Hiding Behind Equations: Literature Review
English Language Learners’ perceptions
Language acquisition & cognition
Test taking strategies for ELLs
Postsecondary Education ELLs
Chemistry Content Related
Science Teachers’ beliefs about teaching ELLs
Stecher, B., and Klein, S. (2000). The effects of content, format, and inquiry level on science performance assessment scores.
Solano-Flores, G. and Li, M. (2008). Examining the dependability of academic achievement measures for ELLs. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
Assessing ELLs in K-12
Assessing ELLs in Higher Ed.
Assessment-related: Articles to find
Need for Equitable Assessments
LeClair, C., Doll, B., Osborn, A., Jones, K. (2009). English language learners’ and non-English language learners’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology in the Schools. 46(6), 2009.
Howard, R. (2013?). ELLs’ perceptions of reading.
Brown A. & Spang, E. (2007). Double Talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education.
Nunberg, G. (2004). Going nucular: Language, politics, and culture in confrontational times. New York: public affairs publishing co.
Brown, B. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”: Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. JRST
Brown, B. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. JRST
Cummins, J. (2011). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of reading comprehension among immigrant students.
Cummins, J. (1981). Four misconceptions about language proficiency in bilingual education.
Cummins, J. 1981. The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students.
Cummins, J. Age on arrival and immigrant second language in Canada.
Snow, C.E & Hoefnagel. 1978. The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning.
Campbell, L. and Rivas, B. Interactive Technology Strategies: Nurturing the language of science among English Language Learners
Bergman, D. (2012) Synergistic Strategies: Science for ELLs is Science for all
Reyes, I. (2009). ELL’s discourse strategies in Science Instruction
Articles to find
1. Bergman, D.J. (2010). Synergistic teaching of science to ELLs: common components of model ELL and science instruction. 2. Echevarria, J. et al. (2007) Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model.
Bifuh-Ambe, Elizabeth. (2011). Postsecondary learning: Recognizing the needs of English language learners in Mainstream University classrooms.
Ambe, E. A., Falconer, R., & Leewer, S. L. (2004). Content area reading: A case study of an English second language college student. Journal of Content Area Reading, 3(1), 37-69.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 345-373.
Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: College-Hill.
Kasper, L. F. (1999). Content-based college ESL instruction: An overview. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kornienko, E. (2000). Foreign text perception and comprehension. [Electronic version]. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33(3/4).
Mulligan, D., & Kikpatrick, A. (2000). How much do they understand: Lectures, students and comprehension. [Electronic version]. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(3).
Vaughn, S., & Bryant, D. P. (2002). Reading comprehension interventions that enhance outcomes for English language learners with LD, 10/01/98-09/30/02. Final Report. Austin, TX: University of Texas (ED477879).
Ward, M. (1998). Myths about college English as a second language. [Electronic version]. Education Digest, 63(5).
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Prentice.
Orgill, M., & Sutherland, A. (2007). Undergraduate chemistry students’ perceptions of and misconceptions about buffers and buffer problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
Villafane, S., et. al. (2011). Uncovering students’ incorrect ideas about foundational concepts for biochemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.
Shaw, G. Molnar, D. (2011). Non-native English language speakers benefit most from the use of lecture capture in medical school. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education.
Markwell, J., Courtney, S. (2006). Cognitive Development and the Complexities of the Undergraduate Learner in Science Classroom. Biochemistry and Molecular biology Education.
Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education.
Hashim, N., Jones, M.L. (2007). Activity theory: a framework for qualitative analysis. University of Wollongong Research Online.
Doe, S., et al. (2011). Discourse of the Firetenders: Considering contingent faculty through the lens of activity theory. College English.
Leadbetter, J. (2002). A sociocultural and activity theoretical investigation of the changing patterns of professional practice in educational pscyhology services. Dissertation - U of Birmingham.
McCafferty, S., et al. (2001). Activity theory and the incidental learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Awareness.
McNicholl, J. and Blake, A. (2013). Transforming teacher education, an activity theory analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy.
Pearson, S. (2009). Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers’ attitudes to and construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Theodoraki, X and Plakitsi, K. (2013). Analyzing activities in the course of science education, according to activity theory: the case of sound. US-China Education Review.
