Chapter 10 English Learners and Project-Based Learning PDF

Chapter 10 English Learners and Project- Based Learning Zohreh Eslami Randall Garver Haemin Kim Bilingual/ESL Education Center of Online Learning Department of Educational Program Columbus State University...

Chapter 10 English Learners and Project- Based Learning Zohreh Eslami Randall Garver Haemin Kim Bilingual/ESL Education Center of Online Learning Department of Educational Program Columbus State University Psychology Department of Educational Texas A&M University Psychology Texas A&M University The number of students classified as English learners (ELs) has drastically grown over the past decade. These students are being taught in a language (English) they do not speak at home. Many educators lack sufficient competency and self-efficacy to help ELs learn academic content while also supporting them in developing their English language mastery. Project-based education is a valuable way to support the concurrent acquisition of language, content, and skills, provided that teachers have the knowledge and the ability to use it effectively with ELs. As a way of supporting ELs to better attain content knowledge in subject areas including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), many educators consider project- based learning (PBL) to be a great instructional approach. This chapter will address the benefits and strategies that teachers can use in assisting ELs in STEM classes with PBL in order to meet the complex content and linguistic needs of these students. 168 English Learners  Chapter Outcomes When you complete this chapter, you should better understand and be able to explain the linguistic and cultural challenges ELs face in STEM classrooms how PBL can meet the needs of ELs in STEM classrooms When you complete this chapter, you should be able to describe the unique needs of ELs use appropriate and effective strategies to support ELs implement effective PBL techniques in STEM classrooms with ELs adapt PBL in STEM classrooms to meet the needs of ELs Chapter Overview This chapter discusses how PBL in STEM classrooms can support ELs’ academic achievement, both in academic language and content knowledge attainment. We begin by defining ELs in U.S. schools and their challenges to learning. We then describe STEM PBL’s affects in the classroom and several strategies to support ELs as they engage in PBL activities as well as various ways for instructors to plan and adapt PBL to STEM classrooms with ELs. English Learners Demographics and Characteristics The number of ELs is rapidly increasing across the United States, with the curve in some states rising more sharply than the others. In 2016–2017, 9.6% of the total students enrolled in K–12 public schools in the United States were identified as ELs. This is a 28.1% increase in the number of ELs since 2000–2001, where ELs constituted 8.1% of total student enrollment (Office of English Language Acquisition [OELA], 2020). The following year in 2017, the percentage of ELs reached 10.1% of the total student enrollment, making the number of ELs five million in public schools (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2020). By state, California topped the list with 20.2% of its student population being ELs, followed by Texas (17.2%), Nevada (15.9%), New Mexico (13.4%), and Colorado (11.7%; OELA, 2020). ELs come from a diverse linguistic and cultural background. Among heterogeneous home languages spoken, Spanish was the most commonly reported home language, representing approximately 75% of the total EL population in 2020. Arabic was the second most used home language, being spoken by approximately 3% of ELs, and was followed by Chinese and Vietnamese, which together were spoken at home by 4% of ELs. Other languages were spoken by less than 1% of the total EL population (NCES, 2020). English Learners 169 Other than their home languages, ELs can also have diverse educational profiles, previous educational experiences, and home language literacy backgrounds, and their parents may have differing education levels and English proficiency (Bunch, 2013). Regarding the affective and cognitive domains, ELs may differ in motivation, cognitive abilities, learning style preferences, and special education needs (Gong & Gao, 2018; Short & Echevarria, 2004). In addition, family support and engagement, socioeconomic status, cultural beliefs and values in education and learning, and the age of arrival may contribute to diverse characteristics of ELs (Echevarria et al. 2008; Short & Echevarria, 2004). Other than the factors mentioned above, there may be other elements that teachers may encounter when working with ELs. The number of ELs is rapidly growing in the United States with California having the highest EL population, followed by Texas and Nevada. There are approximately 5 million ELs in the United States, and yet their home language, educational profile, affective and cognitive capabilities, family engagement, cultural beliefs, values, and socioeconomic status all vary. Challenges Confronting ELs With the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) established in 2002, there have been efforts to provide accountable education for every child, including ELs, to achieve higher academic performance. The reauthorization of NCLB and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2010 further recognized the importance of providing and supporting STEM education for K– 12 students, and ELs were not an exception (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The Every Student Succeeds Act, which replaced NCLB after being passed in 2015, highlighted the equity for the disadvantaged and required every student to achieve high academic standards (U. S. Department of Education, 2015). Taken together, the importance for providing quality education, including in STEM subjects, and the expectation of successful educational attainment for ELs have grown over the past decade. However, ELs may face a number of challenges and obstacles in order to achieve better academic success. The biggest concern is their level of English proficiency, combined with the need to understand content in different subject areas. Differences in their sociocultural values, culture of learning, and diverse educational experience are other issues to consider (Edmonds, 2009; Lee, 2005). ELs, especially with low English proficiency, may not fully understand what is being taught in class and get confused easily. It can be also cognitively demanding for ELs to use academic language to participate in content-based class discussions, as it takes a much longer time to develop cognitive academic language proficiency compared to interpersonal communicative language skills. For instance, words that are polysemous can confuse ELs and hinder them from understanding the accurate contextual meaning of the words. “Point” and “table” can be math-specific vocabulary words that ELs may hear in their daily lives with 170 English Learners different meanings. Furthermore, ELs may hold different perspectives in conceptualizing the world from the dominant conceptualization of events and experiences held by mainstream U.S. students (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018). One can view science and technology as tools for improvement, whereas the other can treat them as a root for destruction (Edmonds, 2009). Having different attitudes, perceptions, and interpretations toward specific subjects, stemming from cultural beliefs and values, can lead to challenges for ELs to participate in mainstream classrooms, as culture plays a significant role in learning. In addition to the above challenges, there has been a growing voice for recognizing the importance of STEM literacy and that a distinction should be made between developing academic language and STEM literacy for ELs (Carr, 2015; Hoffman & Zollman, 2016). Academic language entails the