Download pdf - Language Ideologies in the Framework for K-12 Science Education

RunningHead:LANGUAGEPOLICYINTHEFRAMEWORK WINGERT1

Setting Science Language Policy:

Ideologies, Planning, and A Framework for K-12 Science Education

Kerri Wingert

University of Washington

December 2015

LANGUAGEPOLICYINTHEFRAMEWORK WINGERT2

Abstract Recently, the National Research Council's (2012) Framework for K-12 Science

Education and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and

their implementation in 15 states. In the scurry toward implementation, little attention has

been paid to what the Framework means for language policy for language-minoritized

students. This ethnographic content analysis found that the Framework 1) promotes the

use of generalizable, canonical ideas, highly specific vocabulary, 2) promotes a largely-

assimilationist view of English with attention to heteroglossia in the younger years, and

3) offers a broadened view of what counts as rhetorically suitable explanations. This

study concludes with actions teachers can take to subvert language ideologies that

marginalize non-dominant youth.


A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012, hereafter

referred to as The Framework) and the resulting Next Generation Science Standards

(NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013) leverage decades of research to set a new vision for

science learning from kindergarten to twelfth grade. However, there has been little or no

consideration given to the influence The Framework has on equitable language policy,

critical language awareness, or the linguistic epistemologies of science, although these

are necessary design considerations for the education of young people. In particular,

language policies in disciplinary learning have great potential to support students who are

minoritized by their language. To address this gap, I examine what kinds of language are

privileged in The Framework for K-12 Science Education, drawing on both science

studies and critical language awareness to propose supports for culturally and

linguistically diverse youth in the United States.

In this paper, I summarize my understanding of how language ideologies and

language planning result in language policy in science classrooms. Then I present my

analysis of A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012)

and discuss the language demands that face linguistically diverse in science as a result of

the Framework's language policy. Finally, I directly address these demands by offering a

set of instructional practices that educators can use to promote more expansive language

practices in their classrooms.

Conceptual Framing The Framework is a foundational document that sets the agenda for science education in

the US for the coming years. However, one cannot set an agenda for science without


simultaneously setting the agenda for what kinds of language will be privileged in

science classrooms. As such, The Framework, whether intentionally or not, makes

determinations for language management and language ideology. In this section I explain

my conceptual Framework for interpreting the language policies in The Framework,

blending ideas from sociolinguistics and language policy/planning with framing ideas in

science education.

Language policy is derived from the intersections of three factors: language

practices, language management, and language ideologies (McGroarty, 2010; Spolsky,

2004). Language practices comprise everyday, local enactments of language. In

education, everyday classroom language practices are the subject of frequent attempts at

standardization through language management. This study specifically examines what

language practices are expected by the Framework, but not the actual implementation of

language practices. Future studies should document the sociolinguistic ramifications of

the Framework.

Language management, the second element of language policy, consists of the

“official and unofficial rules regarding the choice and nature of language codes”

(McGroarty, 2010, p. 3) and registers (Lo Bianco, 2010). In education, documents and

laws at the national, state, local, and even school level dictate the “official” language

codes that are acceptable in those settings. Language management can be highly

restrictive, such as English-only laws, or more expansive, such as encouraging students to

explain what register or code of written language they want to use in English/language

arts classes. Whether more restrictive or expansive, language management includes

documents like state and national standards, mandates for testing, and consensus research


statements like the Framework. Although the Framework does not explicitly declare

itself to be a language-focused document, it does contain recommendations about how

language codes and registers “should be” addressed in classrooms. Thus, this study

examines how it functions as a language management document.

When national research efforts set an agenda for science education, the resulting

documents contain, inscribe, and reinforce certain kinds of language ideologies, the third

factor in Spolsky’s theory of language policy. In education, standards development and

implementation are an example of how ideologies are codified into policy documents

requiring a shift in practice. Language ideologies are the most abstract of the three factors

of language policy, relating to the underlying beliefs about the way language should be

used, embedded within the enactment of an activity by social players (McKay &

Hornberger, 2010). Language ideologies are necessarily related to power (e.g., Alim,

2007): the languages of those in power are almost necessarily the languages that are

privileged. In science learning contexts, language ideology is something "in the air" of a

situation that is engaged in by multiple players. This study examines language ideologies

by investigating the un-stated and covert beliefs laid forth by The Framework. My

analysis as it relates to these three elements of language policy is in Table 1.


Table 1. Elements of Language Policy in Relation to the Framework for K-12 Science Education

Definition Example Language Practices How language is

performed locally Students describe molecular theory in their own words

Language Management Rules governing language use (official or unofficial)

Standards declare that 8th graders must describe food webs in terms of “energy transformation”

Language Ideology Abstract beliefs about language

Teacher corrects all misspellings on students’ lab reports, indicating teacher’s value of “correct” English

We are at a critical moment for language policy development in science education, as

the language management and language ideology in the Framework begins to be

instantiated as language practices. Published in 2012, The Framework served as a

synthesis of many years or research within science education, reflecting ideologies about

science language that were enacted in some educational settings already, but will be new

to others. The Framework has driven the development of new standards in science for

kindergarten through twelfth grade. Currently over one-third of U.S. public school

students attend a school where Framework-driven standards are policy, and many more

are expected to adopt them in the next decade as states' current assessments are phased

out. With such far-reaching policy developed from the Framework, it is critical to

understand the ideologies this document contains and consider their ramifications for

culturally and linguistically diverse students in order to provide the learning opportunities

to which they are entitled. To that end, I ask the following questions:

• What does the Framework recommend for language practice in the way of

language ideologies and language management?