Kahveci, A. et al. (2008). Understanding chemistry professors’ use of educational technologies: An activity theoretical approach. International Journal of Science Ed.
Larazrou, D. (2011). Using CHAT to design and evaluate an educational game in science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
Patchen, T and Smithenry, D. (2013). Diversifying instruction and shifting authority: A CHAT analysis of classroom participant structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Roth, W. and Lee, Y. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: CHAT. Review of Ed Research.
Murphy, E. and Rodriguez-Manzanares. (2008). Using AT and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australian Journal of Ed Tech.
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J. (2012). Teacher change in elementary science instruction with ELLs: Results of a Multiyear PD Intervention Across Multiple Grades.
Bruna, K., et al. (2007). What’s language got to do with it? A case study of academic language in a high school English Learner Science class.
Buck, G., et al. (2004). Preparing teachers to create a mainstream classroom conducive to the needs of ELLs: A feminist action research project.
Buxton, C., Lee, O., Santau, A. (2008). Promoting science among ELLs: PD for today’s culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.
Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with ELL.
Cho, S. & McDonnough, J. (2009). Meeting the needs of high school science teachers in ELL instruction.
Hollenbeck, J., Hristova-Hollenbeck, D. (2008). Perceptions of secondary science educators of limited english proficient learners in their classrooms. (Conference Paper)
Lee, O. (2005). Science education with ELL: Synthesis and Research Agenda.
Lee, O., Luykx, A.., Buxton, C., Shaver, A. (2006). The Challenge of altering elementary school teachers’ belief and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction.
Bryan, L. and Atwater, M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science teacher preparation programs.
Not very relevant since it talks about the analysis on the effectiveness of large variation in student performance across open-ended measures.
Luykx, A., Lee, O., Hart, J., Deaktor, R. (2007). Cultural and home language influences on children’s responses to science assesements.
Solano-Flores, G. and Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of ELLs.
Brown, C.L. (2005). Equity of Literacy-Based Math Performance Assessments for English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal. 29(5), 337.
Turkan, S. & Liu, O.L. (2012). Differential performance by English language learners on an inquiry-based science assessment. International Journal of Science Education. 34(15), 2343-2369.
Wolf, M.K. and Leon, S. (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for ELLs.
Read, J. (2008). Identifying academic language needs through diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes.
Test accommodations for ELLs: Butler & Stevens, 1997; Abedi)
Discourse Analysis (Brown & Yule, 1983)
Test performance extremely sensitive to wording (Baxter, Shavelson, Goldman & Pine, 1992)
Cultural anthropologists on communication - groups may differ considerably in the ways they communicate (Heath, 1986; Philips, 1983, and the ways arguments are structured (Kaplan, 1988; Tsang, 1989).
Brown, G. & Yule (1983). Discourage analysis. Cambridge, UK.
Bulter, F.A. & Stevens, R. (1997). Accommodation strategies for ELLs on large-scale assessments: Student characteristics and other considerations. (CSE Technical Rep. 448).
Cocking, R.R. & Mestre, J.P. (1988). Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics.
Hakuta, K., Ferdman, B.M & Diaz, R.M. (1987). Binlingualism and cognitive development: Three perspectives.
Hakuta, K., & McLaughlin, B. (1996). Bilingualism and second language learning: Seven tensions that define the research.
Hamilton, L.S., Nussbaum, E.M., & Snow, R.E. (1997). Interview procedures for validating science assessments.
Lagunoff, R., Solano-Flores, G., Sexton, U.N (2001, Feb). English language ability and math and science assessments.
Sexton, U., & Solano-Flores, G. (2001). Cultural validity in assessment development: A cross-cultural study on interpretation of math and science items.
Solano-Flores, G. & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessment.
Solano-Flores, G., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Baxter, G.P., & Shavelson, R.J. (1992). Science performance assessments: Use with language minority students.
Tsang, C.L. (1989). Informal assessment of Asian American: A cultural and linguistic mismatch? In B. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance.
Almanza de Schonewise, Estella and Klinger, J. (2012). Linguistic and cultural issues in developing disciplinary literacy for adolescent English Language Learners.
