See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324804390

Language and meaning in mathematics and science

teacher training: Helping teachers use language to help
ELs think and construct in d....

Chapter · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 9,054

1 author:

Zenaida Aguirre-Muñoz
University of California, Merced
36 PUBLICATIONS   333 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cyber Security View project

Bilingual/ESL Teacher Development & SFL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zenaida Aguirre-Muñoz on 05 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 P
d
A
CHAPTER 3

ve
LANGUAGE AND MEANING
IN MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE TEACHER TRAINING
I
er
14
s
Helping Teachers Use Language
re
to Help ELs Think and Construct
in Disciplined Ways
s
r 0

Zenaida Aguirre-Muñoz
ht
2

ABSTRACT
ig

The extent to which this wave of standards-based reform will achieve its in-
tended purposes rests on the degree to which the shift in curricular goals
lead to actual learning opportunities for all student groups and in particular
English Learners (ELs). This chapter addresses the language learning chal-
©

lenges science and mathematics teachers may encounter in their attempts to

meaningfully engage ELs in the center of learning activity in mathematics
ll

and science classrooms. At issue is the need to move away from old paradigms
for teacher training which treat ELs language and content learning needs
separately. Recommendations for how to develop teacher training that simul-
A

taneously addresses language and content needs are presented with specific
activities that illustrate the integration of content and language scaffolds.

Effective Educational Programs, Practices, and Policies for English Learners, pages 63–82
Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 63
 64    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

Classroom instruction, of any kind, is a system. It is made up of many indi-

vidual elements that work together to create an environment for learning.
This means that instruction is much more than the sum total of all the indi-
vidual elements. The elements interact with each other. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to change one element in the system without altering the others.

P
(Heibert et al., 1997, p. 7)

As the quote above illustrates, current conceptions of how students learn

d
have shown that understanding stems from purposeful attention to subject-
specific reflection and communication. This conception also views class-

A
room instruction as a system; as such, the entire system will need to be

ve
re-aligned to achieve its intended purposes. Informed by this research base,
the current wave of reform, reflected in the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), is predicated on the belief that learning environments can lead to
equity in quality education for all students. Greater attention to equity is

I
er
a natural outgrowth of the previous work on standards-based reform, par-
ticularly in light of the lack of credible evidence of measurable impact of
the No Child Left Behind accountability reform on reducing the achieve-
ment gap for poor African American and Latino students as well as English
4
s
learners (ELs) (e.g., Lee, 2008; Lee & Wong, 2004; Wang, 1998). These are
laudable goals; however, the extent to which this wave of standards-based
re
reform will achieve its intended purposes rests on the degree to which the
shift in curricular goals leads to actual learning opportunities for all stu-
g 1

dent groups and in particular ELs. Urban and rural Latinos and English
learners (ELs) consistently underperform most other groups of students
on state and national assessments. Although this is due in part to lack of
s
ri 0

sufficient English proficiency, past research has also demonstrated gross

narrowing of the mandated curriculum due to underlying misconceptions
ht

about language and learning (Gee, 2008). Even where “reform-minded”

teaching is taking place, opportunities do not exist if the organization and
delivery of instruction is not designed to meet ELs’ specific language and
2

content learning needs (Moss et al., 2008).

I argue that in order to bring about enhanced learning opportunities for
ELs, teacher training, instruction and assessment, and program monitoring
need to capitalize on advances in content-based language learning theory
and practice and developments in academic language instruction for ELs
©

to simultaneously support their language and content learning needs. Al-

though there is much that still needs to be learned, the available research
ll

has advanced what is known about the relationship between language and
content learning to generate some specific targets for teacher training de-
signed to impact EL learning and achievement. Therefore, the purpose of
A

this chapter is to call attention to recent research trends and corresponding

curricular developments that can be used to effectively raise the learning
opportunities for ELs.
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    65

First, I present the research background that informs the view of ELs’
learning opportunity needs including conflicting perceptions of content
literacy that may pose a challenge for teacher educators. I, then, present is-
sues in teachers’ subject matter knowledge that impact teaching and learn-
ing for ELs and provide a justification for a shift towards the development

P
of content focus EL teacher training.
d

d
ELs’ LANGUAGE AND CONTENT LEARNING NEEDS

A
ve
Past reforms have not affected achievement of ELs despite the clear in-
tent to address their language and learning needs (Gándara, 1994; Valadéz,
1989). This issue has been a focus of considerable research and scholarship
in the last 15–20 years. As a result, there is growing consensus among EL