• What specific provisions does the Framework make for groups that do not speak

English? What are the implications of key assumptions behind these provisions?

• What language ideologies are not addressed in the Framework? What do these

"unspoken" ideologies imply?

Methods

Context The document under analysis, The Framework for K-12 Science Education, was

produced as a collaboration of 19 researchers in science and science education and it was

written as a consensus statement of the National Research Council on science education

in kindergarten through twelfth grade. After extensive collaboration to draft an initial

version, the National Research Council posted the document online for public review in

summer 2012, and received over 2,000 individual comments and reached another 400

people by way of focus groups. Despite this public review, some have criticized the

length of the review window and the demographics of the commenters and committee

members (Rodriguez, 2015). Although the pool of contributors could have been more

broadly inclusive, the Framework nonetheless represents a plurality of voices that

represent a breadth of research in science, human learning, and science education. At its

core, this document did not hold language management or the specification of language

ideology as a central intent.

What matters most for language-minoritized students, however, is not the

document’s design, but it’s influence on classroom practice. The Framework has already

served as the foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States,

2013), and together these documents propose large-scale changes to science and

engineering pedagogy. Thirteen states have adopted the NGSS, and several independent


districts have followed suit. Already, professional development efforts have been

mobilized in major school districts in order to implement the vision of the Framework.

As a document that drives policy and practice, the Framework is a powerful contributor

to the learning opportunities of US youth, and it is critical that language and science

educators come to understand what it means for language-minoritized students.

Data The Framework for K-12 Science Education was chosen for this ethnographic

content analysis (Merriam, 1998, p.123) because it is the final statement of a large

committee of scientists and science education researchers and practitioners. Ethnographic

content analysis was chosen because it can “document and understand the

communication of meaning, as well as to verify theoretical relationships.” In this case, I

am seeking to understand how the Framework Committee communicated its meaning

about the goals associated with science education. The success and rigor of ethnographic

content analysis depends on the central decisions of the researcher while working with

the content and theories, my positionality is central to this analysis.

I spent my career as a teacher of English to non-native speakers with particular

attention to supporting teachers in science classrooms. I have been working within

science classrooms for the past eight years, in addition to teaching courses in English and

language development. As such, I have a carefully tuned eye for language and policies

that might be both supportive and detrimental to the learning of language-minoritized

students. I brought this positionality to my work and kept a reflective journal during

analysis to write about what I was seeing and whether my point of view was sufficient


(Kleinsasser, 2013). In this way, I aimed to improve both my systematic process and

rigor.

First, I downloaded the entire Framework for K-12 Science Education from

NAP.edu and used Atlas.ti software and hand coding to apply both conceptually and

emergently derived codes. I used codes from linguistics and scientific literature,

including attributes of language from functional linguistics analyses of scientific texts. I

targeted sections of the Framework that contained the most novel assertions – namely

chapters the sections on equity and scientific practices. These sections have been much-

discussed as they relate to promoting equity for non-dominant youth (e.g., Lee, Miller, &

Januszyk, 2015), and as I coded these sections, I added emergent codes related to what

the Framework seemed to be prioritizing, namely specificity in language and consistency

with canonical scientific principles. These included codes to highlight specific

vocabulary and logicodeductive reasoning, two traditionally-accepted discourse norms in

science. I used search terms with Boolean extensions related to English language policy

(such as "Engl*," "English," "language," "ELL") in order to enhance the rigor of my

reading and reduce human error. After thoroughly reading and coding sections on equity

and science practices, I coded the three chapters on disciplinary core ideas and the

chapter on crosscutting concepts, noting that many of the language-related codes were

not applicable to large sections of text. For sections like this, I devoted a code to noting

the absence of language policy: "language ideology omitted."

Analysis

The analysis for this study is focused across four sections. Because different

individuals were involved in drafting different sections of the text, this analysis treats


each section of the book separately, addressing 1) the Framework overall, 2) the science

and engineering practices, 3) the cross-cutting concepts, 4) the disciplinary core ideas, 5)

the Equity chapter, and 6) provisions for non-native speakers of English that are directly

stated throughout the text.

Language Ideologies in The Framework for K-12 Science Education

Traditional science activity suggests what rules guide "good" science writing;

long, Latinate descriptors and extended appositives and nominalization in descriptive

prose are two examples (Fang, 2005). National policy documents such as the Framework

for K-12 Science Education have great potential to move practice away from such

historical language doctrines that can be limiting for language-minoritized students.

Indeed, much is done in the Framework to account for these historical ways of talking,

reading, and writing in science. To make the case for expanded views of scientific

language, the Framework incorporates research from science studies about what actual

practicing scientists do with language (e.g., Latour & Woolgar, 1986), as well as what

opportunities might be provided for non-native English speaking groups to engage in

science. This section describes the Framework's vision for scientific practices and how it

relates to language learning and policy.

