LLED 360

I was always aware that vocabulary is important to develop a student’s reading comprehension but I was not aware of the extent to which the two are related. Reading how vocabulary can help provide students a “bridge between the word-level processes of  phonics and the cognitive processes of comprehension” makes it even more apparent how important it is for educators to make sure they us academic language in their classrooms. This would be especially helpful for ELL students.

The above is very applicable to math teachers as well. The article mentions that the majority of word learning is done through incidental learning where students are either read to or are reading books on their own. I think that math vocabulary would be more difficult to learn this way than the vocabulary from many other disciplines and I say this for several reasons. First of all, I believe that there are going to be less instances where math jargon appears in the types of books students are more likely to be reading or have read to them. Because of this, they are less likely to be exposed to the academic words related to the discipline which means students will have less opportunity to learn these words via incidental learning. The second reason I feel this way is because a large proportion of mathematical terms have more than one meaning (are multidimensional) in English which can cause confusion for students and negatively affect their reading comprehension. Many of the words with multiple meanings are ones that students are likely to encounter before they reach the level of math where they are required to apply them in their mathematical context. The article uses the example of the word ‘volume’. Chances are high that students will understand ‘volume’ in its musical context before they encounter the word in a mathematical setting. Math vocabulary includes many other words that have multiple meanings (function, series, factor, mean, mode, median, power, expression, root, etc) which have the possibility of to make applying these words in their mathematical context harder for some students, particularly ELLs.

Because of the challenges listed above, I think it is especially important for math teachers to make sure they spend enough time working on academic language in the classroom for students to establish a proficient vocabulary. I think direct instruction is a good means of achieving this but even more, I like the idea of a think aloud. As mentioned in the article, a variety of methods is the best way for students to improve their vocabulary and, in turn, their reading comprehension however I like the idea of a think aloud because it helps with vocabulary as well as with showing students tips for how to approach a math question. In the end, regardless of how it is done, intentional word learning is going to play an important role in developing the vocabulary of a math student.

Teaching ELLs (English Language Learners) has always been something on my mind ever since considering a profession in teaching, a lot of which I learned through LLED 489B last semester. Something that was brought to my attention is how we validate our students’ understanding in classroom participation. Zwiers says that it is not enough to just correct what was said because it was phrased wrong even though the answer is correct, but that “we must create learning spaces for our diverse students so that they build from what they have and add the knowledges and language skills needed in future school and work” (12). Each student brings something different to the classroom, and for the most part, they are things that come from experiences at home or with their friends. The question is how do we value a student’s contribution in class and at the same time challenge the student in expanding his/her academic vocabulary.

Going through the three first chapters of Zwiers’s book was an enlightening re-visit to my own educational experiences. Chapter 1 made me realize the contribution of the social context in which I was raised to the development of my academic knowledge. It was certainly revealing to find out that the stage of academic thinking I have reached is only possible because of the social, cultural, knowledge, and linguistic capital that I acquired outside of the school environment. In turn, by precisely defining what academic language is, Chapter 2 allowed me to identify my academic capacity amongst other personal traits, and so recall which were the influences of my schooling in shaping them. Finally, Chapter 3 enabled me to recognize which strategies my educators used to stimulate my development.

The information provided in the chapters empowered me to look back to my past critically and understand the purposes and implications of many situations I have lived. Thus, I was able to attribute meaning to these situations, and hence resuscitate numerous memories that were in the “useless data sector” of my brain, such as some old teacher’s explanation or some family games we used to play. These memories will be important guidance to my professional practice, since they constitute significant references that I can either emulate or avoid throughout my teaching career.

Vitor Giberti

Language for Academic Thinking

Chapter two in “Building Academic Language” delves into the topic of academic language.  It begins by defining the differences between social language (the less complex language used to build relationships) and academic language (more complex abstract language).  The most interesting part of the chapter for me was the part relating to bricks and mortar.  The bricks are the content specific words, while the mortar are the words which hold the bricks together. (Zwiers, p. 22)  This idea of bricks and mortar is something that I have never really though about.  This use of bricks and mortar and more specifically academic language in general, is extremely important in allowing complex ideas from a subject to be expressed verbally.  I believe that many of the ideas that I have gathered in this chapter, will be of great benefit when I begin my teaching.  These ideas such as bricks and mortar will hopefully allow me to better explain the subject material to my students.

