View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Empowering Elementary Preservice Science Teachers: Harnessing Diverse Language Resources in the Practice of Modeling

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Empowering Elementary Preservice Science Teachers: Harnessing Diverse Language Resources in the Practice of Modeling
Language: English
Authors: Ayça K. Fackler (ORCID 0000-0002-8116-4888), Ruth M. Harman
Source: Science Education. 2025 109(3):796-815.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Elementary Education
Descriptors: Preservice Teachers, Science Teachers, Teacher Education Programs, Research Universities, Elementary School Teachers, Semiotics, Engineering Education, Methods Courses, Teaching Methods, Modeling (Psychology), Interaction Process Analysis, Classroom Communication, Instructional Materials, Language Usage
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21934
ISSN: 0036-8326
1098-237X
Abstract: Recent research has focused on innovative instructional shifts that aim to expand what constitutes science and engineering practices, exploring also how they can build on students' diverse language resources in science learning. However, few studies explore the intersections of elementary teacher preparation and the implementation of science and engineering practices through expansive and asset-based approaches to language use. Through a qualitative case study conducted within a science methods course at a research university in the southeastern part of the United States, elementary preservice science teachers were positioned as agentive learners, engaging in modeling practices while leveraging their diverse language resources. Using multimodal interaction analysis (MIA), our study examined the meaning-making processes of elementary preservice science teachers in the practice of modeling. Findings revealed three themes related to how the preservice science teachers engaged with diverse semiotic resources: (1) their use of physical manipulatives and other multimodal resources to develop meanings during the initial stages of model development, where they experimented with different ways to represent their understanding; (2) their ongoing reliance on multimodal and linguistic resources for refining and solidifying meanings as the model became more complex and comprehensive throughout the modeling process; and (3) their use of these meanings to interpret and engage with science texts. Implications include the importance of providing elementary preservice science teachers with professional learning opportunities that align with the envisioned science learning experiences of their future students, thus fostering equitable science teaching and learning with models and modeling.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1467431
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFxM_fkDffGBxxH4JLXsyJfAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMIAbfy4iIZFp69SZgIBEICBm135-CHWZpSJBz91sMd8UJmMPzHMakdx_tGJ2c9rT5c7dApViN8-umbfWkYeTszAVQx8wxYvNDpBZjnrfQ4Dg4jXhy1_Sn3VKoUMCYYQqVCqy7qzMW09Zfe88o8-xqU84n8EC_k88jm-MKxHTZbWu-0T-y0d3nfv7bX9NpcdwRzpdwXXNC_u-XRl3N1SVnc3R0eE-5kDin_X92jc
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184446230;sed01may.25;2025Apr15.05:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184446230-1">Empowering Elementary Preservice Science Teachers: Harnessing Diverse Language Resources in the Practice of Modeling </title> <p>Recent research has focused on innovative instructional shifts that aim to expand what constitutes science and engineering practices, exploring also how they can build on students' diverse language resources in science learning. However, few studies explore the intersections of elementary teacher preparation and the implementation of science and engineering practices through expansive and asset‐based approaches to language use. Through a qualitative case study conducted within a science methods course at a research university in the southeastern part of the United States, elementary preservice science teachers were positioned as agentive learners, engaging in modeling practices while leveraging their diverse language resources. Using multimodal interaction analysis (MIA), our study examined the meaning‐making processes of elementary preservice science teachers in the practice of modeling. Findings revealed three themes related to how the preservice science teachers engaged with diverse semiotic resources: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) their use of physical manipulatives and other multimodal resources to develop meanings during the initial stages of model development, where they experimented with different ways to represent their understanding; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) their ongoing reliance on multimodal and linguistic resources for refining and solidifying meanings as the model became more complex and comprehensive throughout the modeling process; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) their use of these meanings to interpret and engage with science texts. Implications include the importance of providing elementary preservice science teachers with professional learning opportunities that align with the envisioned science learning experiences of their future students, thus fostering equitable science teaching and learning with models and modeling.</p> <p>Keywords: equity‐oriented science practices; language use; modeling practices; multimodality; preservice science teacher education</p> <p>Recent educational policies have put pressure on teachers to implement high‐quality science and engineering practices such as developing and using models (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref4">61</reflink>]). When implementing these practices, teachers are also expected to promote an expansive use of language resources (also called semiotic resources) including both multimodal (e.g., gestures, sounds, and embodied actions) and linguistic resources (e.g., spoken and written language) to leverage the brilliance of students (González‐Howard et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]; Lee and Grapin [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref6">43</reflink>]; WIDA [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref7">95</reflink>]). Grounded in this expansive and asset‐based perspective, there is broad consensus that there need to be instructional shifts in what constitutes a science practice and how the practice builds on students' diverse language resources (Grapin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref9">59</reflink>]; Pierson, Clark, and Brady [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref10">67</reflink>]; Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref11">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, these instructional shifts create tension for science teachers who often have not been apprenticed into the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)‐aligned science practices (Grapin et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). Recognizing this tension, science education research grapples with the question of how professional learning initiatives can best support preservice and inservice teachers in responding to these new demands, in particular at the elementary level (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref14">60</reflink>]). There is limited research exploring the intersection of elementary teacher preparation and the implementation of science practices through expansive and asset‐based approaches (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref15">60</reflink>]). A prevalent belief based on existing research portrays elementary teachers as generalists who lack enthusiasm or expertise in science instruction (Davis, Petish, and Smithey [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]; Gray, McDonald, and Stroupe [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>By adopting an asset‐oriented perspective on the knowledge and skills of elementary preservice teachers (PSTs), this paper asserts their unique potential to foster meaningful and equitable science learning for students. We argue that PSTs require learning experiences that cultivate essential characteristics, positive attitudes, skills, and knowledge necessary for their growth as effective science educators (Adah Miller, Berland, and Campbell [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]; Davis, Petish, and Smithey [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref19">17</reflink>]; Nixon, Smith, and Sudweeks [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref20">63</reflink>]). These experiences should mirror how they will craft future learning experiences for their students (Grapin et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref21">29</reflink>]; Lee, Grapin, and Haas [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref22">44</reflink>]; Mehta and Fine [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref23">56</reflink>]). If we anticipate that teachers will engage students as active thinkers, doers, and knowers, as teacher educators we need to offer PSTs learning opportunities that will support them in appreciating and leveraging their students' diverse meaning‐making repertoires (Fackler [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>]; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref25">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study provided elementary PSTs with a learning opportunity to explore a model‐based science lesson by engaging in the practice of modeling themselves in a science methods course. In our qualitative case study, conducted at a research university in the southeastern United States, we positioned our research partners, the PSTs, as science learners, encouraging them to draw on their diverse ways of meaning‐making while engaging in modeling practices to explore the transfer of energy in cellular respiration. We advocate for the perspective that positioning elementary PSTs as learners can create opportunities for collaborative meaning‐making, resulting in shared epistemic agency in science learning (Berland, Russ, and West [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]). The following question guided our study: How did our group of PSTs use diverse semiotic resources (both multimodal and linguistic resources) in meaning‐making while engaging in modeling practices? Using a MIA (Wilmes and Siry [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref27">96</reflink>]), we examined how the PSTs used a variety of multimodal and linguistic resources for a range of meaning‐making moments.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-2">Background: Teacher Perspectives on Language Use in the Practice of Developing and Using Mode...</hd> <p>Models are simplified representations of natural phenomena, while modeling is the epistemic practice of constructing, evaluating, revising, and reasoning (Lehrer and Schauble [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref28">47</reflink>]; Stieff et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref29">79</reflink>]; Zangori et al. [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref30">99</reflink>]). Models are simplified, abstract representations, but not every representation is considered a model (Fackler and Capps [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]; Wartofsky [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref32">94</reflink>]). It is important to determine what qualifies as a model and as a modeling practice because this influences how we conceptualize them (Günther et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]). This study advocates for a focus on cumulative meaning‐making through the practice of modeling rather than viewing models and modeling as an end (Gouvea and Passmore [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]). We view the practice of modeling as one means of generating meaning in science learning, rather than confining it solely to creating visual representations of ideas.</p> <p>European/Western science educators have typically emphasized the use of scientific language in disciplinary science practices (e.g., modeling practices) while downplaying the diverse language resources that students bring to the classroom (Calabrese Barton and Tan [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]; Grapin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]; Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref37">73</reflink>]). Research advocating for the use of multiple representations in both student and teacher learning in science education has emphasized the role of scientific language combined with various multimodal forms, such as visualizations, gestures, and embodied actions originating from students' experiences (e.g., Gilbert and Treagust [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref38">25</reflink>]; Kress et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]; Mathayas et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref40">55</reflink>]; Siry and Gorges [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref41">76</reflink>]; Tang and Danielsson [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref42">83</reflink>]; Tang, Delgado, and Moje [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref43">84</reflink>]; Treagust, Duit, and Fischer [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref44">88</reflink>]; Tytler et al. [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref45">89</reflink>]; Ünsal et al. [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref46">90</reflink>]). However, not all representations are viewed as models (Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref47">74</reflink>]). In the context of models and modeling practices, students' local knowledge, life experiences, and cultural and linguistic resources are often overlooked in meaning‐making (Pierson et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref48">66</reflink>]; Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref49">73</reflink>]; Suárez [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref50">81</reflink>]; Suárez and Otero [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref51">82</reflink>]). Consequently, teachers may focus on the specific language in students' models, adopting an approach that can inadvertently highlight deficiencies in students' engagement with modeling practices (Fackler [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>]; Grapin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>To counter these trends and foster more inclusive science learning environments, our work advocates for an equity‐focused approach that encourages students to bring their diverse linguistic and cultural resources into the classroom while engaging in scientific practices. As scholars with expertise in meaning‐making through diverse language use in science education and multilingual education, we view science as a social semiotic practice. In this view, learners use various linguistic resources (e.g., spoken and written language) and multimodal resources (e.g., gestures, visuals, and sound words) to construct meaning for specific purposes and contexts (Harman [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]; Fackler, Miller Adah, and Li [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Modeling practices have the potential to facilitate the use of diverse linguistic and cultural resources in science classrooms, given their inherently multimodal, iterative, and collaborative nature (Pierson, Clark, and Brady [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref56">67</reflink>]). Numerous studies have demonstrated that when modeling practices incorporate multimodal language resources like drawings, verbal representations, visualizations, and physical models, learners are better equipped to comprehend scientific concepts, explain scientific ideas, generate scientific knowledge, and make sense of real‐world phenomena (Acher, Arcà, and Sanmartí [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>]; Campbell and Fazio [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref58">15</reflink>]; Fackler [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]; Karlsson, Nygård Larsson, and Jakobsson [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]; Licona and Kelly [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref61">51</reflink>]; Pierson, Clark, and Brady [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref62">67</reflink>]; Zohar and Levy [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref63">100</reflink>]). While several studies on modeling in science education have focused on models as a single modality (e.g., diagrams or written explanations), our study takes a different approach by emphasizing the multimodal affordances of models and modeling. We aim to demonstrate how the practice of modeling can be used to facilitate the use of multimodal and linguistic resources that create a shared understanding of a concept. Such practices can promote a more expansive view of language use in science classrooms (González‐Howard et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref64">26</reflink>]; Suárez and Otero [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref65">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies on science teachers' engagement with modeling practices are limited, but existing research indicates that teachers often have less knowledge and experience with scientific modeling compared to other science practices (Bismack, Davis, and Palincsar [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>]). Despite efforts to change this, many teachers remain unsure about how to implement modeling practices (Shi et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref67">75</reflink>]; Téllez‐Acosta, Acher, and McDonald [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref68">86</reflink>]). Additionally, some teachers perceive models solely as teaching aids, neglecting their role and affordances in students' meaning‐making practices (Windschitl and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref69">97</reflink>]). For instance, Windschitl and Thompson ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref70">97</reflink>]) found that the PSTs in their study initially believed that scientific models served the simple purpose of illustrating ideas and facilitating clearer thinking about those ideas or aiding in teaching others about them. They also noted that PST education programs had a limited impact on expanding teachers' perception of models and their affordances beyond their role as pedagogical aids (Windschitl and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref71">97</reflink>]). In addition, teachers tend to focus on certain ways of communicating ideas in student‐created models such as scientific concepts and expert‐level language in model labels and written model explanations (Harlow et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>]; Nielsen and Nielsen [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref73">62</reflink>]; Shi et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref74">75</reflink>]; Vo et al. [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref75">92</reflink>]). As a result, the dynamic meaning‐making potential of models within the classroom community is often overlooked, leading to the underutilization of models as multimodal resources to promote diverse ways of knowing and discussing science.</p> <p>Little research has explored the ways that teachers can be supported in experiencing modeling practices as a set of multimodal meaning‐making processes (e.g., Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref76">46</reflink>]; Pierson et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref77">68</reflink>]). Our study seeks to address this gap by exploring how our group of PSTs take up multimodal and linguistic resources when engaged in modeling. Ultimately, we believe this type of embodied and embedded experience can help them shift from an exclusive focus on disciplinary language in modeling instruction to an asset‐oriented and equitable approach that values diverse multimodal and linguistic resources in meaning‐making.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-3">Equity Within the Context of This Study</hd> <p>The concept of equity in science education research has been interpreted in various ways, each with strengths and challenges (e.g., Calabrese Barton and Tan [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]; Morales‐Doyle et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref79">58</reflink>]; Philip and Azevedo [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref80">65</reflink>]; Rodriguez [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref81">71</reflink>]). In this paper, equity is conceptualized as expanding what constitutes science practices, particularly modeling (Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref82">73</reflink>]). This expansive view of equity means allowing students to use diverse expressions and representations of ideas that transcend socially and politically constructed Eurocentric norms. In other words, students are encouraged to use their full multimodal and linguistic repertoires in science learning (Pierson et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref83">68</reflink>]; Poza [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref84">69</reflink>]; Siry and Gorges [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref85">76</reflink>]; Suárez and Otero [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref86">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, equity involves broadening teachers' perspectives to recognize diverse ways in which learners can engage meaningfully in the practice of modeling (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref87">60</reflink>]). To facilitate equitable meaning‐making practices, teachers need to learn to notice and build on students' diverse ways of doing science and language and to name these ways as productive as opposed to problematic (Bang et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref88">5</reflink>]; Varelas et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref89">91</reflink>]). By focusing solely on prioritized ways of knowing and being in science practices and disregarding the diverse language resources that students employ to make meaning, teachers perpetuate disparities and inequities in learning settings (Bang et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>]; Flores and Rosa [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref91">23</reflink>]; Lee and Stephens [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref92">45</reflink>]; Tolbert, Spurgin, and Ash [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref93">87</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-4">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>To support our inquiry into equitable modeling practices, we adopted social semiotics as a theoretical lens for exploring the PSTs' meaning‐making processes in modeling practices. Semiotics is the study of sign systems within social communication or discourse (Halliday [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref94">33</reflink>]; Lemke [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>]). Semiotics encompasses not only linguistic resources but also multimodal resources such as gestures, actions, sound words, social contexts, and symbols that hold significance in meaning making within a community (Ogborn et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref96">64</reflink>]). We believe that meaning making is inherently social, occurring within specific situations and activities of the community.</p> <p>In science, meaning making involves the constant translation and integration of information across various language resources (both linguistic and multimodal resources). This process allows information in one form to be reinterpreted and recontextualized in relation to others (Lemke [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref97">48</reflink>]). Scientific meaning is typically constructed through a combination of words, visuals, gestures, and symbols, often requiring the use of multiple modalities together to fully communicate a concept (Lemke [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref98">48</reflink>]; Roth and Bowen [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref99">72</reflink>]). While each modality offers a unique perspective, their collective use enriches the overall understanding of scientific concepts; hence, the simultaneous employment of these language resources (also called semiotic resources) is essential (Airey and Linder [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>]; Jewitt and Kress [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref101">39</reflink>]). This view highlights the complexity of meaning making in science classrooms, emphasizing the importance for educators to guide students in connecting diverse language resources to key concepts (Tang, Tan, and Yeo [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref102">85</reflink>]). To facilitate this, teachers must actively teach how concepts are represented, translated, and transformed across various multimodal and linguistic resources, acknowledging their individual affordances and limitations in meaning making (Coleman and Donovan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref103">16</reflink>]; Prain and Waldrip [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref104">70</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, we define meaning making as a process in which meanings are assigned to multimodal (e.g., gestures, sounds, embodied actions, visuals) and linguistic resources (e.g., written text and verbal expressions) by meaning makers to grapple with the meaning of science ideas. All multimodal and linguistic resources are imbued with meanings and are important; however, they can be sifted by the meaning makers' specific attention to and interactions and experience with these resources (Holsanova [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref105">36</reflink>]; Van der Merwe et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref106">57</reflink>]). Meaning makers establish unique relations between language resources and the world that they depict in semiotic activities (Jewitt [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref107">38</reflink>]). Instead of promoting a uniform meaning‐making experience for all learners, we challenge the prioritization of certain ways to engage with language and science (Bang et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref108">5</reflink>]). Therefore, we emphasize the need for science teaching practices that allow learners to integrate disciplinary knowledge with their unique experiences (Warren et al. [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref109">93</reflink>]).</p> <p>In meaning making, meaning makers/modelers develop and use semiotic resources such as gestures, sounds, or verbal expressions and assign relatively new meanings to these resources. In this process, modelers reinterpret or transform existing semiotic resources, assigning new significance to them as they negotiate and construct knowledge, thereby reshaping their understanding and communication within the modeling context. The foundation of this process is learner's ability to use semiotic resources to communicate both self‐authored and preconstructed meanings (e.g., drawing a model, creating a gesture, or generating a sound word).</p> <p>In conceptualizing and examining meaning‐making in our work, we take a stance of <emph>strong version of multimodality</emph> through which knowledge and language represented in modeling practices emerge from meaning makers' use of diverse linguistic repertoires (Grapin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref110">28</reflink>]). The strong version of multimodality frames multimodal resources (e.g., gestures, sounds, or embodied actions) as "essential semiotic tools of the disciplines" rather than being "a crutch or temporary scaffold to be removed once students develop proficiency with more privileged forms of communication" (Grapin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref111">28</reflink>], 33–34). This framing recognizes and values the diverse meaning‐making resources students bring to their engagement in disciplinary practices. This perspective helped us take different stances when it came to analyzing the PSTs' use of multimodal resources in meaning‐making. The use of gesture, for instance, can be a strong indication of developing and communicating meanings rather than a way of simplifying meanings. From our perspective, gestures play a multifunctional role in developing and negotiating meanings.</p> <p>In what follows, we show how our stance sheds light on the affordances of multimodal and linguistic resources in meaning making in the context of our study. Jamila, a PST in this study, uses her modeling knowledge and experience to understand the meaning of the concept under investigation. For example, during her interview upon completion of the instruction, Jamila reads a technical science description about glucose being split into two smaller carbon molecules in glycolysis, the first step in cellular respiration. This sentence from the text represents a technical meaning (i.e., glucose splitting into two smaller carbon molecules). She first uses a verbal mode to explain this meaning by describing the phenomenon as releasing energy, an idea coming directly from her modeling experience (see Figure 1). Next, she elaborates on the meaning of releasing energy using a gestural mode (slowly separating her touching fingers and hands) to represent an explosion that metaphorically corresponds to molecules releasing energy. Then, she further communicates the idea of explosion through a drawing (see her model in Figure 1). With Jamila's use of both multimodal and linguistic resources, the technical meaning of the phrase "glucose splitting into two smaller carbon molecules" is expanded and communicated in a more accessible way.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 An illustrative example of meaning making through diverse language resources." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The strong version of multimodality helps us to examine the formation and expansion of meanings through diverse multimodal and linguistic resources in modeling practices. Our approach to modeling practices enacted through our qualitative case study is expected to support the PSTs in using diverse language resources in meaning‐making. Specifically, in this study, we aim to explore how the PSTs leverage their language resources when engaged in modeling and hope that their experience will subsequently help them notice, name, and value their future students' diverse language resources in meaning‐making. This is worth investigating because the number of students with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the nation's public schools is on the rise (Irwin et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref112">37</reflink>]), and prospective science teachers need to be prepared to respond to the needs of this diverse student population in science classrooms (Braaten [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref113">11</reflink>]; Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref114">73</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184446230-7">Context and Participants</hd> <p>This study took place in a science methods class at a large public university in the southeastern United States. 23 PSTs registered for the science methods class as part of their elementary education program curriculum. In this paper, we refer to the group of PSTs as research partners rather than study subjects because we collaborated with them to answer our research question. Therefore, we use PSTs and research partners interchangeably throughout the paper. Our research partners had little prior experience of learning about cellular respiration, meaning it was either very limited or they did not remember learning about it.