Specifying "Academic Language" in the Practices dimension.

One important aspect of science education policy is clearly setting the goals for

scientific engagement. What kinds of language will students be expected to produce, both

during instruction and on assessments? The determination of acceptable registers and

codes of language can be determined in large part by foundational documents such as the


Framework. In this section I will describe what kinds of language are prioritized by the

Framework.

Overall, the Framework makes no explicit argument for establishing a set "code"

for school science class, in the Practices dimension or elsewhere. That is, the document

does not declare English or certain types of English as an "official" language of science

in schools nor does it take a position on the specific types of the registers that students

must employ to meet standards for scientific practice. Requiring a certain code of

language in science classes nationally would be restrictive of students' language,

especially for language-minority students.

However, because the science practices in the Framework require (and are

embedded within) language practices, the Framework's practices are not code-free. Thus

it is important to carefully interpret what kinds of language are expected of students by

the experts who wrote and approved the document. That is, what are the language

management guidelines laid out in the Framework? I will address how

linguistic/scientific practices broaden what "counts" as scientific language and how this

language management approach can benefit English learners and other language-

minoritized students. Then I will point to parts of the practices that narrow what is

acceptable in science and interpret their implications for linguistically diverse students.

As a whole, the Framework lays out new expectations for science discourse,

especially by considering science practice as a complete dimension. Historically, science

education has valued a narrower version of practice, especially deductive reasoning

through a process of experimental design (NRC, 2012, p. 78) and reporting. Under this

premise, students who explained the world through only their experiences of phenomena


were not considered to be "engaging in science," often leading to their exclusion from

science practice altogether. This traditional view has particularly weighty repercussions

for nondominant students whose everyday scientific understandings may not arise

through experimental logic, "fair tests," or controlled variables. Further, the “accepted”

written genre of science – the traditional lab report – is not likely to be a common

practice for language-minoritized students, especially as they move across different kinds

of literacies in their daily lives (e.g., Brown, 2006). Thus the language forms and

inscriptions of experimental design of the past limited language-minoritized students to

express their reasoning.

In the Framework, the vision for science practice has widened, and its language

policy has widened with it. The scientific method is acknowledged as one way to seek

knowledge, but a central focus of the Framework is to bring to the forefront (and thereby

legitimate) other linguistic practices involved with scientific inquiry than lab procedures

or reports. These disciplinary activities are delineated as one set of practices that

scientists engage in as they conduct their work (p.49). These practices are included in

Figure 1, including generating explanations, developing argumentation from evidence,

communicating ideas in reading and writing, and analyzing and interpreting data. They

validate a multiplicity of rhetorical purposes within scientific language. Conceptualizing

a broader set of linguistic practices in this way makes science class a more linguistically

inclusive space, since multiple purposes of language are valued as "practicing science."

This broader interpretation of science rhetoric, as the Framework makes clear, is an

important step in legitimizing different ways young people make sense of the world.


SciencePracticesintheFrameworkforK-12ScienceEducation1.Askingquestions(forscience)anddefiningproblems(forengineering)2.Developingandusingmodels3.Planningandcarryingoutinvestigations4.Analyzingandinterpretingdata5.Usingmathematicsandcomputationalthinking6.Constructingexplanations(forscience)anddesigningsolutions(forengineering)7.Engaginginargumentfromevidence8.Obtaining,evaluating,andcommunicatinginformation

Figure1.SciencePracticesintheFramework


Yet practices are not a cure-all for previously narrow views of science. Although

language is framed as a useful tool for sensemaking throughout, not all language "counts"

as having achieved the goals of the three-dimensional science education the Framework

proposes. I will now turn attention to specific places in the practices dimension that

narrow the kinds of language that are considered "scientific." These are addressed in turn

below.

Practice 8: Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

Although conceptualizing science as a set of practices effects a broader

understanding of the scientific enterprise for students, there are certain language ideology

and management implications embedded within them. First, I look at practice eight,

"obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.” The document authors state

that students will have to learn "technical terms but also more general academic

language, such as 'analyze' or 'correlation,' which are not part of everyday vocabulary and

thus need specific elaboration if they are to make sense of scientific text" (p.76). The idea

of learning "technical" and "general academic terms" is a statement of the operating

language ideology in the Framework's practices, an ideology in which students must

learn the English language of science, with a distinct privileging of Latinate words like

"correlation." This is a very clear statement of language management: students will have

to learn these words in order to have success in their vision of science. This view allows

no alternatives such as learning the bilingual interpretation or an everyday language

version of this language. This has obvious implications for language-minoritized students

who may not hear complex Latinate vocabulary in other settings across their lives,

making it more difficult for them to participate in the scientific practices associated with


obtaining, communicating, and evaluating information. Teachers and school leaders

should implement strategies for supporting language-minoritized students to engage

critically with the privileged language of science. For example, teachers can ensure that

bilingual dictionaries are on hand for students to look up complicated terminology in

their first language, or to take notes on definitions and concepts in the codes and

languages that make the most sense to them.