ability to use specific vocabulary, grammar and syntax in reading, listening, speaking, and writing while STEM literacy refers to acquiring scientific concepts and scientific language ELs confront a number of challenges due to their diverse to communicate (Carr, 2015). cultural backgrounds, language proficiencies, academic This includes both language experiences, and cognitive processes. As academic proficiency development and language is more cognitively demanding than content knowledge acquisition, conversational language, and STEM literacy requires the which calls for STEM teachers’ use of scientific concepts and technical terms, ELs face need and ability to integrate additional cognitive, linguistic, and emotional demands to language and content instruction develop STEM concepts, language, and literacy. Cultural for ELs and mitigate challenges differences in beliefs, values and attitudes toward learning ELs face in order to help them and STEM also impose extra challenges for ELs when they succeed in STEM fields (see are placed in mainstream STEM classrooms with teachers Chapter 14). who may not be knowledgeable about the needs of ELs. Strategies to Help ELs Succeed As ELs have multifaceted educational needs, we need a diverse number of strategies in different modalities and levels to assist ELs to succeed in their academic achievement. The first is to provide clear and explicit objectives and expectations in both content and language (Echevarria et al., 2015; Fisher & Frey, 2016; Short & Echevarria, 2004). While addressing content objectives is common in classrooms, language objectives are often neglected. However, providing language objectives is critical for ELs in developing their English proficiency as well as their content knowledge attainment. Setting a clear and grade level appropriate expectation regarding language and content knowledge is highly important for ELs’ successful achievement of language and content. ELs can participate and learn the same content as non-ELs when teachers encourage them and believe in their capabilities. They can also learn and use academic English Learners 171 language when teachers set clear objectives of language that students are expected to use (Echevarria et al., 2015). Establishing clear and explicit objectives and expectations will enable ELs to acquire grade-level academic language proficiency as well as content knowledge. The second strategy in assisting ELs is providing comprehensible input. Stemming from Krashen’s second language acquisition theory, comprehensible input allows ELs to access content knowledge with more ease. There are several ways of providing comprehensible input: modeling, scaffolding, and interaction (Bunch, 2013; Echevarria et al., 2015; Muhanna, 2019; NASEM, 2018; Short, 2017). Teachers’ modeling of desired language use can provide observational opportunities for ELs to grasp and fulfill their linguistic needs in content development and improve their learning. Scaffolding is a way of assisting and supporting a student’s learning and involves a gradual decrease of assistance as the student advances (Muhanna, 2019). Scaffolding can be tailored differently to meet the variety of needs ELs may have. For example, visual aids, such as video clips, graphic organizers, and still images, can be helpful for visual learners. Modifications in teacher speech, such as slower speech pace, simplified sentence structures, and word choice, can be used to accommodate students’ language proficiency (Short, 2017). Other ways of providing scaffolding include gestures, use of native language support, providing sentence starters, and demonstrations (Muhanna, 2019; Short, 2017). Interaction can also positively contribute to providing comprehensible input. Through meaning negotiation and small group discussions, ELs can participate in meaningful interactions with peers and the teacher and seek help for content and language clarifications as they use their linguistic resources to achieve understanding. The third strategy to supporting ELs is making learning meaningful as well as providing multiple exposures to contextual and real-life problems. Learning occurs through meaningful engagement, and this is highly important for ELs (NASEM, 2018). When they can make connections between what they are learning and their real-life experiences, and when engaged in meaningful activities and tasks, ELs are more likely to engage in activities and develop both their language and content knowledge (van Lier & Walqui, 2012, as cited in Bunch, 2013). On top of engaging ELs in meaningful learning, Gong and Gao (2018) acknowledged the importance of offering learning in authentic and realistic contexts. As ELs are required to be assessed using standardized measurements, researchers are observing a growing academic achievement gap between ELs and non-ELs that may be caused by the linguistic complexity of the assessment tasks. That is, ELs may have the content knowledge but not the linguistic resources to display their knowledge while being assessed, especially with the test items that consist of complex language structures and require a high level of language competency in addition to background knowledge. Offering contextualized 172 English Learners and real-life scenario problems in classrooms will benefit ELs by preparing them to deal with the linguistic complexity and academic content of the assessment instruments in technical subjects such as STEM. Fourth, building background knowledge is essential for any learner but is critical for ELs. Short (2017) asserted that making explicit connections between old information and new information aids ELs in processing new information. In addition, anchoring the new knowledge to ELs’ previous experiences and existing knowledge will lead them to achieve a higher level of understanding. Building ELs’ background knowledge can be done in multiple ways. Explicit teaching of key academic vocabulary, brainstorming about concepts prior to learning, use of visuals and multimedia, and presenting technical vocabulary can all activate ELs’ background knowledge, enhance their interests and motivation, and support their learning (Inceli, 2015; Merritt et al., 2017). Fifth, it is imperative that explicit language instruction is provided to ensure the understanding and development of ELs in both content and academic language. ELs not only need to learn subject-specific vocabulary but also the sentence and paragraph structures and discourse organization in different genres (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2010; Echevarria et al., 2015; Edmonds, 2009; Fisher & Frey, 2016). With specific and explicit language objectives for each lesson, ELs will have better understanding of the expectations and procedures for carrying out project-related tasks. For example, teachers can provide a language frame or model language structures for ELs to observe and practice (Fisher & Frey, 2016). Finally, yet importantly, practicing culturally responsive teaching can create an inclusive classroom environment where diversity is appreciated. This can assure ELs that their cultural beliefs and values are respected and thus encourage them to actively engage in the learning process (Echevarria et al., 2015). Culturally responsive teachers are likely to build a positive relationship with individual students and establish a strong rapport that benefits both ELs and themselves. Often, implementing culturally responsive teaching is perceived as challenging and requiring extra work by teachers. However, culturally responsive teaching can be as simple as asking students how to say certain terms or words in their native language (Echevarria et al., 2015). In fact, encouraging ELs to retain their home language and cultural practices and use all their linguistic repertoire is positively correlated with academic achievement (Bunch, 2013). Culturally responsive teaching will benefit all the students, including ELs. NASEM (2018) highlighted the advantages of bringing in the cultural diversity of ELs into mainstream classrooms and considers ELs’ linguistic and cultural resources as assets of high value for all students. ELs’ experiences and perspectives can provide a new and novel pool of resources and act as an impetus for innovative ways of conceiving the world for their non-EL peers. This English Learners 173 positive cultural outlook can lead to capitalizing ELs’ cultural and linguistic diversity and their multiple resources, enhance their motivation and engagement in their learning, and realize the best of their potential. Strategies to support ELs include: 1. Providing clear and explicit objectives and expectations for both content and language, 2. Providing comprehensible input, 3. Engaging ELs in meaningful, real-life, and contextualized classroom activities, 4. Building background knowledge via brainstorming, using visual aids, and explicitly teaching academic and technical vocabulary, 5. Providing explicit language instruction along with content instruction, and 6. Practicing culturally responsive teaching. Project-Based Learning What is PBL? PBL is a pedagogical approach that is grounded in authentic but ill-defined projects, emphasizing student-centeredness, collaboration, and hands-on activities (Beier et al., 2019; Bell, 2010; Kertil & Gurel, 2016). Though different scholars have defined PBL in various ways, there are several common characteristics. The first is student-centeredness and active learning. As Bell (2010) asserted, PBL is “a student-driven, teacher-facilitated approach to learning” (p. 39). Learners are the agents of their own leaning and actively involved in every process of their learning, from formulating a research question or problem to planning, organizing, and evaluating their learning process. Though a teacher supervises and facilitates students’ learning, learners make choices and learn to be responsible, independent, and autonomous for their learning (Beier et al., 2019; Thomas, 2000). The second characteristic of PBL is that it is an inquiry-based instructional practice. Rather than traditional instructional approaches where teachers give lectures and learners solve teacher-developed problems and questions, PBL encourages learners to pose their own questions or problems, brainstorm how they are going to solve the problem, choose materials to use, and determine how to display their end project (Bell, 2010). This process keeps the learners focused on the tasks and enables them to achieve the project goals with responsibility and autonomy. The third feature of PBL is collaboration. Both Bell (2010) and Kokotsaki et al. (2016) addressed the importance of working collaboratively and cooperatively as learners get opportunities to accomplish different tasks through social interactions. Working in groups or pairs will not only foster the learners’ interpersonal communications skills and the attributes of 174 English Learners being good listeners but also develop responsibility, teamwork, and the ability to respect others, as each learner will have a role to play in order to achieve the common goal (Thomas, 2000). The last aspect of PBL lies in solving real-world problems and tasks (Beier et al., 2019; Erdogan et al., 2016). Learners are motivated when they see a relevant connection between tasks and their lives. Providing authentic, context-specific, and real-world tasks with an end product will engage learners in their own learning process and increase their motivation, interest, and participation in learning. PBL and STEM Classrooms The Effects of PBL in STEM Classrooms Teachers in STEM classrooms have shown interest in PBL and found it to be an effective instructional approach, as it not only draws students’ interest and positively affects their attitudes toward STEM subjects but enriches students’ understanding of related concepts (Bell, 2010; Han et al., 2015; Sahin & Top, 2015). PBL in STEM classes is an interdisciplinary approach and often requires interactive teamwork. Therefore, PBL can positively contribute to developing students’ content knowledge as well as other 21st century skills, such as the use of technology, interpersonal communication skills, collaboration skills, autonomy, and problem- solving skills (Bell, 2010). The existing body of research has presented positive learning outcomes when implementing PBL in STEM classes. For example, findings from Al-Balushi and Al-Aamri (2014), Beier et al. (2019), and Cevik (2018) suggested that PBL yields positive attitudes, self-efficacy, and career interests in STEM fields from students. Other studies have demonstrated the positive effect of PBL on students’ higher academic achievement and literacy in science, environmental science, engineering, and math subjects (Bicer et al., 2015; Geirer et al., 2008; Han, Rosli, et al., 2016; Hsu et al., 2015; Tati et al., 2017). The Role of Technology in PBL The use of technology can provide a learning experience that is authentic, rich, and accompanied with real-life experiences that accommodate diverse learning styles and preferences (Balakrishnan & Gan, 2016). In particular, the virtual learning space provided by technology can broaden and enrich opportunities for learners to be engaged in learning in and out of school contexts and break the boundaries of space and time (e.g., Henderson et al., 2017). See Chapter 11 for a discussion of how virtual spaces can be implemented in STEM PBL. Several affordances provided to learners through technology include learner engagement, motivation, interactivity and collaboration, self-dependency, and information accessibility English Learners 175 (Dooly & Sadler, 2016; Gómez-Pablos et al., 2017; Mohamadi, 2018; Shishkovskaya et al., 2015). See Chapter 12 for a deeper explanation of how technology can enhance STEM PBL. Integrating technology in STEM PBL classrooms not only draws students’ attention but also engages and motivates them in learning. Depending on the students’ language proficiency, level of content knowledge, and research interests, technology can open doors for a wide variety of tasks and projects that students can choose from (Blumenfeld et al., 1991, as cited in Gómez-Pablos et al., 2017). Having the autonomy to choose their own projects will keep students engaged and motivated throughout the projects. In addition, technology provides different venues for the students to produce the end product for their projects (e.g., videos, slides, digital portfolio, 3D models, scrapbooks), which can sustain students’ interest and motivation in learning. Technology also provides multiple platforms for interactive communication and collaboration. Asynchronous features of technology (e.g., forums, blogs and chats) can encourage learners to collaborate and communicate with each other regardless of space and time barriers (Shishkovskaya et al., 2015). Dooly and Sadler (2016), for instance, created interdisciplinary projects between two classes with a similar content. Through asynchronous online and synchronous videoconference interactions, students in both classes were able to engage in authentic communications and co-construct knowledge collaboratively. Furthermore, technology fosters self-dependency and responsibility and makes relevant information and multimodal resources readily accessible to students. The use of technology provides students with opportunities to have control and responsibility over their own learning as they search for ideas and information needed to complete projects independently (Gómez- Pablos et al., 2017; Mohamadi, 2018). This is aligned with the active and inquiry-based learning nature of PBL, which requires students to devise their own problem-solving procedures and learning. Having access to multimodal resources and information through technology adds to the development of learner self-dependency and responsibility, as they will need to evaluate and validate the source and make decisions as to the relevance of the information. PBL and English Learners How Can ELs Benefit From PBL in a STEM Classroom? ELs are heterogeneous with a wide range of characteristics and different levels of language proficiency and academic background and therefore have different needs. Research has shown that implementing an inquiry-based learning approach such as PBL in STEM classrooms engenders positive outcomes for ELs, considering individual differences and learning 176 English Learners preferences and styles (Artini et al., 2018; Beier et al., 2019; Bell, 2010; Bender, 2012; Bunch, 2013; Carr, 2015). First, it contributes to the development of academic English proficiency. It is essential that ELs have opportunities to use language in authentic contexts to develop their academic language proficiency (Carr, 2015). PBL in STEM classes provides opportunities for ELs to get engaged in student-centered, meaningful, and purposeful activities that require them to use academic language to discuss ideas, collaboratively solve problems, and share their findings (Chen & Yang, 2019), which advances their academic language proficiency. Artini et al., (2018), for example, found that PBL resulted in statistically significant gains in students’ productive skills, such as writing and speaking. PBL can also increase students’ motivation and positive attitudes toward learning (Artini et al., 2018; Bayer, 2016; Beier et al., 2019; Chen & Yang, 2019). Motivation, often driven by attitudes, is pivotal in learning, including language learning, as it plays as a momentum for not only initiating but also sustaining a learning process (Dörnyei, 2014). As PBL employs projects that are relevant and meaningful to students’ lives, ELs are more motivated to learn and develop positive attitudes toward learning, especially in the STEM fields where ELs are underrepresented. This can potentially lead to career pursuit in STEM fields as well. Beier et al. (2019) investigated the effect of employing STEM PBL on learners’ positive attitudes, self- efficacy, and career aspirations and found that PBL does yield positive outcomes in all three aspects. Artini et al. (2018) and Shin (2018) also reported increased motivation and positive attitudes toward learning when PBL was employed and attributed the gains to PBL’s collaborative and student-centered characteristics. Similarly, Bayer (2016) discovered that employing PBL in a college-level statistics course positively influenced learners’ attitudes toward the subject. Another advantage of using PBL is that it contributes to building learners’ cognitive and metacognitive skills (Artini et al., 2018; Gandi et al., 2019; Husamah, 2015). As learners are engaged in solving an authentic problem that requires collaboration and the learners’ own protocol to solve problems, they develop their cognitive and metacognitive skills, including self-regulation and self-monitoring. The findings from Gandi et al. (2019) reveal that PBL employed in STEM classrooms at an elementary school level leads to statistically significant gains in critical-thinking skills, while Husamah (2015) reported higher metacognitive awareness in the PBL group. Holmes and Hwang (2016) also reported that students in a high school math class using a PBL approach achieved higher cognitive skills, such as critical- thinking and problem-solving skills. English Learners 177 Finally, PBL facilitates higher academic achievement for ELs, as they are engaged in active learning and knowledge construction. Karaçalli and Korur (2014) found that PBL promoted scientific knowledge gains and knowledge retention in 4th grade students. Findings from Holmes and Hwang (2016) are partially aligned with Karaçalli and Korur (2014)’s in that they suggested struggling high school students enrolled in PBL classrooms had positive gains in mathematical knowledge and skills, even PBL can positively affect ELs’ learning in STEM though the academic achievement gap fields by developing academic English proficiency, cognitive and metacognitive skills, between the groups remained. Similarly, Han, promoting positive attitudes and increasing Capraro, and Capraro’s (2016) study revealed motivation in STEM classrooms, and prompting using a PBL approach in high school math and priming higher academic achievement. classes resulted in increased math achievement. How to Implement PBL With ELs? Beckett and Slater’s (2005) postulated Project Framework emphasizes two elements: a planning graphic and a project diary. In addition to the Project Framework, the Revised Project Framework (Beckett & Slater, 2017, as cited in Slater & Beckett, 2019) was proposed to address the need to develop technology skills, which are required to achieve in the 21st century, to better serve students in visualizing the purpose and process of the project (Slater & Beckett, 2019). Figure 1 below visually describes the Revised Project Framework, adding technology skills to the original framework. Figure1. Project Framework (Modified from Becket & Slater, 2005, p. 110, and Slater & Becket, 2019, p. 4) 178 English Learners Slater and Beckett (2019) incorporated Mohan’s Knowledge Framework (KF) to update their Revised Project Framework and postulated a blended framework so that both teachers and students envision what to expect and how to manage their projects. Mohan’s KF provides a foundation for teachers to ponder how to effectively integrate language and content learning prior to lesson delivery, including the use of visual aids. It consists of six knowledge structures that can interweave content and language learning: classification, description, sequence, principles, choice, and evaluation (Slater & Beckett, 2019). For instance, classification can involve defining concepts or grouping ideas, utilizing a table or a tree diagram, and providing opportunities for language use, such as key vocabulary (types, categories, sort, etc.) and grammatical structures (e.g., passives such as “can be classified,” additive conjunctions such as “and”). The use of a blended framework not only benefits teachers in planning their lessons but is also helpful for ELs, as it vividly and visually presents what they are expected to learn (both content and language) and how to proceed and manage the project. The clear guideline and blueprint will motivate ELs to be highly engaged in their learning throughout the project. Artini et al. (2018) introduced a procedure to implement PBL with ELs that is broken down into six steps (Figure 2). The first step is to determine the essential questions, which involves checking students’ understanding of the topic and concepts. The second step is to come up with a blueprint where students are asked to design their own project plan. The third step is arranging the schedule where students work out the project timeline, followed by monitoring. Students will need to monitor their project progress and assess their outcome. The last step involves students’ own evaluation of the experience through the PBL. Throughout the PBL procedures, it is expected that students are highly engaged in their own learning, from formulating their research questions or problems to devising their work timeline and evaluating their own work. Figure 2. Procedures for Implementing PBL (Artini et al., 2018, p. 30) English Learners 179 Weinburgh et al. (2014) proposed the 5R Instructional Model for integrating science instruction with language learning for ELs, aiming for better science vocabulary acquisition and science content knowledge. The 5R Instructional Model primarily focuses on language development for ELs where language is repeated, revealed, repositioned, replaced, and reloaded throughout PBL activities. As Weinburgh et al. (2014) stated, repeating and repositioning of science vocabulary can happen at any time during the content instruction when the teacher uses academic vocabulary as much as possible and reformulates or restructures students’ responses using academic vocabulary whenever appropriate. Reloading can be applied to both academic language or content knowledge when the teacher revisits the scientific discourse and concepts over time. A teacher can also replace informal vocabulary or discourse with formal and academic language and reveal new terms throughout the instruction. The use of the 5Rs can greatly advance and assist ELs’ academic language development by aligning language instruction with content instruction through PBL. Carr (2015), Hoffman and Zollman (2016), and Lee et al. (2013) underlined the importance of including explicit language instruction within PBL when working with ELs. Carr (2015), for instance, emphasized the frontloading of new academic vocabulary and language function, followed by guided reading or a listening activity, as a linguistic preparation process prior to the PBL approach to learning content. The rationale behind explicit linguistic support for ELs in PBL is that academic language development is established by explicit language instruction (Carr, 2015). An example of a literacy-rich STEM PBL lesson is located in Ch. 10 Appendix A. Hoffman and Zollman (2016) recognized the importance of providing language support for ELs and admitted that this language support is not only helpful for ELs but beneficial to other students, such as students with learning difficulties and non-EL students. Five instructional strategies are provided to facilitate language development: establishing background knowledge for new concepts, supporting vocabulary-building skills, providing language frames for STEM vocabulary use, creating interaction opportunities for language use, and grouping students in various ways to meet their needs. Hoffman and Zollman (2016) suggested multiple ways that teachers can support vocabulary development for ELs, emphasizing multiple exposures and repetition for new academic vocabulary retention. Some examples of vocabulary-building supportive tools include mnemonic aids, flash cards such as Quizlet or student-made vocabulary cards, and word walls with visual aids. However, more importantly, modeling language use is highlighted considering that discrete language skills, such as recognizing vocabulary, are never enough for ELs to succeed in STEM classes. Prompting language frames will not only help ELs but other students as well in developing their STEM literacy and using it in appropriate contexts. Table 1 below provides an example of how STEM teachers can prime STEM language use beyond the vocabulary level. 180 English Learners Table 1 STEM Language Functions and Sentence Structure Frames (Hoffman & Zollman, 2016, p. 90) STEM Sentence Structure Sample Sentences Sample Sentences Using Tiers Language Frames Using Tier 1 2 and 3 Vocabulary and Functions Vocabulary Target Concepts Sequence First, , We saw that first the car We observed potential then, , and rolled down the board, gravitational energy of the object finally,. then the car hit the at the top of the incline plane. brick, and then the egg Then the object accelerated due flew out of the car. to gravitational force and Newton’s first law of motion. Finally, the eggshell broke because of Newton’s third law of motion. Hypothesize If , then If we let the egg roll From Newton’s first law of will. down the board, it will motion, we hypothesize that the break when it hits the momentum of the object will brick. cause the object to stay in motion when the vehicles hits the barrier. In line with Carr (2015) and Hoffman and Zollman (2016), Lee et al. (2013) stated that providing opportunities for ELs to use STEM language in purposeful and meaningful activities is essential. This will allow ELs to not only comprehend STEM content knowledge but develop their academic discourse, which is different from social discourse, and use them appropriately in different contexts. Lee et al. (2013) provided a list on how STEM teachers can align practices with language functions (see Ch. 10 Appendix B). In planning PBL in STEM classrooms with ELs, integrating language and content is essential. Providing explicit language instruction is highly recommended via prompting language frames, repeating the target academic vocabulary and discourse multiple times, and providing various language learning tools (e.g., flashcards). Things to Consider Several evidence-based studies have shown the benefits of PBL in STEM education. However, it should be noted that PBL is not a one-size-fits-all solution. As ELs have diverse needs based on their backgrounds, they may find PBL as a muddy instructional approach where they cannot focus on either language development or content knowledge building. STEM teachers, on the other hand, may be burdened by implementing PBL in their classes with ELs, as they may not have been trained to teach ELs and may not be familiar with adding the literacy instruction English Learners 181 component to the PBL approach. Below we suggest several ideas that can help teachers in employing PBL and creating successful STEM PBL classrooms. 1. Support for both students and teachers Kokotsaki et al. (2016) underlined that both teachers and students need support to effectively implement PBL. For instance, teachers should be provided with ample opportunities to participate in professional development as well as networking with other teachers, especially with senior teachers. Teachers also need time to train themselves to properly implement PBL (Erdogan & Bozeman, 2015). Helpful resources are provided in Ch. 10 Appendix C. Students need support in a diverse number of areas in addition to content instruction. In order to effectively practice PBL, students need to learn how to self-regulate and self-manage the procedure to complete a project within a given time frame. As students are involved in collaborative projects, they also need to learn how to collaborate and effectively communicate with peers and responsibly contribute to the project as an individual. Teachers may have to provide thoughtful and effective guidance and scaffolding at the beginning of a project and gradually release responsibility to their students for their autonomous learning. 2. Cognitive Apprenticeship Framework To better meet and manage individual learners’ needs, Drain (2010) created the Cognitive Apprenticeship (CA) framework for PBL. Recognizing the importance of scaffolding, CA refines and advances learners’ abilities and proficiency with assistance (Larkins et al., 2013). The first phase of CA involves providing learners with opportunities to become linguistically and conceptually familiar with the task or project that they will be engaged in during the second phase (Kokotsaki et al., 2016). In addition, the following six dimensions of CA summarized below are well aligned with PBL in that they offer opportunities for learners to develop their skills through observation, practice, and exploration (Drain, 2010; Larkins et al., 2013). Modeling. This can involve both explicit and implicit demonstration of tasks for learners to grasp the needed conceptual knowledge and be able to apply it to their problem-solving process. Coaching. During the learners’ problem-solving process, the teacher provides individual feedback to learners when needed. Scaffolding. The teacher assists learners when they are in the zone of proximal development and are needing help to move on. A gradual decrease in assistance is recommended as learners acquire the needed skills and knowledge. 182 English Learners  Articulation. Articulation provides learners the opportunity to explicitly display their knowledge to others. Reflection. The learners reflect upon their own learning process and performance in problem solving. This can provide opportunities for learners to critically think and compare their performance with an expert and refine their knowledge and skills. Exploration. Learners delve into their own ways of investigating and identifying strategies and methods to solve problems. This leads to independent learning. 3. Culture of learning Culture is an inevitable aspect when it comes to learning. It can affect students’ beliefs and perceptions of STEM fields and their attitudes toward certain pedagogical approaches and practices. Lee (2005) asserted the importance of including cultural and linguistic experiences that ELs bring into STEM classes. It is not uncommon to assume that students have similar background knowledge and conceptions regarding STEM practices, such as investigating a research problem, collaborating to work on projects, and navigating the learning process to come up with an answer. However, as Lee (2005) asserted, conceptions and practices regarding STEM may not be the same in different cultures, as each culture may consist of different cultural norms and practices. It is important to acknowledge different cultural beliefs and practices and take them as resources for learning in classrooms. Bunch (2013) also recognized the value of retaining and sustaining home language and culture, as they are great resources for ELs to make progress in their learning. With regard to pedagogical approaches and practices, ELs may find PBL and components of PBL, such as collaboration and groupwork, challenging. In some cultures, the inquiry-based STEM approach, groupwork, and active participation may not be commonly used. It is crucial that STEM teachers respect ELs’ cultural ways of learning and allow ELs to discover the benefits of PBL and recognize that PBL can be another way of learning STEM. 4. Parent involvement The existing body of research has evinced the benefits of parent or family engagement on students’ academic achievement and positive relationships with schools and teachers (Baker et al., 2016; Froiland et al., 2013). However, ELs’ parents and families may find it difficult to be engaged in schools. The reasons may vary from language barriers, to a lack of a welcoming school environment, to cultural differences (Baker et al., 2016; Tarasawa & Waggoner, 2015). Schools need to make a concerted effort to encourage the engagement of ELs’ parents and foster a positive and inviting climate for parents to get involved in their children’s education. This may eventually evoke ELs’ interest and motivation in their learning, including STEM English Learners 183 classes, and form a positive attitude toward PBL. Strategies for improving the engagement of ELs’ parents are provided below (Baker et al., 2016; Tarasawa & Waggoner, 2015). Accommodations. Schools can accommodate transportation, child care for siblings, and meals to improve parental engagement in school events and parent nights. Communication. Accessible and effective communication is crucial to engage ELs’ parents. Communication can employ multimodality and home language translation. In addition, any last-minute communication should be discouraged. Environment. Creating a welcoming and inclusive environment is vital. ELs’ parents may feel intimidated, as the school may be a new environment for them and they may not know how things are different from their own time in school. To meet the needs of ELs in STEM classrooms, PBL can be successfully implemented when culture is taken into account. Some ELs may need to learn the importance of collaboration and inquiry-based learning, whereas others may need more parental support. In addition, support for teachers is as equally important as assisting students. Professional development and training can enhance the quality of PBL practices. Conclusion ELs form a heterogenous group of students and face different challenges in their learning and schooling. Without appropriate support, ELs can easily get lost during their STEM classes, as they are required to simultaneously learn content and language. PBL is encouraged in STEM classrooms with ELs, as it can effectively address both content knowledge acquisition and language development concerns. Autonomous and inquiry-based content instruction accompanied by explicit language instruction will motivate ELs and capture their interest in STEM fields. Furthermore, PBL will equip ELs with various skills needed in life, such as responsibility, self-regulation, and creative thinking skills. The key is that teachers need to be thoughtful in blending ELs’ culture and home language to provide culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and that appropriate scaffolding and support should be provided for successful PBL implementation in STEM classrooms. Reflection Questions and Activities 1. What are some of the strategies you might use to support language development of ELs with different English proficiencies in your class? 2. Think of a lesson plan in your current course curriculum. In what ways does it follow Slater and Beckett’s (2019) Revised Project Framework? In what ways might it be altered to do so, and how might these changes support ELs’ learning? 184 English Learners 3. STEM PBL is a powerful teaching method, but what aspects of a PBL activity and learning environment should an instructor consider specifically important to monitor or alter in order to best support ELs’ learning? 4. Please circle “T” if the statement is true and “F” if the statement is false: a. PBL cannot be applied to STEM classrooms with a large number of students. b. The focus of PBL in STEM is students’ autonomous learning through an inquiry- based approach to STEM. c. Explicit language instruction in PBL is only beneficial for English learners. d. PBL can be a be a beneficial pedagogical approach in teaching content and language. e. Implementing PBL in STEM classes can develop ELs’ different skills, such as academic English proficiency and cognitive and metacognitive skills. Key: F, T, F, T, T Further Readings National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects: Transforming classrooms, schools, and lives. National Academies Press. References Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Aamri, S. S. (2014). The effect of environmental science projects on students’ environmental knowledge and science attitudes. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(3), 213–227. Artini, L. P., Ratminingsih, N. M., & Padmadewi, N. N. (2018). Project based learning in EFL classes: Material development and impact of implementation. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 26– 44. Baker, T. L., Wise, J., Kelley, G., & Skiba, R. J. (2016). Identifying barriers: Creating solutions to improve family engagement. School Community Journal, 26(2), 161–184. Balakrishnan, V., & Gan, C. L. (2016). Students’ learning styles and their effects on the use of social media technology for learning. Telematics and Informatics, 33(3), 808–821. Bayer, T. J. (2016). Effects of guided project-based learning activities on students’ attitudes toward statistics in an introductory statistics course. [Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University]. ODU Digital Commons. Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108–116. Beier, M. E., Kim, M. H., Saterbak, A., Leautaud, V., Bishnoi, S., & Gilberto, J. M. (2019). The effect of authentic project-based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3–23. English Learners 185 Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. Bender, W. N. (2012). Project-based learning: Differentiating instruction for the 21st century. Corwin Press. Bicer, A., Boedeker, P., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). The effects of STEM PBL on students' mathematical and scientific vocabulary knowledge. Online Submission, 2(2), 69–75. Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341. Carr, K. (2015). Literacy-rich STEM project-based learning: Preparing STEM teaching candidates for high-needs schools. Teacher Education and Practice, 28(2–3), 239–255. Çevik, M. (2018). Impacts of the project based (PBL) science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education on academic achievement and career interests of vocational high school students. Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi/Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 8(2), 281. Chen, C. H., & Yang, Y. C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71–81. Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). What does research say about effective practices for English learners? Part II: Academic language proficiency. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(2), 60–65. Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2016). Becoming little scientists: Technologically-enhanced project-based language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 54–78. Dörnyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge. Drain, M. (2010). Justification of the dual-phase project-based pedagogical approach in a primary school technology unit. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 15(1). Echevarria, J., Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2015). What it takes for English learners to succeed. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 22–26. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Pearson. Edmonds, L. M. (2009). Challenges and solutions for ELLs. The Science Teacher, 76(3), 30. Erdogan, N., & Bozeman, T. D. (2015). Models of project-based learning for the 21st century. In A. Sahin (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 31–42). Sense Publishers. Erdogan, N., Navruz, B., Younes, R., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). Viewing how STEM project-based learning influences students’ science achievement through the implementation lens: A latent growth modeling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), 2139– 2154. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). Setting clear learning purposes for ELLs. Educational Leadership, 73(5), 84. Froiland, J. M., Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., & Son, S. H. C. (2013). Neighborhood socioeconomic well-being, home literacy, and early literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Psychology in the Schools, 50(8), 755–769. Gandi, A. S. K., Haryani, S., & Setiawan, D. (2019). The effect of project-based learning integrated STEM toward critical thinking skill. Journal of Primary Education, 8(7), 18–23. 186 English Learners Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. Gómez-Pablos, V. B., del Pozo, M. M., & Muñoz-Repiso, A. G. V. (2017). Project-based learning (PBL) through the incorporation of digital technologies: An evaluation based on the experience of serving teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 501–512. Gong, X., & Gao, H. (2018). Supporting English language learners in the mathematics classroom in the United States. Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(2), 48–67. Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089–1113. Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project based learning affects high-need students in the U.S. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 157–166. Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). The effect of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) project based learning (PBL) on students’ achievement in four mathematics topics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(special), 3–29. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567– 1579. 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), 9. Holmes, V. L., & Hwang, Y. (2016). Exploring the effects of project-based learning in secondary mathematics education. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5), 449–463. Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2015). The effect of a graph-oriented computer- assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 32–58. Husamah, H. (2015). Blended project based learning: Metacognitive awareness of biology education new students. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 9(4), 274–281. Inceli, O. (2015). The perceptions of English teachers to the SIOP® Model and its impact on limited English proficiency. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 15–28. Karaçalli, S., & Korur, F. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on students' academic achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: The subject of “electricity in our lives.” School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 224–235. Kertil, M., & Gurel, C. (2016). Mathematical modeling: A bridge to STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 44–55. Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. English Learners 187 Larkins, D. B., Moore, J. C., Rubbo, L. J., & Covington, L. R. (2013). Application of the cognitive apprenticeship framework to a middle school robotics camp. In R. McCauley, T. Camp, P. Tymann, J. D. Dougherty, & K. Nagel (Eds.), Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 89–94). Association for Computing Machinery. Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530. Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. Merritt, E. G., Palacios, N., Banse, H., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Leis, M. (2017). Teaching practices in Grade 5 mathematics classrooms with high-achieving English learner students. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 17–31. Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of project-based learning and electronic project-based learning on the development and sustained development of English idiom knowledge. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(2), 363–385. Muhanna, B. (2019). Using SIOP model to engage students and promote academic knowledge of English learners (ELs). In J. Keengwe & G. Onchwari (Eds.), Handbook of research on assessment practices and pedagogical models for immigrant students (pp. 367–395). IGI Global. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects: Transforming classrooms, schools, and lives. National Academies Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). English language learners in public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp Office of English Language Acquisition. (2020). English learners: Demographic trends. https://ncela.ed.gov/files/fast_facts/19-0193_Del4.4_ELDemographicTrends_021220_508.pdf Sahin, A., & Top, N. (2015). STEM students on the stage (SOS): Promoting student voice and choice in STEM education through an interdisciplinary, standards-focused project based learning approach. Journal of STEM Education, 16(3). Shin, M. H. (2018). Effects of project-based learning on students' motivation and self-efficacy. English Teaching, 73(1). Shishkovskaya, J., Bakalo, D., & Grigoryev, A. (2015). EFL teaching in the e-learning environment: Updated principles and methods. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 199–204. Short, D. J. (2017). How to integrate content and language learning effectively for English language learners. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7b), 4237–4260. Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 8–13. Slater, T., & Beckett, G. H. (2019). Integrating language, content, technology, and skills development through project-based language learning: Blending frameworks for successful unit planning. MEXTESOL Journal, 43(1). Tarasawa, B., & Waggoner, J. (2015). Increasing parental involvement of English language learner families: What the research says. Journal of Children and Poverty, 21(2), 129–134. 188 English Learners Tati, T., Firman, H., & Riandi, R. (2017). The effect of STEM learning through the project of designing boat model toward student STEM literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895, Article 012157. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. The Autodesk Foundation. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. U.S. Government Printing Press. U.S. Department of Education (2015). Key policy letters signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/151210.html Weinburgh, M., Silva, C., Smith, K. H., Groulx, J., & Nettles, J. (2014). The intersection of inquiry-based science and language: Preparing teachers for ELL classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(5), 519–541. English Learners 189  Chapter 10 Appendix A Literacy-Rich STEM PBL Lesson (Taken from Carr, 2015. p. 244) Instructional Component Illustration: How does wind Illustration: Does water power work? entering Mill Creek from drainpipes negatively affect the creek? “Frontloading” for Students complete an activity Students complete an activity comprehension of new probing their understanding probing their understanding academic vocabulary of academic vocabulary of academic vocabulary related to wind power (i.e., related to water flow (i.e., force, energy, power, flow rate, impermeable efficiency) and engineering surface turbidity, design (i.e., prototype, temperature) and mapping criteria, failure). (i.e., GPS, latitude, longitude, elevation). Guided reading or listening Students listen to a recent radio Students read a report from activity (may also be program about the the county watershed incorporated elsewhere in proliferation of wind turbine council about the effects of the unit) facilities in rural Oregon water runoff from local communities. impermeable surfaces on local stream habitat quality. Identify problem, hypothesis, Students build, test, and Students walk a section of criteria, and constraints; modify wind vane designs the Mill Creek Greenway, collect data, create and made of note cards, tape, and locating and mapping retest prototype string. Timing the rate that a outside water sources predetermined weight is (drainpipes), estimating lifted tests vane efficiency. flow rate, and measuring Data is collected and temperature and turbidity. communicated. Data is collected and communicated. Data analysis Students analyze, interpret, and Students map, analyze, communicate collected data. interpret, and communicate collected data. Present solutions/conclusions Students present their final Students present maps of in written and spoken form wind vane prototypes to the studied Mill Creek water class, and submit evidence- inputs, layered with based arguments for their temperature and turbidity designs in writing using data, to Woodburn City target vocabulary. staff. Post-assessment Students complete a short Students complete an activity summative assessment of probing their understanding target vocabulary and of academic vocabulary comprehension. related to water flow and mapping. 190 English Learners  Chapter 10 Appendix B STEM Practices and Language Functions (Lee, Quinn & Valdés, 2013, p. 229) Practices Scientific Sense-Making and Language Use Develop and use Analytical tasks Develop and represent an explicit model of a phenomenon or system models Use a model to support an explanation of a phenomenon or system Make revisions to a model based on either suggestions of others or conflicts between a model and observation Receptive language Comprehend others’ oral and written descriptions, discussions, and justifications of functions models of phenomena or systems Interpret the meaning of models presented in texts and diagrams Productive language Communicate (orally and in writing) ideas, concepts, and information related to a functions model for a phenomenon or system Label diagrams of a model and make lists of parts Describe a model using oral and/or written language as well as illustrations Describe how a model relates to a phenomenon or system Discuss limitations of a model Ask questions about others’ models Develop Analytical tasks Develop explanation or design explanations (for Analyze the match between explanation or model and a phenomenon or system science) and design Revise explanation or design based on input of others or further observations solutions (for Analyze how well a solution meets design criteria engineering) Receptive language Comprehend questions and critiques functions Comprehend explanations offered by others Comprehend explanations offered by texts Coordinate texts and representations Productive language Communicate (orally and in writing) ideas, concepts, and information related to an functions explanation of a phenomenon or system (natural or designed) Provide information needed by listeners or readers Respond to questions by amplifying explanation Respond to critiques by countering with further explanation or by accepting as needing further thought Critique or support explanations or designs offered by others Engage in argument Analytical tasks Distinguish between a claim and supporting evidence or explanation from evidence Analyze whether evidence supports or contradicts a claim Analyze how well a model and evidence are aligned Construct an argument Receptive language Comprehend arguments made by others orally functions Comprehend arguments made by others in writing Productive language Communicate (orally and in writing) ideas, concepts, and information related to the functions formation, defense, and critique of arguments Structure and order written or verbal arguments for a position Select and present key evidence to support or refute claims Question or critique arguments of others Obtain, evaluate, Analytical tasks Coordinate written, verbal, and diagrammatic inputs and communicate Evaluate quality of an information source scientific Evaluate agreement/disagreement of multiple sources information Evaluate need for further information Summarize main points of a text or oral discussion Receptive language Read or listen to obtain scientific information from diverse sources including lab or functions equipment manuals, oral and written presentations of other students, Internet materials, textbooks, science-oriented trade books, and science press articles Listen to and understand questions or ideas of others Productive language Communicate (orally and in writing) ideas, concepts, and information related to functions scientific information Present information, explanations, or arguments to others Formulate clarification questions about scientific information Provide summaries of appropriate information obtained for a specific purpose or audience Discuss the quality of scientific reputation of the source, and comparing information from multiple sources Note. The analytic tasks, receptive language functions, and productive language functions included in this table are selective rather than exhaustive. English Learners 191  Chapter 10 Appendix C Helpful Resources 1. Educational resources on STEM topics for students www.brainpopjr.com: provides multimedia resources on STEM topics along with games, activities and worksheets for students’ autonomous learning www.science4fun.info: provides a list of STEM experiments and background knowledge that students can easily follow along www.scienceforkidsclub.com: provides a variety of learning activities from experiments to projects and worksheets www.superkids.com: provides games, activities and vocabulary-learning tools as well as introducing educational software 2. Resources on how to implement PBL for teachers www.bobpearlman.org: provides videos and guides on how to effectively implement PBL as well as best practice videos for references www.bie.org: provides professional development opportunities for teachers and schools as well as project ideas and resources for conducting and managing projects www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning: provides videos related to professional development www.internet4classrooms.com/links_grades_kindergarten_12/project_based_learning_pr oject.htm: provides resources and examples of how to implement PBL 192 English Learners