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-8">Research Positionality</hd> <p>Ayça is sequential bilingual, multiracial, and transnational. She grew up in Turkey from humble beginnings and immigrated to the United States at the age of 26 to pursue her graduate studies. She first learned English in her home country, then continued to refine her language skills in the United States. She gradually became a different person through constantly adjusting her way of being, knowing, seeing, and languaging the world. This process involved unlearning what she had known her entire childhood and early adult life before arriving in the States. She found a new way of presenting and expressing herself to be part of this new multi‐layered cultural and linguistic landscape. For a long time, she did not question why she had to change who she was and why she had to assimilate, despite her experiences of bias, oppression, and microaggressions. As an educator and scholar, her professional learning as a PST was not grounded in NGSS, but now she teaches PSTs how to adapt and implement NGSS‐aligned science lessons. She positions herself as a learner along with her student teachers in science methods classes. She noticed that her student teachers, who were in high school just 2 or 3 years before this study, cannot recall any science learning experiences that integrated modeling practices. Ayça acknowledges that PSTrs are learning how to teach science in ways that they were not taught. She sees her scholarship with PSTs as a means to help educators and researchers change the character of language use in science practices from a gatekeeper to a gateway approach by opening up the practice of modeling for the integration of multimodal and linguistic resources into meaning‐making experiences in science classrooms. She led this study as its primary researcher, a science methods course instructor, and a facilitator of the modeling‐based lesson. She handled all aspects, including building relationships with the PSTs, conducting the lesson, gathering and analyzing data, and conceptualizing and writing the paper. In her role as an instructor and researcher of this project, Ayça was interested in seeing how teachers can learn about multiple ways of attending to language resources in modeling practices so that they can open up science learning and teaching spaces for more imaginative and hopeful possibilities for their students.</p> <p>Ruth is a transnational White scholar who speaks several languages and who has worked as a discourse analyst and community activist over the past 20 years. She grew up in Ireland in a middle‐class family when the country was still a highly conservative Catholic society reacting to its long‐colonized history with Great Britain. She immigrated to the United States in her 20s and completed her graduate studies in the Northeast. Through her dynamic encounters with multilingual and multiracial youth and teachers, Ruth began to grapple deeply with the racialized systems of power in the Global North and her complicity in maintaining these systems. To counteract her privileged position as a White professor at a public university in the southeast, she developed youth participatory action research programs with colleagues that aimed to disrupt the deficit positioning of immigrant youth of color in schools and communities. In a longitudinal collaboration with science educators, she and her colleagues also developed a culturally sustaining praxis for science educators that aimed to put youth and their families as full center of the curriculum. Through these collaborations, she learned to appreciate the importance of incorporating students' cultural and linguistic resources in classroom discourse to achieve equity and access in science education. In two of her graduate courses, Ruth got to know Ayça well and to appreciate deeply her multicultural vision for science education. In this current study, she has served a secondary role in all the research in the sense that she only contributed to the drafting, editing, and revising of the manuscript, serving a limited advisory role in other stages of the research. She was invested in working on this project because she sees multimodality, modeling, and embodied learning as highly effective supportive processes for multilingual learners.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-9">Model‐Based Lesson Summary</hd> <p>We adopted and implemented a modeling‐based unit about cellular respiration that was developed as part of a larger, federally funded research project in which the first author was involved. The modeling‐based lesson on glycolysis aimed to help the PSTs understand the big picture of cellular respiration, namely the transfer of energy, by engaging them in the practice of modeling. The model‐based lesson on glycolysis, the first step in cellular respiration, consisted of ten learning sequences (Table 1).</p> <p>1 Table An overview of the model‐based lesson on cellular respiration.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Learning sequence (LS)</th><th>Duration</th><th>Title</th><th>Learning activities</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>LS 1</td><td>15 min</td><td>Engaging Phenomenon: Sprinter versus Distance Runner</td><td>Comparing and contrasting the performance differences between a sprinter and a distance runner and prompting inquiry into the physiological processes involved in endurance activities</td></tr><tr><td>LS 2</td><td>20 min</td><td>Prior Knowledge Activation: Cellular Respiration Basics</td><td>Discussing the process of cellular respiration and focusing on the conversion of glucose into energy within the body</td></tr><tr><td>LS 3</td><td>15 min</td><td>Pre‐Modeling Activity: Abstract Representations</td><td>Creating abstract representations by identifying common underlying structures in different phenomena, laying the groundwork for the modeling practice to understand the complex biological processes in cellular respiration</td></tr><tr><td>LS 4</td><td>15 min</td><td>Introduction to Energy Molecules: Glucose, ATP, and NADH</td><td>Understanding the roles of primary energy molecules (Glucose, ATP, and NADH) in cellular respiration, including their components and functions in getting, having, and releasing energy</td></tr><tr><td>LS 5</td><td>20 min</td><td>Multimodal Activities with Energy Molecules</td><td>Elaborating on the energy molecules through multimodal meaning‐making activities using physical manipulatives and energy story cards to enhance the comprehension of glucose, ATP, and NADH and their respective roles in cellular respiration</td></tr><tr><td>LS 6</td><td>20 min</td><td>Initial Model Development: Explaining Energy Transfer</td><td>Constructing initial models explaining how energy molecules get, have, and release energy during cellular respiration and fostering collaborative meaning‐making through modeling experience in small groups (3–4 PSTs/group).</td></tr><tr><td>LS 7</td><td>15 min</td><td>Enriching Models with Embodied Actions and Sound Word</td><td>Revising and enhancing initial models by incorporating embodied actions and energy‐related sound words to represent the transfer of energy</td></tr><tr><td>LS 8</td><td>20 min</td><td>Formal Instruction on Glycolysis</td><td>Discussing glycolysis through science texts such as animations and graphic novels featuring a series of art accompanied by dialog, narration, sound effects, and other textual elements.Interacting with science texts such as animations and graphic novels using various modalities developed and used in the practice of modeling</td></tr><tr><td>LS 9</td><td>20 min</td><td>Formalization of Modeling Knowledge and Experience</td><td>Processing and annotating the information presented through science texts (e.g., textbook‐style passage) using the model knowledge (e.g., energy‐related gestures, sound words, and visuals)Formalizing the model knowledge and enhancing comprehension of ideas about glycolysis presented through science texts</td></tr><tr><td>LS 10</td><td>20 min</td><td>Discussion and Resolution of Questions</td><td>Engaging in discussions with the instructor and peers to resolve questions and share different ways of interacting with science texts using various modalities developed and used in the practice of modeling</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The unit started with a scenario that compared the performances of a sprinter and a distance runner, raising questions about what happens differently in the distance runner's body to enable longer runs. The lesson then tapped into the PSTs' prior knowledge by discussing cellular respiration, focusing on how the body converts glucose into energy. Following this introduction, the PSTs participated in a modeling practice activity. As a pre‐modeling activity, they learned to create abstract representations by comparing examples of different phenomena that shared a common underlying structure. Next, the primary energy molecules in cellular respiration—Glucose, ATP, and NADH—were introduced. The PSTs were presented with descriptions of these molecules, detailing their components and how they related to energy acquisition, retention, and release. To reinforce their understanding, the PSTs engaged in hands‐on activities with physical manipulatives representing the three energy molecules. The glucose manipulative consisted of plastic beads and small firecrackers, the ATP manipulative used ring magnets, and the NADH manipulative involved a novelty snake‐in‐a‐can.</p> <p>After these hands‐on experiences, the PSTs worked in small groups (3–4 PSTs/group) to develop their initial models (see an example of a learner‐constructed model in the center of Figure 2) explaining how the energy molecules got, had, and released energy during cellular respiration. Sharing their models with the whole class encouraged negotiation and collaborative meaning‐making. Additionally, using small groups made their thought processes more visible. The PSTs then enriched their models by incorporating embodied actions and energy‐related sound words. These actions and words helped represent the energy transfer more effectively. For example, they might use an explosion noise to signify energy release.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 A model developed by a PST. G, getting energy; H, having energy; R, releasing energy." /> </p> <p></p> <p>After constructing, revising, and enriching their models, the lesson introduced glycolysis, the first step in cellular respiration, through science texts including animations and graphic novels featuring a series of art accompanied by dialog, narration, sound effects, and other textual elements. The PSTs interacted with these texts (i.e., animations and graphic novels) in small groups (3–4 PSTs/group) by using various multimodal and linguistic resources developed and used in the practice of modeling. Next, they processed and annotated the information presented in another text (see Figure 3), a textbook‐style passage using the model knowledge (e.g., energy‐related gestures, sound words, and visuals). This process aimed to help them formalize their knowledge and enhance their comprehension of ideas about glycolysis presented through the text. Finally, the PSTs engaged in discussions with the instructor and peers to resolve questions and share different ways of interacting with the text using various modalities developed and used in the practice of modeling to conclude the formal instruction on glycolysis.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 The part of the passage about glycolysis and a PST's annotations using sound words developed during the modeling practice." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184446230-12">Data Generation</hd> <p>The data sources include video and audio recordings of classroom and small group (3–4 PSTs/group) discussions throughout the 3‐h model‐based lesson, learning artifacts (i.e., worksheets, annotations, and models on papers and mini whiteboards), and videotaped semi‐structured interviews. The video and audio recordings of the PSTs' discussions were crucial for understanding the collaborative process of leveraging linguistic and multimodal resources in the practice of modeling. Some photos of the PSTs were also used in the paper to capture gestures and other embodied actions. The first author was granted permission to use photos of some participants regardless of whether they were identifiable. Learning artifacts, such as the PSTs' models, worksheets, and captured interactions with the science texts (e.g., annotations, interpretations) in interviews, were created through their ongoing, open‐ended, and social‐to‐personal meaning‐making experiences within the context of modeling practices.</p> <p>A total of 45‐min semi‐structured interviews were conducted by the first author to explore how the PSTs took up their modeling knowledge and the shared language they developed through group work, and how they then used this knowledge and language to interpret and interact with science texts. The goal of this process was not to simply retrieve pre‐existing meanings from the texts, but rather to construct, expand, and manipulate meanings, allowing for deeper engagement and understanding. Interviews helped us see how individuals took up the modeling experience and how they used diverse language resources. Additionally, these interviews provided further evidence that the PSTs were explicitly encouraged to explore alternative ways of meaning‐making in science learning. During interviews, our research partners interacted with a textbook‐style passage (Figure 3) about glycolysis using diverse language resources (both multimodal and linguistic resources) that they developed and used in the practice of modeling. These interviews specifically explored how meaning‐making experience through modeling could feature greater involvement between the PSTs and the ideas presented in the text. This study expected that the meaning‐making experience through modeling would help the PSTs establish connections between meanings and modalities as well as engage with the overall discursive flow in the text.</p> <p>Interviews were recorded in Zoom. Each PST was interviewed individually. The main interview task was to read the text aloud, underline or highlight each energy‐carrying molecule, and explain what specific molecule underlined (or highlighted) is doing in terms of transfer of energy by using their choice of linguistic or multimodal resource. The PSTs used annotations to process the information presented in the text (highlighting the related parts of the passage, labeling with their choice of modality including but not limited to gestures and sound words) and explained what their thoughts were as they annotated the ideas. The PSTs were also asked follow‐up questions in response to their annotations to understand the ways they interpreted meanings in the text using diverse language resources.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-13">Analytical Approach</hd> <p>We used MIA, framed by Wilmes and Siry ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref115">96</reflink>]), to examine how the PSTs used a variety of multimodal and linguistic resources for a range of meaning‐making moments. We analyzed the data sets using the steps in MIA to examine how the PSTs made use of multimodal and linguistic resources when engaging in meaning‐making through the practice of modeling. Grounded in multimodal sense‐making in science learning, MIA allowed us to examine a variety of modalities (e.g., manipulatives and embodied actions) employed by our research partners through interaction within the context of science learning. Our analysis began with the PSTs' embodied engagement in modeling, then coupled with their engagement in other modalities to explore their meaning‐making experience. In particular, the MIA analysis supported us in foregrounding the embodied aspect of the interaction, backgrounding the spoken aspect of learner engagement. This analytic process served to highlight the embodied ways in which the PSTs engaged in meaning‐making using diverse language resources.