Practice1:Askingquestionsanddefiningproblems Practice 1: Asking questions and defining problems also contains overt statements

about its operating language ideology. The authors state that questions should be "well-

defined" (p.54), highlighting the necessity of specificity in language. This precision and

definition is likely to be achieved through attaining a very specialized vocabulary in

science, and thus I interpret the need for "well-defined-ness" as a statement of an

ideology in which specificity is preferred over vagueness. Further, the practice of asking

questions also states what "counts" as a scientific question, defining that students will be

able to "Distinguish a scientific question (e.g., Why do helium balloons rise?) from a

nonscientific question (Which of these colored balloons is the prettiest?)" (p.55). This is

representative of an ideology that prefers privileging of broadly generalizable principles

as the basis for asking questions. Further, the Framework's example also indicates that a

causal investigative question is ideal, preferred over questions that are merely descriptive

or "subjective," such as those about "prettiness." Finally, the criteria for formulating

questions seems to take a hard line on what is permissible to consider as the basis for a


scientific question: observable, measurable, and highly-reliable data, such as a balloon's

rising, but not a more subjective measurement of its characteristics such as "prettiness."

The narrowed definition of what "counts" as a scientific question will require

careful instruction to preserve learning opportunities for language-minoritized students.

Constructing scientific questions requires not just the grammatical expertise to form a

question with syntax, but the conceptual understanding of what makes a question

"answerable" through evidentiary reasoning. These nuanced differences between

scientific questions and everyday questions will need to be directly taught to ELLs, and a

critical lens would be helpful to push their thinking further. Students can discuss why

these kinds of questions are preferred by the scientific community, and they should be

able to consider how to capture data in all its forms to answer these questions.

Practice3:PlanandConductInvestigations

This preference for the "scientific" and generalizable is echoed in practice 3: Plan

and Conduct Investigations: "Older students should be asked to develop a hypothesis that

predicts a particular and stable outcome and to explain their reasoning and justify their

choice" (p.61). Thus questioning and interrogating how the world operates according to

"laws" are preferred practice, and the language ideology surrounding this practice is one

of specificity rooted in observed evidence. However, this ideology presents a great

challenge for language-minoritized students. Students will not necessarily share the same

values in scientific investigation as the Framework, and so educators will need to help

students make sense of how their everyday reasoning is similar to and different than the

language expectations set forth in the Framework.


Practice6:ConstructingExplanationsandDesigningSolutions In Practice 6: Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions, the language

ideologies are explicit: the preferred rhetorical devices for explanation in science are

theories and hypotheses that are rooted in science principles (p.67). These can serve to

predict, make inferences, or simply to explain what has happened in an experiment. One

criteria for a good explanation is that explanations be rooted in "accepted theory" (p.69).

The idea of "accepted theory" connotes the historical privilege enjoyed by Western

science in the academy. Another criteria for a successful explanation, according to the

Framework, is consistency. This, again, is another statement of ideology, wherein

students who give inconsistent explanations (e.g., ones that don't explain all the evidence

or that don't easily generalize) are not regarded as doing science well. As with the

previously described practices, this will also be challenging for language-minoritized

students because "accepted theories" can differ dramatically from culture to culture.

Educators will have to help students make sense of what "counts" as "acceptable" in

science class and across other dimensions of their lives.

Summary:ArepracticesexpansiveforEnglishlearners? Taken together, the practices dimension of the Framework expands the types of

rhetorical purposes that count as science, but the set of eight scientific practices overall

privilege many of the characteristics of canonical science: the specificity lent by Latinate-

root vocabulary, consistency, ties to "accepted theory," and the generalizability of

conclusions. It remains to be seen whether or not these practices and their criteria for

success serve to include or marginalize students who are unaccustomed to these language

characteristics.


Language in the cross-cutting concepts

The crosscutting concepts, as indicated by the Framework, are a set of principles

that underlie almost all scientific thought. For example, “Patterns” are a fundamental

point of analysis in science, and patterns are relied upon to explain, predict, and observe

phenomenon in the world. The Framework envisions crosscutting concepts as deeply-

held principles that students develop over time. In this way, the cross-cutting concepts do

not explicitly take a position on how language should be used in science, nor how

classroom participants should engage in developing their thinking about cross-cutting

concepts.

I argue that the very absence of a statement on how language mediates students’

thinking about patterns, causal relationships, etc., is in itself an example of a language

ideology. The Framework writers, in leaving out the centrality of language in the

crosscutting concepts, suggest that conceptual development does not require linguistic

mediation, that concepts are language-less.

This assumption has implications for teaching and learning; in particular it places

the onus on policymakers, curriculum designers, and teachers to design instruction that

allows students adequate opportunities to use all their available tools to make sense of the

crosscutting concepts. The majority of instruction will rely on language of some sort, and

future studies could focus on how teachers instantiate language practices in science when

framing documents do not set explicit guidelines.

Language ideologies and language management in the disciplinary core ideas.

The largest section of the Framework is devoted to three chapters on conceptual

ideas that all students must master in the physical, earth, and life sciences. These chapters


contain broadly specified statements of science content that students must master at each

grade band level in each of the three disciplines. These are called the "disciplinary core

ideas" of science education. This section of the paper analyzes the language ideologies

and management expectations set forth by the disciplinary core ideas.