I
researchers that a contributing factor for this lack of impact is a discon-

er
nect between educational reforms and current perspectives in language,
classroom interaction, and bilingualism (e.g., Alder, 1998; Cobb, Wood,
& Yackel, 1994; Khisty, 1995; Lemke, 1990; Moschkovich, 2002; Rosebery,
4
s
Warren, & Conant, 1992; Solano-Flores, 2010). This disconnect involves a
general lack of attention to meaningful differentiation of language needs
re
in pre- and in-service teacher education and a persistent separation of lan-
guage and content learning opportunities. With respect to this issue, the
g 1

development of the CCSS clearly draws on the theoretical and empirical

foundation for the importance of disciplined-based literacy support for all
learners. Therefore, states are well-positioned to capitalize on advances in
s

content-based language learning and developments in academic language

ri 0

instruction for ELs to simultaneously support their language and content

ht

learning needs. Although there is much that still needs to be learned, the
available research has advanced what is known about the relationship be-
tween language and content learning to generate some specific targets for
2

EL teacher education that could affect equitable implementation of the

CCSS or similar reforms.

Academic Language Development

©

The CCSS includes strong academic communication skills in interpre-

ll

tation of text as well as the communication of interpretation. While word

recognition and fluency are identified as foundational skills in early grades,
comprehension, interpretation, and communication are given prominence
A

starting in kindergarten. That is, college and career ready students, defined
by the CCSS, are those who can effectively communicate content understand-
ings as well as participate meaningfully in complex discipline-based practices.
 66    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

This point is particularly evident when all the content standards are taken
into account. While word recognition and fluency pose a challenge for ELs,
it pales in comparison to comprehension, interpretation, and subject mat-
ter communication. The increased challenge is not only attributable to the
linguistic demands it places on ELs, but also on common practices that limit

P
learning opportunities for ELs. Unfortunately, a well-documented and deep-
ly engrained misconception persists that adaptations for ELs should center

d
on vocabulary and English conventions (Moschkovich, 2010).

A
But Communication is More than Vocabulary and Conventions

ve
Extant research clearly demonstrates that vocabulary is important in
literacy development and content learning, but it is insufficient for con-
ceptual learning, reasoning, and critical thinking for most students and,
in particular, ELs (Adler, 1998; August & Shanahan, 2006; Heibert et al.,

I
er
2008; Schlepegrell, 2004, 2010). Reducing adaptations for ELs to vocabu-
lary and conventions would not maximize ELs’ opportunity to learn and,
thus, would not address the gross inequities in opportunity to learn that
ELs experience and that have been shown to be at the root of achievement
4
gaps (Aguirre-Muñoz, 2010). s
re
CHALLENGES IN SUBJECT MATTER TEACHING
g 1

AND LEARNING OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Teachers’ Knowledge Gaps in Language for Explaining

s
ri 0
ht

To illustrate the challenge of moving beyond vocabulary development in

subject matter learning, consider Text 1 and Text 2 below. When 50 middle
school teachers, from across a southwestern state, were asked which of these
2

texts represents an explanation, both texts are selected with about equal
frequency. When asked to justify their selection, the most cited reason–re-
gardless of text selection–is the use of content vocabulary (Aguirre-Muñoz,
2011, 2012). This pattern demonstrates that these teachers are aware of
the importance of vocabulary in supporting ELs in content learning. This
©

heightened awareness of the importance of content vocabulary is an im-

provement over the false assumption that “non-linguistic” subjects, such
ll

as mathematics and science, have minimal language demands. However,

studies conducted in classroom contexts since the early 1990s demonstrate
that all subject-area learning involves complex learning systems that involve
A

far more than key vocabulary (e.g., Cobb, Yakel, & McClain, 2000; Morgan,
2004; Schleppegrell, 2010). It is important that teacher training reflects
these findings.
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    67

Teachers’ preoccupation with content vocabulary also suggests that teach-

ers are less aware of the linguistic features of the communication demands
of these subjects, much less the differences between distinct language uses
such as scientific description and explanation or mathematics argumen-

P
tation and reasoning. Unlike scientific description, scientific explanations
require the use of compare/contrast conjunctions and linking phrases
(e.g., on the other hand, because, therefore), causal verbs (e.g., produces,
d

d
results in, affects) and expanded noun phrases (secondary consumers that
eat primary consumers). By this description, Text 1 clearly approximates an

A
explanation and Text 2 falls far short of an academic explanation.

ve
What is perhaps more problematic is that when teachers do correctly
identify the explanation, and are asked to provide reasoning in their selec-
tion, the second most common response is “because it tells ‘why’” or some
variant (e.g., it explains). If teachers are not able to articulate the specific

Text 1 I
er
Primary producers generally outnumber consumers because producers support the
4
s
consumers at all levels of the energy pyramid. Since energy is lost as it moves through
each trophic level, less energy is available to higher level consumers. Therefore, a
re
greater number of producers is required to support the next trophic level.