</p> <p>The first step of our MIA analysis included our writing of analytic logs which presented a detailed overview of the context of the modeling instruction. The analytic log chronologically detailed events as they unfolded in real‐time during the modeling instruction and interviews as reconstructed from a series of reviews of the audio and video‐recorded instruction and interviews. The next step included several viewings of each video with the audio muted and unmuted to document a variety of modes (e.g., gestures, gaze, drawings, and material‐driven interactions) employed by the PSTs in their interaction with one another through the construction of multimodal transcript (see Figure 4). During the first series of viewing of the video recordings, spoken language was backgrounded and de‐emphasized. De‐emphasizing spoken language did not mean that the importance of spoken language was taken away. Rather, it highlighted the other modalities that were as important in interaction as a spoken language by allowing researchers to break from a language‐oriented view of learner engagement and interaction (Wilmes and Siry [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref116">96</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 An illustrative example of a multimodal transcript excerpt." /> </p> <p></p> <p>During the second series of viewing the videos with the audio unmuted, we layered on other modes of communication and interpreted the non‐verbal modes of communication. For instance, the meaning of a hand gesture may not be possible to interpret without further enhancement from other modes such as verbalization. The reason for layering spoken language during this step of the analysis was to purposely offset the use of spoken language as the guiding principle for the analysis of meaning‐making. The process of viewing videos with the audio off first and then layering on spoken language was conducted over multiple rounds of viewing the videos. By doing so, we refined and reduced the data and narrowed the focus to meaning through multiple modalities.</p> <p>The following step of the MIA included reviewing the multimodal transcript multiple times and coding the specific meaning‐making moments in which the PSTs leveraged and developed a variety of language resources while constructing, re‐constructing, and co‐constructing meaning. Our unit of analysis was identified as meaning‐making instances, which we defined as moments when the PSTs used movement, gestures, and other bodily actions to convey their understanding of ideas. We referred to these actions as turns of movement, meaning any specific, intentional action performed by the PSTs to represent an idea. For each instance, we focused on the details of these turns of movement by the participating PSTs. For example, in one turn of movement from this study, Mary, a PST, placed her fingers on the magnet rings, pushed the third floating magnet down, and released her finger to let the third magnet go. This action occurred as she acted out the ATP energy story to illustrate how the ATP molecule gets, has, and releases energy, helping her make sense of this scientific idea. In our analysis, we then layered on other modes of communication, such as spoken language and sound words, during the construction of a multimodal transcript. This process also involved pairing each turn of movement with a corresponding turn of talk, allowing us to code each instance comprehensively. By doing so, we captured how turn‐taking in conversation often accompanies multiple communication modalities, which we had previously overlooked when focusing solely on embodied actions. We utilized a coding system that included multiple relevant codes where applicable to represent the complexity of each instance fully. For instance, when Melissa, a PST, reads the following presented in the text, "Once together, NADH is in a high‐energy state." She first verbally interprets what she just read by saying, "So I would say that NADH has energy. It'd be having." Then, Melissa generates a sound word to re‐construct the meaning of having energy, "It's like sizzling. It's Mmmm! for us." We coded this instance as verbalization and sound generation.</p> <p>The last step of the MIA analysis was to move from codes to categories. To do so, we focused on identifying and describing how and why diverse language resources (multimodal and linguistic) were leveraged and developed by the PSTs as they engaged in meaning‐making. Through an inductive approach, we reviewed the multimodal transcript, closely examined the coded meaning‐making moments, and categorized how diverse language resources were used in meaning‐making with models and modeling. Table 2 presents some illustrative examples of a series of codes and categories that we created at the end of the data analysis.</p> <p>2 Table An illustrative example of a series of codes and categories.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Excerpt from the data</th><th>Codes</th><th>Categories</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>"So, I would say that NADH has energy. It'd be having. It's like sizzling. It's Mmmm! for us."</td><td>VerbalizationSound generation</td><td>Generating and expanding on meanings through different modalities</td></tr><tr><td>"In glycolysis, glucose is split into two smaller carbon molecules [the original sentence in the text]. So, this is saying that glucose is split. So, it's releasing energy."</td><td>Verbalization</td><td>Explaining meanings</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> [] added for clarification purposes.</p> <p>To ensure the credibility of the inductive coding, we analyzed the same selected parts of the video recordings, transcripts, and artifacts individually and then met to discuss the similarities and discrepancies in our coding during our weekly analytical meetings. When we agreed on our codes, we decided the definition of codes could provide internal consistency in how we applied the codes to the data sets and conducted the analyses. We discussed the differences in our analytic views and revised the coding process and the code definitions until we agreed on the codes and their definitions through our weekly reflexive conversations on the data and the analyses.</p> <p>After completing our in‐depth analysis, we individually reviewed the coded and categorized segments of the meaning‐making moments. We then convened to discuss the patterns we had identified and our interpretations, which led to the development of a set of themes. These themes focus on how the PSTs utilized their language resources during meaning‐making activities within modeling practices. For each theme, we created a memo detailing the characteristics of meaning‐making, drawing from the codes and categories we developed (see Table 2 for an illustrative example of a series of codes and categories). For example, during the first step of our analysis, we individually coded a segment where a PST was explaining the concept of glucose breakdown in glycolysis. One of us noted that the PST used verbal expressions to illustrate the energy release ("glucose is split... it's releasing energy"). We coded this segment under "verbalization," categorizing it as "explaining meanings" (see Table 2). Memoing provided additional context to this specific segment of the meaning‐making moment by helping us identify this moment as an example of meaning‐making while interacting with the science text. Then, this specific meaning‐making moment alongside various other sets of moments was conceptualized under Theme # 3, which elaborates on the PST's use of model knowledge and language to engage with science texts. While developing the themes, we also revisited the video recordings of the model‐based lessons and interviews as necessary to gather additional evidence and context.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-15">Findings</hd> <p>We developed three themes to present how our group of PSTs used their diverse multimodal and linguistic resources in meaning‐making when engaged in the practice of developing and using models. For each theme, we elaborate on findings and present illustrative excerpts from the analysis. Since there are multiple excerpts from all participants that support each theme, we will present representative excerpts from the selected participants in the following sections to elaborate on each theme. While selecting examples for this section, we aim to illustrate the variations in each theme. < > indicates embodied actions. Statements in brackets were added for clarification purposes. All names are pseudonyms.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-16">Theme 1: PSTs Used Physical Manipulatives and Other Multimodal Resources to Develop Meanings...</hd> <p>In this beginning phase of discourse, the engagement was mostly multimodal, embodied, and material‐driven without any significant exchanges of linguistic resources such as spoken language. For instance, without speaking to their group members, the PSTs first picked up the ATP manipulative and gazed at the magnets. Then, they figured out how the magnets should be placed on the base (i.e., they had to figure out whether the magnets should repel each other or snap together). Mary, for instance, placed her fingers over the magnets, pushed only the third magnet down (the other two were snapped together), released her fingers, and observed how the third magnet flew off, with her gaze fixed on the magnet set. She repeated this action several times. If Mary's interaction with the materials were framed through only verbal exchanges, the process of exploring how each manipulative represents how molecules get, have, and release energy would be easily overlooked.</p> <p>Moments after Mary interacted with the ATP manipulative, she asked herself and her partners, "This is so weird. Why don't they stick together?" At this moment, she examined the manipulative and tried to explain how ATP gets energy by repeatedly pushing the third magnet down. Her engagement with the manipulative facilitated her process of constructing the meaning of energy‐carrying molecules getting energy. She used the phrase "stick together" to talk about an energy‐carrying molecule getting energy. Mary, then elaborated on the meaning of "stick together" through her group's model to visually represent how molecules get energy (see Figure 5). When the instructor asked Mary to walk her through the getting energy phase in her group's model, she went on to say, "We just drew two circles which represent the molecules [three energy‐carrying molecules]. For getting energy, they are being pushed together by the two arrows." She further expanded the meaning of "stick together" into molecules "being pushed together."</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Mary's embodied interaction with the manipulative evolves into a model through her meaning‐making." /> </p> <p></p> <p>As depicted in Figure 5, Mary's meaning‐making through interacting with physical manipulatives at the beginning of the practice of modeling featured an initial explanation of meanings followed by a series of expansion on meanings: tinkering in parallel with the ATP manipulative to figure out why magnets do not stick together and then expanding on these ideas using both multimodal and linguistic resources (i.e., verbal expressions and visuals). Representing Mary's meaning‐making experience, this excerpt showed how Mary repeatedly unpacked and packed her experience with physical manipulatives along with the ideas into phrases and symbols in her drawing. For instance, she first used her embodied experience interacting with the ATP manipulative to understand how a third phosphate can be attached to ADP and how ADP turns into ATP, which metaphorically refers to the process of getting energy. This led Mary to expand on her direct interaction with the manipulative (i.e., three floating magnets attracting one another when they face in opposite directions) through a phrase, "stick together," when she described what she observed and discussed with her group members. She then elaborated on this meaning ('stick together') through a new modality (the drawing in Figure 5) when she drew a model to represent how an energy‐carrying molecule can get energy later in the process of modeling (see 'getting energy' in Figure 5). Her drawing included three main symbols (i.e., arrows, circles, and short lines) that were imbued with meaning that she developed through her modeling experience. When the instructor (Ayça) asked her about the getting energy phase, she further explained the meaning of the drawing by verbally introducing the phrase "being pushed together." Mary's profile showed that rich multimodal meanings emerged through her embodied and material‐driven interactions at the beginning of the modeling practice and were carried to the later steps in modeling instruction. Her material‐driven meaning‐making experience with the ATP manipulative gradually strengthened and moved to the foreground in her modeling experience.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-18">Theme 2: PSTs Relied on Multimodal and Linguistic Resources for Refining and Solidifying Mean...</hd> <p>This theme shows that our research partners further developed meanings through written, drawn, and verbal expressions as well as gesticulations to talk about the transfer of energy. Building on their interactions with the physical manipulatives, the PSTs continued to expand on the meanings they encountered by deploying a variety of modalities. They developed their models and elaborated on them by representing meaning through their emergent gestures, labels, and sound words. This provided multiple avenues for them to participate in meaning‐making by backgrounding the disciplinary language. Consider the following dialog between Mary and her group members during their initial model development (see Figure 6).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Mary and her group developing their initial model." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Mary, Edna, and Luci used their gestures, drawings, and verbal expressions as a central component of their thinking about molecules getting, having, and releasing energy. First, the idea of molecules getting energy was represented by Luci's hand gesture <her index fingers pointing at each other and coming close slowly> to depict how the atoms or molecular entities of the energy‐carrying molecules are pushed together when the molecules get energy. Next, being influenced by Luci's gesture, Edna generated her gesture to represent what it means for an energy‐carrying molecule to release energy. She elaborated on the idea that the atoms or molecular entities of an energy‐carrying molecule are detached from the molecule by breaking one or more high‐energy bonds using her gesture. This was evident in her verbalization when she said, "And for releasing, at least one arrow could go the opposite way." This detachment‐yielding energy was represented by two arrows going in different directions in their model (see Figure 6). Last, Mary explained the idea of molecules having energy drawing a straight line, and then verbalized, "For having energy, it is just like a straight line, no arrows. It is kinda just sitting there." Without any verbal communication, Mary then drew two circles between the arrows for getting energy, two circles in the middle of the straight line for having energy, and one circle at each end of the arrows for releasing energy. She felt a need to represent the energy‐carrying molecules by two random circles in their model as well.</p> <p>The PSTs continued to generate, revise, and enrich their emergent modalities (i.e., written, verbal, pictorial, and embodied) during the model share‐out session that aimed to bring the ideas being worked on in small groups to the whole class. For instance, when Mary introduced her group's model to the whole class, she shared the following presented in Figure 7.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Mary's verbal explanation of the group model along with her gestures." /> </p> <p></p> <p>From this excerpt, it can be seen that Mary generated an additional gesture to represent releasing energy along with the drawing. Initially, her group used their index fingers to symbolize releasing energy and described the detached atoms and molecular entities going in two different directions. Using all her fingers, Mary emphasized that the atoms and molecular entities of the energy‐carrying molecules are removed and move in multiple directions rather than two opposite directions when the molecules release energy. Mary also explicitly indicated that they preferred to use two circles as a generic representation of the energy‐carrying molecules: glucose, ATP, and NADH. It seemed that her attempt was influenced by her and her group's experience with practice modeling at the beginning of the instruction, where they learned how to develop a general representation by comparing two or more examples of a phenomenon or object that differed on the surface but shared an underlying structure. In this case, the three energy‐carrying molecules differ as to what their molecular configurations look like, but they share an underlying structure: the way the molecules transfer energy. The configurational aspect of the energy‐carrying molecules was represented through two generic circles, while the underlying structure of the transfer of energy (getting, having, and releasing energy) was depicted through their group model.</p> <p>As research partners developed meanings through symbols, gestures, visuals, and verbalizations, they influenced one another. Model revisions facilitated negotiations across group models and the specific meanings represented in these models. For example, during the share‐out session, the instructor asked Mary to compare her group's model (Group A) to another group's model (Group B). The reason was that Mary represented the having energy stage by a straight line referring to the molecule being stable, whereas the other group represented the getting energy stage by parentheses around the molecule indicating that the molecule was vibrating. Mary's initial group model is on the left (Group A), and Group B's initial model is on the right in Figure 8.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0008.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0008.jpg" title="8 The initial models by Group A and Group B, and Mary's model (Group A) revision." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The PSTs continued to develop and elaborate on the meanings during the revision of their initial model. Take this example of the development of new meanings by Group A as they move between their model and the model developed by another group (Group B). After the class discussion and initial model share‐out session, Mary erased the existing visual representation of having energy in their model by saying, "We can draw a squiggly line to represent the vibrations." The idea of vibration came from Group B's model and was represented as parentheses in that model. Mary first explained the meaning of vibration and depicted it through a drawing (i.e., a squiggly line). Being influenced by Group B's model, Mary revised her group's idea of what it means for an energy‐carrying molecule to have energy and switch from a straight line indicating that the molecule is stable when having energy to a squiggly line that denotes an unstable, vibrating molecule with high‐energy bonds.</p> <p>Next, Mary added parentheses around the molecules and said, "Then draw some lines outside to show the force" (see Figure 8). Similarly, the idea of force is derived from the model developed by Group B. She first explained the meaning of force based on Group B's model (i.e., lines showing the force). She then added parentheses around the molecule and incorporated another meaning of the having energy phase into her drawing, which is some force applied to the atoms or molecular entities of the energy‐carrying molecule to push them together and once together, hold them together. Building on the force idea for having energy, Mary moved up to the getting energy representation and asked, "Where is the force? Right here [pointing at the middle of the molecules]?" Edna responded, "I guess going that way." Then, Mary drew some lines outside the arrows (see Figure 9).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0009.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0009.jpg" title="9 Mary's further revisions of the initial group model." /> </p> <p></p> <p>This dialog illustrates the meaning‐making events facilitated by the cross‐pollination of group models through the use of drawings, written and verbal expressions, sound words, and gestures. For instance, the concept of vibrating molecules due to high energy was depicted as a squiggly line. Two circles were generally referred to as energy‐carrying molecules. The idea that molecules gain energy by being pushed against each other was represented through hand gestures showing two index fingers coming together, while hands and fingers moving in opposite directions indicated molecules releasing energy. Additionally, model revisions during share‐out sessions provided opportunities to adopt meanings from other models and integrate these meanings into one's own model using diverse language resources.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-23">Theme 3: PSTs Used Meanings Developed Through Modeling Experience to Engage With Science Text...</hd> <p>Using diverse language resources (both linguistic and multimodal resources) to develop and communicate meanings while engaging in the practice of modeling served as a means to imagine different kinds of interactions with the science texts (i.e., annotating a textbook‐style passage, animation, diagram, and graphic novel with model knowledge and experience, such as using sound words from the model) as opposed to traditional ways of meaning‐making through science texts (e.g., reading a passage and answering questions about it). In processing these texts, the PSTs first interpreted the ideas and meanings presented in the texts that feature a series of art accompanied by dialog, narration, sound effects, and other textual elements. Then, they expanded on these ideas and meanings from the texts by employing modalities that they developed during the modeling experience. In Figure 10, Jamila reads the science text about glycolysis and processes the information presented in the text by using her modalities that she developed throughout her modeling experience.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01may25/sce21934-fig-0010.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21934-fig-0010.jpg" title="10 Jamila engages with the ideas in the text about glycolysis by using diverse linguistic and multimodal resources." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Jamila first interpreted the meaning of the phrase "glucose being split" as releasing energy. Then, she expanded on the idea of releasing energy through her gestures to show what it is like for glucose to release energy ("being split"). Next, she further elaborated on the idea of releasing energy through her sound word (boom) that she generated and simultaneously gestured an explosion to expand the meaning of her sound word, boom. Finally, she pointed at her model (see Figure 10) in which she visualized the meaning of molecules releasing energy.</p> <p>As presented in Figure 10, Jamila interpreted the ideas and meanings represented in the text by using a verbal expression ('It's releasing energy.') that came from her modeling experience. She then expanded on this meaning by using gestures, sound words, and visuals that also emerged from her modeling experience. Her meaning‐making profile portrayed an initial verbal interpretation of the phrase "glucose being split" when she encountered the text for the first time. Then, she elaborated on this idea by applying her multimodal resources that emerged in the process of developing and using her model. For instance, Jamila deepened the meaning of a technical phrase, "glucose splitting into two smaller carbon molecules," in the text when she used her hand gesture to represent an explosion that refers to glucose splitting. In another instance, Jamila further developed the meaning of "releasing energy" when she used the sound word "Boom," which was part of her model. This was followed by her representing the same idea in her drawing when she pointed at her model.</p> <p>Jamila employed a set of modalities, most of which came from her model. These modalities with self‐authored meanings included applying a label, such as "boom" or "releasing"; demonstrating an action from the model, such as gesturing an explosion; and, employing an insight gleaned from the animated video about glycolysis, such as attributing the cause of releasing to the explosion in the video. Jamila used her diverse language resources that were imbued with meaning to process the ideas presented in the science text.</p> <p>Based on their interactions with the science texts, our research partners emphasized the affordances of using diverse language resources (both multimodal and linguistic) as part of their modeling experience. Mary, for instance, mentioned that her experience learning with modeling helped her interact with the science texts. She shared, "When you introduced the topic, it made me nervous because I am not a science person." However, using modeling with your instruction truly allowed me to process the information better!" Her comment indicates that her modeling experience using diverse language resources helped her understand the scientific ideas that she previously found intimidating. The multimodal and linguistic resources leveraged in the practice of modeling seemed to make scientific ideas in the texts more accessible by allowing the PSTs to use the diverse modalities at their disposal. Additionally, the PSTs emphasized how modeling practices that leverage multimodal and linguistic tools could help connect embedded ways of being and knowing to science learning (Blown and Bryce [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref117">10</reflink>], Skulmowski and Rey [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref118">77</reflink>]). Edna, for instance, pointed out that the use of embodied actions (in particular, generating sound words) could encourage the use of embedded ways of knowing in meaning‐making with modeling practices by making science ideas more personal and engaging. She shared, "Making sound effects is such an engaging way to help students remember tricky concepts. It makes connections between school and what children usually enjoy outside of school, such as TikTok, movies, and YouTube." Drawing from her modeling experience in this study, Edna emphasizes that multimodal resources like sound words are not only engaging but also meaningful in understanding scientific ideas. Even though the idea of "remember(ing) tricky concepts" might fall into traditional thinking of multimodal resources as mnemonic devices, Edna's experience reinforces that these multimodal resources are seen integral to the models and modeling rather than supplementary.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-25">Discussion and Implications</hd> <p>Significant advancements have been made in the research on the design and implementation of modeling practices, effectively outlining the key principles of these practices (Gouvea and Passmore [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]; Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref120">74</reflink>]; Windschitl, Thompson, and Braaten [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref121">98</reflink>]) as well as the foundational principles for teacher learning (Ke and Schwarz [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref122">41</reflink>]; Bennion and Davis [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref123">6</reflink>]). Our paper explored how our group of PSTs used their diverse multimodal and linguistic resources in meaning‐making with(in) modeling practices. As we describe below, attending to diverse multimodal and linguistic resources as catalysts for expanding the language affordance of modeling practices and adding a new dimension to modeling practices by linking models and modeling to engaging with science texts can continue to support curriculum designers, educators, and researchers to develop equitable, meaningful, and multifaceted modeling experiences for all learners including preservice science teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-26">Expanding the Language Affordance of Modeling Practices for Equitable Meaning‐Making</hd> <p>The processes of using semiotic resources (both multimodal and linguistic) in meaning‐making we presented in this study are an example of how an explicit integration of science practices (e.g., developing and using models) and language resources can catalyze expansive meaning‐making in science education. What we mean by this is that the PSTs' meaning‐making experience showed them how models could serve as student tools for both individual and collective meaning‐making through the use of diverse language resources, unlike the traditional conceptualization of models as teacher tools to deliver science content using prioritized ways of doing and knowing science (Windschitl and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref124">97</reflink>]). These two approaches differ significantly in their underlying principles regarding the language use in meaning‐making with models and modeling. Our findings provide insights into how using models and modeling practices, as student tools, in service of meaning making through the use of diverse language resources expands the language affordance of the practice.</p> <p>The models‐as‐student‐tools approach emphasizes empowering modelers to make meaning actively through modeling practices that acknowledge the importance of experiential knowledge, embedded language resources, and lived experiences as foundational elements for science learning (Pierson, Clark, and Brady [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref125">67</reflink>]; Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref126">73</reflink>]). This approach aligns with the learning opportunity created for the PSTs in this study, recognizing the significance of social interaction and diverse language use in meaning‐making with the practice of modeling. For instance, interacting with physical manipulatives as part of the model development helped the PSTs explore their experience with the materials (e.g., placing fingers over the floating ring magnet set representing phosphates in ATP, pushing them down, observing the magnets snapping together, and calling this observation the magnets 'stick[ing] together'). They then transformed that observation into an idea that was fundamental to their model (getting energy→being pushed together). This process illustrates how multimodal and linguistic resources serve as entry points for meaning making.</p> <p>Building on this, the models‐as‐student‐tools approach further promotes an expansive view of language use in meaning making with(in) modeling practices, which includes both shared and individually embedded multimodal and linguistic resources. For instance, the PSTs used the sound word "Boom!" to describe the release of energy, creating a common understanding of the concept. In addition to shared language resources, the PSTs also employed various gestures, sound words, and visuals to represent energy release during their model development, showcasing the diverse ways in which unique language resources contribute to the learning process.</p> <p>The models‐as‐teacher‐tools approach, on the other hand, views models primarily as instructional aids used by teachers to convey preconstructed knowledge and language to learners (Windschitl and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref127">97</reflink>]). This approach prioritizes the transmission of appropriate knowledge and language over meaning‐making through diverse multimodal and linguistic resources. Here, knowledge and language exist independently of modelers and are transmitted by the teacher. Consequently, language use in models and modeling relies on disembodied, technical terms for meaning making, reflecting traditional practices in scientific discourse. It is often assumed that students need to become proficient in this specialized language to understand scientific ideas (Nielsen and Nielsen [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref128">62</reflink>]; Shi et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref129">75</reflink>]). This method of modeling is commonly encountered in teacher education programs and science teaching practices (Windschitl and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref130">97</reflink>]). Within this approach, models are underutilized as multimodal meaning‐making tools to promote diverse ways of knowing and doing science. Our findings align with a few other studies that support teacher involvement in the practice of modeling as a multimodal knowledge‐ and language‐building process (e.g., Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref131">46</reflink>]; Pierson et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref132">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>The meaning‐making experience we presented in this study serves as an example of what the use of diverse linguistic and multimodal language resources could do for learners. The modeling experience encouraged the PSTs to avail themselves of their heterogeneous, emergent, innovative, and generative meaning‐making repertoires when grappling with the meaning of science ideas. Examining the use of diverse multimodal and linguistic resources helped us capture how the PSTs experienced developing self‐authored meanings as well as working with preconstructed meanings within the context of models and modeling. The use of diverse linguistic and multimodal language resources provides the PSTs with multiple ways of refining and solidifying meanings and expanding upon meanings when needed, which is central to meaning making in science. Our PSTs' meaning‐making experience invited them to move beyond standardized expressions of formal science learning environments. This provided multiple avenues for them to participate in science learning by backgrounding the disciplinary language. For instance, the concept of vibrating molecules due to high energy was described as a squiggly line, as Mary verbalized while drawing: "We can draw a squiggly line to represent the vibrations." In this example, Mary transformed this meaning (i.e., the concept of vibrating molecules) into the phrase "squiggly line" and her drawing. Unlike the traditional framing of scientific words—often imbued with technical meanings and contrasted with everyday words used as scaffolds to access scientific concepts—we argue that everyday words and phrases originating from students' experiences can effectively solidify and expand meanings. These words and phrases reflect learners' daily lives, personalized experiences, and are grounded in emotions and affection. For instance, the phrase "squiggly line" and its visual representation became a meaningful way to explore the concept of vibration through modeling experience, as it easily connects to the idea of molecules with high‐level energy.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-27">A New Dimension to Modeling: Using Models and Modeling in Engaging With Science Texts</hd> <p>The meaning‐making experience with the practice of modeling we presented in this study shows how multimodal and linguistic resources that emerged from the modeling experience could be employed to interact with science texts and facilitate comprehension of scientific ideas, particularly in comparison to and complement to traditional approaches to interacting with these texts (e.g., reading a textbook‐style passage and then answering some questions). The findings revealed that modeling can be connected to the reading of science texts, a practice not traditionally associated with science learning and teaching, particularly at the elementary level (Lott and Clark [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref133">53</reflink>]). When reading is a practice in science classrooms, teachers tend to establish reading environments primarily by offering vocabulary lessons, requiring students to read PowerPoint slides or other supplementary materials, and assigning various activities that involved reading followed by brief writing tasks (Lew [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref134">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>While our findings demonstrate that modeling can facilitate interactions with science texts, it is crucial to recognize multimodal modeling as more than a scaffold toward reading science texts. Instead, we position modeling as a standalone epistemic practice that enables learners to negotiate and communicate ideas through multimodal means. This practice should be valued not simply as a prelude to engaging with science text but as an authentic form of scientific inquiry and knowledge‐building in its own right. By doing so, we avoid the weak version of multimodal modeling as merely a means to access textual knowledge and instead underscore its role in fostering diverse ways of doing science and languaging. Embracing this strong version of modeling affirms that science learning involves multimodal literacies beyond text, where each modality contributes uniquely to learners' understanding and engagement with scientific phenomena, consistent with the framework we adopted in this study.</p> <p>Adopting an expansive view of texts, we believe that science texts (e.g., a written text, diagram, graphic novel, and visual) are not part of a text that is written with symbolic, scientific language. Instead, the expression substance of science texts is heterogeneous and emerges through interactions between the meaning maker and the ideas in the texts. For instance, Jamila's process involved interpreting technical phrases such as "glucose splitting into two smaller carbon molecules" by explaining it as the release of energy. She then expanded on this concept by using gestures, sounds words, and visuals to represent an explosion, illustrating the release of energy. This meaning‐making process demonstrates how scientific ideas can be translated into accessible and meaningful forms through diverse multimodal and linguistic resources derived from the modeling experience. Additionally, as described in Mary's experience, the use of multimodal and linguistic resources can facilitate comprehension. She explained that the modeling instruction in this study helped her process scientific ideas more effectively, making intimidating concepts, such as glycolysis, more accessible. Our study underscores the effectiveness of using diverse and emergent language resources in modeling practices to enhance the understanding of scientific concepts presented in science texts. We consider this as initial insight into how model knowledge and language can be applied to other meaning‐making contexts, such as interacting with diagrams, textbook passages, or graphic novels.</p> <p>As an important implication of this study, disciplinary science practices should be positioned in such a way that they can dismantle narrow perspectives and expectations of doing science and using the appropriate language (Bang et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref135">5</reflink>]; Fackler and Wright [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref136">22</reflink>]; Flores and Rosa [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref137">23</reflink>]). Language is not a tool that students possess or are provided with (Van Lier [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref138">52</reflink>]). Rather, we conceptualize it as a tool that is used to notice, name, and interact with the world in meaning making. Likewise, science practices are sensemaking tools that learners unravel through exploration, not merely an activity in which they are asked to participate. Emphasizing this aspect of doing language and science in the context of modeling practices encourages more learners to contribute to knowledge building as knowers by promoting horizontal (collaborative) modeling experiences rather than vertical ones as seen in traditional science teaching practices where knowledge and language used in modeling practices are passed from experts or teachers to non‐experts or students (Fackler [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref139">19</reflink>]). A horizontal modeling experience gives knowers and modelers the agency to incorporate their knowledge, along with their embodied and embedded ways of being and knowing, into model development. This approach moves beyond traditional, prioritized ways of doing language and science, allowing learners to blend their diverse and emergent language resources when engaging in meaning‐making with models. As a result, this positioning of science practices, such as modeling practices, necessitates that science teachers focus on noticing, naming, and leveraging students' generative and expandable language resources in meaning‐making with science practices (Lemmi, Pérez, and Brown [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref140">49</reflink>]; Suárez and Otero [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref141">82</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-28">Future Directions</hd> <p>This study offered key insights that can inform future efforts to engage PSTs in an expansive view of modeling practices that are grounded in diverse and emergent language use. A key insight is that when provided with opportunities, the PSTs were flexibly engaged in the process of meaning‐making throughout their modeling experience by using diverse, emergent multimodal and linguistic resources. Additionally, they blended their model knowledge and language to interact with science texts in nontraditional ways (e.g., using sound words to annotate a diagram).</p> <p>The use of these generative and expandable language resources during modeling, as well as in interactions with texts, created a meaningful connection between languaging and meaning making with science practices. This study presented modeling as a languaging practice, highlighting how the PSTs actively constructed understanding through language as they engaged in the practice of modeling. As science educators, we often overlook these emergent, generative, and expandable language resources, even though they are essential for making science learning accessible, relevant, and engaging for students. This insight underscores the significance of aligning teacher learning with student learning (e.g., Grapin et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref142">29</reflink>]; Mehta and Fine [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref143">56</reflink>]), making sure we recognize and incorporate the rich and diverse language resources that teachers possess (e.g., Areljung, Ottander, and Due [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref144">4</reflink>]; Fackler [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref145">19</reflink>]; Varelas et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref146">91</reflink>]). One of the key issues that is related to this insight and that requires further consideration is how to promote equitable and meaningful participation in the practice of modeling for elementary students in linguistically contentious learning contexts. For instance, a linguistically contentious learning context could be a classroom where students come from diverse linguistic backgrounds, and there is a dominant language of instruction that may not be the first language of many students. In such settings, students who are not yet proficient in the dominant language (e.g., English in the United States) may face challenges fully participating in science practices. However, the language affordances of modeling—which include diverse ways of expressing ideas through multimodal and linguistic resources—can help students engage with scientific concepts in ways that do not solely rely on proficiency in the dominant language or in privileged ways of communicating. These affordances of modeling allow students to participate more equitably and feel that their cultural and linguistic expressions are valued in knowledge building.</p> <p>While this study offered insights into how the PSTs could use diverse language resources (both multimodal and linguistic resources) for meaning making while engaging in modeling practices, it did not investigate how they would take up the type of modeling experience they had in this study and implement it in different teaching contexts (e.g., student teaching at placement schools or teaching science during induction phase). Thus, to further explore the potential of the practice of modeling presented in this study, we are investigating teachers' meaning making with models and modeling and their implementation of modeling practices rooted in diverse language use by collaborating with teachers at different stages of their careers, with different disciplinary backgrounds, and in different demographic, geographic, and organizational contexts. We hope to better understand how teachers can act as amplifiers and filters (Brundrit and Schudel [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref147">12</reflink>]; Gess‐Newsome [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref148">24</reflink>]) to take up approaches to modeling practices that are more equitable and meaningful and sift these approaches for their specific science teaching contexts.</p> <p>Conducting longitudinal studies on PST learning within science methods courses, particularly as they transition to early teaching years, holds significant potential for advancing the field. Specifically, focusing on how preservice elementary science teachers develop the ability to notice, name, and leverage students' linguistic and cultural resources over time can offer deep insights into the evolution of teaching practices and attitudes. This research could uncover critical moments that shape teachers' ability to integrate diverse language resources effectively, thereby informing teacher education programs and professional learning initiatives.</p> <p>One major challenge lies in designing and implementing modeling practices that embrace an expansive view of language use in meaning‐making. Supporting both preservice and inservice teachers in this complex work is essential but requires careful consideration. As science teacher educators in this study, we have dedicated substantial time to discussing language use in science practices and implementing model‐based lessons in a science methods course. However, this might not be feasible across all teacher education programs due to constraints such as available resources, course focus, and varying approaches to designing science methods courses.</p> <p>Creating streamlined learning materials that allow PSTs to engage in meaning‐making with models, while leveraging diverse language resources, has also proven challenging. While our goal is indeed to provide teachers with options for incorporating diverse language resources to counteract the marginalization of students' authentic ways of knowing and doing science, this effort is complicated by the misalignment between the idealized forms of communication often associated with modeling practices (e.g., writing) and the actual communication strengths of our students. This misalignment can unintentionally position certain ways of expressing and understanding scientific ideas as more valid than others, which risks marginalizing students whose strengths lie outside these idealized norms. Therefore, a challenge lies in designing materials that genuinely embrace diverse language resources without reinforcing narrow expectations of knowing and doing science. In our work, we aimed to support the PSTs in appreciating and leveraging their future students' diverse meaning‐making repertoires. However, the extent to which these experiences will be applied in their future teaching is uncertain, as it is influenced by varying school policies, levels of administrative support, resource availability, and the pressures of standardized testing and curriculum requirements.</p> <p>As we press forward with this important work, we find motivation in reflections like the one below, generously offered by one of our research partners, Edna, during the conclusion of our model‐based lesson:</p> <p>Before this lesson, I was under the impression that models consisted of things like T‐charts, spreadsheets, or graphic organizers. I thought that they were very cut‐and‐dry, and always provided or jointly instructed by the teacher. [The instructor] showed us how models can be constructed by the students, integrated with different modalities like kinesthetic movements and verbal sounds.