is the name of the closest star to the earth? (initiation)
Student: The sun (response)
Teacher: Very good (evaluation)
The teacher initiates an interaction, often with a question, the
student responds, and the teacher evaluates the response before
making another initiation. Unfortunately, this kind of interaction
is typical in U.S. classroom contexts and is generally expected by
both teachers and students.
A great deal has been written about the dominance of this kind
of exchange and about its negative results in terms of the kinds of
questions asked (often recall of factual information), the limitations
for student participation (only one student at a time), and learning
(low-level factual knowledge). If, in addition, there is a short wait
timeless than 3 s (Blosser, 2000; Rowe, 1978) then most students
do not engage in thinking about the question asked unless directly
addressed by the teacher. The brevity in wait time and the type of
exchange that occurs is often linked to teachers asking questions
to which they already know the answer. Lemke (1982) indicated
that when teachers ask questions they know the answers to, the
entire lesson can be seen as an interactional transformation of a
lecture. The teacher could have given a lecture, yet instead trans-
formed it into IRE sequences to keep students attention and check
for understanding.
In their study of teacher questioning patterns in primary schools,
Wragg and Brown (2001) found that 53% of the questions teachers
asked are standalone questions while 47% were part of a sequence
of two or more questions. Of this 47%, only 10% were part of a
sequence with four or more questions (Wragg & Brown, 2001). The
prevalence of the IRE sequence in science classrooms is particularly
problematic since it runs counter to inquiry-based instructional
approaches and because it is often used by teachers who work
with culturally and linguistically diverse as well as economically
disadvantaged students (Cazden, 2001). It follows that by using
this kind of intellectual hide-n-seek (Beghetto, 2013) found in
IRE sequences, teachers potentially limit all students, particularly
economically disadvantaged and emergent bilinguals (students
learning English as an additional language), opportunities to think
and talk in extended ways about their ideas, questions, and inter-
ests.
Much of the early work on classroom discourse has focused on
the ways in which teachers and students construct the norms of
communication in the classroom and how these often-implied rules
for verbal interactions enhance or limit students opportunities to
talk science (Lemke, 1990). Research on teacher questions has gar-
nered important insight into the nature and practice of classroom
inquiry.
1.2. The nature of questions, typologies, and teacher questions
Gadamer (1991) argued, the essence of the question is to open
up possibilities and keep them open (p. 299). With the under-
standing that questions afford possibilities and potentially function
as scaffolding tools for learning, it is no wonder that questions
and questioning have been a source of continued research. Ear-
lier research analyzed the philosophy of the question (Gadamer,
1991; Meyer, 1988) and the role of the question within a vari-
ety of contexts exploring questions and hierarchical taxonomies
as well as typologies (Bloom, 1956; Chin, 2006, 2007; Gall, 1970).
Hierarchical typologies were further explored, constructing under-
standings on the epistemology and function of open and closed
questions (Blosser, 1991; Carr, 1998; Kearsley, 1976; Long & Sato,
1983), which inuenced how we envision productive discussions
in classrooms (Cavagnetto, 2010; Lustick, 2010; Mortimer & Scott,
2003; van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, & Wild, 2001; van Zee &
Minstrell, 1997).
The substantial number of taxonomies, classications, labels
and varieties of questions risks compromising transferability to
classroom contexts. However, because teacher questions are such
an important component of classroom talk and because they shape
students ways of knowing and being, understanding just how
questions are used in teaching and learning contexts is paramount
in maximizing their usefulness in classrooms. In fact, Meyer (1988)
suggests the nature of scientic inquiry is a means to advance the
progression of science through the process of asking questions and
then answering them.
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in ques-
tioning in science classrooms. Five inuential studies deserve
attention. Gallas (1995) study on science talks in her combined
1st/2nd grade classroom brought to the forefront the value of
 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110
focusing on students ideas and questions during classroom dis-
cussions. In her classroom, apart from direct instruction and other
science activities and events, Gallas structured formal science talks
with students talking with each other, exchanging ideas, and col-
laborating in their attempts to understand scientic concepts.
Gallas study underscores the need to look more carefully at how
students learn to talk and think like members of disciplinary com-
munities in response to careful questioning on the part of the
teacher.
Similarly, in a study of an engineering design unit in a
combined 4th/5th grade classroom, Roth (1996) explored how
teacher questioning was mediated by the situational social con-
text. Unlike many of the questions asked in classrooms, which
often have a preconceived answer, the teacher did not know
the answers to many of the open-ended question she asked. An
analysis of the content of the teachers questions and the ensu-
ing conversations indicated that the students were learning and
talking about knowledge of the natural world, design practice,
and testing of the designs. In this case, the kinds of questions
asked by the teacher served to increase student competence in
pertinent engineering knowledge, practices, and accompanying
language. The study also illustrates the power of authentic ques-
tions posed by teachers as a means of initiating inquiry-oriented
science.
Likewise, van Zee and Minstrell (1997) provided a case study of
an exemplary physics teacher who used questions to engage stu-
dents with scientic knowledge. In this study, the teacher used a
questioning method called reective toss. Unlike the IRE sequence,
a reective toss invited students into the conversation by building
on an initial student statement. A three-part dialogic exchange that
included a student statement, teacher question, and student elabo-
ration expanded the dialog and served three main goals: to engage
students in a proposed method offered by a student, to begin rene-
ment process of a previously discussed method, and to assess an
alternative method.
Chin (2006), in her study of questioning in a science middle
school classroom in Singapore, found that when teachers decreased
the number of authoritative oriented questions (e.g., explicit evalu-
ation or put-downs) in favor of dialogically oriented questions (e.g.,
acknowledgment of students contributions, posing subsequent
questions that built on students earlier responses, and restate-
ments of students earlier answers), teachers were able to promote
productive talk activity in students at a level beyond mere recall
(p. 1343).
