25

STEM INCLUSION RESEARCH

FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS (ELLS)
Making STEM Accessible to All

Emily K. Suh, Lisa Hoffman and Alan Zollman

Learning environments in many global educational contexts are becoming increasingly linguisti-
cally and culturally diverse. STEM educators often are not trained to work with students whose
home language is not the dominant language of instruction (Hart & Lee, 2003). These educators
would benefit from increased understanding of language development (Henry, Baltes, & Nistor,
2014; Janzen, 2008). According to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
(2018), attention to culturally and linguistically diverse STEM students’ educational needs is particu-
larly important considering the historical inequities and lack of diversity among STEM professions
and professionals.
After introducing some relevant terminology from the field of second language acquisition (SLA),
this chapter addresses the following areas of STEM education research related to English language
learners (ELLs): (1) emergent areas of collaboration between STEM educators and applied linguis-
tics researchers, (2) overlap between STEM and language acquisition standards, (3) research-based
practices for language development and content mastery, (4) professional development for STEM
educators’ understanding of SLA, literacy instruction, and assessment, and (5) areas for future research.

Rationale for Considering Language and Culture

in STEM Education Research
As multilinguals come to represent an increasing proportion of students, emergent multilingual-
ism in the content areas has received increasing attention (Buxton & Lee, 2014; Barwell, 2009).
­Discipline-specific academic vocabulary and language functions can differ markedly from conversa-
tional language use (Cummins, 2005). Registers are features within a language used to vary formality,
tone or meaning (Halliday, 1988). Although students often acquire basic interpersonal communica-
tion skills in two or fewer years, their academic content knowledge and registers develop in inter-
related and lengthier processes (Collier & Thomas, 2009). Research suggests it takes a minimum
of five to seven years of continuous linguistic support for students to develop an academic register
(Cummins, 2005). Educators often assume that students must have advanced language proficiency
before they can understand grade-level content, but research documents how the two types of learn-
ing can be successfully integrated (Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002). Furthermore, research
consistently identifies the importance of personal relationships and mutual respect between teachers

311
 Emily K. Suh, Lisa Hoffman and Alan Zollman

and learners of all backgrounds. STEM educators need training to develop personal and cultural con-
nections with students from diverse backgrounds (Oliveira, Weinburgh, McBride, Bobowski, & Shea,
2019; Hudley & Mallinson, 2017). Future research could address issues of inequitable curriculum
access and assessment practices in STEM (Mallinson & Charity Hudley, 2014).
Emergent multilinguals face challenges related to the language registers required for STEM learn-
ing. Multilingual students utilize their knowledge of multiple languages and registers and additional
meaning-making modalities to participate in STEM contexts and activities (National Academies of
Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). STEM content is inseparable from the language through
which it is presented, and research indicates that proficiency in English is a strong predictor of suc-
cess in STEM disciplines (Howie, 2003). Additionally, individual disciplines present their own unique
challenges and opportunities for language development. For example, students must develop multi-
semiotic reasoning within complex mathematical discourse (de Oliveira & Cheng, 2011; Ellerton &
Clarkson, 1996; Hansen-Thomas & Bright, 2019), but research indicates that when ELLs receive
continued literacy support, they can increase their mathematical reasoning (Henry et al., 2014).
Science registers focused on interpretation and use of evidence can present additional linguistic
challenges, particularly because of written disciplinary expectations (Rosenthal, 1996), yet science
instruction is often de-emphasized in favor of basic literacy and numeracy skills (Lee & Avalos, 2002).
The open-endedness of authentic engineering tasks allows ELLs to demonstrate understanding by
exploring and producing a material product. Less research is available on technology and engineer-
ing education among ELLs, suggesting future research potential for examining language acquisition
within these disciplines, particularly related to issues of access to technology and hands-on experi-
ences. Available research investigates both the linguistic challenges within the STEM disciplines and
the unique knowledge and abilities ELLs bring to the classroom (Dos Santos, 2019; Esquinca, de la
Piedra, & Herrera-Rocha, 2018).

Language and STEM Standards

In many countries there is overlap between standards for acquiring the dominant language (i.e., the
PreK-12 English Language Proficiency Standards Framework released by the international organiza-
tion; Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 2006) and STEM area proficiencies (see
Cheuk, 2013; Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). These standards provide recommendations for student
proficiency, teacher professional development and practices, and assessment. Both language and STEM
standards emphasize developing all students’ ability to communicate and apply their knowledge, such
as by using academic language to analyze or make evidence-based arguments (Lin & Zhang, 2014;
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018; ITEEA, 2007; TESOL, 2006;
WIDA, 2012). The U.S. Common Core standards identify practices for mathematics, science and
engineering, and English language acquisition (Common Core, n.d.) and include using evidence to
support complex textual analysis, and to construct, critique, and enhance arguments (Cheuk, 2013).
The Principles and Standards for School Mathematics similarly call for students to be able to make
sense of and apply critical information to real-world situations (NCTM, 2000).
Recommendations for teaching include teacher training and classroom practices emphasizing
English language learners’ ability to communicate in the content areas, including mathematics and
science (TESOL, 2006). The Committee on Supporting English Learners in STEM Subjects recom-
mends teacher learning opportunities to introduce and develop curriculum, research-based practices,
and assessments that support ELLs (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine,
2018). The committee further recommends that schools and teachers collaborate with families and
community organizations to directly engage ELLs and understand their assets and growth areas.
Other disciplines (e.g., technology and engineering; see ITEEA, 2007) and language development
standards (Lin & Zhang, 2014; WIDA, 2012) share this emphasis on local contexts.

312
 STEM Inclusion Research for ELLs

Related to classroom practice, language development and STEM standards emphasize creating
language-rich classroom environments with opportunities for practical application. Language learn-
ers benefit from context-rich language environments in which they can demonstrate comprehension
through application (WIDA, 2012). The National Research Council’s (2012) “Framework for K-12
Science Education” similarly embeds language instruction in science and engineering education
practices (Lee et al., 2013), and the Next Generation Science Standards include providing rich lan-
guage learning environments (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
Finally, STEM and language acquisition standards both provide assessment recommendations.
The Committee on Supporting English Learners in STEM Subjects advocates for increasing the
representativeness of sample populations for large-scale STEM assessments, reviewing accommoda-
tions policies, and developing accessibility resources or new STEM assessments (National Academies
of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). In addition to issues of equitable access, English lan-
guage acquisition standards emphasize assessing language use for specific communicative purposes
(TESOL, 2006; WIDA, 2012). International assessments of STEM proficiencies similarly focus on
communication for daily living. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) measures
broad knowledge and skills in science, mathematics and reading literacy as they are relevant to stu-
dents’ real-world preparation (Carr, 2016).

Research-Based Practices for STEM Content Mastery

and Language Development
This section introduces research-based practices including respecting students’ cultural and com-
munity assets, building off students’ first language knowledge, introducing STEM-related academic
discourses, and prioritizing vocabulary acquisition. The section also includes high-impact teaching
strategies for STEM learners developing English proficiency.
Cultural norms and community knowledge play a significant role in students’ sense-making of
their educational environments (Esmonde & Caswell, 2010). Cultural norms affect forms of rea-
soning, inquiry, and argumentation valued in STEM fields ( Johnson & Bolshakova, 2015). Effec-
tive STEM education with emergent multilinguals considers students’ “funds of knowledge”—that
is, their wealth of background knowledge from family and community resources—and incorpo-
rates cultural knowledge and beliefs into STEM learning (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).
Even when ELLs are not literate or academically proficient in their first language, making connec-
tions to communities’ funds of knowledge can positively impact students’ STEM learning (Buxton,
­Allexsaht-Snider, & Rivera, 2013). One aspect of accessing funds of knowledge is explicit family
involvement in STEM education. Family involvement can be particularly significant for cultur-
ally and linguistically diverse students, families, and communities (Wassell, Hawrylak, & Scantlebury,
2017) and is identified as an essential practice by STEM education organizations, such as ITEEA
(2007) and the National Research Council (2013).
Whether or not STEM educators speak a student’s first language, they can leverage students’ exist-
ing linguistic strengths to develop target language skills while acquiring STEM content knowledge
(Hansen-Thomas & Bright, 2019; Oliveira et al., 2019). Learning about students’ first language(s)
can help STEM educators access vocabulary learning opportunities. For example, Reed, Medina,
Martinez, and Veleta (2013) found that over 85% of terms in biology textbooks and standards had
Spanish-English cognates. Explicitly teaching students about cognates and word roots allows students
proficient in languages with Latin and Greek roots to access STEM content vocabulary by connect-
ing new terminology to home language (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2012). Even if students have not
previously learned STEM content vocabulary in their first language, explicit word root connections
allow students to make associations among known words with similar roots. Understanding difficult
aspects of language development can also help educators recognize assets and pinpoint challenges

