STUDENT-DRIVEN INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION IN LUXEMBOURG PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTEXTS (original) (raw)

Abstract

This study examined the use of a student-driven inquiry-based science education instructional approach designed specifically to meet the contextualized needs of Luxembourg primary schools. The key issues, namely an increasing linguistically diverse student population and limited instructional time for science, were considered in the design of the instructional approach. Drawing on theories of dialogic inquiry, the instructional approach engages students in asking questions and designing investigations to build their science understanding. This interpretive qualitative study utilized a multi-perspective approach to analyse how teachers used the instructional approach in their classrooms and explored two overarching research questions, first, what instructional opportunities does Science Workshop, an inquiry-based student-driven science instructional approach, afford when used in Luxembourg primary classrooms? And second, what does analysis of interactions in these contexts reveal about inquiry-based science instruction in multilingual classrooms? Qualitative methodologies, specifically case studies of classroom implementation, were used to examine the use of the program teachers’ adaptations of the program in their classrooms. Bakhtinian notions of heteroglossia and dialogic pedagogies were used as lenses to examine the instructional opportunities afforded. Interaction analysis was used to examine instruction in a focal classroom when the inquiry-based approach was used. Analyses rooted in sociocultural theoretical frameworks of science and language learning revealed three key contributions toward the use of IBSE in Luxembourg primary schools. First, the key characteristics of teacher professional learning opportunities that supported teachers’ use of the program in Luxembourg, which included workshops, material support, and opportunities to share implementation cases were identified. Second, the ways in which ritualized instructional components afford students spaces to engage on micro-scales in building synchronous interactions during science investigations were revealed. Third, that the science notebooks can position students to engage in dialogic discussions surrounding science investigations was shown through detailed analysis. Taken together, these interrelated points contribute to an understanding of the use of student-driven instructional approaches in multilingual science classrooms in general, while revealing implications for the use of inquiry-based science instructional approaches in Luxembourg primary schools specifically.

Figures (57)

context in which I conducted this study. exhaustive, I present it here to summarize the wider policy and socio-historical

context in which I conducted this study. exhaustive, I present it here to summarize the wider policy and socio-historical

TPD program is shown in Figure 2.1. Next, I describe each of these features. Figure 2.1. Science workshop’s year-long teacher professional development (TPD) program

TPD program is shown in Figure 2.1. Next, I describe each of these features. Figure 2.1. Science workshop’s year-long teacher professional development (TPD) program

Inquiry science driven by students’ questions

Inquiry science driven by students’ questions

Figure 2.3. Theoretical foundations of Cummins’ (1984) task difficulty matrix Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.3. Theoretical foundations of Cummins’ (1984) task difficulty matrix Figure 2.4.

created within the activity structure Tristan provided.

created within the activity structure Tristan provided.

revealed teacher perspectives after their use of the program. completed open-ended surveys and participated in focus-group interviews. These

revealed teacher perspectives after their use of the program. completed open-ended surveys and participated in focus-group interviews. These

Figure 3.1. Collins’ (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains (adapted from Summers-Effler, 2006) long-term (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Collins’ (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains (adapted from Summers-Effler, 2006) long-term (Figure 3.1).

units involved in the analysis in this study is presented in Table 3.1. The Plurilingual Student Participants

units involved in the analysis in this study is presented in Table 3.1. The Plurilingual Student Participants

study are shown in Table 3.2. their teacher. Profiles of the linguistic repertoires for the six students detailed in this

study are shown in Table 3.2. their teacher. Profiles of the linguistic repertoires for the six students detailed in this

group was next characterised as to first, the forms of synchrony that developed,

group was next characterised as to first, the forms of synchrony that developed,

Figure 3.3. Teo works with Mila and Natalie on a science investigation. through their gazes toward each other and toward the materials (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3. Teo works with Mila and Natalie on a science investigation. through their gazes toward each other and toward the materials (Figure 3.3).

undermining the generation of positive successful rituals.

undermining the generation of positive successful rituals.

Figure 3.5. Teo copies Natalie’s motions Teo mirrored this movement also (Figure 3.5b).

Figure 3.5. Teo copies Natalie’s motions Teo mirrored this movement also (Figure 3.5b).

Excerpt 3.1. Teo tries to get Natalie’s attention’

Excerpt 3.1. Teo tries to get Natalie’s attention’

Figure 3.6. Teo sits to the side of Group A watching as Natalie and Mila work (a). After attempting to converse with them in German, he turns to the side (b) and writes a journal entry describing what the group completed for their investigation. (c).

Figure 3.6. Teo sits to the side of Group A watching as Natalie and Mila work (a). After attempting to converse with them in German, he turns to the side (b) and writes a journal entry describing what the group completed for their investigation. (c).

