Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meeting Disciplinary Literacy Demands in Content Learning: The Singapore Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education

Abstract

This chapter examines how systemic language and literacy support for content-area teachers to enhance their students’ learning is realised in Singapore with a focus on science at the secondary level. It highlights theoretical underpinnings that inform the perspective of disciplinary literacy guiding this work and describes how disciplinary literacy is contextualised in Singapore against what is broadly understood as effective communication. It unpacks the nature and extent of systemic support for developing literacy in science with specific reference to the professional learning courses and school-based collaborative research. The chapter addresses the challenges encountered and discusses the implications which impact curriculum and pedagogy in the integration of disciplinary literacy practices to meet students’ needs in the learning of science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adger, C. T., Snow, C. E., & Christian, D. (Eds.). (2002). Teachers need to know about language. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, F., Burkett, B., & Freeman, D. (2008). The mediating role of language in teaching and learning: A classroom perspective. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 606–625). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchmann, M., & Floden, R. E. (1991). Program coherence in teacher education: A view from the United States. Oxford Review of Education, 17, 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs: BSCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Century, J. R., & Levy, A. J. (2002). Sustaining your reform: Five lessons from research. Benchmarks: The Quarterly Newsletter of the National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform, 3(3), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical & methodological issues. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, M. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don’t know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 84–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2010). English language syllabus 2010. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, R. J., & Adair, M. (2010). (Re)Imagining literacies for science classrooms. In R. J. Draper, P. Broomhead, A. P. Jensen, J. D. Nokes, & D. Siebert (Eds.), (Re)Imagining content-area literacy instruction (pp. 127–143). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, R. J., Broomhead, P., Jensen, A. P., & Siebert, D. (2010). Aims and criteria for collaboration in content-area classrooms. In R. J. Draper, P. Broomhead, A. P. Jensen, J. D. Nokes, & D. Siebert (Eds.), (Re)Imagining content-area literacy instruction (pp. 1–19). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, R. J., & Siebert, D. (2010). Rethinking texts, literacies, and literacy across the curriculum. In R. J. Draper, P. Broomhead, A. P. Jensen, J. D. Nokes, & D. Siebert (Eds.), (Re)Imagining content-area literacy instruction (pp. 20–39). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • English Language Institute of Singapore. (2012). Position statement, attainment levels framework and key implementation strategies for effective communication. (EDUN: N07-08-069).

    Google Scholar 

  • English Language Institute of Singapore. (2013). Effective communication across the curriculum: The importance of paying attention to subject literacy. (EDUNN07-08-069 V6). Singapore: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • English Language Institute of Singapore. (2016a). Retrieved from http://www.elis.moe.edu.sg/

  • English Language Institute of Singapore. (2016b). Professional learning opportunities @ ELIS. Retrieved from http://www.elis.moe.edu.sg/elis/slot/u54/news-n-events/publications/prospectus/2016-ELIS-prospectus.pdf

  • Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 19–34 https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.1090b1013e31824501de

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 627–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jocuns, A. (2012). Classroom discourse. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 620–625). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, T. E., Grimm, E. D., & Miller, A. E. (2012). Collaborative school improvement. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2008). Science syllabus (lower secondary). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-primary-2008.pdf

  • Ministry of Education. (2011). Standards and benchmarks for 21st century competencies. Singapore: Curriculum Policy Office, Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2016). 21st century competencies. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/21st-century-competencies

  • Ministry of Education NZ. (2013). Research into the implementation of the Secondary Literacy Project (SLP) in schools. New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J., & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putra, G.B.S., & Tang, K.S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy instructions on writing scientific explanations: A case studyfrom a chemistry classroom in an all-girls school. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00022c

  • Rappa, N. A., & Tang, K. S. (2017). Student agency: An analysis of students’ networked relations across the informal and formal learning domains. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9523-0

  • Seah, L. H. (2015). Understanding the conceptual and language challenges encountered by grade 4 students when writing scientific explanations. Research in Science Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9464-z

  • Seah, L. H. (2016). Elementary teachers’ perception of language issues in science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9648-z

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, A.-L., & Lee, P. P. F., & Cheah, Y. H. (In press). Educating science teachers in the twenty-first century: Implications for pre-service teacher education, Asia Pacific Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2017.1386092

  • Tang, K. S. (2011a). Hybridizing cultural understandings of the natural world to foster critical science literacy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. UMI No. 3476796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. (2011b). Reassembling curricular concepts: A multimodal approach to the study of curriculum and instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 109–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. (2013). Out-of-school media representations of science and technology and their relevance for engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. (2015). The PRO instructional strategy in the construction of scientific explanations. Teaching Science, 61(4), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. (2016a). Constructing scientific explanations through premise—reasoning—outcome (PRO): An exploratory study to scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1192309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S. (2016b). How is disciplinary literacy addressed in the science classrooms? A Singaporean case study. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(3), 220–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. S., Ho, C., & Putra, G. B. S. (2016). Developing multimodal communication competencies: A case of disciplinary literacy focus in Singapore. In M. Mcdermott & B. Hand (Eds.), Using multimodal representations to support learning in the science classroom (pp. 135–158). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. A. (2008). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. 9th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. English Language Institute of Singapore, Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore

    Caroline Ho

  2. School of Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    Natasha Anne Rappa

  3. School of Education, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

    Kok-Sing Tang

Authors
  1. Caroline Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natasha Anne Rappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kok-Sing Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Ho .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin University, Perth, Western Autralia, Australia

    Kok-Sing Tang

  2. Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden

    Kristina Danielsson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ho, C., Rappa, N.A., Tang, KS. (2018). Meeting Disciplinary Literacy Demands in Content Learning: The Singapore Perspective. In: Tang, KS., Danielsson, K. (eds) Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69196-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69197-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation