Chapter 14 Speaking STEMglish PDF

Chapter 14 Speaking STEMglish Michael S. Rugh Jonas L. Chang Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Texas A&M University...

Chapter 14 Speaking STEMglish Michael S. Rugh Jonas L. Chang Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Robert M. Capraro Mary Margaret Capraro Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Have you ever given an explanation for some phenomenon or concept and received blank or confused stares from students or children? It may not be far from how you feel when you listen to or read something seemingly very advanced or in a field different from your interests. Imagine the confusion you might feel as a friend from another country quickly explains a sport you’ve never played. It is easy to see how we might get lost while attempting to learn something that is new and very different than what we are used to. We argue that all these situations and cognitive struggles are not a result of merely a lack of conceptual understanding but also stem from language barriers. These, in turn, are created by students’ varying backgrounds and opportunities to learn academic language. In order to maximize our teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) content to our students, we must be aware of what it means to communicate in STEMglish. 244 Speaking STEMglish  Chapter Outcomes When you complete this chapter, you should better understand and be able to explain how STEMglish is a dialect of English used in academic, specifically, STEM settings where and how ambiguity arises in STEM learning how student socio-economic status may affect STEM and academic language mastery how student language minority status may affect STEM and academic language mastery what role instructors play in student academic language acquisition When you complete this chapter, you should be able to define social language, academic language, and STEMglish adjust STEM project-based learning (PBL) strategies to encourage academic language acquisition asses student academic vocabulary and STEM understanding invite discussion and clarifying questions Chapter Overview This chapter will explore the complexities of language acquisition in STEM classrooms. Readers will become familiar with the concept that language used in STEM classrooms is different from language used by students in everyday speech. We will also explore equitable teaching practices that can aid in the acquisition of STEM academic language by certain populations of students, in particular language minority (LM) students and students from low- socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. The final section of this chapter will discuss strategies for improving STEM language acquisition and activities that allow students to use STEM language in discussions with peers and teachers. Language is Complex “Development of language provides children with the symbolic means to reflect on their experiences and what others tell them about their capabilities and, thus, to expand their self-knowledge of what they can and cannot do” (Bandura, 1994, p. 77). When the topic of language acquisition is discussed, it is often in the terms of learning a foreign language. This understanding has dominated the research and pedagogical tools used in primary and secondary classrooms where students may be learning the dominant language of the classroom. In fact, many schools and school districts now have teaching specialists trained Speaking STEMglish 245 to help students transition from their home language to a Note: We often assume that we classroom’s dominant language. In the United States, we share the same language as our have many acronyms used when discussing this situation: coworker or friend to whom we ESL, SLL, ELL, BLL, L1, and the all necessary L2. These are speaking. Take a moment to consider that your language, abbreviations have become a language of their own; if you formed in the specific socio- are not trained or accustomed to hearing them, you might cultural setting where you were be wondering what these are and what they mean. However, raised, may be different from if you are trained, you know that English as a Second theirs. For an example, consider in a discussion of beverages how Language (ESL), Second Language Learner (SLL), English people use the terms: coke, soda, Language Learner (ELL), Bilingual Language Learner (BLL), pop, tea, etc. home language (L1), and dominant language (L2) are terms used by professionals who teach students whose home language is different from the dominant language of their classroom. Look again at the paragraph above. You will notice that the conversation begins by using broad, common terms regarding language that many readers will understand without the assistance of a pocket dictionary. It moves quickly, though, to using a very specific vocabulary situated within a narrow field of expertise and at the nexus of academic training and conversational language. This illustrates the idea that the ability to speak English is not nearly sufficient to be successful in any field or endeavor. In other words, fluency within a language is necessary but insufficient for becoming a STEM professional. One must be able to speak STEMglish. Social vs. Academic Language Communication as the creation, sharing, and reception of meaning is a social process between at least two people. The process is inextricably linked with our sociocultural backgrounds and understandings of the world around us. It is difficult for a child to separate the names of objects from their understood attributes (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). Vygotsky (1978, 1934/1986) suggested that for a child, language first serves an interpersonal function in communicating with their immediate family and later serves an intrapersonal function for self-talk, thought, planning, and reflection. In this early stage, the word associations a child learns from their family and small groups of friends form the foundation of the child’s language. As such, a child's language first comes from their societal interactions. This initial language, developed before academic or content-specific language, is their social language. Social language helps children communicate with their family and peers but continues to be extremely valuable throughout our lives