Text 2
g 1

Energy pyramids represent the amount of energy available at each trophic level.
• The first level contains producers that convert the sun’s energy into other usable
forms of energy.
s

• The second trophic level contains primary consumers—organisms that eat primary
ri 0

producers.
• The third trophic level contains secondary consumers that eat primary consumers.
ht

• The fourth trophic level contains tertiary consumers that eat secondary consumers.
The fifth trophic level is made up of quaternary consumers that eat tertiary consumers
2

Text 3
The 23.45-degree tilt of the planet's rotational axis causes earth to have winter and
summer. These seasons occur because of the axis of rotation and the equator. By
looking at how sunlight is landing on the planet, you can figure out the season.
The huge difference in the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in the different
hemispheres is what causes the four seasons.
©

Text 4
The planet is tilted at a 23.45-degrees tilt. The axis of rotation and the equator is
ll

important in the seasons like winter and summer. Sunlight is also important. The
different seasons have different amounts of sunlight landing on the planet. The
amount of sunlight reaching the ground is different in different hemispheres. In the
A

winter it is colder and in the summer it is warmer.

Figure 3.1  Examples of different types of academic texts.

 68    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

qualities that comprise an explanation (oral or written) and how those

qualities are distinct from other types of text, it is doubtful that they would
be able to make those qualities explicit enough for ELs to understand and
eventually reproduce as the CCSS communication standards require. Fur-
ther, in a learning event, teachers may accept Text 2 as an explanation and,

P
then, be at a loss when they are not able to meet the communication stan-
dards on assessments aligned to the CCSS. This lack of knowledge may also
hinder their efforts to implement interventions that improve student per-

d
formance on these assessments. At worst, this lack of knowledge will inhibit

A
the teachers’ ability to navigate between everyday language and academic

ve
language which, in turn, has been linked to student alienation in the activ-
ity. Over time, students believe they are unable to “do math” or “be scien-
tists” even when they do well in advanced courses (Morgan, 2004, 2006).

I
er
Teachers’ Gaps in Language for Conceptual
Understanding
4
s
Also concerning, is the observation that teachers characterized both
Text 3 and Text 4 as explanations. Many teachers select Text 4 as an ex-
re
planation because “it’s easier to read than Text 3”. Drawing on the criteria
for a scientific explanation presented above, Text 4 does include content
vocabulary (degrees, hemisphere, seasons, etc.) and expanded noun phrases
g 1

(different amounts of sunlight landing on the planet), so the student does have
some foundational knowledge from which to draw on. However, the text
s

makes no use of compare/contrast conjunctions or linking phrases and

ri 0

it does not contain causal verbs. Text 4 therefore does not explicitly link
ht

organizing concepts to other smaller concepts—a defining feature of con-

ceptual understanding (Heibert et al., 1997; Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon,
Simmons, & Coyne, 2002; Mercer, 2004). Text 3, on the other hand, does
2

make use of these linguistic features. Examples include: (a) the use of the
conjunction because; (b) the linking (noun) phrase “by looking at how sun-
light is landing on the planet; as well as (c) causal verbs (e.g., cause). Thus,
Text 3 is a closer approximation to a scientific explanation than Text 4.
Teachers need to be equipped to move students from Text 4 to Text 3 in
©

communicating explanations as well as help students recognize these fea-

tures in textbooks to aid in comprehension of dense subject matter texts.
ll

Thus, the focus on communication and argument in the CCSS provides

teachers with an opportunity to integrate reading and writing to a greater
extent than standards of the past. However, it would be a disservice to teach-
A

ers, students, and communities if teachers are not trained on meaningful

integration of these skills and in opportunities to develop their ability to
identify and support language that reflects conceptual understanding.
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    69

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHER TRAINING

Attention on communication will not automatically engage all students.

Past standards reform efforts have not produced significant increases in
learning opportunities for ELs. In fact, some states are reporting unprec-

P
edented growth in the number of students who cannot meet the criteria
for reclassification to English proficient status. It is, therefore, misguided to
assume that increased attention to communication by a set of standards will
d

d
lead to the kind of focus on language in classroom discussions that lead to

A
measurable growth in English language development, meaningful engage-

ve
ment, or content learning for students who have not mastered English or
whose interactional style is consistently misinterpreted by many teachers. A
case in point is the decades-long efforts of the content-based professional
organizations (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) to

I
er
emphasize the need to embed tasks, activities, and questioning to elicit
higher order cognitive skills and have produced great teacher resources to
move in this direction, yet measurable changes in practice have not mate-
rialized. Given research on how students process and learn subject matter
4
s
content, language focused training for content area teachers is presented.
re
Avoid Over-Reliance of Generic ESL Strategies
g 1

Anticipating the linguistic and subject matter challenges posed by the

implementation of the CCSS, teacher training must develop teacher capac-
s

ity to differentiate among linguistic scaffolds based on varying linguistic

ri 0

needs represented in classrooms. By definition, any given scaffold should

ht

be temporary and be designed to fit (and change) according to the emerg-

ing language and learning needs of the individual (Walqui & Van Leer,
2010). This is no easy task; it will require a shift in the nature of teacher
2

training that often provides teachers with a set of general strategies that do
not consider the specific proficiency level of an individual child or on how
to concentrate on the subject specific content of discussion (Moschkovich,
1999). That is, training on how to meet the needs of ELs is usually devoid of
a content focus and may sometimes limit students’ content learning oppor-
©

tunities. For example, Gorgorio and Planas (2001) demonstrate that the ge-
neric English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) strategy of providing simplified
ll

language did not help students communicate mathematical ideas; a change

in vocabulary was also not effective in clarifying concepts. Further, Barwell
(2003, 2005a, 2005b) shows us how students do not perceive the content
A

and the language of the lesson as separate. In the context of mathematics,

for example, it is also not practical to assume that ESL teachers will prepare
ELs for deep mathematical discussions as they are not math teachers and
 70    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

thus do not have the background necessary to deal with the language of
mathematics (Lager, 2006). Comparable arguments can be made for other
content areas. Therefore, teacher training needs to provide content teach-
ers with extensive and ongoing guidance on how to focus the subject matter
content of discussions and simultaneously provide varying scaffolding cor-

P
responding to all proficiency levels in the classroom.
These studies show how a focus on communication is not simply a mat-
ter of stimulating talk or relating to students’ experience. This point is

d
particularly relevant in mathematics classrooms wherein the mathemat-

A
ics often ‘gets lost’ because in an effort to be transparent, teachers tend

ve
to downplay the technicality of mathematics (Pimm, 1987; Schleppegrell,
2010; Silver & Smith, 1996; Solomon & O’Neill, 1998). Students need to
be able to deal with the technicality of mathematics because technicality is
at the center of mathematics knowledge construction and communication

I
er
(re-construction) (Moschkovich, 2002; Schleppegrell, 2010). These issues
are also present in science classrooms. Thus, in order for ELs to benefit
from communication opportunities, teachers need to be more attentive to
student responses and be able to understand what the student is attempting
4
s
to articulate about his or her emerging knowledge (Laborde et al., 1990 as
cited in Schleppegrell, 2010).
re
To illustrate how generic strategies can limit discipline-specific ways of
communication, examine the use of word sorts and concept maps com-
g 1

monly used to help ELs make sense of science content (presented in Fig-
ure 3.2). In existing English Language Development resources for teach-
ers, the use of concept sorts and semantic maps are recommended to
s

develop students’ content vocabulary in addition to content learning. How-

ri 0

ever, these resources seldom provide methods for transforming those sorts
ht

into content descriptions or explanations of phenomenon. Scaffolds for

extended texts are usually presented separately from vocabulary tasks, and
include sentence frames (e.g., Dutro & Moran, 2001; Echevarria, Vogt, &
2

Short, 2010). Sentence frames are appropriate for students with early inter-
mediate proficiency and below; however, they do not correspond with the
language expectations of students whose proficiency have been identified
as advanced intermediate and above.
©

Target Scaffolds for Extended Text Production

ll

Transitioning to other scaffolds for producing extended text (written

or oral) at the intermediate level of proficiency is necessary for ELs to con-
A

tinue benefitting from more rigorous instruction.

As previously mentioned, vocabulary knowledge is important but insuf-
ficient for deep conceptual development of scientific processes. Although
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    71

P
Concept Sort Semantic Map
d

d
A
ve
I
er
4
s
re
Concept Map
g 1

Reading Comprehension Map

s
ri 0
ht
2
©
ll
A

Figure 3.2  Examples of conceptual, semantic, and comprehension maps.

 72    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

concept sorts and semantic maps can be used to gauge students’ prior
knowledge of a topic or to provide a hands-on vocabulary activity, they do
not make explicit other aspects of academic language that are necessary to
produce disciplined ways of communicating. Students with intermediate
proficiency and above, in particular, would benefit from visual yet concep-

P
tual representations of complex concepts.
Concept maps are examples of conceptually rich visuals that represent
complex knowledge because they identify the relationship between con-

d
cepts and facts (Novak, 1990) which, as previously stated, is the hallmark

A
of conceptual understanding. Concept maps also provide a scaffold to

ve
extended texts pertaining to subject matter content as the links highlight
the types of verbs necessary for a conceptual explanation; those that signal
causal relationships (e.g., causes, affects), those that classify (e.g., type of,
example of) and those that introduce or define concepts (e.g., is defined

I
er
by, is). Thus, the maps ELs construct while engaged in, say, an inquiry activ-
ity can be used to teach and generate scientific explanations.
Concept maps can also be used to analyze and comprehend conceptu-
ally oriented text. Figure 3.2 also illustrates how a teacher can provide a
4
s
concept map (developed based on Connect the Words Organizer activity
from Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011) that is partially completed or
re
that provides the concepts. The students read the text to determine either
the concepts or links that represent the text. Students can work in groups
g 1

and justify their choices. In this process, the concepts in the concept map
provides the vocabulary, the links provide additional resources to articu-
late their justifications and the joint construction of meaning in articulat-
s

ing justifications for their choices enables ELs to negotiate meaning and
ri 0

thereby develop their English skills while also deepening their conceptual
ht

knowledge in, this example, science. If students have very little or no prior
knowledge and experiences related to the targeted concepts, the teacher
can provide a hands-on demonstration where they make and record de-
2

tailed observations to launch the unit (Gibbons, 2003).

Provide Intensive and Ongoing Opportunities

to Develop Content Knowledge
©

Previous sections in this chapter should make clear that CCSS-inspired

ll

teacher training requires the use of content-focused training designed to

develop teachers’ capacity to provide sound content teaching using delivery
strategies aligned to the specific language demands of the new standards.
A

If the standards documents or content-focused teacher training do not

identify how lessons should be modified to align with varying English profi-
ciency levels to ensure full participation in the learning process, increased
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    73

opportunities to practice discipline-specific communication may not yield

disciplined ways of knowing and thinking, nor lead to higher content learn-
ing. The CCSS alone cannot achieve measurable impact in reducing the
achievement gap or lead to meaningful changes in teacher training. Con-
tent-focused EL training would empower teachers to make more informed

P
interpretations of student responses and questions that will lead to more
effective instructional decision making including improved redirection of
student misconceptions. Thus, a central premise is the idea that content-
d

d
focused EL training avoids superimposing old ways of teaching and believ-

A
ing over targeted teaching and learning conceptions promoted in teacher

ve
training models (Harklau, 2002).

Model Language Support Strategies while Targeting Subject Matter

Content can be embedded in teacher training in three principle ways.

I
First, the EL instructional strategies are modeled by the instructors in the

er
context of subject matter content (Briza, Nardi, & Zachariada, 2007). For
example, Figure 3.3 describes a structured inquiry task for elementary
teachers designed to produce content knowledge growth while modeling
4
s
language-focused instruction. The demonstration simulates convention
currents as a catalyst to weather patterns and review of density and energy
re
transfer. Language-rich activities then follow to illustrate an instructional
approach for academic language development that supports the produc-
g 1

tion of causal explanations of convection currents. In this way, both content

and language issues can be addressed.
Content can also be embedded in teacher education through the use
s

of case studies that focus on content misconceptions based on research

ri 0

documenting common student misconceptions in fundamental math and

ht

science concepts (e.g., place value, functions, heat/energy, and buoyancy).

Case-based instruction is anchored in practice that can be used to provide
teachers with multiple opportunities to consider the complexities of teach-
2

ing and learning, including a variety of viewpoints and potential outcomes

(Andrews, 2002). Thus, case studies situate teacher learning in real-world
teacher practice, while simultaneously fortify their learning of training ma-
terial. Teachers engage in content academic conversations to identify the
misconception, the potential source of the misconception as well as discuss
©

how to address the misconception.

ll

Assign Authentic Design Tasks

Finally, content can be embedded in teacher training through the use
of design tasks teachers are asked to complete (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). For
A

example, teachers can be asked to collaboratively develop animations/sim-

ulations that illustrate relationships between and among math and science
concepts using teacher friendly software such as Scratch and PhotoStudio.
 74    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

This structured inquiry task involves immers-

Concept Book
ing a small clear container of hot water with
red food dye into a larger clear container of
very cold water with no dye. Teachers are asked
to make and record observations (including

P
short interval digital photos of the phenom-
enon) and write descriptions about their ob-
servations. Teachers observe the red hot water
move upward forming a convection current

d
that initially wraps the outer edges of the con-
tainer. Eventually all the water turns red. Teach-

A
ers are provided with key science vocabulary

ve
and asked to modify descriptions accordingly.
Teachers are then introduced to the language
features of scientific descriptions and are
contrasted with scientific explanations.
Attention is given to language features other

I
er
than vocabulary (e.g, causal verbs and con-
junctions). Teachers are then asked to write
an explanation of the phenomenon they
observed (Why does the red water move up-
ward?). To scaffold the language demands of
4
s
these explanations, they are first asked to con-
struct a concept map that visually presents
re
the relationships between scientific processes
involved in convection (e.g., conduction, advec-
tion) and explains the fluid movement they
g 1

observed. To further cement their learning of

the scientific processes involved with convec-
tion, they use the photos they took during the
s

observation portion of the lesson to create a

ri 0

concept book that describes convection

ht

using the context of the water simulation they

completed as well as explains the science
principles involved in convection. During the
construction of the concept books, academic
2

conversations are monitored and informal

assessment of content learning is recorded.