First, in the chapters on the disciplinary core ideas, "academic" vocabulary

acquisition is positioned as the telos of science education. In each section, the basic

concepts of science are laid out in prose for teachers to interpret and relate to students

through learning activities. Here is one example from the Physical Sciences:

By the end of grade 12. Chemical processes, their rates, and whether or not

energy is stored or released can be understood in terms of the collisions of

molecules and the rearrangements of atoms into new molecules, with consequent

changes in total binding energy (i.e., the sum of all bond energies in the set of

molecules) that are matched by changes in kinetic energy. In many situations, a

dynamic and condition-dependent balance between a reaction and the reverse

reaction determines the numbers of all types of molecules present. (p.111).

The disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), as written, would be nearly unintelligible to

most students due to the complicated vocabulary, dense structure of sentences, and

abstract nature of the content. The Framework does not suggest that students read and

learn these statements verbatim. Rather, educators will need to do the work of aligning

instruction to meet the complex statements in each DCI. These language structures,

especially when so densely constructed, can make it difficult for teachers to tease apart

content for individual lessons or sequences, and thus making science challenging for


nondominant students or students who are learning English (e.g., Schleppegrell, 2004),

especially if these statements are not carefully and purposefully deconstructed into

intelligible goals for learning.

The language of science is particularly challenging for the physical sciences' DCIs

related to atomic chemistry and large-scale physics, since phenomena at those levels is

almost impossible to directly observe and make relevant to student lives. Language and

conceptual models are often the only modes for communicating such abstract phenomena,

and the language used is highly specific and likely to pose a challenge to students who do

not regularly communicate in this register. The language management policies related to

the transmission of science content as specified in the Framework (distinct from science

practices in Figure 1) thus prevents people without highly specialized discourses from

fully participating beyond 8th grade.

As written, the DCIs have implications for equity for students. The closely

packaged, deeply causal syntax of each DCI can be very difficult to interpret with

everyday language. Educators will have to carefully consider what aspects of instruction

support each DCI, and which do not contribute to the complex and specific meanings

brought forth by each DCI. Also, this section of the Framework has implications for

educators who may not understand the abstract language required to interpret and relate

the concepts they represent to students.

Academic Language and Equity

The ideology of academic vocabulary becomes most apparent in the equity

chapter (pp. 277-296), where the argument is strongly in favor of expanded opportunities

to learn science for nondominant groups, including racial minorities, students of low


socioeconomic status, and women. The authors cite Hart and Risley (1995) to argue that

students come to science class with myriad life experiences, but are at a disadvantage

because they have "smaller academic vocabularies" (p.280). They also argue that "for

students with limited language skills, the absence of opportunities to engage in science

learning deprives them of a rich opportunity for language development that goes beyond

basic vocabulary" (p.283).

The language ideology of this section in the Framework is that students from

nondominant groups (this would include language-minoritized groups) deserve a fair

chance to learn science in U.S. schools, and language has a strong role to play in

brokering learning. This is an important point for science educators and policy-makers in

K-12 education, since language learners benefit from science learning environments that

are well-designed. These environments attend to creating opportunities for multiple kinds

of language (e.g., Rosebery, Ogonowski, DiSchino, & Warren, 2010) and allow students

to consider science through their everyday language before applying more “scientific”

(privileged) language. In this regard, the equity chapter significantly broadens what

"counts" as scientific language. If this broadened vision becomes classroom language

practice, then English learners stand to benefit; their everyday registers and language

codes will be legitimated as important science learning.

However, the “Equity” chapter makes some restrictive ideological moves. Within

this section of the Framework, the reader can infer that the "vocabulary" to be learned is

an English one. Further, students with "limited" and "basic" language skills are framed in

a deficit manner based strictly on their developing English skills, and not in terms of the

repertoires of language practice they bring to science classroom. The quotation above


states that "smaller academic vocabularies" restrict students' skill in science, when the

idea of "academic" language itself is not well-defined in the Framework. As an ideology

and language management goal, a preference for academic language goes uninterrogated

in the Framework. Finally, the Framework suggests that opportunities to learn science

can result in rich English language learning for these students, setting English learning as

the goal of science for students who come from non-English backgrounds. Together,

these assertions combine to place English proficiency as a goal of science teaching.

Provisions for Non-native English Speakers and their Implications

In addition to setting language management policy, the Framework directly

addresses instruction that supports students for whom English is not a native language.

Largely, these responses are assimilationist in nature, with dialogue centered around

helping non-native English speakers acquire English. For example, Lee, Lewis,

Adamson, Maerten-Rivera, and Secada (2007) are cited as an exemplar study of

strategies employed by teachers to help their non-native English speaking students

acquire English more quickly (p.74), placing emphasis on a classroom where English is

most effectively taught and with little attention to how or whether home languages are

valued or native cultural maintenance is actually a concern. In choosing to marshal this

kind of evidence, the Framework suggests that assimilation and language acquisition

should be the over-arching goals of a science education in the US. This kind of

conclusion is problematic; it is not a settled issue that English acquisition should be the

goal of all US educational systems. Yet, when documents with the policy-setting reach of

the Framework contain ideologies of assimilation, assimilation becomes further codified

into the reality of schools.