—— Figure 3.7. Teo works with Group B. He watches an interaction between Neal and Luc as they discuss the group’s investigation plan (a, b). He then asks Neal what Neal has recorded in his notebook (c), and states he will record the same plan in his journal as well (d). gaze and recorded the same plan as them, but offset by several minutes.

—— Figure 3.7. Teo works with Group B. He watches an interaction between Neal and Luc as they discuss the group’s investigation plan (a, b). He then asks Neal what Neal has recorded in his notebook (c), and states he will record the same plan in his journal as well (d). gaze and recorded the same plan as them, but offset by several minutes.

Figure 3.8. Teo watches as Neal and Luc perform the group’s investigation actions.

Figure 3.8. Teo watches as Neal and Luc perform the group’s investigation actions.

participated, and Group B continued to investigate in a cohesive manner.

participated, and Group B continued to investigate in a cohesive manner.

Figure 3.11. Teo waits with his hand raised as the first student called upon speaks (a), and then enthusiastically tries to get called upon (b), and when called upon, reads the questions off the index card in German (c). front of the class (Figure 3.11c). A transcript of what Teo said in this second excerpt

Figure 3.11. Teo waits with his hand raised as the first student called upon speaks (a), and then enthusiastically tries to get called upon (b), and when called upon, reads the questions off the index card in German (c). front of the class (Figure 3.11c). A transcript of what Teo said in this second excerpt

another, and were passed from one student to another. the investigation materials in front of them. Their facial gestures often mirrored one

another, and were passed from one student to another. the investigation materials in front of them. Their facial gestures often mirrored one

Figure 3.13. Group D mutually focuses on observing their sample of worms and insects

Figure 3.13. Group D mutually focuses on observing their sample of worms and insects

Excerpt 3.3. An emotionally charged, latched speech pattern in Group D interaction Language interaction rituals in Group D. Video analysis revealed a change

Excerpt 3.3. An emotionally charged, latched speech pattern in Group D interaction Language interaction rituals in Group D. Video analysis revealed a change

Figure 3.14. Teo walks up to the teachers (a, b) and initiates a conversation in German (c), which results in a group conversation about the cocoon he found. were standing in a circle talking (Figure 3.14a, b).

Figure 3.14. Teo walks up to the teachers (a, b) and initiates a conversation in German (c), which results in a group conversation about the cocoon he found. were standing in a circle talking (Figure 3.14a, b).

as a starting point for student-designed science investigations.

as a starting point for student-designed science investigations.

Figure 4.3. Leo (left) and Hank’s (right) notebook entries. depicting one of the three ideas (Figure 3, right bottom). o dry the tent.” (Figure 3, right top). Then he drew three images of tents, each

Figure 4.3. Leo (left) and Hank’s (right) notebook entries. depicting one of the three ideas (Figure 3, right bottom). o dry the tent.” (Figure 3, right top). Then he drew three images of tents, each

Case 1, Excerpt 1'*

Case 1, Excerpt 1'*

Figure 4.4. Leo (left) and Hank (right) passed the pencil back and forth to construct a notebook entry together (c).

Figure 4.4. Leo (left) and Hank (right) passed the pencil back and forth to construct a notebook entry together (c).

to write and speak the names of the items he wrote, in German (Figure 4.5). Figure 4.5. Leo wrote narrative (a) on the representation constructed with Hank (b)

to write and speak the names of the items he wrote, in German (Figure 4.5). Figure 4.5. Leo wrote narrative (a) on the representation constructed with Hank (b)

occurred between them was a mixture of Leo describing what he was drawing and

occurred between them was a mixture of Leo describing what he was drawing and

Case 1, Excerpt 3 Case 1, Focal interaction 1D. Notebook conversation with the teacher. Chris

Case 1, Excerpt 3 Case 1, Focal interaction 1D. Notebook conversation with the teacher. Chris

Case 1, Excerpt 4

Case 1, Excerpt 4

Figure 4.7. Leo talks to the teacher about his notebook entries.

Figure 4.7. Leo talks to the teacher about his notebook entries.

Figure 4.8. Hank (left) drawing multiple ideas for the droplets in the tent (right) as a space that allowed him to document the multiplicity of his ideas.

Figure 4.8. Hank (left) drawing multiple ideas for the droplets in the tent (right) as a space that allowed him to document the multiplicity of his ideas.

Case 1, Excerpt 5 As Leo constructed an entry in the time of Focal Interactions A through C,

Case 1, Excerpt 5 As Leo constructed an entry in the time of Focal Interactions A through C,

Figure 4.9. Leo (left) constructs a new investigation plan (right) while Hank stands and talks to the teacher investigation in his notebook.