in both social and professional settings. For example, doctors are more effective at communicating with patients when using social language rather 246 Speaking STEMglish than medical language (Bourhis et al., 1989). Similarly, two professionals who do not share the same technical field of expertise can have difficulty communicating if they do not maximize their use of everyday social language. It is important to note that because our students come from Note: Although we use the vastly different social, cultural, and economic backgrounds, interpretation of academic language from Cummins they do not share the same social language. For example, a (1978), we differ in our teacher may have a class full of students with a wide range of interpretation of social experiences and interests. For students who are very language, which we define as the language developed as the interested in sports, sports analogies may be easily result of sociocultural understood. Some students will have an understanding about interactions and allows us to the value of everyday items in their house. The intersection of communicate in everyday diverse social languages used in the classroom can lead to settings with those around us. interesting discussions and exploration, but it can also lead to misunderstandings and failure to communicate (Rugh et al., 2018). It is important to be aware of how social language is used in instruction and discussions. The next hurdle comes when students are introduced to technical, academic, or content- specific language. Referred to sometimes as “cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP)” (Cummins, 1979, p. 2), academic language can be considered “the specialized language, both oral and written, of academic settings that facilitates communication and thinking about disciplinary content” (Nagy & Townsend, 2012, p. 91; c.f. technical language in Barroso et al., 2017). Academic language is not often obtained at home or from peers but generally is learned through scaffolding and support from teachers (Hoffman & Zollman, 2016, p. 86). Additionally, academic language acquisition and “vocabulary instruction in general, whether focused on specialized or general academic vocabulary, seems to play only a minor role in classroom discourse” (Heppt et al., 2014, p. 75). Therefore, STEM teachers should be assisting in the development of academic language in their students. Learning to Speak STEMglish We term being fluent in any language a survival STEMglish (aka STEM Language): The skill. Beyond fluency, however, is knowledge of a dialect of English used in academic, language’s many dialects. Dialects are mutually specifically STEM, settings (c.f. STEM as a second language; Collier et al., 2016). intelligible variants of a single language. This means that speakers of separate dialects, such as the Spanish spoken in Mexico versus the Spanish spoken in Puerto Rico, can generally understand one another. This also means that they can misunderstand one another due to the complexity and added ambiguity that speaking separate dialects creates, as words, phrases, and other structures may not be shared. For Speaking STEMglish 247 example, speakers of Standard American English can usually communicate clearly with speakers of Standard Canadian English but may not understand when a Standard Canadian English speaker asks, “Is there a bank machine near the parkade? (trans. Is there an ATM near the parking garage)?” The concept of dialects extends to the STEM fields as well. Each discipline, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, has its own language dialect that is steeped in deep understandings built by many years of study. However, each of these disciplines are interconnected with words being used across multiple STEM contexts (Capraro et al., 2018). Speakers of each STEM dialect share fluency in STEMglish: the common survival language used among English-speaking STEM professionals. Throughout this chapter, we will use the terms STEMglish and STEM language interchangeably. We propose that teachers need to develop their STEMglish, not a deep understanding of all the STEM disciplinary dialects, but a survival- level language fluency to be able to move between and among the STEM disciplines. Semantics and Syntax Semantics and syntax are linguistic tools necessary for deep understanding. Semantic cues, in particular, enable readers to better understand and comprehend what they are reading in mathematics. These cue categories are essential for conceptualization in mathematics (Mayer & Hegarty, 1996). Semantic clues available to readers (Johnson & Pearson, 1984) and applicable to mathematics are signal words, synonyms, antonyms, and summary statements. Signal words in mathematics texts are words that are taught in accordance with doing something. Here are some examples: is, are, difference, more than, decrease, and combined. These words are often used to alert the reader about equivalencies or operations. Synonyms and antonyms also function as semantic clues, an example being “subtraction” acting as an antonym of “addition.” Synonyms that are often used in mathematics include “add,” “sum,” and “all together” for addition and “difference,” “decreased,” and “more than” for subtraction. Finally, problem scenarios and summary statements may require a single-step or multi-step process for solving the problem. Although semantic clues are important and developing an understanding of STEMglish is paramount for students to succeed in class, it is not the single most important aspect of the intricacies of the language of mathematics. Syntax is how one assembles the words and meaning into a mathematics sentence. Let’s look at the following word problem: Chase has 5 apples and Pietra has 13 apples. How many more apples does Pietra have than Chase? Because most U.S. students learn typical English language syntax (i.e., left to right) before mathematical symbols, they apply it to their mathematics while also only identifying key words that they then associate with specific operations. As a result, some young children encountering this word problem might initially assemble their 248 Speaking STEMglish mathematical sentence as 5+13=?, some might write 5-13=?, but only a few would initially write 5+?