313
 Emily K. Suh, Lisa Hoffman and Alan Zollman

students from all language backgrounds are likely to face (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2002). Teach-
ers also need to recognize additional challenges faced by preliterate students, students from cultures
without written forms of language, students with interrupted formal education, and students who
have learning disabilities (Helman, Calhoon, & Kern, 2015). These students—indeed, all ­students—
benefit greatly from multimodal forms of teaching that provide multiple types of input and avenues
for expressing STEM content (McVee, Silvestri, Shanahan, & English, 2017; Takeuchi, 2015; Mana-
vathu & Zhou, 2012).
In discussing STEM topics with students, educators bring learners into the academic discourse
of a particular community of knowledge (Willey, Gatza, & Flessner, 2017; Yerrick & Gilbert, 2011).
Understanding content area discourses is essential for learning and engagement with complex STEM
topics (Reyes, 2008). For example, DiGisi and Fleming (2005) documented how students’ scores
improved on high-stakes assessments after explicit instruction in reading and interpreting math ques-
tions. Limited empirical research is available on science reading comprehension among language learn-
ers (Taboada, Bianco, & Bowerman, 2012), but existing research highlights benefits of attending to
print literacy to increase content mastery (Gomez, Lozano, Rodela, & Mancevice, 2013). Moschkovich
(2015) proposes that academic literacy in mathematics includes proficiency, practices, and discourse of
the field—and that instruction for ELLs must address each of these components simultaneously.
Academic discourse becomes most accessible when connected to social language (Ryoo, 2015).
Among the key points STEM educators need to understand about working with language learn-
ers is the difference between social and academic language and that a student’s use of social English
does not indicate comparable academic language proficiency (Cummins, 2005). Beck, McKeown,
and Kucan (2013) review research into vocabulary learning and identify multiple tiers of vocabulary
students need in particular academic fields. For STEM fields, this includes Tier 1 vocabulary (i.e.,
common words used in conversation) and Tier 3 vocabulary (i.e., content-specific words all students
learn over the course of a lesson). STEM teachers must also help emergent multilingual students
access Tier 2 vocabulary words which are used across STEM fields but which language learners may
have never explicitly learned, such as “investigate” and “analyze.” This general academic vocabulary
is just as crucial for academic success as specific academic vocabulary (Haag, Heppt, Stanat, Kuhl, &
Pant, 2013). Yet privileging more abstract vocabulary as more “academic” belies the complexity with
which students learn about and understand the world (Warren, Ogonowski, & Pothier, 2005).
Vocabulary instruction may be extended or embedded, and research supports a variety of approaches
for teaching both Tier 2 and Tier 3 vocabulary—that is, both general academic and d­ iscipline-
specific language (Echevarria et al., 2012). Multiple studies demonstrate the benefits of embedded
vocabulary in STEM fields (August et al., 2014; Tong, Irby, Lara-Alecio, & Koch, 2014). Science
notebooks are one STEM-specific example shown to increase student learning of both discipli-
nary vocabulary and concepts (Huerta, Tong, Irby, & Lara-Alecio, 2016). Contextualized vocabulary
instruction can include other high-impact instructional strategies, including explicit instruction in
reading comprehension strategies embedded within implicit instruction of academic science vocabu-
lary to support student motivation and self-direction (Hagena, Leiss, & Schwippert, 2017).
Teaching strategies supported by research include a number of models integrating STEM content
and intentional focus on literacy development (Silva, Weinburgh, Malloy, Smith, & Marshall, 2012;
Tong et al., 2014). Gomez et al. (2015) engaged community college mathematics instructors in a
successful curriculum redesign process to embed literacy support into mathematics while removing
unintended language barriers. Literacy activities are most effective when they include explicit atten-
tion to language acquisition and forms, as Kasmer (2013) studied among language learners in Tan-
zania. The focus on literacy development can follow an apprenticeship model of academic literacy
exposure in the STEM discipline (Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001). Educators should
encourage students to use their first language in literacy activities; relevant research addressing biliter-
acy and binumeracy development includes Takeuchi’s (2015) ethnography of classroom mathematics