Figure 4.9. Leo (left) constructs a new investigation plan (right) while Hank stands and talks to the teacher investigation in his notebook.

the handout, and used this to define the task space in his notebook. goal. It is likely that Roberto transferred this title, which was also printed at the top of

the handout, and used this to define the task space in his notebook. goal. It is likely that Roberto transferred this title, which was also printed at the top of

Figure 4.11. They work together (c) to construct Marc-s notebook entry (b), which is identical to Roberto’s (a). inquiring about the German words used.

Figure 4.11. They work together (c) to construct Marc-s notebook entry (b), which is identical to Roberto’s (a). inquiring about the German words used.

Figure 4.12. Marc discusses his investigation with the teacher. there? (Figure 4.12), pointing to the photo he had taken the prior session, and had in

Figure 4.12. Marc discusses his investigation with the teacher. there? (Figure 4.12), pointing to the photo he had taken the prior session, and had in

Figure 4.13 Marc and Roberto discuss the water coming from outside, maybe from sweating (right). They decide their written narrative is wrong, so Roberto crosses out the entry in this notebook (left). Figure 4.13 Marc and Roberto discuss the water coming from outside, maybe from Jana came by the table and encouraged, You can write this out.

Figure 4.13 Marc and Roberto discuss the water coming from outside, maybe from sweating (right). They decide their written narrative is wrong, so Roberto crosses out the entry in this notebook (left). Figure 4.13 Marc and Roberto discuss the water coming from outside, maybe from Jana came by the table and encouraged, You can write this out.

Figure 4.14 Roberto and Marc discuss their wrong idea with the teacher.

Figure 4.14 Roberto and Marc discuss their wrong idea with the teacher.

Case 2, Excerpt 1

Case 2, Excerpt 1

Figure 4.15.Nia (a), Calia (b), and Amy’s (c) individual notebook entries. Case 3, Focal Interaction A: Animated transduction of modes. Calia began to read

Figure 4.15.Nia (a), Calia (b), and Amy’s (c) individual notebook entries. Case 3, Focal Interaction A: Animated transduction of modes. Calia began to read

Figure 4.16 Calia transitioned focusing on her notebook and reading in German, to

Figure 4.16 Calia transitioned focusing on her notebook and reading in German, to

Figures 4.17. Nia transitions from reading (a) to speaking and gesturing (b,c,d).

Figures 4.17. Nia transitions from reading (a) to speaking and gesturing (b,c,d).

Figure 14.18. Amy discusses her understanding with Chris. Case 3, Excerpt 1

Figure 14.18. Amy discusses her understanding with Chris. Case 3, Excerpt 1

Figure 4.19 Nia, Calia, and Amy added drawings to their notebook entries.

Figure 4.19 Nia, Calia, and Amy added drawings to their notebook entries.

Case 3, Excerpt 2 As shown in the video offprints, throughout this conversation, Amy and I both

Case 3, Excerpt 2 As shown in the video offprints, throughout this conversation, Amy and I both

Figure 4.20. Amy (offscreen, right) and I discuss her representation in her notebook

Figure 4.20. Amy (offscreen, right) and I discuss her representation in her notebook

Figure 4.21. Calia, Amy, Nia and I discuss tent shapes. Amy’s notebook and begin the conversation elaborated in Excerpt 3.

Figure 4.21. Calia, Amy, Nia and I discuss tent shapes. Amy’s notebook and begin the conversation elaborated in Excerpt 3.

Case 3, Excerpt 3 In this case we see through the use of the notebook, that sequences of semiotic

Case 3, Excerpt 3 In this case we see through the use of the notebook, that sequences of semiotic

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. The Science Workshop approach supports student-driven inquiry-based science education in Luxembourg primary schools.
  2. Teachers' professional development included workshops, material support, and case-sharing to enhance IBSE implementation.
  3. Students engage in dialogic interactions using science notebooks to facilitate science understanding and language literacy.
  4. Inquiry-based instruction fosters heteroglossic learning spaces that honor diverse linguistic and cultural resources.
  5. The study identifies challenges and successes in implementing IBSE amidst a linguistically diverse classroom context.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (183)