Figure 3.3  Convection in a bottle: Structured inquiry with language-rich activities.

The primary purpose of the design tasks is to sustain teachers’ engagement

©

in complex concepts and thereby deepen their content knowledge in a

more dynamic way while simultaneously develop multiple ways of represent-
ll

ing content to students. Although there may be many products available for
teacher use, teachers do not usually have time to evaluate the quality of
the product in relation to how they foster academic language, deep con-
A

ceptual understanding, or address potential misconceptions. Design tasks

are planned extensively with teachers investing how central idea relates to
other concepts and how it is connected to a real word situation. In the
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    75

south plains, for example, ecosystems could be investigated in the context

of Playa lakes in the region. The technology tools help teachers highlight
the relationships among processes and concepts working in an ecosystem
in a way that contextualizes the unit of study with a situation that is more
familiar to students, such as the flocks of birds that migrate through the

P
region due to the availability of water and food found in Playa lake ecosys-
tems. The added value of integrating these products in teacher training is
their potential utility for ELs in helping them cope with difficult content in
d

d
meaningful ways. Feedback from the teacher educator, other program par-

A
ticipants, and content area experts ensure that the products are free from

ve
conceptual errors and adhere to key language development principles.
The math and science tasks serve to engage teachers in complex prob-
lem solving in math and science content and to develop habits of mind
that correspond to each field. To be successful, collaboration with subject

I
er
matter experts should be sought to select topics that correspond to both
content knowledge gaps that emerge in case study discussions as well as to
content dilemmas teachers may encounter in school contexts, such as how
to present math explanations that are developmentally appropriate, math-
4
s
ematically accurate, and are accessible to ELs.
re
Target Routines for Meaningful Interaction to Enhance
Emerging Communication Skills
g 1

As previously noted, the research on classroom interactional practices

s

has demonstrated that teachers need to be more purposeful in their plan-

ri 0

ning of classroom discussion in order to develop students’ command of dis-

ht

ciplined ways of knowing and communicating. In recent years, there have

been significant gains in the development of engagement, conversation, and
thinking routines that empower teachers to be able to manage classroom
2

discussions more effectively. For example, Zwiers and Crawford (2011) have
identified key skills necessary for successful academic conversations as well
as corresponding routines, linguistic supports, and visual aids to support
ELs’ productive engagement in these conversations. Specific examples of
how these routines can be contextualized for different content areas makes
©

this text a valuable resource for engaging teachers in content-specific pro-

fessional development aimed at addressing ELs content learning. Similarly,
ll

thinking routines (Perkins, 2004) focus on the establishment of structures

that integrate higher-order thinking into the daily routine of the classroom,
help to make the thinking of everyone in the classroom more visible and
A

apparent and thereby assist teachers assess students’ thought process and
identify misconceptions. These activities also help train students to get into
the “learning mindset”. Although these are designed as general structures,
 76    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

effective integration of these into lesson activities requires alignment to

the content and topic targets and therefore can be powerful aids to engage
students in disciplined ways of knowing and thinking.

P
Putting it All Together: A Broad Training Model
for Teachers of ELs

d
The CCSS call for a radical shift in beliefs about content learning that

A
command an equal shift in conceptions about language development. In

ve
order to address the needs of math and science teachers who serve ELs,
I propose a comprehensive approach to teacher training illustrated in
Figure 3.4. The key features the training should provide are: (1) content-
focused activities; (2) language for content discussions; (3) continuous

I
er
feedback on instructional practice; and, (4) technology-enhanced activi-
ties. These features facilitate processes that lead to teacher short and long
term outcomes which in turn create learning environments that engender
positive learning outcomes for ELs.
4
s
The rationale for all except the feedback on practice feature has been
presented above. If sustained engagement in professional learning is need-
re
ed to both increase teachers’ content knowledge and transform that knowl-
edge to effective teaching for all students, it is important to re-examine
g 1

the structure and content of professional learning activities to determine

the extent to which they support teachers’ growth in disciplined ways of
communicating and understanding. This model is designed to promote
s

such growth and has had some success in producing teacher outcomes that
ri 0

have been linked to positive student achievement (Aguirre-Muñoz, 2013).

ht

Continuous feedback is needed to enable teachers to undergo a concep-

tual change in their conceptions about the disciple, conceptions about
how students learn and, in how ELs can be supported in discipline-specific
2
©
ll
A

Figure 3.4  Content focused training model for teachers of ELs.