The article “Supporting Secondary Reading Through Functional Language Analysis” brought to light the many challenges that high school students face when presented with academic materials.   It also mentioned that each discipline or subject uses different language structures in order to present the knowledge.  The importance of the teacher was stated within the article and that “a teacher’s close reading of even small portions of text with students, helped to maintain their engagement” (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010, p. 588).  It goes on to talk about functional language analysis, which helps students to recognize language patterns within each discipline. (p. 591)

In my own experience there were times during high school where I struggled during certain classes to fully understand the text.  The teachers were unable to properly explain the material to me or the other students or simply were unaware that it was necessary to explain it in more detail.  I too believe that it would be a difficult concept to introduce simply because I have never thought about it before; however, I definitely think that it has value.

In reading “Functional Language Analysis” it became very clear to me that this would be a challenging process for me to implement in the classroom because it is something that I have never before experienced or seen modeled. Much of my learning is best absorbed through observing someone actually implement a practice rather than just reading an explanation of what it should look like off a page. Another challenge is that while you gain so much experience working with texts in your discipline during your undergrad, you never consciously break down the process into clear and distinct steps that can be presented to students as a potential method that they can follow. It is very much like the feeling of being a fluent English language speaker and writer, but being unable to identify some of the key grammatical structures because they were not taught in the classroom, but rather through socialization and conversation. Being able to do something can almost hinder the process of learning how to do perform that task in a systematic way.

I found that the article certainly broke down the process of explaining and modelling analysis to students, and was very helpful in pointing out some of the practices that I employ when reading complex texts. Awareness of what you do as well as how and why you do it are the first steps to bringing that knowledge to the classroom and using it to teach students the tools they need to succeed in breaking down the increasingly complex language they encounter in secondary schools.

When reading through the article, I found it almost ironic that I was having a difficult time understanding some parts and phrases simply because I myself am not that well versed in the technical language that a paper about the study of the English language would employ.  I too am a learner of this particular discipline so I can understand the use and logic behind Functional Language Analysis.  Learning new facts always requires us to expand our brains to accommodate the new “bricks” and “mortar” words we come across.  The biggest challenge for me, and maybe for many others out there, is identifying and understanding the technical words that are used across a range of disciplines but mean something different in different contexts.  Some words that come to mind are “Postmodern and Baroque”.  Words that are discipline specific (photosynthesis, isosceles, vanitas), I find easier to grasp as they aren’t usually used in other contexts outside of their field.  Looking back to how I learned, I would agree with the author’s encouragement of subject area teachers to help his/her students in understanding the type of language that would be used in the classroom.  Instead of assuming that all students automatically know what certain words mean or how they relate to one another in a sentence, it is a safer for teachers to be pro-active and go through difficult terminology that may hinder a child’s comprehension of the subject.  Unfortunately, this rarely happened when I was in high school.  I would venture to say that by the time a student reaches their high school years, and especially when they enter post-secondary, his/her teacher would assume that the teaching of “language” and comprehension is no longer necessary.  Because Art is a very visual practice, I believe that many of the “bricks” would be better understood when accompanied by a visual.  For instance, I can describe what “impasto” is but without a visual, the learner may have a very difficult time perceiving what this is.  In this situation, what I know “impasto” to be is as accurate as how I can describe it to the learner because without the aid of a visual, it really is just up for interpretation.

I was at a dinner party a couple of nights ago and my friends started asking me about my courses.  As theatre people, they could not understand how I had a class that taught the discourses of theatre.  I began explaining how some students may not know what it means to be backstage, or to be in a theatre of the round, or part of the audience.  As I was explaining the bricks and mortar of my subject, my friends became even more confused.  In return, I tried to think of another way to explain it.

One of my friends at this party does not have facebook.  She has never had much exposure to the site either.  Thus I started talking about the discourse of facebook.  For someone who has never been on facebook they would have a hard time understanding a conversation where people click on a button to like something, can poke someone virtually, and where writing on their wall has nothing to do with graffiti.  Almost everything we do has its own discourse but explaining that language to outsiders can be difficult.  It was hard for my friends to understand that some people have never been exposed to theatre language.  However, when I put it in the context of Facebook they were able to see how difficult it could be.