Further, discourse-rich classrooms are framed as potentially challenging for

English learner students, but also as places for "rich language learning.” This statement

implies, again, an overarching telos that students should learn English. This is to be

expected as it fits with larger monolingual language policy in the U.S., but given the

overwhelming benefits to multilingualism, national policy documents could exercise their

influence in conveying the value of multilingualism.

Finally, the Framework takes a bold step to prescribe language management

strategy on one issue: assessment. The Framework cites Bunch, Shaw, and Geaney

(2010) to explain that tests should be free of "linguistic barriers, gender-biased examples,

and other forms of representation that preclude some students' useful participation"

(p.261). Yet this is the only qualification that is made in regard to language and

implementation of assessments. When considering the basic considerations of validity

(and some would argue, ethics) within large-scale assessment, more articulation of the

required steps to adequately support non-native English speakers is needed.

What's missing?

Although the Framework directly addresses many issues related to language and

learning, a few topics are noticeably absent from the Framework, especially regarding

specifications for language learning. The first of these is an articulation of what

characteristics are shared by culturally and linguistically diverse students beyond that of

lacking English. Continued framing of "English language learners" fails to highlight the

richness that culturally and linguistically diverse students bring to science class and the

ways this richness can be leveraged in the practices. Additionally, it fails to recognize the

systems of power that continue to disempower culturally and linguistically diverse


students and families. Across the Framework, the only thing culturally and linguistically

diverse students seem to share is their need to learn English.

The second topic that is missing is noted by the Framework: a notion of a

developmental trajectory of language use in science (p.49). A lack of research on how

students arrive at proficiency in the three dimensions of science - language included - has

prevented the authors from detailing what happens in between "ELL-status" students and

students proficient in scientific English. The dearth of knowledge for how students

develop, code-switch, or translanguage from "everyday" to "scientific" language has

resulted in a false dichotomy of the two language registers, and the Framework is helpful

in explaining this absence of research for the practitioner communities that will read it.

Implications: An ideology of hope.

As a whole, the Framework takes large steps to confront practices that alienate

students from the language of science. Throughout, the Framework recommends that

teachers learn to privilege students’ ideas and native ways of thinking. The Framework as

a whole the document broadens "what counts" in science discourse, and overall offers a

fairly inclusive overt ideology. The authors specify that science (and its language) should

be accessible for everyone, including those who do not choose to major in them in

college (p.1), and they provide - as a crucial dimension of instruction - diverse rhetorical

forms of language practice that go beyond the logicodeductive writing and reasoning that

has been privileged historically. Students now can "be scientists" as they engage in

explanation (including using their own experiences to narrate a phenomenon) (p.67),

build arguments about topics of interest (p.71), and obtain, evaluate, and communicate

information from diverse sources (p.74). The linguistic ideology underpinning under


these language-based practices is one that defies the "one way" to engage in science

language that has historically been to write a scientific conclusion and answer test

questions on scientific vocabulary. When these science/language practices are combined

with the experience-rich nature of scientific inquiry specified by the Framework,

disciplinary learning can be very rich for all students, indeed.

At the same time, the Framework continues to specify that the language used in

science classrooms should contain highly-specific vocabulary, broadly-written claims

that are highly generalizable, and a high degree of consistency with the scientific

principles that have been established by canonical science. In this way, the Framework

narrows language policy to exclude as “acceptable” types of writing that many children

and young scholars favor, without laying forth how students might be apprenticed into

scientific language practices. The next section lays out, with a more critical agenda, the

research and pedagogical designs that may help foster deep understanding of scientific

language while offering more supportive language management practices for students’

everyday languages.

Directions for Future Research and Practice

This study was conducted in the early part of 2015, as states were just beginning

to implement large-scale reform to align with the Framework and Next Generation

Science Standards. Future research should investigate how the ideologies of the

Framework make their way into language practice in schools and science classrooms,

and, especially, the ways that teachers can rupture potentially exclusionary ideologies

with critical language practices. Language ideologies are deeply entrenched in classroom


life, and often date to the classroom structures and talk of the 1800s (Cazden, 2001).

These ideologies should be questioned, as they often serve to reify unjust social

stratification. In science class, this might mean interrupting a student while narrating their

experience with telescopes to continue lecturing on microscopes, or asking a student to

rewrite a conclusion statement to "include evidence" - specifically observed experimental

evidence - within a science kit. These are examples of regular language practice in

science class, and I argue that these kinds of interactions result from a language ideology

that privileges observed, experimental evidence presented in a logicodeductive way.

Teachers, especially those who teach English language learners under school and

state policies, have been found to create and enact policy in regard to the needs of their

students (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). The following list is a small suggestion of ways

that classroom educators/policymakers might teach to the goals outlined in the

Framework, but with a critical sociolinguistic lens that questions and counters hegemonic

language practices that disadvantage students who don't speak a dominant style of

English.

• Make the scientific enterprise transparent. Tell students how the science

principles you teach were generated, and that they often were accompanied by

years of political struggle.

• When you teach students to be "specific" or "precise" with their language, explain

who thinks that specific, Latinate language is preferred in science.