 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    77

language development. Conceptual change requires the gradual elabora-

tion and revision of complex knowledge systems consisting of interrelated
elements (Vosniadou & Mason, 2012).
Research suggests that teachers commonly find justification for their
teaching practice in their experience and wisdom of practice rather than

P
research-based practices (Fives & Buehl, 2010). Thus, beliefs, formed by
larger communities based on knowledge gained by experience, serve as
filters of information and experience. These can be viewed as frameworks
d

d
that guide intention and action in planning and moment-by-moment deci-

A
sion making (Fives & Buehl, 2012). Therefore, beliefs affect teachers’: (a)

ve
willingness to employ a new instructional approach; (b) engagement in sus-
tained professional development; (c) active seeking of new ways to engage
students; and (d) effectiveness in developing students’ content learning.
Conceptual change can be a difficult process for some teachers, especial-

I
er
ly when their expectations of students grossly underestimate their learning
potential. Critical reflection helps to mitigate resistance teacher educators
encounter provided it is based on specific criteria for teaching effectiveness
should be a part of EL training activities. My work with teachers indicates
4
s
that they often need careful guidance from an instructional coach to direct
their self-reflection. If observation of their practice is viewed from the lens
re
of old beliefs, instructional practices are often misclassified as reflective of
reform. In reality, they do not reflect the new ways of thinking about teach-
g 1

ing and learning.

The rigorous cognitive goals of the CCSS reform also demands a need
for creativity in teaching practices if all students are to participate mean-
s
ri 0

ingfully during instruction aligned to them. Creativity in content teaching

requires teachers to know more about the content they teach in relation to
ht

what is best for developing conceptual understanding in ELs. Even though

there is great potential for opportunity, there is also great potential for re-
inforcing the inequitable distribution of opportunity found in classrooms
2

and schools serving ELs. If the lessons learned from past reform efforts
are heeded, changes in teacher training are essential to incite and sustain
teachers’ motivation to modify current practices to achieve more equitable
learning opportunities for ELs.
©

REFERENCES
ll

Aguirre-Muñoz, Z. (2012). Foundation. A Monorgaph? A Brief? Austin, TX:

A

Aguirre-Muñoz, Z. (2010). Journal for the Education of Students Placed at Risk, 15(3),
259–278.
Aguirre-Muñoz, Z. (2011, April). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association conference, New Orleans, LA.
 78    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

Alder, J. (1998). A language of teaching dilemmas: Unlocking the complex mul-

tilingual secondary mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics,
18(1), 24–33.
Andrews, L. (2002). Preparing pre-service teachers for inclusion: Web-enhanced
case-based instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(3), 27–37.

P
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Re-
port of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

d
Barwell, R. (2003). Patterns of attention in the interaction of primary school math-
ematics student with English as an additional language. Educational Studies in

A
Mathematics, 53, 35–59.

ve
Barwell, R. (2005a). Integrating language and content: Issues from the mathematics
classroom. Language and Education, 16(2), 205–118.
Barwell, R. (2005b). Working on arithmetic word problems when English is an ad-
ditional language. British Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 329–348.
Briza, I, Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using Tasks to Explore Teacher Knowl-

301–309.
I
er
edge in Situation-Specific Contexts. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 10,

Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1994). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom
practice. In contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development.
4
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
s
Cobb, P., Yakel, E., & McClain, K. (Eds.) (2000). Symbolizing and communicating in
re
mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to
g 1

Promote Teacher Learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2001). Rethinking English language instruction: An ar-
s

chitectural approach. In G. Garcia (Ed.), Reaching the highest level of English

ri 0

literacy (pp. 227–258). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

ht

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2010). Making content comprehensible for elemen-
tary English learners: The SIOP Model. San Francisco, CA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fives H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “Messy” construct of teach-
ers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell
2

us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychol-

ogy handbook: Vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors
(pp. 471–499).
Gándara, P. (1994). The implications of the education reform movement on lim-
ited English proficient students. In B. McLeod (Ed.), Language and learning:
©

Educating linguistically diverse students (pp. 45–70). Albany: State University of

New York Press.
Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P.A. Moss,
ll

D. C. Pullen, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity,

and opportunity to learn (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
A

Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL

students in a content-based classroom. TESOL, 37, 247–273.
Gorgorio, N., & Planas, N. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual class-
rooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 36–45.
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    79

Haertal, E. H., Moss, P. A., Pullen, D. C., & Gee, J. P. (2008). Introduction. In P.A.
Moss, D. C. Pullen, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment,
equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition.