More recently, a study that focused on teacher-student dis-
course during Pre-K science activities, with particular attention
to teacher questioning, Lee and Kinzie (2012) found that teachers
asked mostly open-ended questions. However, during experiments
teachers open-ended questions were aimed at prediction and
reasoning. In these instances, students employed a more varied
vocabulary and more complex sentence structures. In other words,
when teacher questions were oriented toward prediction and rea-
soning, students practiced both a higher level of cognition as well
as language use.
The above studies afford a moment-by-moment view across
events, lessons, and science units and allude to science classrooms
as potentially rich discourse spaces (Lee et al., 2013; Mortimer &
Scott, 2003; Tan & Wong, 2012) with questions that can shape the
type of talk that occurs (Chin, 2007). To further understand how
teacher questions can support elementary students, including lin-
guistically and culturally diverse students, as they learn both the
content and the language of science, this paper describes and ana-
lyzes the questions asked by one teacher during one instructional
unit on rocks and minerals.
3
2. Research context and science unit
2.1. Methods
This paper is part of a larger ethnographic (see Hornberger,
1994), sociolinguistic (Bloome & Clark, 2006; Erickson, 2006a;
Ernst-Slavit & Mason, 2011; Green & Wallat, 1981) and multi-site
(Coleman & von Hellerman, 2013) study that sought to unpack the
different patterns of interaction, registers, teacher talk and teacher
questions used by teachers during content area instruction in upper
elementary classrooms in the Pacic Northwest (Ernst-Slavit &
Mason, 2011; Mason & Ernst-Slavit, 2010).
The larger study involved eight classrooms in three school dis-
tricts. Classrooms selected met the following criteria: were 4th
or 5th grade; included at least 5 emergent bilingual students;
and had a classroom teacher with at least 5 years of teaching
experience and advanced specialization in teaching emergent bilin-
guals. All educators were middle class, native-English speaking,
European-American women who were highly regarded by peers
and administrators. Data was collected during the 20092014 aca-
demic years and included individual interviews with teachers,
classroom observations, video and audio recordings, photographs,
and eld notes. One or two researchers at a time video- and audio-
recorded complete content area units in mathematics, science and
social studies. Units lasted between one to six weeks. The rea-
son for selecting this particular unit for analysis was threefold:
(1) when data was collected, very few fourth grade teachers were
teaching complete science units, due partly to state standards and
assessments that stressed English language arts and mathemat-
ics instruction; (2) given the large number of students with home
languages other than English, we ere interested in exploring how
students were able to keep up with a fast-talking instructor; and
(3) due to the importance of asking questions in science class-
rooms, this one unit offered abundant material. Microanalysis of the
data was guided by an interactive sociolinguistic perspective (e.g.,
Bloome & Clark, 2006; Ernst-Slavit, 1997; Ernst-Slavit & Mason,
2011; Green & Wallat, 1981; Gumperz, 1982; Hymes, 1981). This
detailed analysis of participants interactions in naturally occurring
events provided a principled approach for freezing, reconstructing,
and analyzing recurrent events.
2.2. Fine-grained analysis of teacher questions
Once video- and audio-recordings were mapped out (Green
& Wallat, 1981), transcribed, and coded (see transcription con-
ventions in Appendix A), an inductive analysis was performed
(Erickson, 2006b) to identify interactional patterns, themes, and
categories of analysis (i.e., types of questions). After repeated
readings of the data by both authors, initial categories were for-
mulated about questioning sequences and types of questions asked
by teachers and students. On the transcripts, teachers utterances
that contained a grammatical form of a question (e.g., beginning
with interrogative words, such as, can, could, do, does, how, what,
when, where, why, who, are, am, is) or ended with a rising intona-
tion (e.g., other comments?) were labeled. On some occasions,
requests took the form of a statement (e.g., please elaborate on
that or compare. . .). In these cases, contextual cues (e.g., prior
exchanges, body language) extracted from video recording view-
ing or transcript analysis as well as paralinguistic markers such as
intonation, pacing, volume and inexion used by the teacher were
taken into account to determine whether the message required an
action on the part of the students. Those same contextual cues were
key in the categorization of questions, when distinctions were not
4 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110
Table 1
Question categories, purpose, and illustrative examples.a
Category Purpose
Higher Order Questions To encourage students to analyze, make
generalizations, or infer
Parlance Questions To prompt the use of genre specic ways of speaking
the language of the discipline
Reective Questions To promote discussion, generally following students
answers; to stimulate student thinking; to encourage
students to modify, conrm or contemplate their
thinking
Display Questions To check retention of prior knowledge or recall
previously stated information; to maintain student
engagement
Managerial Questions To keep the classroom operations moving; to redirect
actions and behaviors
a
Arranged from more frequent to less frequent.
clear-cut. For example, a question like Why do you think that?
could have been coded as higher order or reective. If, however,
the question was part of a sequence and was used as a follow up
to another question or in response to a prior response by a stu-
dent, it was coded as reective. Questions were coded and re-coded
and initial categories were revised as a result of several rounds of
analysis and are summarized in Table 1.
To illustrate how these different types of questions appear in
context, four segments are analyzed in the remainder of this paper.
Segment 1 provides an extended interaction illustrating how ques-
tions were classied according to their purpose and in relation to
the context.
2.3. Participants, context and unit of instruction
This study focuses on one fourth-grade classroom in a high-
poverty elementary school located in a suburban neighborhood
in the Pacic Northwest. In this uniquely diverse classroom there
were 24 students (10 girls and 14 boys) including six emergent
bilingual students receiving ELL (English language learning) ser-
vices whose rst languages were Romanian, Russian, Spanish and
Ukranian. In addition, seven students spoke a language other than
English at home and had been either exited from the ELL pro-
gram or never received ELL support. Their families home countries
included Cambodia, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, and Tonga. In this
classroom, three students were experiencing homelessness during
the time of the study and four students were receiving additional
learning support.