314
 STEM Inclusion Research for ELLs

practice and Rubinstein-Ávila, Sox, Kaplan, and McGraw’s (2015) study of collaborative multilingual
mathematical problem solving. Effective reading strategies for language learners include text-based
questioning activities in science (Taboada et al., 2012) and structured feedback (i.e., Dynamic Stra-
tegic Math) for mathematical word problem solving (Orosco, Lee Swanson, O’Connor, & Lussier,
2013). Students also benefit from reading and writing in different genres related to science (Lee &
Buxton, 2013).
Inquiry-based STEM instruction has been a successful approach with ELLs in a number of
research studies (Mercuri & Mercuri, 2019; Lee, & Buxton, 2013; Stoddart et al., 2002). August
et al. (2014) and Johnson (2011) both showed that ELLs showed increased learning of academic
language when using a science curriculum with experiments and materials usually used with gifted
and talented students. Technology also can be a powerful tool for language learners accessing STEM
content. Ryoo and Bedell (2017) used visualizations in web-based inquiry instruction in middle
school science, and Terrazas-Arellanes, Gallard, Strycker, and Walden (2018) showed that interactive
online learning units helped close gaps in science knowledge between English-learner and English-
only middle school students. Alegria (2014) took a critical pedagogy approach to support ELLs in
the science classroom. Driver and Powell (2017) combined culturally and linguistically responsive
instruction with explicit schema instruction to teach elementary ELLs how to solve mathematics
word problems. Students in the intervention increased word problem-solving skills and reported
satisfaction with the intervention.
Many other research-supported instructional practices which support ELLs also benefit English-
proficient students (Hoffman & Zollman, 2016). Using visual aids such as pictures, graphic organizers,
and sentence frames supports content knowledge and academic language development (Llosa et al.,
2016; August et al., 2014; Silverman & Hines, 2009; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine, 2017). Providing multimedia and hands-on classroom opportunities and expressing
concepts in multiple ways are positively associated with ELL learning (Hoffman & Zollman, 2016)
but are also recommended practices for mainstream classrooms regardless of students’ language profi-
ciency. Peer collaboration and interaction opportunities in both first language and target language are
also positively associated with increased student learning (August et al., 2014; Echevarria et al., 2012).
The importance of peer interaction and the advantages of first language support bear mentioning
in particular because of educators’ common misconception that students should always use English
rather than incorporate first-language knowledge and check comprehension using students’ strengths
in other languages (August, 2018).
Promising strategies include explicit literacy instruction and matching linguistic features of the
domain and the assessment to measure achievement (Avenia-Tapper & Llosa, 2015; Hussain, 2017).
ELLs perform significantly higher on linguistically modified items (Sato, Rabinowitz, Gallagher, &
Huang, 2010). In assessing learning through tasks that involve student language production (such as
written or oral performance), educators must focus on students’ STEM reasoning processes rather
than language errors (Moschkovich, 2012). Improving classroom-based and school- and state-level
assessments of English learners’ STEM content knowledge is a key research opportunity. The follow-
ing section discusses assessment in greater detail.

STEM Teacher Professional Development and

Multilingual Student Assessment
Several STEM organizations include professional development for pre-service and in-service teach-
ers as an essential component of quality STEM education (ITEEA, 2007; National Research Coun-
cil, 2012; NCTM, 2000; NGSS Lead States, 2013). These organizations identify teacher professional
development as particularly necessary for meeting STEM equity goals regarding ELL access to aca-
demically and linguistically rich content (National Research Council, 2012). Wong Fillmore and

315
 Emily K. Suh, Lisa Hoffman and Alan Zollman

Snow (2002) recommend that professional development includes foundational information about
the complexities of language and language learning. Researchers suggests the effectiveness of teacher
training which pairs developing content knowledge with acquiring academic discourses in English.
For example, Garza et al. (2018) found significant gains in both science content and language when
fifth-grade teachers were trained to promote verbal and written interaction. The Sheltered Instruc-
tion Observation Protocol (SIOP) is highly popular within the United States’ K-12 system and
focuses professional development on supporting ELLs, although the model is intended to help all
students increase language and content proficiency (Short, 2017). Research documents both greater
consistency of best practices for ELLs and greater student English language gains when teachers
implement the SIOP model after a three-day staff development institute (Echevarria, Short, & Pow-
ers, 2006). Professional development on culturally relevant pedagogy has also been linked to assess-
ment gains for culturally and linguistically diverse students’ science achievement ( Johnson & Fargo,
2014). Currently, however, only a limited amount of research exists on STEM teacher professional
development efficacy (Chval, Pinnow, & Thomas, 2015; Desimone, 2009; Prediger & Schüler-Meyer,
2017); instead, available research examines the effectiveness of various in-class interventions after
providing teacher training to support implementation.
Research on the effectiveness of STEM teacher training and professional development sug-
gests that trainings for supporting ELLs are most effective when trainers consistently implement
standards-based, inquiry-oriented, and language-focused interventions (Llosa et al., 2016; Johnson,
Sondergeld, & Walton, 2017). In their work with U.S. urban elementary school teachers in science
classes, Santau, Secada, Maerten-Rivera, Cone, and Lee (2010) found that after a year-long profes-
sional development intervention, teachers effectively used language support strategies for emergent
multilingual students. Additional research is necessary to determine the effectiveness of different
professional development trainings, which vary in length and focus.
Even when teacher professional development is most effective, standardized assessments may not
show immediate or significant achievement gains as teachers become familiar with new curriculum
and adjust their practices (Maerten-Rivera, Ahn, Lanier, Diaz, & Lee, 2016). Assessing STEM learning
among ELLs presents challenges in large part because of the common reliance on literacy-based per-
formances and evaluations (Newkirk-Turner & Johnson, 2018). Both linguistic complexity and cultural
assumptions of many assessments pose a threat to assessment validity (Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003).
Furthermore, the research is extremely limited on how ELLs are represented in classroom assess-
ment data (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). In fact, recognition
of problematic assessments and assessment practices have led some STEM organizations, including
the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, to call for improved assessment
practices as a part of wider STEM education reform to support ELLs (National Academies of Sci-
ence, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Regarding assessments of ELLs in the United States, the
National Academy recommend (1) using multiple measures to accurately measure ELLs’ academic
achievement, (2) providing individualized accommodations during large-scale STEM assessments,
(3) incorporating into classroom summative assessment visuals, multiple smaller parts to divide larger
tasks, and collaboration. In terms of analyzing assessment data, the group recommends disaggregat-
ing data by students’ level of English proficiency and including students who began school receiving
English language services but who are no longer classified as ELLs. By collecting data on these “Ever
ELLs,” data users can better understand how programs, schools, districts, and states are serving emer-
gent multilingual students at various stages of their language acquisition.