=13 or 13-5=?. In this case, you cannot translate the words directly into numbers and operations strictly in a left-to-right model but rather through understanding the language and context. Eventually, the computational model of 13-5=? would result in a correct solution. Understanding in mathematics, technology, engineering and science is inextricably bound to the identifying words, vocabulary, and text structure (semantics and syntax) used to define, represent, and communicate concepts situated in those fields. Where Language Can Go Wrong Failures to communicate effectively happen regularly. Sometimes, the failure has noticeable effects, such as students missing questions on a test or getting thrown completely off in a discussion or lecture. Other times, it can be a misunderstanding that can have undetectable impacts on students’ understandings of concepts or can lead to minor mistakes in students’ work. These issues arise from many sources. First, misunderstandings may arise from the use of unfamiliar words or phrases, whether in academic or social language. Second, misunderstandings can occur as a result of using ambiguous language, ranging from ambiguous words (Rugh et al., 2018) to confusing phrases. As Vygotsky (1934/1986) wrote, “A word without meaning is an empty sound; meaning, therefore, is a criterion of ‘word,’ its indispensable component” (p. 212). Words can have multiple meanings that can be closely related or vastly different; in some instances, the semantic cues provided by synonyms can lead to clarity or confusion. Take, for example, the word “cell.” In biology, a cell may be defined as the basic or smallest unit of life. Depending on the context, “cell” could also be used to refer to a mobile device in social language, a place to keep people who have done something wrong, a unit in a spreadsheet, or a device that converts chemical energy into electrical energy. When introducing new terminology, it is important to recognize that words have multiple meanings. Therefore, when providing vocabulary instruction, a STEM teacher should invite students to compare and contrast understandings, acknowledging the meanings that new vocabulary words may already have in students’ minds. What This Means for Certain Student Populations Each individual student will of course engage with and adapt to using STEM academic language differently, but it is important for educators to keep in mind that different populations of students will enter school and advance through the grades after having been provided varying opportunities to practice and master language skills. This reality means that educators must take care to recognize the wealth (or dearth) of opportunities students have had to develop their language skills and strive to provide opportunities for students to explore contextualized STEM content. Learning opportunities provided to students have a significant Speaking STEMglish 249 impact on their future academic achievement (Byrnes, 2003; Byrnes & Wasik, 2009). Furthermore, these factors, wholly outside of the student’s control, will greatly influence the speed at which a student will come to understand STEM definitions and be able to navigate academic language. It is the role of the educator to assist students in utilizing what knowledge and skills they have had the opportunity to develop in order to further their learning, and understanding the ways in which a student’s socio-economic background may influence their access to developmental experiences is key to doing so. Students from Low-SES Backgrounds Students from varying socio-economic strata develop language skills at different rates, causing them to enter school with unequal levels of English mastery, in the case of U.S. schools specifically. SES defines a student’s home life and by extension their parents’ “levels of education, income, and/or occupational prestige” (Hoff, 2013, p. 5). Often, students from low- SES homes enter school with poorer language skills than their high-SES peers, a pattern that begins in the years leading up to their matriculation into the school system. In the pre-school home environment, one study found that at 18 to 30 months of age, 80% of low-SES children scored below the 50th percentile in productive vocabulary and 70% scored below the 50th percentile in grammatical complexity of speech (Arriaga et al., 1998). Another study found that at age three, the vocabulary of low-SES children was only half as large as those of their high- SES counterparts, or less (Hart & Risley, 1995). Additionally, from the ages of two to five, “Lower SES children show lower levels of phonological awareness than do middle-class children, with the size of the SES-related difference increasing” (Hoff, 2013, p. 5). These gaps in linguistic skills are unlikely to be closed when children enter school nor during the twelve years following, and even more differences in reading and writing skills become observable. A study conducted by Juel (1988) found that students who scored poorly on a series of reading and writing assessments in the first grade tended to continue to perform poorly on these assessments through the second, third, and fourth grades; Juel’s findings suggested that poor reading ability in the first grade predicted poor reading AND writing ability upon completion of the fourth grade. Furthermore, disparities in the ability to understand and engage with academic or school-relevant language become apparent between low-SES and high-SES students, with low-SES students more often struggling to successfully navigate academic text due to their lower “inputs of school-relevant language and literacy skills” (Lopez de Aguileta, 2019, p. 53). These differences in language ability, academic or otherwise, don’t simply arise and persist in a vacuum; whatever gap exists between students when they first enter school often widens as the years progress (Hoff, 2013). Over the course of the years that they spend in primary education, many low-SES students struggle with poorer narrative and grammar skills and smaller vocabularies (Thomas et al., 2019) along with greater degenerative effects caused 250 Speaking STEMglish by the “summer slide” (i.e., the decrease in knowledge and Note: Low-SES students tend performance ability experienced during the summer break to begin school with a between the end of one academic year and the beginning of language skill deficit. Without