8 variables: 3 self-regulatory factors (academic efficacy, self-determination, and behavior self-control) and 5 relational factors (teacher-student relationship, peer friendships, peer conflict, concerns about bullying, and the home-school connection). Each one of these factors affect at least one of the following outcomes: school completion rates, student engagement within and outside of school, student vocational and prevocational success and academic performance.
The purpose of their study was to examine whether ELL and non-ELL students’ perceptions of their general education classroom environments differed. They used ClassMaps Survey to measure the eight self-regulatory and relational classroom environment variables. Check out the survey questions.
Results: ELL students described themselves as having lower levels of academic efficacy and described their non-ELL classmates as having higher levels of behavioral self-control.
Action research looked at 4th graders ELLs preferences for reading. Not very relevant but offered a good lit review that was recent.
Verhoeven’s (2001) study: ELLs vocabulary much below that of native speakers and this impeded thier reading ability and comprehension.
More studies that support how/why vocabulary is particularly difficult and effects performance for ELLs in standardized tests.
Cheng, Klinger, and Zheng (2007): ELLs vs. non-ELLs standardized test results much lower overall for ELLs in reading, particularly when it came to vocab.
Reading in a second language difficult - good quote - “Students who learned in a second language were challenged with the extraordinary task of learning a new language while simultaneosly learning designated curricula in that language.” (114).
McElvain’s study (2010) - mixed methods study with 4th through 6th graders ELLs - “transactional literacy circles” improved reading and by meta-cognitive strategy instruction. Motivation and self-efficacy also improved. This shows support for teaching ELLs actual metacognitive strategies for reading and maybe test taking.
Such a great article that really digs deeper into how to teach students the academic language of science!!
Direction Discourse Approach to Science Instruction (DDASI):
Stage 1: Preassessment Instruction Phase:
• Lesson plan that allows students to identify their understanding of the phenomenon being discussed and that allows the teacher to understand what students; preconceptions of the concept may be, while addressing many of the misconceptions students may bring to the classroom. (Foundation for every lesson).
Stage 2: Content Construction Phase:
• Teacher introduces the accurate versions of the content that was discussed in Stage 1, without providing the detailed language and overbearing technical descriptions associated with science. “Big idea” concept without using detailed scientific language.
Stage 3: Introduction of explicit discourse phase
• Teacher introduces students to specific language of the content and requires them to build these terms in their vocab thru classroom talk and written assignments. Rules are very clear on how to use the words.
Stage 4: Scaffolding opportunities for discourse phase
• Teacher provides several opportunities to articular their understanding
• Assessment activities to allow the students to write about and explain the concepts being discussed using the technical language of science without the assistance of a teacher.
• Students required to discuss phenomenon using technical terminology of science.
99.9% African American 8th grade students participants
Surface structure deviations and academic achievement
Labov (1970): social class and ethnic differences in grammatical form were often thought of as logical capacity differences.
Code switching: language proficiency appraoch regards code swtiching as an indication of inadequate proficiency in one or both languages. (Its mainly a sociolinguistically-determined)
Surface fluency & English Proficiency
2 years to acquire relatively fluent communicative skills; 5-7 years for language minority students to approach grade norms in academic aspects.
People assume that if language minority students are fluent in English, their poor academic performance cannot be attributed to lack of English proficiency, so it must be due to deficient cognitive abilities (p. 36)
Bilingual language proficiency and instruction
CUP model: L1 and L2 literacy skills are interdependent. Results of bilingual education programs show that literacy skills developed in L1 rapidly transfer to English. (Don't ignore L1 when adopting English proficiency.)
Linguistic mismatch and school failure.
No need to promote minority students' L1 proficiency nor their cultural identiy after English proficiency has been acquired.
Older immigrant students often fare better than minority students born in the host country because they have not been subject to the same ambivalence towards both cultural groups in their pre-school and early school years, and hence appraoch the task for learning L2 wtih a secure identity and academic self-concept. (p. 42)
Discusses the SIOP model: Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (Echevarria, Vogt, and Short 2007).
Activate prior knowledge, cultural upbringing, personal experiences in order to support ELL students’ reading comprehension.
Meaningful and memorable materials: hands-on tangible items.
Student groups and interactions: cooperative activities, role-plays, debate, discussion circles - this way students have the opportunity to review, and refine academic language and vocab.