  1. Alcoff, Linda (1994). A Philosophical Dialogue with ''Dialogue with the Other'', Gender-NatureCulture, 5-22.
  2. Andersen, K. N., Siry, C., & Hengesch, G. (2015). Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht an der Luxemburger École fondamentale. Bildungsbericht Luxemburg 2015. Analysen und Befunde; Band 2, 28-33.
  3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What Research Says About Inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982
  4. Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378-395. http://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118516
  5. Aschbacher, P., & Alonzo, A. (2006). Examining the Utility of Elementary Science Notebooks for Formative Assessment Purposes. Educational Assessment, 11(3- 4), 179-203. http://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652989
  6. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. trans. M. Holquist, ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  7. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, trans. C. Emerson. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  8. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [1953], trans. V. W. McGee, ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  9. Bailey, B. (2007). Heteroglossia and boundaries. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach (pp. 257-274). London: Palgrave Macmillan. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-008-9109-4
  10. Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.
  11. Bellocchi, A. (2017). Interaction ritual approaches to emotion and cognition in science learning experiences. In A. Bellocchi, C. Quigley & K. Otrel-Cass (Eds.), Exploring emotions, aesthetics and wellbeing in science education research (pp. 85-105). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-43353-0_5
  12. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2014). Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 1 -
  13. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94- 007-7856-6
  14. Boehm, B., Ugen, S., Fischbach, A., Keller, U., & Lorphelin, D. (2017). Résumé des Résultats au Luxembourg. In Ministère de l'Education nationale, de l'Enfance et de la Jeunesse. (MENJE), PISA 2015 Rapport National Luxembourg. Retrieved online at www.pisaluxembourg.lu.
  15. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Alien and Bacon, Inc.
  16. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. M. (2006). Implementing the Science Writing Heuristic in the Chemistry Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032. http://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1032
  17. Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503- 523. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams056
  18. Busch, B. (2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of a multilingual classroom. In Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 21-40).
  19. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7856-6\_2
  20. Butler, M. B., & Nesbit, C. (2008). Using Science Notebooks to Improve Writing Skills and Conceptual Understanding. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 44(4), 137-146. http://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.44.4.137- 146
  21. Britsch, S. (2009). Differential discourses: The contribution of visual analysis to defining scientific literacy in the early years classroom. Visual Communication, 8(2), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357209102114
  22. Camarota, S. A. (2007). 100 million more: Projecting the impact of immigration on the US population, 2007 to 2060, (pp. 1 -15). Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies.
  23. Campbell, B., & Fulton, L. (2003). Science notebooks: Writing about inquiry. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
  24. Caputo, J. D. (1987). Radical hermeneutics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  25. Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of research in science teaching, 49(5), 631-658. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21015
  26. Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The Basics, 2 nd edition. London: Routledge.
  27. Cobern, W. W. and Aikenhead, G. (1997). Cultural Aspects of Learning Science. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  28. Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2009). Co/autoethnography: Exploring our teaching selves collaboratively. In L. Fitzgerald, M. Heston, & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (pp. 3-16). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9514-6\_1
  29. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  30. Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., Moreland, J. (2010). Multimodal ways of eliciting students' voice. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v15i2.115
  31. Creese, A. (2008). Linguistic ethnography. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 10: Research Methods in Language and Education, 10, 229-241.
  32. Creswell, John W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Third edition. Washington DC: Sage.
  33. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20053
  34. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  35. Crawford, B. A. (2012). Moving the essence of inquiry into the classroom: Engaging teachers and students in authentic inquiry. In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward. Rotterdam: The Netherlands Springer.
  36. Daugaard, L. M. & Laursen, H. P. (2012). Literacy Practices in Transition: Perspectives from the Nordic Countries. In A. Holm, L. Pitkänen-Huhta (Eds.), Literacy Practices in Transition: Perspectives from the Nordic Countries (pp. 103-118). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  37. DeBoer, G. (1991). History of idea in science education implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  38. Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31, 121-127.
  39. De Saint-Georges, I., & Filliettaz, L. (2008). Situated trajectories of learning in vocational training interactions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03172746
  40. De Saint Georges, I., & Weber, J. J. (2013). Multilingualism and multimodality: Current challenges for educational studies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  41. Ellingson, L. L. (2013). Analysis and representation across the continuum. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, 413-445. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  42. Ellis, C. S., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  43. Elmesky, R. (2011). Rap as a roadway: Creating creolized forms of science in an era of cultural globalization. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(1), 49-76. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9239-9