proactive support, another; Macaruso et al., 2019). By the time they enter high this is likely to worsen as school, students from low-income families display average they progress in school, literacy skills that are five years behind those of their higher leading to difficulties in income peers (Reardon et al., 2012). Of course, the simple engaging with and ultimately mastering academic language. act of being labeled “Low-SES” is not the direct cause of this disparity in language skills. The literacy gap develops first in the home, where a child develops their language skills during their first years of life. Children whose parents speak to them for the purpose of maintaining conversation tend to develop stronger language skills than children whose parents speak to them more often for the purpose of directing their actions; the latter speaking style elicits the “the use of a smaller vocabulary, less complex syntactic structures, and less variety among the syntactic structures used” on the part of the parent, comparatively (Hoff, 2013, p. 6). Parents of low-SES households tend to speak to their children for the purpose of directing their actions (Hart & Risley, 1995). This limits their children’s exposure to rich vocabulary and syntax as well as their language practice, inhibiting their overall language acquisition. Furthermore, parents of low-SES households are less likely to engage their children in literacy activities, such as book reading and word games, which are highly effective tools in developing “children’s emergent academic-language skills” (Heppt et al., 2014, p. 63). Such patterns among low-SES households set the foundation of less-developed language skills for students by the time they begin school. This isn’t to say that low-SES students are wholly without effective language skills. Low-SES children, in fact, show proficient language skills when asked to share or create narratives using the standard styles and strategies prevalent in their own communities; unfortunately, these strengths “do not appear to be in domains that contribute to academic success” (Hoff, 2013, p. 7; see also Young et al., 2018, for a discussion of how concept raps and hip hop pedagogy can be used as effective learning tools for developing STEM vocabulary and conceptual understanding). The implication here is that any observable language shortcomings are as much a result of the unfamiliar language that students are asked to engage with in schools as the language-learning opportunities they were exposed to in their upbringing. Peterson (1994) also argued that low-SES children are as capable of producing informative narratives composed of long sentences as high-SES children but that they do so with less complex sentences and need greater urging and support from adults. This is all to say that low-SES children are not Speaking STEMglish 251 bereft of language skills or doomed to acquire less mastery over their language than their high- SES peers. Rather, by having “less interactions with the texts and Note: Unfamiliarity with academic language discourses which contribute to their acquisition of [academic is likely a major cause language and literacy] skills” throughout their upbringing, such of poor student students will struggle to master the academic language required to engagement and success succeed at school generally (Lopez de Aguileta, 2019, p. 65) and, in STEM learning. we argue, STEM subjects especially. We have discussed SES as a factor in student literacy for a couple of reasons. The first is its growing reach and influence. Disparities in SES have only grown during the last half century while the influence of ethnicity, another factor in student literacy that is related to but distinct from SES, has shrunk to the point that SES “disparities in reading achievement are much larger than racial and ethnic gaps” (Reardon et al., 2012, p. 26). Moreover, in 2018, 18% of children in the United States lived in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). If poverty is thought of as the extreme end of the socio-economic spectrum, then a much higher percentage of U.S. children may be expected to live in low-SES conditions and to experience the effects such an upbringing may have, discussed previously. Educators are thus likely to interact with students from diverse SES backgrounds and perhaps with this knowledge will be able to engage them from a point of compassion and understanding. Language Minority Students Another category of student that often struggles Note: As of 2018, 18% of children in the United States lived in poverty. Children with English language skills in U.S. schools are LM of several racially/ethnically minoritized students, or students who do not speak English as groups experienced poverty rates as high their mother language. We use this term specifically as 30% (National Center for Education because it is a broad category of student that Statistics, 2020). encompasses many other terms that are often used in academic discussion, including students who are categorized as ESL, ELL, and BLL, among others. These students are a growing population in the United States (10% of K–12 students in 2013, predicted to grow to 40% by 2030; Maarouf, 2019) and the world (Braine, 2005). In fact, the demographic shift has already made it so that in recent years “half of the nation’s teachers had at least one ELL in the classrooms” (Maarouf, 2019, p. 83). As such, it is important to discuss the ways in which these students acquire English language skills and engage with STEM words and concepts to ensure that all members of the next generation of U.S. citizens are STEM knowledgeable and literate. Many students are categorized as both LM and low-SES, but it is important to remember that experiencing one upbringing does not inherently include the other and that both of these backgrounds contribute unique challenges for English language acquisition (cf. Heppt et al., 252 Speaking STEMglish 2014, as quoted below). Furthermore, LMs are not homogeneous; these students come from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, so their engagement with academic language and the English language will inherently be different. Still, there are broad patterns and findings that we can discuss in order to "Gaining full proficiency in academic language is