</p> <p>Edna's sincere remark, likely echoing the sentiments of numerous PSTs, highlights how an expansive view of the practice of modeling, rooted in the use of diverse language resources, redirects focus from the perceived constraints of models (e.g., provided or developed by the teacher) to their pedagogical capacity (e.g., room for non‐prioritized ways of meaning‐making). The practice of developing and using models should and could organically weave together learners with language and science content, fostering a more inclusive and enriching modeling experience (Fackler [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref149">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>We argue that this redirected focus is crucial for PSTs to notice, name, and leverage diverse, emergent multimodal and linguistic resources that their students bring to their modeling experience, humanizing science practices. It is anticipated that such focus will foster a more meaningful and equitable modeling experience for K‐12 students in science classrooms (Grapin et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref150">29</reflink>]; Siry and Gorges [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref151">76</reflink>]; Solomon et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref152">78</reflink>]). The approach also addresses the pressing need to expand the common perception of who gets to develop models, what counts as knowledge and language in models, what meaning making with models and modeling looks like, and whose ways of knowing and doing science guide model development (Berland et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref153">8</reflink>]; Fackler [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref154">19</reflink>]; Manz [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref155">54</reflink>]; Schwarz et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref156">73</reflink>]; Stroupe [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref157">80</reflink>]). Preservice science teacher education provides PSTs with a bricolage of knowledge, experience, and dispositions of science practices. Supporting them in becoming change agents who expand the ways we do science and language with(in) modeling practices will support a move toward more equity and justice in our field.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-29">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank the preservice teachers, our research partners, who worked with us on this project during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The authors would also like to thank the <emph>Science Education</emph> editors and reviewers whose recommendations enabled them to significantly strengthen the manuscript. The curriculum materials used in this study were developed as part of a federally funded project, "Abstraction in Modeling Through Synthesis to Learn the Nature of Models" (National Science Foundation DRK12 Program, Award #1720966). The manuscript is based on the first author's doctoral dissertation, which is cited in the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-30">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0184446230-31">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0184446230-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Acher, A., M. Arcà, and N. Sanmartí. 2007. " Modeling as a Teaching Learning Process for Understanding Materials: A Case Study in Primary Education." Science Education 91, no. 3 : 398 – 418.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adah Miller, E., L. Berland, and T. Campbell. 2024. " Equity for Students Requires Equity for Teachers: The Inextricable Link Between Teacher Professionalization and Equity‐Centered Science Classrooms." Journal of Science Teacher Education 35, no. 1 : 24 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Airey, J., and C. Linder. 2009. " A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46, no. 1 : 27 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref144" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Areljung, S., C. Ottander, and K. Due. 2017. " 'Drawing the Leaves Anyway': Teachers Embracing Children's Different Ways of Knowing in Preschool Science Practice." Research in Science Education 47 : 1173 – 1192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref88" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bang, M., B. Brown, A. Calabrese Barton, A. Rosebery, and B. Warren. 2017. " Toward More Equitable Learning in Science: Expanding Relationships Among Students, Teachers, and Science Practices." In Helping Students Make Sense of the World Using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices, edited by C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, and B. J. Reiser, 33 – 58. Arlington, VA : National Science Teachers Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref123" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bennion, A., and E. A. Davis. 2024. " Characterizing Engagement in the Science Practices: A Study of Preservice Elementary Teachers." Science Education 108, no. 5 : 1392 – 1419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berland, L. K., R. S. Russ, and C. P. West. 2020. " Supporting the Scientific Practices Through Epistemologically Responsive Science Teaching." Journal of Science Teacher Education 31, no. 3 : 264 – 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref153" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Berland, L. K., C. V. Schwarz, C. Krist, L. Kenyon, A. S. Lo, and B. J. Reiser. 2016. " Epistemologies in Practice: Making Scientific Practices Meaningful for Students." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53, no. 7 : 1082 – 1112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref66" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bismack, A. S., E. A. Davis, and A. S. Palincsar. 2022. " Science Practice‐Readiness: Novice Elementary Teachers' Developing Knowledge of Science Practices." Science Education 106 : 364 – 384.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blown, E. J., and T. G. K. Bryce. 2017. " Switching Between Everyday and Scientific Language." Research in Science Education 47, no. 3 : 621 – 653.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braaten, M. 2019. " Persistence of the Two‐Worlds Pitfall: Learning to Teach Within and Across Settings." Science Education 103, no. 1 : 61 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brundrit, S., and I. Schudel. 2021. " Teacher Contexts as Amplifiers and Filters to Environmental Pedagogical Content Knowledge Within a Professional Development System." In Teaching and Learning for Change Education and Sustainability in South Africa, edited by I. Schudel, Z. Songqwaru, S. Tshiningayamwe, and H. Lotz‐Sisitka, 305 – 318. Cape Town : African Minds.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calabrese Barton, A., and E. Tan, 2019. " Designing for Rightful Presence in STEM: The Role of Making Present Practices." Journal of the Learning Sciences 28, no. (4–5): 616 – 658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calabrese Barton, A., and E. Tan. 2020. " Beyond Equity as Inclusion: A Framework of "Rightful Presence" for Guiding Justice‐Oriented Studies in Teaching and Learning." Educational Researcher 49, no. 6 : 433 – 440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, T., and X. Fazio. 2020. " Epistemic Frames as an Analytical Framework for Understanding the Representation of Scientific Activity in a Modeling‐Based Learning Unit." Research in Science Education 50, no. 6 : 2283 – 2304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman, J., and C. Donovan. 2018. " Notice, Identify, and Interpret." Science and Children 56, no. 4 : 48 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, E. A., D. Petish, and J. Smithey. 2006. " Challenges New Science Teachers Face." Review of Educational Research 76, no. 4 : 607 – 651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fackler, A. K. 2023. "Rethinking Multimodality, Language, and Modeling Practices in Knowledge Building in Science (2825389259)." Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2825389259">www.proquest.com/docview/2825389259</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fackler, A. K. 2024. " 'I Thought That They Were Very Cut and Dry': Preservice Elementary Science Teachers Learning About and Learning With Models and Modeling." Journal of Science Teacher Education. Published ahead of print, July 22, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2024.2380549.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fackler, A. K., and D. K. Capps. 2024. " 'If You Wanted to Take This Model and Throw Nitrogen at It, It Would Fit': Synthesis Approach to Modelling to Learn about Biogeochemical Cycles." International Journal of Science Education 46, no. 5 : 421 – 439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fackler, A. K., E. Miller Adah, and T. Li. 2024. " Promoting Meaningful and Equitable Modeling Practices: Developing Agency, Using Diverse Ways of Knowing, and Collaborating to Build Knowledge Through Modeling Practices." Science & Children 61, no. 1 : 25 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368148.2023.2292328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fackler, A. K., and G. W. Wright. 2024. " Transforming Language Use in Science Education through Trans and Queer Studies." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Published ahead of print, Augus 27, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21981.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flores, N., and J. Rosa. 2015. " Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education." Harvard Educational Review 85, no. 2 : 149 – 171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gess‐Newsome, J. 2015. " A Model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill Including PCK: Results of the Thinking From the PCK Summit." In Reexamining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, edited by A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, and J. Loughran, 28 – 42. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert, J. K., and D. Treagust. 2009. Multiple Representations in Chemical Education (4). Dordrecht, the Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> González‐Howard, M., S. Andersen, K. Méndez Pérez, and E. Suárez. 2023. " Language Views for Scientific Sensemaking Matter: A Synthesis of Research on Multilingual Students' Experiences With Science Practices Through a Translanguaging Lens." Educational Researcher 52, no. 9 : 570 – 579.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gouvea, J., and C. Passmore. 2017. " 'Models of' Versus 'Models for': Toward an Agent‐Based Conception of Modeling in the Science Classroom." Science & Education 26 : 49 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grapin, S. 2019. " Multimodality in the New Content Standards Era: Implications for English Learners." Tesol Quarterly 53, no. 1 : 30 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grapin, S. E., A. Haas, N. D. McCoy, and O. Lee. 2023b. " Justice‐Centered Stem Education With Multilingual Learners: Conceptual Framework and Initial Inquiry Into Pre‐Service Teachers' Sense‐Making." Journal of Science Teacher Education 34, no. 5 : 522 – 543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grapin, S. E., A. Pierson, M. González‐Howard, M. Ryu, C. Fine, and S. Vogel. 2023a. " Science Education With Multilingual Learners: Equity as Access and Equity as Transformation." Science Education 107, no. 4 : 999 – 1032.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, R., S. McDonald, and D. Stroupe. 2021. " What You Find Depends on How You See: Examining Asset and Deficit Perspectives of Preservice Science Teachers' Knowledge and Learning." Studies in Science Education 58, no. 1 : 1 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Günther, S. L., J. Fleige, A. U. zu Belzen, and D. Krüger. 2019. " Using the Case Method to Foster Preservice Biology Teachers' Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Related to Models and Modeling." Journal of Science Teacher Education 30, no. 4 : 321 – 343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halliday, M. 1998. " Things and Relations: Regrammaticing Experience as Technical Knowledge." In Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses in Science, edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel, 185 – 235. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harlow, D. B., J. A. Bianchini, L. H. Swanson, and H. A. Dwyer. 2013. " Potential Teachers' Appropriate and Inappropriate Application of Pedagogical Resources in a Model‐Based Physics Course: A 'Knowledge in Pieces' Perspective on Teacher Learning." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50 : 1098 – 1126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harman, R. 2018. " Transforming Normative Discourses of Schooling: Critical Systemic Functional Linguistics Praxis." In Bilingual Learners and Social Equity: Critical Approaches to Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by R. Harman, 1 – 21. Cham, Switzerland : Springer International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holsanova, J. 2014. " In the Eye of the Beholder: Visual Communication From a Recipient Perspective." In Visual Communication, edited by D. Machin, 331 – 335. Berlin, Boston : De Guyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irwin, V., J. De La Rosa, and K. Wang. 2022. Report on the Condition of Education 2022. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jewitt, C. 2006. Technology, Literacy, Learning: A Multimodal Approach. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jewitt, C. and Kress, G., eds. 2003. Multimodal Literacy. New York : Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karlsson, A., P. Nygård Larsson, and A. Jakobsson. 2019. " Multilingual Students' Use of Translanguaging in Science Classrooms." International Journal of Science Education 41, no. 15 : 2049 – 2069.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ke, L., and C. V. Schwarz. 2021. " Supporting Students' Meaningful Engagement in Scientific Modeling Through Epistemological Messages: A Case Study of Contrasting Teaching Approaches." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 58, no. 3 : 335 – 365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kress, G., C. Jewitt, J. Ogborn, and C. Tsatsarelis. 2001. Multimodal Teaching and Learning: Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. New York : Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, O., and S. Grapin. 2024. " English Language Proficiency Standards Aligned With Content Standards: How the Next Generation Science Standards and Wida 2020 Reflect Each Other." Science Education 108, no. 2 : 637 – 658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, O., S. Grapin, and A. Haas. 2023. " Teacher Professional Development Programs Integrating Science and Language With Multilingual Learners: A Conceptual Framework." Science Education 107, no. 5 : 1302 – 1323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, O., and A. Stephens. 2020. " English Learners in Stem Subjects: Contemporary Views on Stem Subjects and Language With English Learners." Educational Researcher 49, no. 6 : 426 – 432.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, S. J., A. Bell, and D. Keifert, et al. 2022. " The Tensions of Making Space: How Teachers Work Toward Heterogeneous Science Sense‐Making." In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences‐ICLS 2022, 1189 – 1192. International Society of the Learning Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehrer, R., and L. Schauble. 2012. " Seeding Evolutionary Thinking by Engaging Children in Modeling Its Foundations." Science Education 96, no. 4 : 701 – 724.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemke, J. L. 2002. " Multimedia Semiotics: Genres for Science Education and Scientific Literacy." In Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages: Meaning With Power, edited by M. J. Schleppegrell and M. C. Colombi, 21 – 44. New York : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemmi, C., G. Pérez, and B. A. Brown. 