  44. Elmesky, R. (2015). Video Selection and Microanalysis Approaches in Studies of Urban Science Education. In C. Milne, K. Tobin & D. DeGennaro (Eds.), Sociocultural Studies and Implications for Science Education (pp.95-115).
  45. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4240-6
  46. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  47. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittorck (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3 rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York:_ Macmillan.
  48. Erickson, F. (2013). Second International Handbook of Science Education. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689-1699. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  49. Espinet, M., Valdés-Sánchez, L., Monsó, N. C., Gràcia, L. F., Vila, R. M., Rebollal, N. L., & Pascual, A. C. (2017). Promoting the Integration of Inquiry Based Science and English Learning in Primary Education Through Triadic Partnerships. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburg (Eds.), Science Teacher Preparation in Content-Based Second Language Acquisition (pp. 287-303). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9\_16
  50. European Council. (2001). The Common European Framework in its political and educational context. CEFR Council.
  51. Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.
  52. Exploratorium. (2006). Workshop III: Raising Questions. The Fundamentals of Inquiry Facilitator's Guide. The Institute for Inquiry. San Francisco.
  53. Faber, T., & Freilinger, J. (2005). Der "éveil aux sciences" bzw. "sciences naturelles"-Unterricht in der Praxis der Primärschulen. Walferdange, Luxembourg: Université du Luxembourg. Retrieved September 25, 2007, from http://dl.emacs.uni.lu/publications/misc/reports/EAS/EAS-Implementierung-in- der-Praxis.pdf.
  54. Fehlen, F., Legrand, M., Piroth, I., & Schmit, C. (1998). Le Sondage 'Baleine' Une étude sociologique sur les trajectoires migratoires, les langues et la vie associative au Luxembourg. [The WHALE Survey: A sociological study of migratory trajectories, languages, and association life in Luxembourg]. Luxembourg: Recherche Etude Documentation SESOPI Centre.
  55. Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454-479. http://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.182
  56. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169.
  57. Fradd, S. H., & Lee, O. (1999). Research news and Comment: Teachers' roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 14-42.
  58. Gadamer, H. G. (1994). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Seabury. Gillet, Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. Teachers College Press.
  59. García, O. (2009).Bilingual Education in the 21 st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Oxford/Blackwell.
  60. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (Eds.). (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315695242
  61. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.
  62. Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond Communities of Practice: Language Power and Social Context (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, pp. 214 -232. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610554.012
  63. Gonsalves, A. J., Seiler, G., & Salter, D. E. (2010). Rethinking resources and hybridity. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 6(2), 389 -399. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9295-1
  64. González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Learning in a community of practice: Factors impacting english-learning students' engagement in scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 527-553. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21310
  65. Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2010). Learning science through dialogic inquiry: Is it beneficial for English-as-additional-language students? International Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 10-21. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2010.05.003
  66. Horner, K., & Weber, J. J. (2008). The Language Situation in Luxembourg 1. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(1), 69-128.
  67. Huerta, M., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2016). Measuring and comparing academic language development and conceptual understanding via science notebooks. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 503-517. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.992582
  68. Jaipal, K. (2009). Meaning Making Through Multiple Modalities in a Biology Classroom: A Multimodal Semiotics Discourse Analysis. Science Education, 94(1), 48-72. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20359
  69. Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: the multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5-18. http://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033600
  70. Kamberelis, G. (2001). Producing of heteroglossic classroom (micro) cultures through hybrid discourse practice. Linguistics and Education, 12(1), 85-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-5898(00)00044-9
  71. Kincheloe, J. L. & Tobin, K. (2015). Doing educational research in a complex world.
  72. In K. Tobin and S. R. Steinberg (Eds.) Doing Educational Research (2 nd Edition). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  73. Kiramba, L. K. (2016). Heteroglossic practices in a multilingual science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1267695
  74. Klentschy, M. (2005). Science Notebook Essentials. Science and Children, (December), 24-27.
  75. Konicek-Moran, R. (2008). Everyday Science Mysteries: Stories for Inquiry-Based Science Teaching. Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press.
  76. Kress, G., Jewitt, C. O., & Ogborn, J. J. & Tsatsarelis, C.(2001). Multimodal teaching and learning. The rhetorics of the science classroom. New York, NY: Continuum.
  77. Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Martins, I. (1998). A Satellite View of Language: Some Lessons from Science Classrooms. Language Awareness, 7(2), 69-89. http://doi.org/10.1080/09658419808667102
  78. Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
  79. Lave, J.,& Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65-93.
  81. Lee, O. (2015). Science education with English Language Learners : Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530. 10.3102/00346543075004491
  82. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English- language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21.