Teacher’s critical role.
Discrepancies between SIOP and science inquiry:
SIOP model splits objectives into content and language. Language objectives emphasize development of one or more domain in communication - reading, writing, listening or speaking.
Content objective: “what” students will learn
Language objectives: “How” students will learn
Using a paired content/language objective approach emphasizes both aspects and benefits ELLs.
Important for ELL to have instructions presented step-by-step
Front-loading lessons (hard to do with inquiry but possible).
When discussing new science teaching models that are discussed in the literature for ELLs.
This one shows a delineation of scientific inquiry approach- maybe one that is adapted to ELLs.
Great article that can be used for my justification of why adult ELLs have a different set of challenges in the postsecondary settings. And overall, this paper is exactly what I need to justify why this population is being studied.
Discusses why commonly accepted strategies for ELLs in K-12 do not work for university classrooms.
Postsecondary learning is different:
* greater ethnic and linguistic variety of students. * reciprocal teaching not very likely because not all students and teachers speak the same L1 * From the perspective of professors: they are not usually bilingual, expert level knowledge, not interested in implementing instructional procedures, they assume that students passed TOEFL.
* Interlanguage (IL) system
* examines the interaction between the context of learning and levels of proficiency.
Flowerdew (1998): linguistic difficulties occur when listening to Lectures: real-time processing, requiring the listener to concentrate on extensive monologue and negotiate meaning without the benefit that facilitates interactive dialogue.
Learning strategies identified by another study commonly used by second language learners (Wenden and Rubin, 1987).
Park and Raymond (2000): teachers need to create a socio-constructivist classroom environment where students could work in small groups.
Critical Period Hypothesis: Children can more easily become more proficient in a language than adults and acquire native-like accents faster.
About reading texts:
Biochemistry students struggle with the understanding of buffers. Disconnect between the microscopic and macroscopic properties of the concept. Equilibrium problems usually taught in symbolic form first, which is abstract.
Check out the interview guide:
Very useful in forming my interview guide!
Also good lit review on literature up to 2007 in this field.
Some of the conclusions can be shaped toward my work: instructors should take great care presenting buffers problems on tests. instructors should use visual aids to depict buffer systems microscopically and graphs. Multiple verbal and visual representations can lead to conceptual understanding.
Used 21 multiple-choice items - pre-test and post-test in the beginning and at end of the biochemistry course.
Use of online lectures helped non-native speakers more but doesn’t really talk about possible cognitive reasons as to how or why.
They stated that it is hard to define this group of students so they defined this group as people who didn’t learn English in childhood.
Reliability of a test: measure of the extent to which a test produces consistent results
Validity: measure of the extent to which a test actually measures the knowledge of the subject matter.
Logical positivism divides science and society. AT: offers a model where science and society are related.
Subject = community or an individual
Need = excites
Motive = Directs and organizes an activity (cognitively and emotionally)
Action = a task that has to be carried out under certain conditions (Leont’ev)
Reflection: important role in learning
Citizenship: quality of an individual’s participation in social practices. He/She understands how her work contributes to the realization of the goals and the motives. She sees herself as part of a bigger whole. They take responsibility for what one does - seeing/weighing other people’s position in a social practice.
Use this as a measure of faculty beliefs?
Good overview explanation of activity theory
Check out diagrams of hierarchical levels of an activity.
AT views activity not as a simple individual action but as being culturally and historically located. Purposeful activity in a cultural historical context as a fundamental unit for the study of human behavior.
Orgins of AT: Soviet Union - Marxist-Leninist alternative to Western psychological theories.
Psychological framework that considers the actions and motivations of individuals and groups as they engage in activity.
Activity as a goal-oriented, mediated work that is shaped by and in turn shapes- social, cultural, material and historical contexts.
Engestrom (Ed. theorist):
Extended zone of proximal development
Fig.1: Engestrom’s elaboration of Leontiev’s AT
Object: Goal of the department or community
Outcome: actual results of the department
Rules: Governs the activities of the subjects
Division of Labor: differentiation of the work
Tools: language or more tangible objects
SCT by Wertsch et al (1995) and the nature of human action.
An activity system is community of multiple points of view, traditions and interest. (Engestrom, 1999)
Historicity: activity systems take shape and get transformed over long periods of time.
Contradictions play a central role as sources of change and development take place.
Possibility of expansive transformations in activity systems
Engestrom’s 1st generation: triangle wiht tools, subjects and object/motive.
2nd generation: Emphasizes study of artefacts and mediation
Psychological tool: directs the mind and behavior
Technical tool: directed toward producing one or other set of changes in the object itself.
Activity: human behavior in a general sense
Associated with motive or motivation
Action: segment of human functioning directed toward a conscious goal. (not automatic)
Operations: conditions under which an action is carried out. Triggered unconsciously by the contextual conditions of the task.
Actions are processes directed at the completion of a goal
Operations: lack specific goal-directedness and are concerned with material circumstances under which a goal is achieved.
Engestrom’s activity theory’s concept of transformation
Humans are in potentially conflicting activity systems, and that it is in working towards the resolution of contradictions within an activity system or at the site of a cluster of adjoining activity systems that transformational understanding is revealed.
What is transformation? Contradiction?
Factors that influence educators:
Support at local and national levels
Societal beliefs about diversity
Modeling based on AT could help analyze the situation where learning is not occurring in the predicted way.
Scenario 1: Pupil’s fault so teacher feels that the situation is intractable.
Scenario 2: Pupil fails to follow instructions, teacher finds that he should sit closer to the front. Teacher changes the rules to accommodate the barriers.
Scenario 3: Pupil (object) fails to follow oral instructions (tools) given by Teacher (subject). She is aware of student’s preference of visual learning (tool). She positions herself to be more visible to the pupil (tool/rules). She uses strategies (tools). She talks to his family (community) about hearing loss so they can arrange a hearing loss check (division of labor). Student’s characteristics and context are taking into account.
The object is constantly changing in relation to the objectives of the activity.
Research questions to answer:
What tools were used by subjects to capture the learning object and how?
What were the rules used by subjects?
How was the division of labor related to the subject?
What were the tools used by the learning community?
What rules affected the learning community and how?
How did the division of labor affect the way the learning community conquered the learning object?
Focuses on analyzing 2 chem professors. Very relevant in the application of AT to my comp study!
Check out the triangle models.
Methodologies: qualitative research
CHAT history and background. Designing a computer game using Engestrom’s 3rd generation AT.
Using CHAT to do a case study of a teacher to analyze participant structures in her classroom using observational data.
Good description of how CHAT has been applied.
Why AT started: Vygotsky’s work unfinished and Leont’ev expanded it to be practice object-related practical activity as the proper unit of analysis.
Ontological: people continually are shaped and they are being shaped by their social contexts that immediately problematize knowledge as something discrete or acquired by individuals.
Activity is mediated by society.
Great explanation of contradictions, transformations
Good background about the current classroom practices - change in student demographics.
Language demands on ELLs
Questionnaires (self-reported ) and observations
Looking at teacher knowledge and practices over time (5year) - not really beliefs though
Highlights the needs to integrates science learning and language development for ELL students.
Teachers should know the subject they are trying to teach.
Most teachers don’t think they are prepared to each ELLs: NCES 2001 - urgently needed.
See their teacher questionnaire:
Didactic tension between content and form: tension between how to talk science and the goal of teaching them how to do science.
Sociocultural focus - use for study!
Provides sociocultural background on the context of the study - the types of linguistic diversity.
Research Q: What does a teacher’s ideas about integrating language goals “do” to science instruction?
What might be the social action performed by the discourse economy that results from the goals of integrated instruction?
Semiotics recourse system: basic set of rules that characterize language; choices one makes in constructing meaning - different for each community. (institutionalized ways of gesturing or language”
Most teachers use the vocabulary approach to teach students science words - but this is not effect because it isn’t integrated in content.
Case study about an ELL teacher = more on practices than beliefs.
Most teachers not adequately prepared to teach science effectively:
Justification on why PD is needed - good references here too
Summary of all challenges on teachers:
specifics tools relating to ELLs and L1 that were provided to teachers during thier PD
Starts with a very honest excerpt from their that captures the actual views of ELLs by teachers. High School.
Standardized test = high stakes testing comes up a lot on how it doesn’t help ELLs.
Current policy (NCLB 2001) - ELLs proficient within a short period of time after coming to the U.S.
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) - Cummings work contradicts that.
They’re put on the slow track - low expectations - marginalized and drop out.
Variables that affect ELL students’ academic success in K-12 school:
Age of arrival, length of residence in the US, grade of entry into US schools, first literacy skills, formal education background family’s educational and socio-economic background, and students’ former exposure to Western/urban life styles. Prior school experiencing n home countries turned out to be most significant factor. (Collier, 1987).
Collier (1987): arrival at ages 12-15 experienced greatest difficulty compared to their counterparts aged 8-11 and 5-7.
Great stuff on what ELLs need - check out science and ELL instruction section.
Why science is easier for them than other subject.
Teachers reported the most significant issue was ELL students’ language barriers followed by lack of foundational content knowledge.
Lack of time and resources to pay more attention.
Lack of science materials
Lack of time for scientific experiments
State-mandated academic standards
More time to spend on test prep and less time for lab experiences.
They had low level of awareness of the role that culture plays in classroom interactions.
Accommodatoin: extra time to complete tasks, pair them up together, adjusting speech time.
Different tasks/assignments were never provided.
Only 6.7% reported to assess/grade them differently from other students
Most teachers reported that they would like to receive: bilingual instructional materials.
They said PD on ESL instructional strategies.
Very low score on receiving cultural understanding as PD training - ambivalent attitudes toward role of culture in working with ELl students.
ESL Teacher Survey!
Asked teachers to describe any accommodations they have made for ELLs:
one-on-one tutoring, more time on assignments, rephrase question to simple sentences, reduce number of HW problems, pair him/her up with high performing native speaker.
Used the same grading scale but flexible on spelling, grammar, some integrated performance in the grading analysis of performance based tasks.
No size fits all
Great super - review of literature on ELLs and science !
Science learning outcomes:
Statistics about the achievemet gap
English immersion programs
English proficiency prerequisite for science learning
Current policy and practices do not support desired science outcomes with ELLs.
Learning enhanced when it happens in contexts that are culturally, linguistically and cognitively meaningful.
Culture has an integral role.
Cultural beliefs and practices are discontinuous with those of Western sciences.
Science teacher education:
most teachers with ELLs believe they are not prepared adequately - ELLs must acquire English before learning subject matter.
Frad and Lee(1995): 2 schools (one suburban and one urban) - Both schools’ teachers believed that all students could learn scienced and opportunities should be available to all students and need to promote language development.
Urban school teachers: limited english prof. and cultural differences as reasons for their difficulties in leanring science. Suburban teachers: promoted science learning along with English language skills.
Lots of policy
another PD article: includes home language and culture domain this time.
Has qualitative component as well - focus group study
Initial teacher beliefs: home language, home culture and SES.
They saw their ESL students being at a sig. disadvantage because can’t go home and ask for help easily - nobody spoke English. Most agreed that home language is important. They reported their self-knowledge of their own knowledge of the aspect of instruction was low,but most agreed that students’ home language should be incorporated.
Beginning: they indicated a deficit perspective on the role of students’ home cultures - nonmainstream students lacking prior science knowledge, inquiry skills, habits of mind necessary for learning science.
“They don’t tend to question, basically”
Later, teachers viewed the influence of students’ culture on science learning as something detrimental to be overcome.
Teacher themselves brought up the role of SES. Recurring themes - students’ limited access.
Reasons why no change happened:
Teachers could not understand the connection of science and diversity ( objective or acultural vs culture) - conflicted, indifferent, resistant (Science is universal!)
Teachers who are uncertain about their own science content knowledge don’t know how to make links between science content and students’ home culture/prior knowledge.
Lack of availability and use of culturally relevant curricular materials for application of students’ home language and culture in science instruction.
School-wide implementation of PD means that all teachers had to do - this means not all of them buy-into it.
Teachers under a lot of pressure to cover standards, which don’t include students’ home language and culture.
State policies at the time mandated the school district to minimize use of students’ home language in most contexts.
Teachers spoke Spanish but did not use it.
Thoroughly reviews all teacher beliefs about culturally different students!
Using cultural models
• Lots of good references.
The objective is to examine how children’s prior linguistic and cultural knowledge mediates their engagement with school science, as reflected in their responses on science assessments. They used 1,500 students from six elementary schools. Project-developed assessments included items requiring students to explain scientific phenomena. Written tests were developed for each science unit to measure mastery of key science concepts and “big ideas,” such as patterns, systems, models, and relationships.
Tests also measured students’ ability to conduct science inquiry, using (1) relatively structured inquiry tasks ( like 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]) in which students construct graphs and tables from the data provided, give an explanation for the data, and draw a conclusion; (2)relatively open-ended inquiry tasks in which students generate hypotheses, design investigations, and plan procedures. Each test included short-answer items and items requiring longer, constructed responses in which students were asked to explain scientific phenomena on their own reasoning. Assessments should be “languacultural” sensitive.
Findings: Phonological / orthographic and semantic interference from students’ home languages; responses reflecting students’ cultural beliefs and practices; and “languacultural” features related to genre, authorial voice, programmatic framing and textual organization.
Theoretical framework: valid and equitable assessment in multicultural/multilingual settings.
Salona-Flores and Nelson-Barber
Cognition is driven by cultural framework (Moll, 1992).
Keywords: Achievement gaps ELLs, equity in assessments, language development, test accommodations, measurement error, generalizability theory
Test review, test development, and treatment of language as a source of measurement error: main areas identified as key to paradigm shift.
Great quotes and justification of why current assessments are inequitable.
Test are cultural products; not culture-free.
Taking the test is an event for which each student has a “conceptual frame.”
A sociocultural view of cognition is needed that allows for approaching cognitive processes in test taking with support of theories of lang. and culture.
Formal properties: language and wording
Empirical properties: student think-aloud protocols and interviews conducted with the intent to see how students make sense of items.
Differential properties: how observed and formal properties operate in combination with students’ linguistics and cultural backgrounds to shape their interpretations of items.
The lunch money question was really interesting:
“Sam can purchase his lunch at school. Each day he wants to have juice that costs 50 cents, a sandwich that costs 90 cents, and fruit that costs 35 cents. His mother has only $1.00 bills. What is the least number of $1.00 bills that his mother should give him so he will have enough money to buy lunch for 5 days?”
White vs. American Indian vs. Blacks kids: only White kids understood the question.
Problem with the word “only”
My strategy: I take those tests best when I think about who wrote the test!
When a bilingual individual coonfronts a monolingual test… (Valdes & Figueroa, 1995, p.87).
Generalizability (G) theory: pcychometric theory of measurement error - ELLs tested in both English and thier native language.
Test accommodations for ELLs: Butler & Stevens, 1997; Abedi) Discourse Analysis (Brown & Yule, 1983) Test performance extremely sensitive to wording (Baxter, Shavelson, Goldman & Pine, 1992) Cultural anthropologists on communication - groups may differ considerably in the ways they communicate (Heath, 1986; Philips, 1983, and the ways arguments are structured (Kaplan, 1988; Tsang, 1989). Brown, G. & Yule (1983). Discourage analysis. Cambridge, UK. Bulter, F.A. & Stevens, R. (1997). Accommodation strategies for ELLs on large-scale assessments: Student characteristics and other considerations. (CSE Technical Rep. 448). Cocking, R.R. & Mestre, J.P. (1988). Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics. Hakuta, K., Ferdman, B.M & Diaz, R.M. (1987). Binlingualism and cognitive development: Three perspectives. Hakuta, K., & McLaughlin, B. (1996). Bilingualism and second language learning: Seven tensions that define the research. Hamilton, L.S., Nussbaum, E.M., & Snow, R.E. (1997). Interview procedures for validating science assessments. Lagunoff, R., Solano-Flores, G., Sexton, U.N (2001, Feb). English language ability and math and science assessments. Sexton, U., & Solano-Flores, G. (2001). Cultural validity in assessment development: A cross-cultural study on interpretation of math and science items. Solano-Flores, G. & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessment. Solano-Flores, G., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Baxter, G.P., & Shavelson, R.J. (1992). Science performance assessments: Use with language minority students. Tsang, C.L. (1989). Informal assessment of Asian American: A cultural and linguistic mismatch? In B. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance.