The teacher, Ms. Christensen (pseudonyms are used through-
out), had over 10 years of teaching experience, had a masters degree
in education, and certication and extensive professional develop-
ment in teaching emergent bilinguals. During the time of the study
she was a half-time teacher in this fourth grade classroom and a
half-time ELL coach for her district. Ms. Christensen taught science,
math, and social studies. A second teacher focused on literacy. In
addition, students received additional assistance from two support
staff personnel who came to the classroom for 30 min daily.
The classroom, decorated with student work and collabora-
tively created charts, maps, songs, and graphs, was situated as an
annex of the hallway dened by partitions. Students were seated
in table groups labeled by color with baskets of supplies placed
Examples
If you were a scientist, because you are all geologists right now, how would
you gure out which mineral is which?
What is your evidence for that? Where did you get your ideas?
How do we know. . .how do we know where the rim of re is located?
Which mountain is older. . .? Why do you think that mountain A is probably
younger?
What is the Latin root in the word geologist?
How do we put this in a good sentence?
So when it says rocks versus minerals, are these guys ghting?
So to make that correct, you would have to put something at the beginning of
the sentence, what would it be?
Why do you think that?
How do you know that you are seeing different minerals?
Why do you disagree?
Your thinking is not necessarily awed, I just want you to go deeper. . .
So what is our signal word?
You all talked about properties in third grade, right?
Which one is heavier?
Its igneous rock which means its formed where, Sheila?
May I have your attention?
Is that showing respect?
Has everybody nished in your groups?
Who is your spokesperson?
in the middle of each table. Gathering spaces were located in the
front of the room where students could sit on the carpet and in
the back of the room where the class moved to sing songs, collect
experiment materials, and wash their hands. The classroom was
often full of energy coming from the students and their teacher
and had students entering and exiting for a variety of reasons
throughout the day.
The earth science unit on rocks and minerals spanned a six-week
period and consisted of ten lessons. Each lesson lasted an average of
one hour although the length varied from 32 min to 1 h 27 min. The
science unit was designed for students to study rocks, including
rock properties, rock cycles, rock classications, rock formations,
scientists who study rocks, and how rocks inuence our world
today. No science textbook was used for this unit although there
were about 70 books in a bookstand lled with informational, c-
tion, and non-ction books related to the science unit. The teacher
also used a Foss science kit (i.e., research based science program
for grades K-8 developed with support from the National Science
Foundation) for this unit.
The structure of the observed unit can be divided into three
types of interactive contexts: carpet time, table groups, and expert
groups. Carpet time served as a gathering place for the whole class
to sit on the oor and participate in lectures, think-pair-share,
or shared writing. Multiple visual aids, including charts, books,
graphic organizers about rocks, minerals, and land formations
were used. In addition, teacher and students used rocks, minerals,
and tools during this time. Table groups were formed by the
grouping of four or ve desks in a cluster and labeled by color.
These groups, which changed every 46 weeks, were also used for
other content areas. Each group included children with different
levels of English language prociency and from different language
and cultural backgrounds. Expert groups met with the teacher to
gain in-depth knowledge of a topic and to share that knowledge
with their table partners. As part of the expert group, students read
expert texts, manipulated physical evidence under the supervision
of the teacher, worked on graphic organizers and lab reports, were
asked many questions by the teacher and, in turn, they also asked
questions to teacher and peers. Once they became experts, each
student taught their peers at their table groups. Throughout the
unit all students were part of an expert group at least once. In
addition to these three interactive contexts, teacher and students
 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110
used different parts of the classroom to sing songs, recite chants,
use measuring tools to gather data, and write questions and
observations on posters and charts. Examples of activities for this
unit include: separating components of mock rocks by taking them
apart, dissolving parts in water or using evaporation; observing,
describing and recording properties of minerals; analyzing the
minerals that are in granite; sorting objects according to proper-
ties; observing and recording results from a variety of experiments
conducted with rocks, discussing scientic terminology, sharing
information with and asking questions to peers in the group and
at times with teacher.
3. Results
Data analysis indicates that the teacher in this study, through
a variety of interactive contexts and grouping formats, asked a
large number of questions, which she used to engage students in
higher order thinking and to facilitate students understanding of
the genre specic ways of speaking and knowing science. Each of
these aspects is explained below.
3.1. Teacher asked a large number of questions
Prior research indicates that teachers ask, on an average day,
between 300 and 400 questions (Leven & Long, 1981). When not
used appropriately, a large number of questions can be potentially
excessive (e.g., Schiller & Joseph, 2010); however, when focused
and intentional, teacher questions are an important way of pro-
viding the scaffolding for students to articulate their thinking
(Rosenshine, 2012). As evidenced in Fig. 1, Ms. Christensen asked
a total of 1207 questions over the course of the unit, averaging
about 120 questions per hour during approximately 10 h of science
instruction.
Such a large amount of questions during a single unit alone
might suggest the dominance of teacher talk leaving no room for
student-to-teacher and student-to-student interaction. However,
in the context of this study, that was not the case. As mentioned
earlier, the teacher used a variety of interactive contexts and activ-
ities, such as think-pair-share, table groups, expert groups, talk
through the answer with a neighbor, and raise-your-hand-if-you-
agree-with the-answer-that-someone-gave. In many instances her
questions were directed to a small group of students, for example,
during expert group discussions.
An important characteristic of Ms. Christensens talk is her fast-
paced speech, which allows her to pack more words in a short
time. Ms. Christensen used different wait times ranging from less
than one second to eight seconds with an occasional long pause of
Fig. 1. Number of questions per lesson.
5
Fig. 2. Percentage of teacher questions by category throughout the unit.