• Practice translanguaging by "translating" science language to everyday language

(Delpit, 2006; Lemke, 1990) to build a poster for students' home communities on

a scientific topic related to health, conservation, or other socioscientific issue.


• Chained reasoning and deductive logic are historically hegemonic language

practices in Western science. Practice "chaining" reasoning as a whole-class

activity and interrogate its rhetoric: what does "chaining" your logic get you?

How are syllogisms helpful? When are they inappropriate? How else could you

write logically?

• Argument and explanation in the classroom often serve to answer a known

question. Subvert this kind of "cookbook" science by asking students what they

want to know about, and guide them in inquiry so that their language has real

meaning to them.

• Mix genres to subvert linguistic norms. Mathematics are an important part of

science, but are often framed as "anti-language." Subvert the stance of language-

free numbers by writing poetry in mathematics class to explain a social situation.

• Encourage students to use all of their linguistic resources to make sense of science

and language. If you feel something must be written in "school English" with

certain kinds of conventions and organization, ask yourself why and question that

reasoning with students.

• Could science exist without language? Have a discussion with your students using

the following quote: "Biology is not plants and animals. It is language about

plants and animals…Astronomy is not planets and stars, it is a way of talking

about planets and stars." (Postman, 1979, p. 165)


References Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical Language Awareness in the United States: Revisiting Issues

and Revising Pedagogies in a Resegregated Society. Educational Researcher, 34(7),

24–31. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034007024

Alim, H. S. (2007). Critical Hip-Hop Language Pedagogies: Combat, Consciousness, and

the Cultural Politics of Communication. Journal of Language, Identity & Education,

6(2), 161–176. http://doi.org/10.1080/15348450701341378

Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the

navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.

http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20392

Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2013). Desettling expectations in

science education. Human Development, 55(5-6), 302–318.

http://doi.org/10.1159/000345322

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin

Press.

Bell, P., Tzou, C., Bricker, L. A., & Baines, A. D. (2012). Learning in diversities of

structures of social practice: Accounting for how, when, why, and where people

learn science. Human Development, 55(5-6), 269–284. Retrieved from

files/511/Bell-Tzou-Bricker-Baines_2012_Learning in Diversities.PDF

Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2014). “What comes to mind when you think of science? The

perfumery!”: Documenting science-related cultural learning pathways across

contexts and timescales: DOCUMENTING CULTURAL LEARNING


PATHWAYS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 260–285.

http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21134

Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff”: Language,

identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 43(1), 96–126. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20096

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd

ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Delpit, L. D. C. N.-L. . . D. 2006. (2006). Other people’s children: cultural conflict in the

classroom. New York: New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton.

Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science

Education, 89(2), 335–347. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050

Gee, J. (2004). Language in the Science Classroom: Academic Social Languages as the

Heart of School-Based Literacy. In R. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing Borders in Literacy

and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice (pp. 13–32). NSTA

Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Writing science: literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh

series in composition, literacy, and culture. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh

Press.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of

Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Kleinsasser, A. M. (2013). Researchers, Reflexivity, and Good Data: Writing to Unlearn.


Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 155–162. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477547

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts

(2nd ed.). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Lee, O., Miller, E., & Januszyk, R. (2015). NGSS for All Students. NSTA Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Language and

educational processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp. Retrieved from

files/416/Cornelius and Herrenkohl 2004--Power in the Classroom CC.pdf

Lo Bianco, J. (2010). Language Policy and Planning. In Sociolinguistics and Language

Education. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

McGroarty, M. (2010). Language and ideologies. In N. Hornberger (Ed.),

Sociolinguistics and Language Education (Google eBook) (pp. 3–37). Multilingual

Matters. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2BKzbHnFTfEC&pgis=1

McKay, S. L., & Hornberger, N. H. (2010). Sociolinguistics and language education. (N.

H. Hornberger & S. McKay, Eds.). Bristol ; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing

explanations in science: the claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and

writing. Boston: Pearson.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Studey Applications in Education.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,

Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C: The National Academies

Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.

Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from

http://www.nextgenscience.org/

Postman, N. (1979). Teaching as a conserving activity. New York: Delacorte Press.

Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning

and Policy and the ELT Professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401.

http://doi.org/10.2307/3587691

Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). What about a dimension of engagement, equity, and diversity

practices? A critique of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 52(7), 1031–1051. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21232

Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). “The Coat Traps

All Your Body Heat”: Heterogeneity as Fundamental to Learning. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357. http://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.491752

Rouse, J. (1999). Understanding scientific practices. Cultural Studies of Science as a

Philosophical Programm. In: M. Biagioli (eds.). The Science Studies Reader. New

York: Routledge, 442–456. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=i4iS5_AtZUkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA442

&dq=%22Nagel+(1986)+has+called+the+view+from+nowhere.%22%22+%22tradit

ion+in%22+%22What+cultural+studies+can+show+is+that+in+posing%22+%22Th


e+more+intimate+one%27s+engagement+with+power

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics

perspective. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Spolsky, B. (2003). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615245

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Language Policy, 5(1989), 2152–2164.

http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615245

Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University

Press.

Tzou, C., & Bell, P. (2012). The role of borders in environmental education: Positioning,

power and marginality. Ethnography and Education, 7(2), 265–282.