considered provide a general idea of how to be especially challenging for language-minority these students perform in U.S. students, as they face particular difficulties related to both schools that use English as the their socioeconomic and their language background" (Heppt et al., 2014, p. 63). medium of instruction. In general, children who are bilingual or acquiring two languages during their upbringing display similar total language knowledge as monolingual children but lower vocabulary and grammatical knowledge in each individual language (Hoff, 2013). There are surely many complex cognitive mechanisms that play into this, but one of the causes of lower individual language acquisition experienced by bilingual children is undoubtedly the fact that they have lower exposure time to each language they are learning than their monolingual counterparts have to their single mother language. As discussed previously, the quantity and quality of exposure that a child has to a specific language during their early years has lasting effects on their later skills with that language, particularly in regards to academic language skills, and this is seen with U.S. LM students and their mastery of English (Heppt et al., 2014; Hoff, 2013). In fact, bilingual Spanish/English speaking students in the United States at four to five years of age have been found to significantly lag behind their monolingual peers in terms of English- language “receptive and expressive vocabulary and auditory comprehension” as well as “phonological awareness and letter identification abilities” (Hoff, 2013, p. 8). One study found that LM Spanish/English-speaking students who entered the public school system in kindergarten and experienced near-daily exposure to English at school were still unlikely to have a vocabulary as fully developed as their monolingual classmates by the age of 11 (Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). Note: Limited vocabulary The matter of vocabulary is perhaps the most significant deficit in is the primary challenge English-language acquisition that LM students face. Lexical that LM students face complexity within academic language (Heppt et al., 2014) and during academic language insufficiently developed vocabulary among LM students in acquisition. See Chapter 10 for more information general (Maarouf, 2019) severely limit the ability of LMs to regarding LMs and STEM participate in class discourse. One need only look back to the learning. previous discussion concerning the many definitions of the word “cell” to understand how LMs may struggle to master and engage with academic language in the STEM classroom. But how should LMs be guided in order to overcome this vocabulary deficit in STEM classrooms? Speaking STEMglish 253 To answer this question, we will review several aspects that were discussed in this section. When engaging with an LM student in a STEM context, instructors need to evaluate the student’s background not only for the knowledge that they enter the classroom with but also for how the instructor expects the student’s family to engage in their learning at home (see Wassell et al., 2017, for a deeper discussion of how instructor expectations may conflict with the realities of a student’s home life). That is to say, instructors need to consider how much support they expect each student to receive from their family when completing homework and projects and whether their family is capable of providing that support. Will an LM student’s family be English-literate? Will they be able to clarify homophones for their child or provide definitions accurate to a specific STEM field? In considering the answers to these questions, we agree with the recommendations that educators should not advise parents to use the school language rather than their native language at home and that teachers who function in bilingual settings should not attempt to maximize instructional exposure to English in the classroom (Cummins, 2016). Still, it may be that the classroom is the only space a student has to learn and engage in English academic language, so clarity of understanding within the classroom and STEM learning is paramount for student success. The Role of the Instructor Therefore, for the sake of clarity, we must not take the ways in which we communicate for granted, even when communicating with people inside our discipline. Rather than always presuming we know what our peers and students know and understand, we would be well served to take the time to check in, probing with questions that can facilitate shared meaning, when moments of confusion, even if small, arise (Kwok et al., 2020, p. 193). Despite the challenges they may face, low-SES and LM students can effectively engage with academic English in STEM classrooms given time, practice, and thoughtful guidance. Many researchers urge educators to integrate reading and English language content in STEM instruction (e.g., Maarouf, 2019; Wu et al., 2019). Doing so creates the opportunity for low- SES and LM students to practice academic English in a supportive environment, which can be greatly beneficial for their English acquisition, given that their instructor is supportive and guiding. The role of the teacher in understanding STEM language is key, and studies have found that “Children whose teachers provide more language-advancing input progress more in their language over the course of the school year than children with teachers whose language use is less supportive” (Hoff, 2013, p. 6). STEM PBL creates an ideal setting for instructors to provide a supportive language environment for students of all language backgrounds as they explore new concepts both together and at their own pace. Appropriate and effective teaching strategies must be utilized, however, for students to fully benefit from STEM PBL instruction. 