1015 s. An average wait time for Ms. Christensen following one of
her initiated questions was just less than three and a half seconds.
While asking a large number of questions can be both a strength
and a potential risk, the analysis indicates that nearly two thirds of
the teacher questions asked throughout the unit centered around
the content and the parlance of science. In other words and as indi-
cated in Fig. 2, 29% of the questions were classied as higher order,
28% of the questions focused on the language of science (parlance),
and 15% were reective. The remaining questions asked during
this unit were categorized as display (14%) and managerial (14%)
questions.
Of the substantial number of questions covered by Ms.
Christensen for the science unit, the two largest categories of
questionshigher order and parlanceshed light on pertinent seg-
ments of classroom interaction.
3.2. Teacher asked predominantly higher order questions
Twenty-nine percent of questions asked by Ms. Christensen
were categorized as higher order, that is, questions that asked stu-
dents to go beyond the mere recall of facts, inviting them to analyze,
make generalizations or inferences during an investigation, dis-
cussion of a text, or debrieng of a lm. Many of these questions
were posed during whole-class discussion, when Ms. Christensen
presented a question or a challenge for students and then asked
students to turn and talkto confer with their partnerin order
to expand their thinking and understanding, as in the following
vignette (Segment 1).
After a busy week doing science where students completed two
investigations with their rocks and their daily write in their science
journal, Ms. Christensen read aloud a class-made book about ero-
sion and asked students to make predictions and back them up
with evidence and build on your schema. As it will be apparent
in Segment 1, this teacher used her questioning to push student
thinking beyond their rst answers and to expand or provide evi-
dence to their claims. Segment 1 depicts the interaction that ensued
after Ms. Christensen called the whole class to the carpet and pre-
sented them with the challenge of deciding which mountain is
older, the taller, more pointed Mountain B or the smaller, smooth
and rounded Mountain A. Students had the opportunity to turn and
talk and in the segment below they were sharing the results of their
conversations with the whole class.
Within this discursive space, the teacher used questions to
extend student explanations by probing and soliciting additional
information from initial student responses. This example is indica-
tive of the daily interactional norms within the classroom where
students engage in sense-making discussions. When students pro-
vided an answer, Ms. Christensen followed up with an additional
question. In the above example, Ms. Christensen encouraged stu-
dents to tell her more, to explain why they said what they
6 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110

Segment 1. Which Mountain is older?

Turn Speaker Talk/Questions Context Purpose of
Question
1. Teacher WHAT OUR JOB IS, IS TO FIGURE OUT WHICH MOUNTAIN IS Students form four Higher order
OLDER. IS IT MOUNTAIN A OR IS IT MOUNTAIN B? YOU NEED groups based on
TO GET INTO FOUR GROUPS AND COME UP WITH WHY DO YOU their predictions
THINK THE WAY YOU THINK?
2. Students {different students talking} In groups for 2.5
minutes
3. Teacher WHY DO YOU [] THINK THAT MOUNTAIN A IS PROBABLY Pointing to the Higher order
YOUNGER? larger group of
students
4. Joshua I think its cause its shorter and its smoother.
5. Teacher SO YOU THINK ITS YOUNGER BECAUSE ITS SHORTER AND Reective
SMOOTHER. WHY DO YOU THINK ITS BECAUSE ITS SMOOTHER?
6. Joshua Cause isnt it like a smaller mountain []
7. Teacher ERICA, WHAT DO YOU HAVE? Related to Q in turn Higher order
1
8. Erica Well I thought it, mountain A was younger than mountain B
because mountain B could have been have started out like
mountain A but then over the years like things could have built
onto the mountain and made it bigger.
9. Teacher OK, SO YOURE SAYING [] MOUNTAIN A IS YOUNGER PROBABLY Reective
THAN MOUNTAIN B BECAUSE ITS BEEN CHOPPED DOWN.
OK, TELL ME MORE.
10. Erica Maybe mountain B started out like mountain A then over the
years mountain B like had things built onto it like lava and stuff
that would make it bigger.
11. Teacher AND THAT WOULD MAKE IT BIGGER? Reective
12. Erica Yeah, and then maybe mountain A just formed [].
13. Teacher OK, SO YOUR IDEA IS THAT MAYBE MOUNTAIN A JUST FORMED. Higher order
WHATS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THAT?
WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR IDEAS?
14. Erica Cause mountain A is like smaller and it looks smooth.
15. Teacher SO ITS A LOT LIKE WHAT JOSHUA SAID, ITS SMALLER. OK. Managerial
LAST GROUP OVER HERE, WHOS YOUR SPOKESPERSON?
JAZMIN, WHATS YOUR THOUGHTS? Higher order
16. Jazmin We thought, my group thought that the tectonic plates crashed Long pause
together []
17. Teacher UH OH, SO WE DONT HAVE AN OPINION YET? Reective
18. Jazmin We do but
19. Teacher WHATS THE GROUPS OPINION? Higher order
20. Rod Um, um that it was shorter.
21. Teacher OK, SO AGAIN IT COMES DOWN TO HOW TALL IT IS. OK LETS HEAR Reective
FROM DIMAS AND JELENA.
YOU GUYS THINK THAT MOUNTAIN B IS ACTUALLY YOUNGER
BECAUSE YOU THINK MOUNTAIN A IS OLDER. WHY?
22. Jelena Because mountain A might have been as big as mountain B but
like rain and stuff wore it down.
23. Teacher OK, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THATS CALLED WHEN RAIN AND Display
STUFF WHEN IT DOES THAT?
24. Jelena Erosion
25. Teacher EROSION IS PART OF IT. DO YOU REMEMBER THE OTHER WORD Parlance
THAT GOES WITH IT?
26. Jelena Weathering
27. Teacher WEATHERING. [] VERY GOOD. OK, WEATHERING. SO THATS YOUR Teacher looking at Reective
CRITERIA. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION OR THOSE different students
IDEAS?