Future Research Directions

Much research has applied a deficit approach to students. For example, students increasingly are referred
to as “emergent multilinguals” rather than “English language learners” as a way of signaling existing

316
 STEM Inclusion Research for ELLs

linguistic assets. Research should progress from identifying barriers for ELLs to seeking ways to utilize
their unique attributes and breadth of experience in order to further STEM learning for all students in
computational proficiencies, conceptual understandings, and real-world applications. Likewise, research
related to instruction and assessment must go beyond deficit-focused observations and attitudinal studies.
“Too often schools operate under the incorrect assumption that proficiency in English is a pre-
requisite to meaningful engagement with STEM learning and fail to leverage [ELL]s’ meaningful
engagement with content and disciplinary practices as a route to language proficiency” (Mitchell,
2019). In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Rangel and Shi (2018) found that
immigrant children in the United States with languages dissimilar to English tend to study more
mathematics and science in high school and college than their peers.
Problem-Based Learning, Math Circles, TechnoCode, Project Lead the Way, and other programs
are being investigated currently (Van Overschelde, 2013). These projects can be expanded to guide
implementation studies of STEM for ELLs. A new direction for research is the connections of con-
tent and process standards to ELLs’ academic achievement in STEM (Moschkovich, 2012, 2015).
Further structured research is needed on increasing ELLs’ STEM content achievement in the context
of an integrated curriculum.
Understudied areas also include the economic and social impact of ELLs’ STEM learning. While
there are studies in the STEM areas of science and mathematics ( Johnson et al., 2017), more research
is needed on increasing achievement of language learners in technology and engineering, and going
beyond vocabulary and syntax to ways of using academic discourse. Several organizations call for inte-
grating teacher preparation, curriculum, instruction, and assessment to support all students’ STEM
learning (see National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018; National Research
Council, 2012). Although these professional organizations advocate for an integrated approach to
supporting multilingual students’ developing language and content proficiencies, additional research
is needed on the efficacy of different instructional and assessment methods. Researchers must exam-
ine the effectiveness of initiatives that create language-rich environments and align assessments with
teaching practical application over abstract knowledge.
“There is a general consensus that everyone needs to be STEM literate, but there is a difference
between literacy and being literate. . . . Literacy in STEM goes beyond understanding, communicat-
ing and applying . . . from learning for STEM literacy to using STEM literacy for learning” (Zoll-
man, 2012, p. 12). Engaging, real-world problem-solving activities that incorporate mathematical
vocabulary, concepts, and applications are important critically for students learning English—as well
as monolingual English-speaking students. “Good instruction for learning is good for every student”
(Hoffman & Zollman, 2016, p. 92)—it makes STEM accessible to all.

References
Alegria, A. (2014). Supporting English language learners in the science classroom through critical pedagogy. Inter-
national Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 99–121.
August, D. (2018). Educating English language learners: A review of the latest research. American Educator, 42(3).
Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/aefall2018.pdf
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Francis, D. J., Powell, J., Moore, S., & Haynes, E. F. (2014).
Helping ELLs meet the common core state standards for literacy in science: The impact of an instructional
intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 54–82. doi:
10.1080/19345747.2013.836763
Avenia-Tapper, B., & Llosa, L. (2015). Construct relevant or irrelevant? The role of linguistic complexity in the
assessment of English language learners’ science knowledge. Educational Assessment, 20(2), 95–111. doi:10.10
80/10627197.2015.1028622
Barwell, R. (2009). Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms: An introductory discussion. In R. Barwell (Ed.),
Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms: Global perspectives (pp. 1–13). Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual
Matters.