254 Speaking STEMglish How to Augment a PBL or Lesson Plan Students in K–12 settings with limited academic language proficiency will not come to understand words like “structure” or “function” by memorizing definitions. Rather, it is repeated exposures to these words and opportunities to practice using them in authentic contexts that allow students to own these words and use them with facility in the contexts in which they both garner and support meaning of technical or theoretical ideas (Nagy & Townsend, 2012, p. 96). PBL can provide students with repeated exposure to vocabulary words, opportunities to practice using those words, and an authentic context to make the learning meaningful and lasting. By emphasizing these critical features, teachers can improve acquisition of academic language in their PBL or everyday lesson plans. The sociocultural theories discussed above provide a framework for integrating vocabulary instruction into a collaborative learning space such as PBL. “Collaborative scaffolding, such as within discussions, fosters multidimensional, world knowledge that goes beyond ability to recall meanings” (Moody et al., 2018, p. 10). This is especially true when such discussions and learning opportunities are multidisciplinary (see Chapter 13 for a discussion of interdisciplinary STEM PBL and Chapter 15 for integrating social studies into STEM PBL). Therefore, we recommend encouraging students to use their newly acquired academic vocabulary in rich discussions deeply situated in the context of the project or problem to foster deep learning and contextual understanding. This is to say that we know that STEM PBL can improve science and math vocabulary (Bicer et al., 2015), and, when thoughtfully adjusted, STEM PBL can also provide students opportunities to listen to or speak STEMglish with understanding. Language acquisition often comes about through two mechanisms: Input — The student listens to or reads new terms Output — The student speaks or writes using new terms Opportunities to engage in both of these must be adequately utilized to improve STEM academic language proficiency. Opportunities for Input Teaching STEM academic language must go beyond simply introducing students to new vocabulary. It must be done in a way that is accessible to their current understanding (remember that every student’s background and understanding is different). When discussing second language acquisition, renowned linguist and educational researcher Stephen Krashen stated that “we acquire language by understanding messages;” in other words, students must hear messages that are comprehensible (Krashen, 1992, p. 409). To help make the language used while introducing lessons or PBLs more comprehensible, teachers should carefully consider speaking slowly, visually supporting the language that is being learned, and Speaking STEMglish 255 simplifying the academic content without watering it down (Collier et al., 2016). This does not mean making the STEM language disappear to avoid any productive struggle or cognitive dissonance. Rather, we should adjust the way we speak so as to introduce new terms slowly and well situated with words and phrases that are meaningful to our students. Once they have been introduced to STEM academic language, students should have an opportunity to practice using it while speaking or writing. Opportunities for Output Students can practice their STEMglish by speaking or writing using newly acquired language. Look for opportunities to engage students in discussions that use academic language (Hoffman & Zollman, 2016). For example, students can hypothesize about the outcome of a simple experiment and share with their peers. Group discussions offer an opportunity for students to understand and speak using newfound vocabulary, encouraging the development of STEM academic language (Collier et al., 2016). Conversing with a partner on new STEM content and using new STEM language may often lead to communicative failure, but this is a healthy obstacle for students acquiring a new language (Capraro et al., 2018). Instructors should model how to use clarifying questions and should encourage Note: See Chapter 13: Fostering students to use clarifying questions when learning new Interdisciplinary STEM Mindsets terms or encountering communicative failure (Barroso et Through Project-Based Learning for al., 2017; Kwok et al., 2020). When students encounter a discussion of how to incorporate such failure, they will likely adjust what they say to interdisciplinary learning in STEM PBL. As a personal exercise, promote meaningful exchanges (Krashen, 1992; Swain, consider how you might use 1985). These opportunities for output in meaningful interdisciplinary STEM lessons as an contexts are a large part of how STEM PBL can promote opportunity for students to practice meaningful STEM academic language acquisition. using academic STEM language. Assessing Student Academic Vocabulary It is important that instructors periodically assess student vocabulary knowledge and understanding to ensure that effective communication can occur during lessons and learning opportunities. This can be done while engaging students in metacognitive discourse and scaffolded written and oral activities, which can facilitate improvements in students’ discipline- specific language use (Greenleaf et al., 2001). The following are some tools that can be used for assessing and improving vocabulary knowledge in the classroom: self-assessment and journaling. When introducing activities that require the use of discipline-specific language and tasks, instructors may ask students to conduct a self-assessment of their knowledge of any key terms they might encounter in their textbooks, internet research, or activities. One example of an effective self-assessment strategy is for students, after being introduced to a topic, to write 256 Speaking STEMglish down a list of all the terms they can think of that are related to the topic (alternatively, teachers can provide a list of terms) and then define them to the best of their ability. By filling out this list, students can become more aware of their vocabulary knowledge and any potential gaps therein. Teachers can then review these lists and determine what terms need to be clarified or defined through other activities. Furthermore, students can create a key terms flipbook, which they can then consult or use as needed throughout their learning to periodically assess the accuracy of their vocabulary knowledge. Keep in mind that self-assessments should not be graded and should be done in a private manner to avoid tempting students “to inflate or distort their self-evaluations” (Brown et al., 2015, p. 450). Thoughtfully implemented, self- assessment strategies can help students become aware of and develop their interdisciplinary STEM language