28. Jorge Cause it looks smooth.
29. Teacher OK, YOU [] THINK IT MIGHT BE THE SAME AGE. WHY? Higher order
30. Jorge Because maybe . . . I kind of agree with Megan that the erosion and
the eruption made it smaller, but I think its the same age because
maybe. . . it was as tall as mountain B but when it like went boom
that some of the parts that made it as big as it maybe just came off.
31. Teacher OK, WHAT DID YOU THINK VIKTOR? Responds to Higher order
Viktors eye
contact, even
though he is not a
spokesperson
32. Viktor I thought (the mountains were the same age) because the tectonic
plates were crashing at the same time.
33. Teacher OK, SO YOU THINK BECAUSE THEYRE FORMED BY THE SAME
PLATES THEYRE JUST FORMED THAT WAY AND ONES NOT AS
TALL AS THE OTHER. OK. HAVE A SEAT AT THE CARPET. I AM NOT
GOING TO TELL YOU THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW, WE ARE GOING
TO COME BACK TO IT LATER TODAY.
 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110 7

said while abstaining from providing feedback as to the correct Kalib Yeah, whats the colors?
answer (turns 5, 9 and 13). Obtaining the correct answer was not It looks like theres glass. It looks like it has layers of um [].
Jadra And the texture?
the goal (as stated later in turn 33), but rather facilitating students Kalib Its soft. The color, black and white. And well this is heavy, with
thinking, wondering and hypothesizing. Via the use of questions, the sides []
the teacher asked for evidence (turn 13), restated and probed (turns Alex Um. . .black and white and the brown under the white. The
11, 25), restated and invited elaboration (turn 27), and extended the bottom, it is smooth on the bottom. [] size. Here you go, its
your turn. Its your turn
conversation by inviting other students (turns 27, 31). In this par-
Kalib Okay, texture
ticular case, she called on Viktor (turn 31) after recognizing that Brian Very soft
Viktor, an emergent bilingual, was making eye contact with her Jadra Soft and bumpy
but was not offering to participate. Even in inquiry-based science Kalib Color
classrooms, reluctant and often marginalized students can remain Brian Blue and white

in the periphery without a concerted, yet subtle, intervention by

the teacher (Schiller & Joseph, 2010).
In the above segment, Ms. Christensen encouraged students to Important to highlight is that, with the exception of Jadra, the
compare the two mountains and facilitated student learning on four other students in this group speak a language other than
how to provide explanations while they participated in a low-risk English at home. Similar to the ndings in Roths (1996) study of a
environment where students shared and defended their ideas. The Grade 4/5 engineering unit, students in this classroom are learning
use of open-ended questions, such as Why do you think the way how to participate in conversations, how to ask and answer ques-
you think? (turn 1), Tell me more (turn 9), Whats your evidence tions, and how to provide evidence for their assertions. In essence
for that? Where did you get your ideas? (turn 13), are ways of they are learning about the properties of rocks while learning the
pumping and encouraging students to provide more information parlance of science.
and foster student talk (Chin, 2007). Ultimately, the teacher ends
this discussion with I am not going to tell you the answer right 3.3. Teacher questions modeled and encouraged genre specic
now (turn 33) and revisited the topic later that day. ways of talking science
This kind of science talk (Gallas, 1995) builds students concep-
tual understanding, engages students with scientic knowledge, During this science unit, 28% of the questions asked by the
and sustains their passion for science (Ballenger, 2003; Rosebery & teacher were classied as parlance questions, that is, questions that
Ballenger, 2008). Students were able to successfully conduct inves- focused on learning about the language of science. These questions
tigations and subsequent discussions using the language of science. were directed to help students notice and use different features
For example, when students were learning about properties of of talking science, such as, asking questions that emerge based
rocks while sitting on the carpet, Ms. Christensen held different on their interests or misunderstandings, producing language that
rocks and asked one or two questions in relation to their prop- is precise and concise, and understanding discourse patterns, syn-
erties. Students then discussed their answers in small groups and tactical features, and specialized vocabulary that characterize the
reported to the whole class. Examples of the teacher questions that language of science (Gottlieb & Ernst-Slavit, 2014; Snow, 2010).
guided this conversation included: If you were holding this rock, Throughout the unit Ms. Christensen and her students created
what would you also be able to tell? So it could be something transition words, chants, tables, charts, maps, and posters that
about how heavy, but do you have a scale? Is there a smell? Its allowed students to hear, see, and practice using genre specic
a tinier rock, but its almost as heavy, isnt it? What did you guys ways of speaking on a daily basis. In the next segment, the students
say for shape? What did you notice about this one? Can you had just nished reading and singing a chant about what geologists
be more specic than that? Weve got, its pointy, is that color, do. Students then transitioned to the front carpet to construct, via
size or texture? Its bumpy and its smooth, is that . . .? Its very discussion, a class understanding about geologists. The students
holey, is that color, size or texture? Some of the parts are bumpy gathered around the white board as the teacher wrote their ideas
and some are smooth, is that. . .? The rock is rough and smooth on chart paper.
at the same time, is that . . .? So what is it that has layers? Do
18 T WHAT DID WE DECIDE A GEOLOGIST IS? JADRA.
the colors have layers? Do you think the properties of a meta-
19 Jadra A scientist that studies rocks.
morphic and an igneous and a sedimentary rock are the same or 20 T A SCIENTIST THAT STUDIES ROCKS. DOES ANYBODY
are they different? During this extended discussion teacher and 21 DISAGREE WITH THAT? (a few students raise their
students negotiated a denition of properties as used to describe hands.)
the characteristics, including color, size, and texture of an object 22 T YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT. OK, WHAT IS IT?