2022. " Translanguaging in the Science Classroom: Drawing on Students' Full Linguistic Repertoires in Bi‐/Multilingual Settings." In Translanguaging in Science Education, edited by A. Jakobsson, P. Nygård Larsson, and A. Karlsson, 87 – 98. Cham, Switzerland : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lew, S. 2024. " The Ideal Versus the Real: Mismatches in Reading Instruction for Emergent Bilinguals in Secondary Science Classrooms." Science Education 108, no. 6 : 1519 – 1548.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Licona, P. R., and G. J. Kelly. 2020. " Translanguaging in a Middle School Science Classroom: Constructing Scientific Arguments in English and Spanish." Cultural Studies of Science Education 15, no. 2 : 485 – 510.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Lier, L. 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lott, K., and S. Clark. 2019. " Teaching Teachers: No Time for Science? " Science and Children 57, no. 1 : 68 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manz, E. 2012. " Understanding the Codevelopment of Modeling Practice and Ecological Knowledge." Science Education 96, no. 6 : 1071 – 1105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathayas, N., D. E. Brown, R. C. Wallon, and R. Lindgren. 2019. " Representational Gesturing as an Epistemic Tool for the Development of Mechanistic Explanatory Models." Science Education 103, no. 4 : 1047 – 1079.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehta, J., and S. Fine. 2019. In Search of Deeper Learning: The Quest to Remake the American High School. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van der Merwe, S. E., R. Biggs, and R. Preiser, et al. 2019. " Making Sense of Complexity: Using Sensemaker as a Research Tool." Systems 7, no. 2 : 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morales‐Doyle, D., M. Varelas, D. Segura, and M. Bernal‐Munera. 2020. " Access, Dissent, Ethics, and Politics: Pre‐Service Teachers Negotiating Conceptions of the Work of Teaching Science for Equity." Cognition and Instruction 39 : 1 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. English Learners in STEM Subjects: Transforming Classrooms, School, and Lives. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, S. S., and J. A. Nielsen. 2021. " Models and Modelling: Science Teachers' Perceived Practice and Rationales in Lower Secondary School in the Context of a Revised Competence‐Oriented Curriculum." Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 17, no. 4 : 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nixon, R. S., L. K. Smith, and R. R. Sudweeks. 2019. " Elementary Teachers' Science Subject Matter Knowledge Across the Teacher Career Cycle." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 56 : 707 – 731.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogborn, J., G. Kress, I. Martins, and K. McGillicuddy. 1996. Explaining Science in the Classroom. Buckingham, UK : Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philip, T. M., and F. S. Azevedo. 2017. " Everyday Science Learning and Equity: Mapping the Contested Terrain." Science Education 101, no. 4 : 526 – 532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pierson, A. E., C. E. Brady, D. B. Clark, and P. Sengupta. 2023a. " Students' Epistemic Commitments in a Heterogeneity‐Seeking Modeling Curriculum." Cognition and Instruction 41, no. 2 : 125 – 157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pierson, A. E., D. B. Clark, and C. E. Brady. 2021. " Scientific Modeling and Translanguaging: A Multilingual and Multimodal Approach to Support Science Learning and Engagement." Science Education 105, no. 4 : 776 – 813.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pierson, A. E., D. T. Keifert, S. J. Lee, A. Henrie, H. J. Johnson, and N. Enyedy. 2023b. " Multiple Representations in Elementary Science: Building Shared Understanding While Leveraging Students' Diverse Ideas and Practices." Journal of Science Teacher Education 34, no. 7 : 707 – 731.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poza, L. E. 2016. " The Language of Ciencia: Translanguaging and Learning in a Bilingual Science Classroom." International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21, no. 1 : 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prain, V., and B. Waldrip. 2006. " An Exploratory Study of Teachers' and Students' Use of Multi‐Modal Representations of Concepts in Primary Science." International Journal of Science Education 28, no. 16 : 1843 – 1866.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, A. J. 2015. " What About a Dimension of Engagement, Equity, and Diversity Practices? A Critique of the Next Generation Science Standards." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52, no. 7 : 1031 – 1051.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roth, W. M., and G. M. Bowen. 1998. " Decalages in Talk and Gesture." Linguistics and Education 10, no. 3 : 335 – 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarz, C. V., L. Ke, M. Salgado, and E. Manz. 2022. " Beyond Assessing Knowledge About Models and Modeling: Moving Toward Expansive, Meaningful, and Equitable Modeling Practice." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 59, no. 6 : 1086 – 1096.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarz, C. V., B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis, et al. 2009. " Developing a Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling: Making Scientific Modeling Accessible and Meaningful for Learners." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46, no. 6 : 632 – 654.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shi, F., L. Wang, X. Liu, and M. H. Chiu. 2021. " Development and Validation of an Observation Protocol for Measuring Science Teachers' Modeling‐Based Teaching Performance." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 58, no. 9 : 1359 – 1388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siry, C., and A. Gorges. 2020. " Young Students' Diverse Resources for Meaning Making in Science: Learning from Multilingual Contexts." International Journal of Science Education 42, no. 14 : 2364 – 2386.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skulmowski, A., and G. D. Rey. 2018. " Embodied Learning: Introducing a Taxonomy Based on Bodily Engagement and Task Integration." Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 3, no. 1 : 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solomon, F., D. Champion, M. Steele, and T. Wright. 2022. " Embodied Physics: Utilizing Dance Resources for Learning and Engagement in Stem." Journal of the Learning Sciences 31, no. 1 : 73 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stieff, M., S. Scopelitis, M. E. Lira, and D. Desutter. 2016. " Improving Representational Competence With Concrete Models." Science Education 100, no. 2 : 344 – 363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stroupe, D. 2014. " Examining Classroom Science Practice Communities: How Teachers and Students Negotiate Epistemic Agency and Learn Science‐as‐Practice." Science Education 98, no. 3 : 487 – 516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suárez, E. 2020. " Estoy Explorando Science: Emergent Bilingual Students Problematizing Electrical Phenomena Through Translanguaging." Science Education 104 : 791 – 826.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suárez, E., and V. Otero. 2024. " Ting, Tang, Tong: Emergent Bilingual Students Investigating and Constructing Evidence‐Based Explanations About Sound Production." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 61, no. 1 : 137 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, K. S., and K. Danielsson. 2018. Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education. Cham, Switzerland : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, K. S., C. Delgado, and E. B. Moje. 2014. " An Integrative Framework for the Analysis of Multiple and Multimodal Representations for Meaning‐Making in Science Education." Science Education 98, no. 2 : 305 – 326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, K. S., S. C. Tan, and J. Yeo. 2011. " Students' Multimodal Construction of the Work‐Energy Concept." International Journal of Science Education 33, no. 13 : 1775 – 1804.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Téllez‐Acosta, M. E., A. Acher, and S. P. McDonald. 2024. " Pre‐Service Elementary Teachers Learning to Plan Modeling‐Based Investigations." Journal of Science Teacher Education 35, no. 3 : 276 – 301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolbert, S., C. T. Spurgin, and D. B. Ash. 2024. " Praxis Crisis and the Trouble With Science Teacher Education for Emergent Bilingual Learners." Science Education 108, no. 2 : 412 – 442.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treagust, D. F., R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer. 2017. Multiple Representations in Physics Education, Vol. 10. Cham, Switzerland : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tytler, R., V. Prain, G. Aranda, J. Ferguson, and R. Gorur. 2020. " Drawing to Reason and Learn in Science." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 57, no. 2 : 209 – 231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ünsal, Z., B. Jakobson, P. O. Wickman, and B. O. Molander. 2018. " Gesticulating Science: Emergent Bilingual Students' Use of Gestures." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 55, no. 1 : 121 – 144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varelas, M., R. T. Kotler, H. D. Natividad, et al. 2022. " 'Science Theatre Makes You Good at Science': Affordances of Embodied Performances in Urban Elementary Science Classrooms." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 59, no. 4 : 493 – 528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vo, T., C. Forbes, L. Zangori, and C. V. Schwarz. 2019. " Longitudinal Investigation of Primary Inservice Teachers' Modelling the Hydrological Phenomena." International Journal of Science Education 41, no. 18 : 2788 – 2807.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warren, B., S. Vossoughi, A. S. Rosebery, M. Bang, and E. V. Taylor. 2020. " Multiple Ways of Knowing: Re‐Imagining Disciplinary Learning." In Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning, edited by N. I. S. Nasir, C. D. Lee, R. Pea, and M. McKinney de Royston, 277 – 294. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wartofsky, M. W. 2012. Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding, Vol. 48. Dordrecht, the Netherlands : Springer Science & Business Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> WIDA. 2020. WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition: Kindergarten‐Grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilmes, S. E. D., and C. Siry. 2021. " Multimodal Interaction Analysis: A Powerful Tool for Examining Plurilingual Students' Engagement in Science Practices." Research in Science Education 51, no. 1 : 71 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Windschitl, M., and J. Thompson. 2006. " Transcending Simple Forms of School Science Investigation: The Impact of Preservice Instruction on Teachers' Understandings of Model‐Based Inquiry." American Educational Research Journal 43, no. 4 : 783 – 835.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Windschitl, M., J. Thompson, and M. Braaten. 2020. Ambitious Science Teaching. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zangori, L., T. Vo, C. T. Forbes, and C. V. Schwarz. 2017. " Supporting 3rd‐Grade Students' Model‐Based Explanations About Groundwater: A Quasi‐Experimental Study of a Curricular Intervention." International Journal of Science Education 39, no. 11 : 1421 – 1442.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zohar, A. R., and S. T. Levy. 2019. " Students' Reasoning About Chemical Bonding: The Lacuna of Repulsion." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 56, no. 7 : 881 – 904.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ayça K. Fackler and Ruth M. Harman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref157"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1467431
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Empowering Elementary Preservice Science Teachers: Harnessing Diverse Language Resources in the Practice of Modeling
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ayça+K%2E+Fackler%22">Ayça K. Fackler</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8116-4888">0000-0002-8116-4888</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruth+M%2E+Harman%22">Ruth M. Harman</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Science+Education%22"><i>Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 109(3):796-815.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semiotics%22">Semiotics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Methods+Courses%22">Methods Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Modeling+%28Psychology%29%22">Modeling (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction+Process+Analysis%22">Interaction Process Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Communication%22">Classroom Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/sce.21934
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0036-8326<br />1098-237X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Recent research has focused on innovative instructional shifts that aim to expand what constitutes science and engineering practices, exploring also how they can build on students' diverse language resources in science learning. However, few studies explore the intersections of elementary teacher preparation and the implementation of science and engineering practices through expansive and asset-based approaches to language use. Through a qualitative case study conducted within a science methods course at a research university in the southeastern part of the United States, elementary preservice science teachers were positioned as agentive learners, engaging in modeling practices while leveraging their diverse language resources. Using multimodal interaction analysis (MIA), our study examined the meaning-making processes of elementary preservice science teachers in the practice of modeling. Findings revealed three themes related to how the preservice science teachers engaged with diverse semiotic resources: (1) their use of physical manipulatives and other multimodal resources to develop meanings during the initial stages of model development, where they experimented with different ways to represent their understanding; (2) their ongoing reliance on multimodal and linguistic resources for refining and solidifying meanings as the model became more complex and comprehensive throughout the modeling process; and (3) their use of these meanings to interpret and engage with science texts. Implications include the importance of providing elementary preservice science teachers with professional learning opportunities that align with the envisioned science learning experiences of their future students, thus fostering equitable science teaching and learning with models and modeling.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1467431
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1467431
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/sce.21934
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 796
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semiotics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Methods Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Modeling (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction Process Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Empowering Elementary Preservice Science Teachers: Harnessing Diverse Language Resources in the Practice of Modeling
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ayça K. Fackler
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruth M. Harman
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0036-8326
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1098-237X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 109
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1