317
 Emily K. Suh, Lisa Hoffman and Alan Zollman

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Buxton, C. A., Allexsaht-Snider, M., & Rivera, C. (2013). Science, language, and families: Constructing a model
of steps to college through language-rich science inquiry. In Moving the equity agenda forward (pp. 241–259).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Buxton, C. A., & Lee, O. (2014). English language learners in science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K.
Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 204–222). New York, NY: Routledge.
Carr, P. G. (2016). NCES statement on PISA 2015 results. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2016/12_06_2016.asp
Cheuk, T. (2013). Relationships and convergences among the mathematics, science, and ELA practices. Refined version
of diagram created by the Understanding Language Initiative for ELP Standards. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University.
Chval, K. B., Pinnow, R. J., & Thomas, A. (2015). Learning how to focus on language while teaching math-
ematics to English language learners: A case study of Courtney. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(1),
103–127. doi:10.1007/s13394-013-0101-8
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2009). Educating English learners for a transformed world. Albuquerque, NM: Dual
Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente Press.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). Mathematics standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestand
ards.org/Math/
Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching the language of academic success: A framework for school-based language pol-
icies. In California state department of education, schooling and language minority students: A theoretical-practical
framework (3rd ed., pp. 3–32). Los Angeles, CA: California State University Evaluation, Dissemination, and
Assessment Center.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Cheng, D. (2011). Language and the multisemiotic nature of mathematics. Reading Matrix:
An International Online Journal, 11(3), 255–268. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/
september_2011/oliveira_cheng.pdf
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better con-
ceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
DiGisi, L. L., & Fleming, D. (2005). Literacy specialists in math class! Closing the achievement gap on state math
assessments. Voices from the Middle, 13(10), 48–52.
Dos Santos, L. M. (2019). English language learning for engineering students: Application of a visual-only video
teaching strategy. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1).
Driver, M. K., & Powell, S. R. (2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive schema intervention: Improving
word problem solving for English language learners with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly,
40, 41–53. doi:10.1177/0731948716646730
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for
­English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195–211. Retrieved from https://jour
nals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/IURJ/article/viewFile/6668/5462
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model
(4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Ellerton, N., & Clarkson, P. (1996). Language factors in mathematics teaching and learning. In A. Bishop, M. A. K.
Clements, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education
(pp. 987–1033). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Esmonde, I., & Caswell, B. (2010). Teaching mathematics for social justice in multicultural, multilingual elemen-
tary classrooms. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(3), 244–254. doi:10.1080/
14926156.2010.504485
Esquinca, A., de la Piedra, M. T., & Herrera-Rocha, L. (2018). Hegemonic language practices in engineering
design and dual language education. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 12(2), 44–68.
Garza, T., Huerta, M., Spies, T. G., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B. J., & Tong, F. (2018). Science classroom interactions
and academic language use with English learners. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
16(8), 1499–1519. doi:10.1007/s10763-017-9855-x
Gomez, K., Gomez, L. M., Rodela, K. C., Horton, E. S., Cunningham, J., & Ambrocio, R. (2015). Embed-
ding language support in developmental mathematics lessons: Exploring the value of design as professional
development for community college mathematics instructors. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 450–465.
doi:10.1177/0022487115602127
Gomez, K., Lozano, M., Rodela, K., & Mancevice, N. (2013). Designing embedded language and literacy sup-
ports for developmental mathematics teaching and learning. MathAMATYC Educator, 5(1), 43–56.

318
 STEM Inclusion Research for ELLs

Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic
literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–130. doi:10.17763/haer.71.1.q811712577334038
Haag, N., Heppt, B., Stanat, P., Kuhl, P., & Pant, H. A. (2013). Second language learners’ performance in math-
ematics: Disentangling the effects of academic language features. Learning and Instruction, 28, 24–34.
Hagena, M., Leiss, D., & Schwippert, K. (2017). Using reading strategy training to foster students’ mathematical
modelling competencies: Results of a quasi-experimental control trial. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 13(7), 4058–4085. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00803a
Halliday, M. A. (1988). On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Registers of written English:
Situational factors and linguistic features (pp. 162–178). London: Pinter.
Hansen-Thomas, H., & Bright, A. (2019). Teaching mathematics to emergent bilinguals. The Handbook of TESOL
in K-12, 265–276.
Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy achievement
of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475–501.
Helman, A. L., Calhoon, M. B., & Kern, L. (2015). Improving science vocabulary of high school English language
learners with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(1), 40–52. doi:10.1177/0731948714539769
Henry, D. L., Baltes, B., & Nistor, N. (2014). Examining the relationship between math scores and English lan-
guage proficiency. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 4(1), 11–29. doi:10.5590/JERAP.2014.04.1.02
Hoffman, L., & Zollman, A. (2016). What STEM teachers need to know and do for English language learn-
ers (ELLs): Using literacy to learn. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 51(1), 83–94. doi:10.30707/
JSTE51.1Hoffman
Howie, S. J. (2003). Language and other background factors affecting secondary pupils’ performance in math-
ematics in South Africa. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 1–20.
doi:10.1080/10288457.2003.10740545
Hudley, A. H. C., & Mallinson, C. (2017). “It’s worth our time”: A model of culturally and linguistically support-
ive professional development for K-12 STEM educators. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(3), 637–660.
doi:10.1007/s11422-016-9743-7
Huerta, M., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., & Lara-Alecio, R. (2016). Measuring and comparing academic language devel-
opment and conceptual understanding via science notebooks. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(5),
503–517. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.992582
Hussain, S. S. (2017). Teaching writing to second language learners: Bench-marking strategies for classroom.
Arab World English Journal, 8(2). doi:10.24093/awej/vol8no2.15
International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA). (2007). Standards for technology lit-
eracy (STL): Content for the study of technology. (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4),
1010–1038. doi:10.3102/0034654308325580
Johnson, C. C. (2011). The road to culturally relevant science: Exploring how teachers navigate change in peda-
gogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 170–198.
Johnson, C. C., & Bolshakova, V. L. J. (2015). Moving beyond “those kids”: Addressing teacher beliefs regard-
ing the role of culture within effective science pedagogy for diverse learners. School Science and Mathematics
Journal, 115(4), 179–185. doi:10.1111/ssm.12120
Johnson, C. C., & Fargo, J. D. (2014). A study of the impact of transformative professional development on His-
panic student performance on state mandated assessments of science in elementary school. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 25(7), 845–859. doi:10.1007/s10972-014-9396-x
Johnson, C., Sondergeld, T., & Walton, J. B. (2017). A statewide implementation of the critical features of profes-
sional development: Impact on teacher outcomes. School Science and Mathematics, 117, 341–349. doi:10.1111/
ssm.12251
Kasmer, L. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ experiences teaching secondary mathematics in English-medium schools
in Tanzania. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 399–413. doi:10.1007/s13394-013-0078-3
Lee, O., & Avalos, M. (2002). Promoting science instruction and assessment for English language learners.
Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(2). Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7704
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achieve-
ment of English language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 110–117. doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.770328
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. doi:10.3102/0013189X13480524
Lin, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2014). Investigating correspondence between language proficiency standards and aca-
demic content standards: A generalizability theory study. Language Testing, 31(4), 413–431.