23 Jov A scientist that studies the earth.
and verbalized descriptive terms such as heavy, rough, dark, 24 T A SCIENTIST WHO STUDIES THE EARTH.
and grainy and concepts such as layers, weathering, texture, 25 Dimitri Or digs rocks up its the same thing.
and reectivity. 26 T OH, THATS INTERESTING THAT YOU WOULD SAY
The next brief segment took place during the ensuing table THAT. LETS
27 TAKE A LOOK AT THIS WORD. OK, GEO. THE WORD
group conversation that followed the above large group discussion.
OLOGY
Students were tasked to discuss the properties of the rock she had 28 MEANS SCIENCE. OK? THE WORD IST MEANS A
put on their tables. Using magnifying glasses, nails, and glass plates, PERSON.
students gathered in their small groups and began examining each 29 NOT THE WORD, THE SUFFIX IST MEANS A PERSON.
of their rocks. NOW, SO
30 WE HAVE. . .YEAH, THATS RIGHT. BUT WE HAVE THIS
Jadra I noticed that this surface is a [] stone because it goes around. It PREFIX
goes around and around and around 31 OVER HERE THATS GEO. NOW SOME OF YOU ARE
Kalib But, I have a question, does it go black, white, black, white, or SAYING
does it go black one color, white? 32 THAT GEO, IF YOURE USING THIS AS A GUIDE HERE,
Jadra No the [] stones, it can just be one color. The different colors, THAT
its white you know []. It is very soft and the color is white and 33 YOUR GEO IS SAYING NO THATS ROCKS. AND SOME
[] its bumpy like, right here, and it goes around OF YOU
Chris I see texture. I see its like heavy 34 ARE SAYING EARTH. {separates each afx}
8 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110

35 Ss Earth and rocks. Both. No its both. [Additional In the above segment, after Ms. Christensen asked Paul and
inaudible comments] Omar to share their sentence, she modeled active listening and
36 T AND SOME OF YOU ARE SAYING THAT EARTH IS
ROCKS.
revoiced (lines 32930) for students what was just said. In revoic-
37 Ss Yes. Yeah it is. The crust, inner core and outer core. ing, Ms. Christensen acknowledged and validated Omars answer.
[Additional In addition, she posed intentional and specic questions to posi-
38 inaudible comments] tion students to listen and reect on their own language use (lines
39 T WELL HERES YOUR ANSWER. ITS, SO LITERALLY, THE
330332). More specically, in lines 334 and 335, Ms. Christensen
LATIN,
40 CAUSE THIS IS ALL LATIN, THESE ARE ALL LATIN did not allow Omar to merely state the indenite article and restate
ROOTS. THIS the noun, she encouraged Omar to fulll the stated request of com-
41 WORD LITERALLY MEANS A PERSON WHO ing up with a meaningful, accurate, and complete sentence which
STUDIES. . .OH, he did when he stated A geologist studies rocks and minerals
42 THATS RIGHT. THIS MEANS SCIENCE STUDY, I KNEW
(line 336). Additionally, Ms. Christensen assisted students in the
THERE
43 WAS SOMETHING MISSING. ITS A PERSON WHO construction of complete sentences by asking the class to assess
STUDIES THE if the sentence is complete (line 337) and accurate (line 339). The
44 EARTH. THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF segment above not only illustrates students learning a common
45 GEOLOGISTS. THERE ARE PALEONTOLOGISTS. THERE
language function in school, dene, but also learning the craft of
ARE
46 SEISMOLOGISTS. critical listeninga much needed skill in 21st century classrooms.
47 Kabir Meteorologist. Students success using the science parlance is also evident in
48 T METEOROLOGISTS ARE ACTUALLY IN A SLIGHTLY their writing. For example, when Paul, a student who receives
DIFFERENT special education services, was asked to compare extrusive and
49 CATEGORY.
intrusive rocks, he wrote, Extrusive rocks are formed outside of
50 Jasha Volcano-ologist
51 T VOLCANOLOGIST, WHICH IS A VOLCANO-OLOGIST. SO earth, intrusive rocks are formed inside of earth. Olga, a Russian
52 THERES LOTS OF THOSE. student with less than a year in the United States, described her
The exchange continued with students playfully offering their igneous rocks, My rocks are formed when lava cools down and
invented words such as, rock-ologist and student-ologist. changes into solid rocks. While Amarilis, who arrived from Mexico
The previous segment illustrates how Ms. Christensen encour- at the beginning of the school year, described her rock as: Are [Our]
aged students to grapple with What does a geologist do? In the rock is shaped like a heart. Are [Our] rock is 2 inches and tall and
process, she made students aware of the morphology of scientic 3 inches wide. My rock is not hevy [heavy]. My rock is rufe [rough].
words. After allowing students to ponder upon the denition of As James Britton (1970) put it so powerfully, Reading and writing
geologist (line 19: a person who studies rocks), instead of pro- oat on a sea of talk (p. 11). When students know how to express
viding students with a denition (e.g., a person who studies the their thinking orally, they will more likely and perhaps effortlessly
physical aspects of the Earth), Ms. Christensen helped students produce writing.
arrive at a denition by analyzing the morphology of geologist
and pointing out to the meaning of the Latin root geo as earth 4. Conclusions and implications
and to the sufx ologist to refer to a person who studies science.