Language success doesn’t end with accomplishing basic literacy; students must be able to efficiently continue to build their literacy and expand their language abilities. Theorists are beginning to return to the basic building blocks of language in order to better understand how to improve comprehension and composition ability further down the line. However,  secondary students are finding that the expectations placed upon them are progressing faster than their abilities currently allow. The current strategies being employed aren’t enough to close the gap.

Fang and Schleppegrell coin the term functional language analysis, which “enables students to identify language patterns and associated meanings specific to particular disciplines as they focus on how language works, helping them comprehend and critique the texts of secondary content-areas.” It categorizes text into three distinct but cohesive types of meaning: experiential, textual, and interpersonal. An analysis of these areas affords students a heightened awareness of which language to apply in a given context, as well as which patterns of language are bridged between disciplines.

Examining functional language analysis from an arts perspective, it can said that the development of technical or theoretical knowledge coincides with the development of the language that is used to describe it. In short: complex topics require complex language. I have certainly found this to be true in my own experience, and I believe that most anyone could relate to a situation with which they felt confined by the limits of their vocabulary to adequately express an idea, emotion, or experience. In art, we often like to consider how a work of art can articulate the ineffable: to express something that couldn’t be fully defined through language.

Fang and Schleppegrell go on to highlight several features of language in the secondary classroom, such as nominalization and multimodality. I find that the latter is the most readily applicable to the field of art education. Art is fundamentally multimodal in nature; it is constructed through various media and perceived in endless configurations. In my practice of art education, the use of multiple phrasings or analogies to critically frame a work is an invaluable tool in developing a thorough understanding.

Discipline-specific Academic language, as well as idioms, tone, and voice need to be explicitly taught in order for students to better engage with the material. Fang and Schleppegrell propose that the responsibility to raise student competency isn’t placed solely on literacy fundamentals, but that it is a ongoing process that is built into the study of each discipline.

I found Fang and Schleppegrell’s article very informative on how to effectively ease a student’s transition from the simple and everyday language of elementary text to the more complicated language patterns observed in secondary readings.  I have never been introduced to the Functional Language Analysis before, but through the examples that Fang and Schleppegrell provided I can understand how simplifying the information into feasible parts can aid in a student’s clarification and analysis of the language content.

Although I have always enjoyed reading as a hobby, I still found myself struggling as I completed my readings for class in past undergraduate courses. Reading scientific articles proved to be the hardest as most of the time it consisted of a vast amount of terminology, many of which exceeded the level an undergraduate science student was required to know. Not only were the terminologies hard to keep up with, but the sentences were structured in such long and complicated ways that I found myself reading it over and over again only to make little sense of it. It’s unfortunate I was never fully trained during the senior years of high school to prepare me for what I was expected to carry out in university readings.

To prevent my future students from having to learn the hard way that I did, I would like to implement literacy exercises in my future practices as a science teacher. In doing so, I hope my lessons will not only help them acquire a firm grip on simplifying chunks of condensed material into manageable parts, but to also aid in identifying and building on the pool of technical terms in which the science discipline consists of.  I believe that timing plays a crucial role in a student’s success in developing their literacy skills. I think this development is a continuous process, stretching across their entire educational experience, and it is up to teachers to guide them along in a step by step fashion. For example, at the beginning of high school, students are expected to have mastered the language patterns presented to them in elementary text. It is now up to teachers working with them to build on this skill, through the use of language interpretation activities, to ensure that by grade 11 and 12, they will be prepared enough to comprehend and develop disciplinary literacies across their specialized subjects.

In addition, there is something I would like to clarify from this article. Mathematics is not the only discipline that evokes the usage of two different languages – natural language and symbolic language (Fang, and Schleppegrell 590). Within the general science curricula for grades 8, 9, and 10, students are also introduced to the wide range of symbols through complex concepts and equations which include, but are not limited to, α, β, Δ, and λ. Science students are also trained to acquire the skills in interpreting, organizing, and presenting a set of data in an appropriate way through the use of graphs, diagrams, or charts.