P
Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329–350.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heibert, J, Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D. . . .Murray, H.
d

d
(1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

A
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowl-

ve
edge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 42(2), 371–406.
Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D.
(2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners: Second edi-

I
er
tion. Columbus: OH: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Khisty, L. (1995). Making inequality: Issues of language and meaning in mathemat-
ics teaching with Hispanic students. In W. G. Secada, E. Fenenema, & L. B.
Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 279–297),
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4
s
Lager, C. A. (2006). Types of mathematics-language reading interactions that un-
necessarily hinder algebra learning and assessment. Reading Psychology, 27,
re
165–204.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
g 1

Lee, C. D. (2008). Cultural modelling as opportunity to learn: Making problem solv-

ing explicit in culturally robust classrooms and implications for assessment.
In P.A. Moss, D. C. Pullen, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assess-
s
ri 0

ment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 136–169). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
ht

Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeco-
nomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes.
American Education Research Journal, 41, 797–832.
2

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Loucks-Horsely, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). De-
signing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a
social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 37–68.
©

Morgan, C. (2004). Word, definitions and concepts in discourses of mathematics

teaching and learning. Language and Education 18, 1–15.
ll

Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education
research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219–245.
A

Moschkovich, J. N. (1999). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared de-

scriptions of linear graphs. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 5(3), 239–277.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual
mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. Special issue on
 80    Z. AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ

Diversity, Equity, and Mathematical Learning, N. Nasir & P. Cobb (Eds.),

4(2&3), 189–212.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives
and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Moss, P.A., Pullen, D. C., Gee, J. P., Haertel, E. H., & Young, L. J. (Eds.). (2008). As-

P
sessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of

d
Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms.

A
ve
London: Routledge.
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain-mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princ-
eton University Press.
Perkins, D. (2004). Knowledge alive. Educational Leadership. 62(1), 14–18.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to pro-

CA: Jossey-Bass.
I
er
mote engagement, understanding and independence for all learners. San Francisco,

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4
s
Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Conant, F. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse:
Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning of Sci-
re
ences, 2(1), 61–94.
Schlepegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspec-
tive. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
g 1

Schlepegrell, M. J. (2010). Language in mathematics teaching and learning: A re-

search review. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education:
s

Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 73–112). Charlotte, NC: In-
ri 0

formation Age Publishing.

ht

Silver, E., & Smith, M. (1996). Building discourse communities in mathematics

classrooms: A worthwhile but challenging journey. In P. C. Elliot, & M. J.
Kenny (Eds.), Communication in mathematics: K-12 and beyond—1996 yearbook
2

(pp. 20–28). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Solano-Flores, G. (2010). Function and form in research on language and math-
ematics education. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics edu-
cation: Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 113–149). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Solomon, Y., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Mathematics and narrative. Language and Educa-
©

tion, 12(3), 210–221.

Valadéz, C. M. (1989). Language-minority students and educational reform: An in-
ll

complete agenda. In S. Cohen & L. Solomon (Eds.), From the campus: Perspec-
tives on the school reform movement (pp. 154–169). New York, NY: Praeger.
Vosniadou, S., & Mason, L. (2012). Conceptual change induced by instruction: A
A

complex interplay of multiple factors. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan

(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol 2 Individual differences and cul-
tural and contextual factors (pp. 221–246).
 Language and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Teacher Training    81

Walsh, D. J., Smith, M. E., & Alexander, M. (1993). The curriculum as mysterious
and constraining: Teachers’ negotiations of the first year of a pilot programme
for at-risk 4-year-olds. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25, 317–332.
Wang, J. (1998). Opportunity to learn: The impacts and policy implications. Educa-
tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 137–156.

P
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters
critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
d

d
A
AUTHOR QUERIES

ve
Call out Figure 3.1 in text before placement.
On ms page 4 you cite Adler, 1998. Add to list or delete.
On ms page 4 you cite Heibert et al., 2008. Add to list or delete.
On ms page 16 you cite Aguirre-Muñoz, 2013. Add to list or delete.
On ms page 16 you cite (Fives & Buehl, 2010). Add to list or delete

I
er
On ms page 22 you reference Aguirre- Muñoz, Z. (2012). Add publisher.
On ms page 22 you reference Aguirre- Muñoz, Z. (2010). Provide title.
On ms page 22 you reference Aguirre- Muñoz, Z. (2011, April). Paper. Provide title.
On ms page 23 you reference Fives H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Provide publisher/
4
location.
s
On ms page 24 you reference Haertal, E. H., Moss, P. A., Pullen, D. C., & Gee, J. P.
re
(2008). Cite in text or delete.
On ms page 24 you reference Heath, S. B. (1983). Cite in text or delete
On ms page 24 you reference Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Cite in
g 1

text or delete.
On ms page 25 you reference Lave, J. (1988). Cite in text or delete.
On ms page 25 you reference Loucks-Horsely, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N.,
s
ri 0

& Hewson, P. W. (2010).. Cite in text or delete.

On ms page 26 you reference Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Cite in text or
ht

delete.
On ms page 26 you reference Rogoff, B. (1990). Cite in text or delete
On ms page 28 you reference Vosniadou, S., & Mason, L. (2012). Provide publisher.
2

On ms page 28 you reference Walsh, D. J., Smith, M. E., & Alexander, M. (1993)..
Cite in text or delete.
©
ll
A
View publication stats