319
 Emily K. Suh, Lisa Hoffman and Alan Zollman

Llosa, L., Lee, O., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O’Connor, C., Van Booven, C. D., & Kieffer, M. J. (2016). Impact of a large-
scale science intervention focused on English language learners. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2),
395–424. doi:10.3102/0002831216637348
Maerten-Rivera, J., Ahn, S., Lanier, K., Diaz, J., & Lee, O. (2016). Effect of a multiyear intervention on sci-
ence achievement of all students including English language learners. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4),
600–624. doi:10.1086/686250
Mallinson, C., & Charity Hudley, A. H. (2014). Partnering through science: Developing linguistic insight to
address educational inequality for culturally and linguistically diverse students in US STEM education. Lan-
guage and Linguistics Compass, 8(1), 11–23. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12060
Manavathu, M., & Zhou, G. (2012). The impact of differentiated instructional materials on English language
learner (ELL) students’ comprehension of science laboratory tasks. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and
Technology Education, 12(4), 334–349. doi:10.1080/14926156.2012.732255
McVee, M., Silvestri, K., Shanahan, L., & English, K. (2017). Productive communication in an afterschool engi-
neering club with girls who are English language learners. Theory into Practice, 56(4), 246–254. doi:10.1080/
00405841.2017.1350490
Mercuri, S., & Mercuri, N. (2019). Scaffolding English language learners’ literacy development through a sci-
ence inquiry approach. In L. de Oliveira, K. Obenchain, R. Kenney, & A. Oliveira (Eds.), Teaching the content
areas to English language learners in secondary schools (Vol. 17, pp. 231–245). English Language Education. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Mitchell, C. (2019). Study: Language barriers can steer immigrant students to STEM Courses. Blog Post, Janu-
ary 10. Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2019/01/language_bar
riers_immigrants_STEM.html
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. E. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative
approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. doi:10.1080/004058492095
43534
Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the common core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics
instruction for ELs aligned with the common core. In Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the
common core state standards and next generation science standards (pp. 17–31). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Moschkovich, J. (2015). Academic literacy in mathematics for English learners. The Journal of Mathematical Behav-
ior, 40, 43–62. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.01.005
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children
and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/
24677
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects: Transform-
ing classrooms, schools, and lives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25182
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core
ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newkirk-Turner, B. L., & Johnson, V. E. (2018). Curriculum-based language assessment with culturally and
linguistically diverse students in the context of mathematics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
49(2), 189–196. doi:10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0050
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Oliveira, A. W., Weinburgh, M., McBride, E., Bobowski, T., & Shea, R. (2019). Teaching science to English
language learners: Current research and practices in the field of science education. The Handbook of TESOL
in K-12, 277–290.
Orosco, M. J., Lee Swanson, H., O’Connor, R., & Lussier, C. (2013). The effects of dynamic strategic math
on English language learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107. doi:10.
1177/0022466911416248
Prediger, S., & Schüler-Meyer, A. (2017). Fostering the mathematics learning of language learners: Introduc-
tion to trends and issues in research and professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 13(7b), 4049–4056. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00801a
Rangel, M. A., & Shi, Y. (2018). Early patterns of skill acquisition and immigrants’ specialization in STEM
careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(2), 484–489. doi:10.1073/pnas.1812041116
Reed, D. K., Medina, L. A., Martinez, N. A., & Veleta, L. G. (2013). The accessibility of academic vocabu-
lary to Spanish speaking high school biology students. The High School Journal, 97(2), 80–91. doi:10.1353/
hsj.2013.0025