  83. Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J. Penfield, R., LeRoy, K., Secada, W. G. (2008). Science Achievement of English Language Learners in Ubran Elementary Schools: Results of a First-Year Professional Devleopment Intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 31-52. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea
  84. Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857-887. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20071
  85. 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. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13480524
  86. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  87. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316. http://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2R
  88. Léna, P. (2009). Europe rethinks education. Science, 326(5952), 501. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175130
  89. Llosa, L., Lee, O., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O'Connor, C., Van Booven, C. D., & Kieffer, M. J. (2016). Impact of a Large-Scale Science Intervention Focused on English Language Learners. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 395-424. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216637348
  90. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (Eds.). (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press.
  91. Lytra, V. (2015). Playful Talk, Learners' Play Frames and the Construction of Identities. In S. Wortham, D. Kim, & S. May (Eds.), Discourse and Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-02322-9_13-1
  92. Márquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal Science Teachers' Discourse in Modeling. Science Education, 90(2), 202 -226. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20100
  93. Maskiewicz, A. C., & Winters, V. (2012). Understanding the co-construction of inquiry practices: A case study of a responsive teaching environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 429-464. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21007
  94. Maurer-Hetto, M.-P. (2009). Struggling with the Languages of the "Legitimate Market" and the "Islets of Liberty" (Bourdieu). A Case Study of Pupils with Immigrational Background in the Trilingual School-System of Luxembourg. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(1), 68-84. http://doi.org/10.1080/14790710802541994
  95. Maurer-Hetto, M-P., & Roth-Dury, E. (2005). Participation d'enfants experts dans le processus d'apprentissage d'une L3. Accessed August 11, 2007, from http://uni.lcmi.lu/resources/pdf/ _base_resources/6630456564.pdf
  96. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203464984
  97. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273
  98. Michalik, K. (2010). Eveil aux science -Sachunterricht in Luxemburg. Konzeptionen des Sachunterrichts in Europa: Ergebnisse der Internationalen Tagung vom 01.- 03. Oktober 2007 in Frankfurt/Main, 35-43.
  99. Mick, C. (2011). Heteroglossia in a multilingual learning space: Approaching language beyond 'lingualisms'. In C. Hélot and M. O. Laoire (Eds.), Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom. Buffalo, NY: Multilinugal Matters.
  100. Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and emotional energy. Science Education, 91(4), 523-553. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20203
  101. Ministère de l'Éducation nationale et de la Formation professionnelle (MENFP). (2011). École fondamentale. Plan d'études. Luxembourg.
  102. Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, de l'Enfance et de la Jeunesse (MENJE). (2015). Statistiques globales et analyse des résultats scolaires: Enseignement fondamental: Cycles 1 à 4 -Éducation différenciée -Année scolaire 2013/2014. Luxembourg.
  103. MENJE. (2016). Les chiffres clés de l'éducation nationale: Statistiques et indicateurs 2014/2015. Luxembourg.
  104. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction- what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
  105. MODE (2012). Transduction. Glossary of multimodal terms. Retrieved from https://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/
  106. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice, 31(2), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
  107. Morgan, D. L. (2008). Emergent design. In L. M. Given (Ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA; SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n128
  108. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
  109. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, 13-37. http://doi.org/0-309-54985-X National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  110. OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
  111. Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 33-56. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20128
  112. Olitsky, S. (2017). Crossing the Boundaries: Solidarity, Identity, and Mutual Learning in a K-20 Partnership. Science Education, 101(3). http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21272
  113. Olitsky, S., & Milne, C. (2012). Understanding engagement in science education: The psychological and the social. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.). Second International Handbook of Science Education, 19-33.
  114. Oliveira, A. W., & Weinburgh, M. H. (Eds.). Science Teacher Preparation in Content-Based Second Language Acquisition. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43516-9
  115. Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. A Report to the Nuffield Foundation, King's College, London.
  116. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-307.
  117. Park, J. & Wilmes, S. E. D. & (forthcoming). A critical co/autoethnographic exploration of self: Becoming science education researchers in diverse cultural and linguistic landscapes. In C. Siry & J. Bazzul (Eds.), Critical Voices in science education research: Narratives of academic journeys. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
  118. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating theory and practice. (4 th ed.). Los Angeles, LA: Sage.
  119. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459-463.
  120. Pietikäinen, S. & H. Dufva (2006). Voices in discourses: Dialogism, Critical Discourse Analysis and ethnic identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(2), 205- 224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00325.x
  121. Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 32.
  122. Poza, L. E. (2016). The language of ciencia : translanguaging and learning in a bilingual science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 50(1), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1125849
  123. Rivera Maulucci, M. S., Brown, B. A., Grey, S. T., & Sullivan, S. (2014). Urban middle school students' reflections on authentic science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1119-1149.
  124. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2006). Rocard report: Science education now: a new pedagogy for the future of Europe. Technical report, European Commission.
  125. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
  126. Roseberry, A., Warren, B., Conant, F., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (1992). Cheche Konnen: Scientific sense-making in bilingual education. Hands On, 15(1), 15-19.
  127. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  128. Roth, W.-M. & Huang, S. (2011). Scientific & Mathematical Bodies: The Interface of Culture and Mind. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  129. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86(3), 368-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10008
  130. Roth, W.-M., McGinn, M., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3), 293-347.
  131. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2004). Coteaching: From praxis to theory. Teachers and teaching, 10(2), 161-179.
  132. Rowe, D. W. (2012). The Affordances of Multimodal Interaction Analysis. Retrieved April 2015 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/15e0/1d3cf519b0fbb5916cc17d67c9077cce9ff8.
  133. pdf Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Ayala, C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). Evaluating students' science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477-1506. http://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000177299
  134. Saul, W., Reardon, J., Pearce, C. R., Kieckman, D., & D. Neutze. (2003). Science Workshop: Reading, Writing, and Thinking Like a Scientist. (2 nd Edition). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  135. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608-625. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00342.x
  136. Sewell,W.H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.
  137. Sewell,W.H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V.E. Bonell & L. Hunt (Eds.), Beyond the cultural turn (pp. 35-61). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Seymour, Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children's journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38(1), 43-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<43::aid- tea4>3.0.co;2-i Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2006). Zones of interaction: Differential access to elementary science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200101)38:1<43::aid-tea4>3.0.co;2-i
  138. Siry, C. A. (2009). Fostering solidarity and transforming identities: A collaborative approach to elementary science teacher education. City University of New York.
  139. Siry, C. (2013). Exploring the Complexities of Children's Inquiries in Science: Knowledge Production Through Participatory Practices. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2407-2430. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9364-z
  140. Siry, C., & Kremer, I. (2011). Children explain the rainbow: Using young children's ideas to guide science curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 643.
  141. Siry, C., Wilmes, S. E. D., & Haus, J. M. (2016). Examining children's agency within participatory structures in primary science investigations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 4-16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.001
  142. Siry, C., Ziegler, G., & Max, C. (2012). "Doing science" through discourse-in- interaction: Young children's science investigations at the early childhood level. Science Education, 96, 311-326. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20481
  143. Sjøberg, S. (2015). PISA and global educational governance -A critique of the project, its uses and implications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 111-127. http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1310a
  144. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications Stoddart, T., Bravo, M., Solis, J., Mosqueda, E., & Rodriguez, E. (2011). Effective science teaching for English language learners (ESTELL): Measuring pre- service teacher practices. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://education.ucsc.edu/estell/Stoddart\_et\_al\_2011\_AERA.pdf.
  145. STATEC, (2017). Statistics Portal Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Retrieved from http://www.statistiques.public.lu/en/actors/statec/index.html
  146. Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating Inquiry Science and Language Development for English Language Learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 664-687.
  147. Stoddart, T., Solis, J., Tolbert, S., & Bravo, M. (2010). A framework for the effective science teaching of English language learners in elementary schools. Teaching science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 classrooms, 151-181.
  148. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied Interaction in the Material World: An Introduction. In C. Streeck, Goodwin & C. LeBaron, Embodied Interaction: Language and the Body in the Material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  149. Sullivan, F. R., & Wilson, N. C. (2013). Playful Talk: Negotiating Opportunities to Learn in Collaborative Groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8406 (June 2015), 1-48. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.839945
  150. Swanson, L. H., Bianchini, J. A., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Engaging in argument and communicating information: A case study of English language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 31-64.
  151. Summers-, E. (2006). Ritual Theory. In J. E. Stets and J. H. Turner (Eds.) Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions (pp. 135-154). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30715-2\_7
  152. Tang, K. S., Delgado, C., & Moje, E. B. (2014). An integrative framework for the analysis of multiple and multimodal representations for meaning-making in science education. Science Education, 98(2), 305-326. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21099
  153. Tobin, K. G. (2006). Doing educational research. (Vol. 1). Sense Publishers.
  154. Tobin, K. (2012). Sociocultural perspectives on science education. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. McRobbie [Eds.] Second International Handbook of Science Education, 3-17. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7