Ms. Christensens practice reveals a belief that all her students, This study focused on the quality and quantity of teacher ques-
regardless of their language background, need to be cognizant of the tions during a six-week rocks and minerals instructional unit in a
specialized language of the content areas. She also knows that in 4th grade classroom. Central to our project was the ways in which
her planning she needs to be very deliberate and include language this classroom teacher used questions not following an IRE pat-
objectives that go beyond teaching ten vocabulary words. Recent tern but fostering collaborative interactions and creating spaces for
research indicates that educators often equate academic language students voices and student-to-student conversations. Findings in
as challenging vocabulary or hard words (Ernst-Slavit & Mason, this study contribute to prior work on teacher questioning in sci-
2011; Wong Fillmore & Fillmore, 2012). However, disciplinary lan- ence classrooms by examining questions in the context of a diverse
guage involves more than word lists. classroom located in a low-income neighborhood where slightly
This kind of attention to the teaching and learning of the par- over half of the students spoke a language other than English at
lance of science is exemplied in the segment below. In this home.
instance, the teacher swayed students to apply their recently Findings in this paper can be summarized as follows: First,
acquired understanding of geologists to create a meaningful, accu- the teacher asked a large number of questions, averaging about
rate, and complete sentence for their explanations. Ms. Christensen 120 questions per hour during approximately 10 hours of science
asked students to come up with a sentence that uses geologist in instruction. While the high number of questions might imply the
a meaningful way. Prior to this interaction, students had an oppor- dominance of teacher talk, the nature of her questions was student
tunity to share their own denitions of geologist by talking to their focused and higher-order oriented. Second, 29% of teacher ques-
neighbor during a turn and talk exchange. tions were higher order in nature, that is, they asked students to
go beyond the mere recall of facts or to support their statements
327 T PAUL AND OMAR, WHAT WAS YOUR SENTENCE? with evidence. Third, 15% of teacher questions were classied as
328 Omar Um. . .geologist studies rocks and minerals. reective, that is, questions that stimulate student thinking and
329 T OKAY, SO YOU SAID, GEOLOGIST STUDIES ROCKS AND encourage students to modify, conrm or contemplate their think-
330 MINERALS. SO TO MAKE THAT CORRECT, YOU WOULD
ing. Fourth, during this unit, 28% of teacher questions modeled
331 HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
332 SENTENCE, WHAT WOULD IT BE? and encouraged genre specic ways of talking science. The teacher
333 Omar A geologist. modeled good questioning skills in the class and encouraged stu-
334 T A GEOLOGIST. WILL YOU FINISH YOUR SENTENCE, dents to raise a variety of questions. In addition, both teacher and
335 OMAR, PLEASE?
students paid close attention not only to the vocabulary but also to
336 Omar A geologist studies rocks and minerals.
337 T IS THAT A COMPLETE SENTENCE? the grammatical and discourse features that characterize the lan-
338 Ss Yes! guage of science, including how to produce complete sentences
339 T IS IT ACCURATE? that are accurate and meaningful. The remaining teacher questions
340 Ss Yes! were categorized as display and managerial.
 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110
Throughout the unit, the teacher provided ongoing opportuni-
ties for all her students, including emergent bilinguals, to bounce
ideas off each other as they interacted with each other, with the
texts they read, and with the materials (e.g., rocks, fossils), just as
professional scientists do (Kelly, 2007). Similarly to related studies,
the kinds of questions asked by the teacher served to increase com-
petence in the topic (e.g., Roth, 1996; van Zee & Minstrell, 1997) and
in the pertinent practices and accompanying language (e.g., Chin,
2006; Lee & Kinzie, 2012; Roth, 1996).
Several implications can be derived from this study. First, this
study contributes to current research on classroom discourse by
highlighting the types of questions asked by one teacher, their fre-
quency, purpose, and the context in which they are asked. Our study
corroborates the centrality of classroom discourse in knowledge
construction (e.g., Kelly, 2014) and the predominance of teacher
talk (e.g., Cazden, 2001; Mercer & Dawes, 2014).
Second, this work illustrates the nature of sustained, thought-
ful, and meaningful conversations about science in classrooms
with large number of emergent bilinguals and low-income stu-
dents. Science classrooms can be rich language-learning as well as
science-learning environments, provided that teachers ensure that
emergent bilinguals are supported to participate (Lee et al., 2013).
If we want to increase the number of diverse students entering
careers in science and engineering, all teachers, including content
area teachers, will need to be prepared to support the language and
academic needs and strengths of a growing population of linguisti-
cally and culturally diverse students. Further studies are needed
in rich content-area classrooms that reect the diversity of the
students that populate twenty-rst century U.S. schools.
Although questions are prevalent in classrooms, the skill of
asking questions is more nuanced and complex than educators
may realize. Educators at all grade levels need to be aware of the
types of questions they are asking, their frequency, sequencing,
and the wait time that transpires between the time the question
is asked and a students answer. As van Zee and colleagues posit,
questions that probe students ideas, can encourage students to
make their reasoning explicit and available for discussion and
reection by the classroom community, resulting in both student
and teacher learning (2001).
Educators can learn much from discovering how they use lan-
guage and what messages they send to students. Teacher Language
Awareness (TLA) is an area of increasing interest in teacher profes-
sional development, particularly for educators working with emer-
gent bilinguals. This movement, rooted in the United Kingdom,
proposes that an understanding of the language used by classroom
teachers and the ability to analyze it will contribute directly to
teaching effectiveness (Andrews, 2007). General language mind-
fulness includes: (a) awareness of the properties of language, its
creativity and playfulness (e.g., double meanings, homophones);
(b) awareness of the embedding of language within culture (e.g.,
most jokes dont translate to other languages); (c) awareness of
the forms of the language we use (e.g., languages have rules and
exceptions, most are arbitrary); and (d) awareness of the close rela-
tionship between language and ideology (e.g., we see the world
through our language) (Ernst-Slavit & Wenger, 2016). Beyond the
purview of questions, a teacher can benet students, particularly
English learners, by approaching language in a mindful manner.
Such awareness is concurrent with the introspective nature of
teaching itself, as instructors consider not only the content, but
also the means by which ideas and learning itself are fostered.
