Invididuo:

STEM disciplines carry a series of vocabulary that can be difficult for students, including native English-speaking students, to understand (Lee, Quinn & Valdés, 2013; Lo, 2014).

Cummins (1984) distinguishes two types of English proficiencies. The first is basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), or conversational L2 proficiency where the ELL student can communicate fluently with others who speak English. BICS usually develops quickly, within the first few years of second language immersion. The second type of English proficiency is

cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), which considers fluency from the ability to engage in the abstract/decontextualized written and spoken form in academic contexts. The language used for academic purposes is more challenging to acquire and is not regularly used in "playground" conversation environments (Cummins, 2008; Gibbons, 1991). CALP takes

anywhere from five to seven years to develop. As Hoffman and Zollman (2016) stress:

Academic language is much more cognitively demanding and often appears in situations without many context cues (such as a non-illustrated reading passage or a lecture-style lesson without visuals or manipulatives). This more difficult type of English encompasses general academic language that students are unlikely to hear in social situations (phrases like "select the most likely response from the following options" or "multiply by the conjugate") as well as content-area technical terms (including STEM terminology with multiple meanings; e.g., plane or receptacle). (p. 85)

Like Cummins, other scholars from the field of applied linguistics differentiate academic and conversational language (Biber, 1986; Corson, 1995; Gibbons, 1991; Cummins, 2008) to argue that the acquisition of an additional language is not a linear process (Cummins, 1984; Hoffman

27

& Zollman, 2016). The distinction between the two proficiencies emphasizes that while

individuals may be able to engage in conversational English, they may still need support in their academic language development (Hoffman & Zollman, 2016; Lillywhite, 2011).

When working with students who are learning the English language and STEM content, communication of STEM knowledge and understanding becomes challenging. At the same time, the literature notes that ELLs do still need to acquire academic language proficiency and the skills to be able to interpret language in an abstract context – specifically in the context of STEM terminology (Cummins, 1984; Hoffman & Zollman, 2016). Krashen's theory of SLA (1981) emphasizes that students need "comprehensible input" in low-anxiety environments, in which they are motivated to communicate about a given topic without fear of precise grammar. The literature also suggests that "teachers should not assume that [ELL] students will somehow absorb academic language through mere exposure to it" (Manitoba Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 15). Lee at al. (2008) proposes that hands-on activities carry less of a linguistic burden on ELL students (as cited in Shanahan, Pedretti, DeCoito & Baker, 2011). Nevertheless, ELLs still need scaffolding for their L2 identities to be fostered in the process of learning STEM content

(Gibbons, 2006). The findings of Lewis et al. (2011) suggest that science activities provide ELLs with “structured opportunities for developing English proficiency in the context of authentic communication about science” (p. 157 as cited in Frank, 2011, p. 10). In considering these findings – which parallel CBI in applied linguistics –indicates that ELLs can still develop their abstract STEM academic language by making it contextual through hands-on STEM activities (Gibbons, 2006). After this contextual exposure, ELLs can develop their STEM academic language and infer abstract content more efficiently. Furthermore, as Cummins (1984) emphasizes, BICS and CALP are not an exclusive of one another. Reducing them to such a

28

dichotomy oversimplifies the reality of language acquisition (Cummins, 1984). The ability to engage simultaneously in both BICS and CALP, as fostered in STEM activities, complements the development of proficiency in both linguistic fluencies. Zollman (2012) draws a parallel between the needs of ELLs and STEM literacy and argues that "STEM literacy should not be viewed as a content area but as a shifting didactic means (composed of skills, abilities, factual knowledge, procedures, concepts and metacognitive capacities) to gain further learning (as cited in Hoffman & Zollman, 2016, p. 84). Hoffman and Zollman (2016) provide a comparison of STEM literacy and the needs of ELLs (Table 2).

Table 2

Comparing ELL Language Needs with STEM Literacy Needs.

English language learning needs STEM literacy needs

Multiple opportunities to hear and use both social and academic English

Multiple opportunities to hear and use language to express STEM understandings

Rich contexts to help language comprehension, and the opportunity to engage and contribute to the interactive learning community

Rich contexts to help illustrate STEM concepts, and the opportunity to engage and contribute to the classroom STEM learning community Instructional supports for written and spoken

Language – e.g., intentional student grouping, multiple representations, scaffolding strategies for different tiers of English vocabulary

Appropriate supports for STEM concepts – e.g., hands-on student engagement, multiple representations, scaffolding strategies for STEM-specific

vocabulary Acceptance of “flawed” language for example

non-standard English grammar in earlier stages of language learning

Acceptance of “flawed” language – for example, non-scientific language

Note. This table is reprinted from “What STEM teachers need to know and do for English language learners

(ELLs): Using literacy to learn” by Lisa Hoffman and Allan Zollman (2016) in the Journal of STEM Teacher Education 51(1), p. 84 and is used in this thesis with permission from the authors.

In practice, STEM literacy and the supports needed for ELLs share commonalities. Framing these requirements using theories from applied linguistics, such as CBI and hands-on activities, highlights the potential for outreach programs to support the development of language alongside STEM education.

29