320
 STEM Inclusion Research for ELLs

Reyes, I. (2008). English language learners’ discourse strategies in science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal,
31, 95–114. doi:10.1080/15235880802640631
Rosenthal, J. W. (1996). Teaching science to language minority students: Theory and practice (Vol. 3). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Rubinstein-Ávila, E., Sox, A. A., Kaplan, S., & McGraw, R. (2015). Does biliteracy + mathematical discourse =
binumerate development? Language use in a middle school dual-language mathematics classroom. Urban
Education, 50(8), 899–937. doi:10.1177/0042085914536997
Ryoo, K. (2015). Teaching science through the language of students in technology-enhanced instruction. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 29–42. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9518-4
Ryoo, K., & Bedell, K. (2017). The effects of visualizations on linguistically diverse students’ understanding of
energy and matter in life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1274–1301. doi:10.1002/
tea.21405
Santau, A. O., Secada, W., Maerten-Rivera, J., Cone, N., & Lee, O. (2010). US urban elementary teachers’
knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners: Results from the first year of a
professional development intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2007–2032. doi:10.
1080/09500690903280588
Sato, E., Rabinowitz, S., Gallagher, C., & Huang, C.-W. (2010). Accommodations for English language learner stu-
dents: The effect of linguistic modification of math test item sets. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Short, D. (2017). How to integrate content and language learning effectively for English language learners. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 4237–4260. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00806a
Silva, C., Weinburgh, M., Malloy, R., Smith, K. H., & Marshall, J. N. (2012). Toward integration: An instruc-
tional model of science and academic language. Childhood Education, 88(2), 91–95. doi:10.1080/00094056.
2012.662119
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of
English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 305–314. doi:10.1037/a0014217
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and
practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3–13. doi:10.
3102/0013189X032002003
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development
for English Language Learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 664–687. doi:10.1002/tea.10040
Taboada, A., Bianco, S., & Bowerman, V. (2012). Text-based questioning: A comprehension strategy to build
English language learners’ content knowledge, literacy research and instruction. Literacy Research and Instruc-
tion, 51(2), 87–109. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.522884
Takeuchi, M. A. (2015). The situated multiliteracies approach to classroom participation: English language learn-
ers’ participation in classroom mathematics practices. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14, 159–178.
doi:10.1080/15348458.2015.1041341
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2006). Pre-k–12 English language proficiency stand-
ards. Annapolis Junction, MD: TESOL Press.
Terrazas-Arellanes, F. E., Gallard, M. A. J., Strycker, L. A., & Walden, E. D. (2018). Impact of interactive online
units on learning science among students with learning disabilities and English learners. International Journal
of Science Education, 40(5), 498–518. doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1432915
Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., & Koch, J. (2014). Integrating literacy and science for English language
learners: From learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 410–426. doi:
10.1080/00220671.2013.833072
Van Overschelde, J. P. (2013). Project Lead the Way students more prepared for higher education. American
Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 1–12.
Warren, B., Ogonowski, M., & Pothier, S. (2005).“Everyday” and “Scientific”: Rethinking dichotomies in modes
of thinking in science learning. In R. Nemirovsky, A. Rosebery, J. Solomon, & B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday
matters in science and mathematics (pp. 119–151). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781410611666
Wassell, B. A., Hawrylak, M. F., & Scantlebury, K. (2017). Barriers, resources, frustrations, and empathy: Teachers’
expectations for family involvement for Latino/a ELL students in urban STEM classrooms. Urban Education,
52(10), 1233–1254. doi:10.1177/0042085915602539
WIDA Consortium. (2012). Amplification of the English language development standards, kindergarten–grade 12. Madi-
son, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
Willey, C., Gatza, A., & Flessner, C. (2017). Mathematics discourse communities: Language ideologies and
urban mathematics teaching with Latinas/os. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 20(1), 34–48. doi:10.
1177/1555458916687600

321
 Emily K. Suh, Lisa Hoffman and Alan Zollman

Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E.
Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language. (pp. 10–46). McHenry, IL: The Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Yerrick, R. K., & Gilbert, A. (2011). Constraining the discourse community: How science discourse perpetuates
marginalization of underrepresented students. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6(1), 67–91. doi:10.1080/174
47143.2010.510909
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics,
112(1), 12–19. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x

322