Funding
This work was supported in part by a Washington State Univer-
sity Vancouver Faculty Research Grant. Earlier versions of this paper
9
were presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational
Research Association in Chicago, IL, April 2015 and the American
Association for Applied Linguistics in Toronto, Canada, March 2015.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the teacher and students who opened their
doors for this study. Our sincere thanks to Tamara Nelson, David
Slavit and Steven Morrison for their thoughtful feedback on earlier
versions of this paper, to the anonymous Linguistics and Education
reviewers for their helpful comments, and to Kate T. Anderson, for
her detailed and thoughtful editorial suggestions.
Appendix A. Transcription conventions
T teacher
Students several students speaking at once
XXX TEACHER TALK
xxxx students talk
bold emphasized for discussion
... pause
[] inaudible messages
{} nonverbal information
References
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Ballenger, C. (2003). The puzzling child: Challenging assumptions about participa-
tion and meaning in science. Language Arts, 81(4), 303311.
Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the
classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.
Bloome, D., & Clark, C. (2006). Discourse-in-use. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore
(Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 227242). Wash-
ington, DC: AERA.
Blosser, P. (1991). Ask the right questions. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers
Association.
Blosser, P. E. (2000). How to ask the right questions. Arlington, VA: National Science
Teachers Association.
Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Carr, D. (1998). The art of asking questions in the teaching of science. The School
Science Review, 79(289), 4750.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientic literacy: A review of argu-
ment interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80,
336371.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feed-
back to students responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11),
13151346.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimu-
late productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815843.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students ques-
tions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2),
230284.
Coleman, S., & von Hellerman, P. (2013). Multi-sited ethnography: Problems and pos-
sibilities in the translocation of research methods. New York: Routledge.
Erickson, F. (2006a). Culture in society and in educational practices. In J. Banks, &
C. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (3rd ed., pp.
3160). Hoboken, NJ: John WileyJossey Bass.
Erickson, F. (2006b). Denition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research
procedures and their rationales. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Com-
plementary methods for research in education (pp. 177192). Washington, DC:
AERA.
Ernst-Slavit, G. (1997). Different words, different worlds: Language use, power, and
authorized language in a bilingual classroom. Linguistics and Education, 9(1),
2547.
Ernst-Slavit, G., & Mason, M. (2011). Words that hold us up: Teacher talk and aca-
demic language in ve upper elementary classrooms. Linguistics and Education,
22, 430440.
Ernst-Slavit, G., & Wenger, K. (2016). Surrounded by water: Talking to learn in todays
classrooms. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52, 2834.
Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice ele-
mentary teachers mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 820839.
Gadamer, H. G. (1991). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall,
Trans.).(2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Corporation.
10 G. Ernst-Slavit, K.L. Pratt / Linguistics and Education 40 (2017) 110
Gall, M. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research,
40(5), 707721.
Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A
methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119169.
Gottlieb, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2014). Academic language in diverse classrooms: Con-
texts and denitions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Green, J. L., & Wallat, C. (Eds.). (1981). Ethnography and language in educational
settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hornberger, N. (1994). Ethnography. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 73103.
Hymes, D. (1981). Ethnographic monitoring. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & H. H. Au
(Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp.
3655). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kearsley, G. P. (1976). Questions and question asking in verbal discourse: A cross-
disciplinary review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(4), 355375.
Kelly, G. (2014). Discourse practices in science learning and teaching. In N. G. Leder-
man, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2) (pp.
321336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kelly, G. (2007). Scientic literacy, discourse, and knowledge. Promoting scientic
literacy: Science education research in transaction. In Proceedings of the Linnaeus
Tercentenary Symposium held at Uppsala University (pp. 4755).
Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard
to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40(6), 857874.
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valds, 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), 223233.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Lemke, J. L. (1982). Talking physics. Physics Education, 17, 263267.
Leven, T., & Long, R. (1981). Effective instruction. Washington DC: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and
functions of teachers questions. In H. W. Seliger, & M. H. Long (Eds.), Class-
room oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268285). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Long, J. J., van Es, E. A., & Black, R. W. (2013). Supervisor-student teacher interactions:
The role of conversational frames in developing a vision of ambitious teaching.
Linguistics and Education, 24, 179196.
Lustick, D. (2010). The priority of the question: Focus questions for sustained rea-
soning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 495511.
Mason, M., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2010). Representations of Native Americans in elemen-
tary school social studies: A critical look at instructional language. Multicultural
Education, 18(1), 1017.
Mehan, H. (2001). What time is it, Denise? Asking known information questions in
classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 28(4), 285294.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students,
from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430445.
Meyer, M. (Ed.). (1988). Questions and questioning. Berlin, Germany: Walter de
Gruyter & Co.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Rosebery, A. S., & Ballenger, C. (2008). Creating a foundation through student con-
versation. In A. Rosebery, & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language
learners (pp. 112). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all
teachers should know. American Educator, Spring, 1218, 39.
Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment:
Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 33, 709736.
Rowe, M. B. (1978). Teaching science as a continuous inquiry: A basic (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Schiller, E., & Joseph, J. (2010). A framework for facilitating equitable discourse in
science classrooms. Science Scope, February, 5660.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about
science. Science, 328, 450452.
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Lazke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science
and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39(8), 664687.
Tan, A.-L., & Wong, H.-M. (2012). Didnt Get Expected Answer, Rectify It.: Teaching
science content in an elementary science classroom using hands-on activities.
International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 197222.
Van Booven, C. D. (2015). Revisiting the authoritativedialogic tension in inquiry-
based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science
Education, 37(8), 11821201.
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and
teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(2), 159190.
van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227269.
Wong Fillmore, L., & Fillmore, C. (2012). What does text complexity mean
for English learners and language minority students. Understanding Lan-
guage,. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/what-does-text-
complexity-mean-english-learners-and-language-minority-students
Wragg, E. C., & Brown, G. (2001). Questioning in the primary school. London and New
York: Routledge Falmer.