Appendix A: Coding Scheme

Code Origin Example Vocab/word choice

(Fang, 2005)

topics related to the natural and designed worlds—interests that provide a foundation for learning science [12]. Furthermore, for students with limited language skills, the absence of opportunities to engage in science learning deprives them of a rich opportunity for language development that goes beyond basic vocabulary.

English learners – assimilationist

(H. S. Alim, 2005)

possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology.

Broadened language ideology

(Delpit, 2006)

possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on related issues; are careful consumers of scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives; are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology.

More than English counts

(McGroarty, 2010; Spolsky, 2003)

When defining performance expectations in standards documents to be used for formative and high-stakes assessment, standards developers should highlight how students can demonstrate competence through multiple means of expression and in multiple contexts.

Privileging Authentic language


By the end of the 12th grade, students should have gained sufficient knowledge of the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, to be critical consumers of scientific information related to their everyday lives, and to continue to learn about science throughout their lives.

Privileging diverse rhetorics


Others have identified connections between children’s culturally based storytelling and their engagement in argumentation and science inquiry, and some of these researchers have also documented pedagogical means of using such connections to support students’ science learning and promote educational equity [34].

Privileging language as practice

(Gee, 2004) The dominant activities in this sphere are argumentation and critique, which often lead to further experiments and observations or to changes in proposed models, explanations, or designs. Scientists and engineers use evidence-based argumentation to make the case for their ideas, whether involving new theories or designs, novel ways of collecting data, or interpretations of evidence.

Public speaking

emergent Recognize the major features of scientific and engineering writing and speaking and be able to produce written and illustrated text or


oral presentations that communicate their own ideas and accomplishments.

Rhetoric (Bazerman, 1988)

As in all inquiry-based approaches to science teaching, our expectation is that students will themselves engage in the practices and not merely learn about them secondhand. Students cannot comprehend scientific practices, nor fully appreciate the nature of scientific knowledge itself, without directly experiencing those practices for themselves.

Logicodeductive writing

(Toulmin, 1964)

By the end of the 12th grade, students should have gained sufficient knowledge of the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, to be critical consumers of scientific information related to their everyday lives, and to continue to learn about science throughout their lives.

Text structure

(Halliday, 1993; McNeill & Krajcik, 2012)

In high school, these practices should be further developed by providing students with more complex texts and a wider range of text materials, such as technical reports or scientific literature on the Internet. Moreover, students need opportunities to read and discuss general media reports with a critical eye and to read appropriate samples of adapted primary literature [40] to begin seeing how science is communicated by science practitioners.

Writing (Halliday, 1993)

Too often, standards are long lists of detailed and disconnected facts, reinforcing the criticism that science curricula in the United States tend to be “a mile wide and an inch deep” [1]. Not only is such an approach alienating to young people, but it can also leave them with just fragments of knowledge and little sense of the creative achievements of science, its inherent logic and consistency, and its universality.

Purpose of science language

(Lemke, 1990)

Their arguments can be based on deductions from premises, on inductive generalizations of existing patterns, or on inferences about the best possible explanation.

Equity without language

Emergent Recognize the major features of scientific and engineering writing and speaking and be able to produce written and illustrated text or oral presentations that communicate their own ideas and accomplishments.

CCSS-ELA influence

Emergent Students should be able to interpret meaning from text, to produce text in which written language and diagrams are used to express scientific ideas, and to engage in extended discussion about those ideas.

High-stakes testing

Emergent engage with the major public policy issues of today

Science ideology: broadening participation

(Bell, Tzou, Bricker, & Baines, 2012; Bricker &

For students who need to take more time to express their understanding (e.g., if they learned English as their second language), opportunities to edit or to display their knowledge in less language-embedded tasks would help level the playing field. It is worth noting that current efforts in assessment for mathematics


Bell, 2014; Tzou & Bell, 2012)

and language arts are moving in this direction by including embedded performance assessments in curricula and aggregating them with summative assessments to create broader assessments of student learning [65]

Privileging Western Science

(Bang & Medin, 2010; Bang, Warren, Rosebery, & Medin, 2013)

In high school, these practices should be further developed by providing students with more complex texts and a wider range of text materials, such as technical reports or scientific literature on the Internet. Moreover, students need opportunities to read and discuss general media reports with a critical eye and to read appropriate samples of adapted primary literature [40] to begin seeing how science is communicated by science practitioners.

Purpose of science

(Rouse, 1999)

When defining performance expectations in standards documents to be used for formative and high-stakes assessment, standards developers should highlight how students can demonstrate competence through multiple means of expression and in multiple contexts.

Language Ideology Omitted

(McGroarty, 2010)

Equity in science education requires that all students are provided with equitable opportunities to learn science and become engaged in science and engineering practices; with access to quality space, equipment, and teachers to support and motivate that learning and engagement; and adequate time spent on science.

Multimodality

emergent In science, knowledge, based on evidence from many investigations, is integrated into highly developed and well-tested theories that can explain bodies of data and predict outcomes of further investigations. Although the practices used to develop scientific theories (as well as the form that those theories take) differ from one domain of science to another, all sciences share certain common features at the core of their inquiry-based and problem-solving approaches.