Studied math achievement differences (achievement gap) between ELLs and fully English proficient (FEP) students on a literacy-based performance assessment (LBPA) were examined. LBPAs content that students read multi-level questions and explain how they solve math problems in writing. Their analysis showed that SES has an impact on all students. They used assessments from schools around the country that have used LBPA program in their content assessments – MSDE. MSPAP, criterion-referenced test, assesses student’s achievement levels in 6 content areas: reading, writing, language usage, math, science and social studies. This study has a lot of language development work related to math education.
Lots of statistical analyses done here that I don’t understand.
Authors to look-up:
Cummins (1980, 1981): his work revealed why ELL students’ achievement cannot be assessed in the same manner as that of their FEP counterparts. Oral fluency cannot be regarded as academic competence in academic settings.
Abedi, J (2004, 2003): modification of tests to make them more comprehensible for ELL students.
Collier, V. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617-641.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y.G. (1999). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report No. 2000-1). The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Moya, D.E. & O’Malley, J.M (1994). A portfolio assessment model for ESL. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13, 13-36.
Torres, H. N., & Zeidler, D.L. (2001). The effects of English language proficiency and scientific reasoning skills on the acquisition of science content knowledge by Hispanic English language learners and native English language speaking students.
This study used differential item functioning (DIF) to investigate how science performance assessments differ between ELLs and non-ELLs. DIF is referred to as measurement bias, occurs when people from different groups (gender or ethnicity) with the same latent trait (ability/skill) have a different probability of giving a certain response on a questionnaire or test.
This is a good study that designs an assessment for students and then does a DIF analysis to figure out which items they missed compared to non-ELL students. Over a 1000 students used for this. There is a lot of quantitative data analysis used here.
Lots of good references here on assessment analysis.
Unnecessary linguistic complexity interferes with ELL students’ ability show their content knowledge.
Minor changes in the wording of content test items can raise student performance (Abedi & Lord, 2001).
Linguistic complexity is a source of DIF for ELL students (Martiniello, 2008).
Academic language is more cognitively demanding compared to social language (Cummins, 1981, 2000).
Academic vocabulary: general academic, context-specific and technical vocab.
DIF: present for an item when the probability of answering an item correctly is different between the two groups of interest who have the same ability level.
Findings: linguistic analysis of 11 assessments suggested that academic vocab was the most prominent feature characterizing the linguistic complexity across both math and science tests.
Math and science tests more content-related academic vocab than general academic vocab.
Math tests had the most wide variety of general academic vocab (linguistically demanding).
(Does this mean that academic language is most common in math and science? If math has the most, then doesn’t it make sense that more underrep may be failing out and not be able to pass the math portion to enter into STEM fields?)
Strong empirical evidence for the linguistic complexity effect of a test item on ELL students’ performance.
Variation between DFF findings between high and low ELL groups: ELL pop is heterogeneous! (Use this as justification to why ELLs are very diverse and need to look at diverse groups.
More DIF items detected in higher grades than in lower grades and more in math and science. (Does this mean that postsecondary assessments may even have more?)
Use of Diagnostic English Language Needs Assessment (DELNA), required to assess new undergrad students.
Section 4.2: Test presentation
This article says that ELLs are a diverse population and classroom materials targeted at ELLs are not geared toward reaching such a heterogenous population.
Leont’ev, A.N. (1978) Activity, consciousness and personality.
Engestrom, Y. (1996, 2001). Developmental work research as educational research. Nordisk Pedagogik: Journal of Nordic Educational Research.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity Theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on Activity Theory Ed.
Leontiev, A.N. (2005). The Genesis of Activity. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology.
Wertsch, J.V. (1981). The concept of activity in soviet psychology.
Daniels, H. (1996, 2001). An introduction of Vygotsky and Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London. (books).
Engestrom, Y. (1999) Perspectives on AT. Cambridge. (book)
Coughlan, P. and Duff, P. (1994). Same task different activities: Analysis of SLA task from an AT perspective. In J.P Lantolf and G. Apple (eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory.
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge.
Roth, W. and Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an urban teacher education program: an activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture and Activity.
Lots of good references for research