skills. Journaling provides another opportunity for students to self-monitor and further explore their understanding of specific topics. This, importantly, assists students in clarifying their own language and thoughts (Bicer et al., 2013; Crespo, 2000). Furthermore, journaling provides teachers with both a consistent documentation of student learning and comprehension as well as a deeper understanding of their students’ thinking, allowing them to accurately assess comprehension. Depending on the needs of the student as demonstrated by their journaling activities, teachers may provide clarification, provide examples of correct language use, or demonstrate more effective journaling strategies for self-reflection and learning. Overall, having students consistently express their thought processes and ideas gives teachers the opportunity to offer suggestions and corrections while modeling the use of defined and precise STEM language (Capraro et al., 2017; Franke et al., 2009; Nathan & Knuth, 2003). For a detailed example of how to implement a journaling activity in a STEM classroom, see Panvini’s (2020) discussion on guided journaling. By engaging students in discussions, self-assessments, and journaling, we can provide many opportunities for students to practice with both the input and output of STEM language. In particular, implementing these activities into an active and collaborative learning environment provides students with the means to be reflective on language learned and interact with their peers using their newfound vocabulary. Conclusion The language used in STEM classrooms is different from the language that students use in casual conversation. The academic language of STEM, or STEMglish, takes time and practice to learn and master. This is difficult enough for students who are native speakers of the dominant language of a classroom, and this difficulty is only greater for LM students and students from low-SES backgrounds who may have been provided limited opportunities to practice using Speaking STEMglish 257 academic language before ever entering a STEM classroom. For such students, STEM classrooms are often the only space to practice and thus acquire academic language, and teachers play a vital role in creating a learning space that is filled with opportunities to use STEMglish and utilizing strategies that support students’ successes and failures. Reflection Questions and Activities 1) What are some vocabulary words that you introduce in your class that may have different meanings in other contexts? Are you aware when you use STEMglish in class? 2) Consider a homework assignment intended to develop students’ knowledge of fractions. How might such an assignment present unique challenges for students from an LM household that would not exist for students whose caregivers speak English? Finally, how might a teacher approach homework assignments and in-class assignments/tests differently to support students from these varying backgrounds equitably? 3) How might your current classroom environment or teaching practices discourage participation from an LM or low-SES student? Would such a student feel comfortable asking clarifying questions about common academic or social vocabulary that they do not understand? What practices can you implement to encourage more open discussion? 4) Please answer “True” or “False” for the following questions: a) STEMglish is a language in its own right. b) All teachers should divert time from teaching content and instead teach students how to read. c) Students share the same life experiences and have the same social language and vocabulary upon entering my class. d) STEMglish is developed by all students automatically while learning in their STEM classrooms. e) Learning to speak STEMglish requires opportunities to practice speaking/writing in addition to opportunities to listen/read. Key: T, F, F, F, T References Arriaga, R. I., Fenson, L., Cronan, T., & Pethick, S. J. (1998). Scores on the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory of children from low- and middle-income families. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010043 Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior: Vol. 4. R–Z and index (pp. 71–81). Academic Press. Barroso, L. R., Bicer, A., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., Foran, A., Grant, M. L., Lincoln, Y. S., Nite, S. B., Oner, A. T., & Rice, D. (2017). Run! Spot. Run!: Vocabulary development and the evolution of STEM disciplinary language for secondary teachers. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 49, 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0826-4 258 Speaking STEMglish Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2013). Integrating writing into mathematics classroom to increase students’ problem solving skills. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 361– 369. Bicer, A., Boedeker, P., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). The effects of STEM PBL on students’ mathematical and scientific vocabulary knowledge. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2(2), 69–75. Bourhis, R. Y., Roth, S., & MacQueen, G. (1989). Communication in the hospital setting: A survey of medical and everyday language use amongst patients, nurses and doctors. Social Science & Medicine, 28(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(89)90035-X Braine, G. (Ed.). (2005). Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice. Routledge. Brown, G. T., Andrade, H. L., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: Directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(4), 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.996523 Byrnes, J. P. (2003). Factors predictive of mathematics achievement in White, Black, and Hispanic 12th graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.95.2.316 Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (2009). Factors predictive of mathematics achievement in kindergarten, first and third grades: An opportunity–propensity analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.01.002 Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Nite, S., Rice, D., Lincoln, Y., Young, J., & Young, J. (2018). Developing a useful and integrative STEM disciplinary language. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6(1), 1–11. Capraro, M. M., Bicer, A., Grant, M. R., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). Using precision in STEM language: A qualitative look. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 29–39. Collier, S., Burston, B., & Rhodes, A. (2016). Teaching STEM as a second language: Utilizing SLA to develop equitable learning for all students. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-01-2016-0013 Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretation of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 155–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009999016764 Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters (Working Papers on Bilingualism No. 19). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Bilingual Education Project. Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980), “The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue.” TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 940–944. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109339906 Speaking STEMglish 259 Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 79–130. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.71.1.q811712577334038 Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Heppt, B., Haag, N., Böhme, K., Stanat, P. (2014). The role of academic-language features for reading comprehension of language-minority students and students from low-SES families. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.83 Hoff, J. (2013). Interpreting early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027238 Hoffman, L., & Zollman, A. (2016). What STEM teachers need to know and do for English language learners (ELLs): Using literacy to learn. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 51(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE51.1Hoffman Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Education Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.80.4.437 Kwok, M., Vela, K. N., Rugh, M. S., Lincoln, Y. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2020). STEM words and their multiple meanings: The intricacies of asking a clarifying question. Communication Education, 69(2), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1723803 Krashen, S. (1992). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 409–431). Georgetown University Press. Lopez de Aguileta, G. (2019). Developing school-relevant language and literacy skills through dialogic literary gatherings. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2019.4028 Maarouf, S. A. (2019). Supporting academic growth of English language learners: Integrating reading into STEM curriculum. World Journal of Education, 9(4), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v9n4p83 Macaruso, P., Wilkes, S., Franzén, S., & Schechter, R. (2019). Three-year longitudinal study: Impact of a blended learning program—Lexia® Core5® Reading—on reading gains in low-SES kindergartners. Computers in the Schools, 36(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1558884 Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1996). The process of understanding mathematical problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 29–54). Erlbaum. Moody, S., Hu, X., Kuo, L. J., Jouhar, M., Xu, Z., & Lee, S. (2018). Vocabulary instruction: A critical analysis of theories, research, and practice. Education Sciences, 8(4), Article 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040180 260 Speaking STEMglish Nathan, M. J., & Knuth, E. J. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 175–207. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_03 Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011 National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The condition of education 2020: Characteristics of children's families. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cce.pdf Panvini, D. (2020). Guided journaling: Focused writing to enhance learning during a STEM short-term study abroad course. The American Biology Teacher, 82(5), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2020.82.5.348 Peterson, C. (1994). Narrative skills and social class. Canadian Journal of Education, 19(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/1495131 Reardon, S. F., Valentino, R. A., & Shores, K. A. (2012). Patterns of literacy among U.S. students. The Future of Children, 22(2), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2012.0015 Rugh, M. S., Calabrese, J. E., Madson, M. A., Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Bicer, A. (2018). STEM language can be the stem of the problem. Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, 2018, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8659231 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179. Thomas, N., Colin, C., & Leybaert, J. (2019). Impact on interactive reading intervention on narrative skills on children with low socio-economic background. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(6), 837–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1678924 U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Poverty status in the past 12 months: 2018: ACS 1-year estimates subject tables (TableID S1701). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=child%20poverty&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S1701&hidePrevi ew=true Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John- Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kuzolin, Trans.). The MIT Press. (Original work published 1934) Wassell, B. A., Hawrylak, M. F., & Scantlebury, K. (2017). Barriers, resources, frustrations, and empathy: Teachers’ expectations for family involvement for Latino/a ELL students in urban STEM classrooms. Urban Education, 52(10), 1233–1254. http://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915602539 Wu, S. C., Silveus, S., Vasquez, S., Biffi, D., Silva, C., & Weinburgh, M. (2019). Supporting ELLs’ use of hybrid language and argumentation during science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1529520 Young, J., Young, J., Cason, M., Ortiz, N., Foster, M., & Hamilton, C. (2018). Concept raps versus concept maps: A culturally responsive approach to STEM vocabulary development. Education Sciences, 8(3), Article 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030108 Speaking STEMglish 261