  155. Tobin, K. (2015). Qualitative research in Classrooms: Pushing the boundaries of theory and methodology. In K. Tobin & S. R. Steinberg. Doing educational research (2 nd edition). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  156. Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2005). Improving Urban Science Education: New Roles for Teachers, Students, and Researchers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  157. Tobin, K., & Ritchie, S. M. (2012). Multi-method, multi-theoretical, multi-level research in the learning sciences. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1).
  158. Van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2011). Cultural diversity in science education through novelization: Against the epicization of science and cultural centralization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 824- 847. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20422
  159. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experiences. State University of New York Press, Albany.
  160. Van Zee, E.H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., Wild, J. (2001). Students and Teachers Questioning during Conversations about Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(38), pp.159-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098- 2736(200102)38:2<159::aid-tea1002>3.0.co;2-j
  161. Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2013). Children's ways with science and literacy: Integrated multimodal enactments in urban elementary classrooms. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076910
  162. Wellington, J., & Osborn, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education (Vol. 44). Open University Press, Buckingham.
  163. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C.D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky (Eds.) Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp. 51-85).
  164. Wertsch, J. V. (1993). Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  165. Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202-208. http://doi.org/10.1080/10749039409524672
  166. Weth, C. (2015). Mehrsprachigkeit in luxembourgischen Primarschulen. Bildungsbericht Luxemburg 2015; Band 2: Analysen und Befunde, 22-27.
  167. Wiebe, E. N., Madden, L. P., Bedward, J. C., Minogue, J., & Carter, M. (2009). Examining Science Inquiry Practices in the Elementary Classroom through Science Notebooks. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/\~wiebe/www/articles/GEES-NARST09-ew0407F.pdf
  168. Worth, K., Saltiel, E., & Duque, M. (2010). The Fibonacci Project Starting Package: Implementing inquiry-based science education. Retrieved online March 5, 2011 at http://www.fibonacci-project.eu/.
  169. Wilmes, S. E. D. (2016). Science Workshop : Let their questions lead the way. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science Teacher Preparation in Relevant Publications and Presentations From the Dissertation Period Publications
  170. Wilmes, S. E. D. & Siry, C. (in review in the journal Science Education). Interaction rituals and inquiry-based instruction: Analysis of student participation in small- group investigations in a multilingual classroom.
  171. Wilmes, S. E. D., Siry, C., Gómez Fernández, R., & Gorges. A. (in press). Reconstructing Science Education within the Language | Science Relationship. In L. Bryan & K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 Questions: Reframing Education's Conversation: Science. NewYork, NY: Peter Lang.
  172. Wilmes, S. E. D. (2017). Science Workshop: Let Their Questions Lead the Way. In Science Teacher Preparation in Content-Based Second Language Acquisition (pp. 323-340). Dordrecht, Netherlands : Springer.
  173. Park, J. & Wilmes, S. E. D. (accepted with revisions). A critical co/autoethnographic exploration of self: Becoming science education researchers in diverse cultural and linguistic landscapes. In C. Siry & J. Bazzul (Eds.), Critical Voices in science education research: Narratives of academic journeys. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
  174. Bryce, N., Wilmes, S. E D., & Bellino, M. (2016). Inquiry identity and science teacher professional development. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 235-251.
  175. Siry, C., Wilmes, S. E. D., & Haus, J. M. (2016). Examining children's agency within participatory structures in primary science investigations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 4-16.
  176. Wilmes, S. E. D., Siry, C., Gomez Fernandez, R., Gorges, A. (accepted, June, 2017) Problematizing video analysis rooted in the verbal: examples from culturally and linguistically diverse and science classrooms. Association for Visual Pedagogies annual conference, Aalborg, Denmark.
  177. Wilmes, S. E. D., & Siry, C. (August, 2017). Interaction Rituals in Multilingual Student-Centered Science Instruction. European Science Education Research Association, annual conference, Dublin, Ireland.
  178. Wilmes, S. E. D., & Siry, C. (August, 2017) Multimodal Wonderings. European Science Education Research Association annual conference, Dublin, Ireland.
  179. Park, J. & Wilmes, S. E. D. (2015) A Co/Authoethnography Exploration of Self: Becoming Science Researchers in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Contexts. Korean Association for Science Education annual meeting, Seoul, Korea.
  180. Wilmes, S. E. D. & Park, J. (2015) Becoming Researchers in Mulilingual Contexts: A Co/Autoethnographic Exploration. In the symposium, International Perspectives on Multilingual Contexts in Science Education Research and Practice. National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL, USA.
  181. Park, J. & Wilmes, S. E. D. (2015). Science education researchers in multilingual contexts: A co/autoethnographic exploration of lagnauge, positioning, and self. In the symposium, International Perspectives on Multilingual Contexts in Science Education Research and Practice, August 31 -September 9, Helsinki Finland.
  182. Wilmes, S. E. D., Siry, C. & Hilgers (Haus), J. (2015). The role of wonderings in inquiry-based science education: Expanding the notion of questions. European Science Education Research Association annual conference, August 31 - September 9, Helsinki Finland.
  183. Siry, C. and Wilmes, S. E. D. (2013). Working with Inservice Teachers to Develop CPD: An Emergent, Responsive Approach to Teacher Professional Development. National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Annual International Conference, R i o G r a n d e , Puerto Rico, USA. Invited Talk Siry, C. & Wilmes, S. E. D. (November 2013) Designing Science Professional Development WITH Teachers: An emergent, responsive approach in a time of inquiry-based science dissemination. Stockholm University.