Students' Comprehension of Science Labo

This article was downloaded by: [George Zhou] On: 11 December 2012, At: 16:14 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjs20

The Impact of Differentiated Instructional Materials on English Language Learner (ELL) Students’ Comprehension of Science Laboratory Tasks a

Marian Manavathu & George Zhou

a

a

Faculty of Education, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Version of record first published: 10 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Marian Manavathu & George Zhou (2012): The Impact of Differentiated Instructional Materials on English Language Learner (ELL) Students’ Comprehension of Science Laboratory Tasks, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12:4, 334-349 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.732255

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION, 12(4), 334–349, 2012 C OISE Copyright ISSN: 1492-6156 print / 1942-4051 online DOI: 10.1080/14926156.2012.732255

The Impact of Differentiated Instructional Materials on English Language Learner (ELL) Students’ Comprehension of Science Laboratory Tasks Marian Manavathu and George Zhou

Downloaded by [George Zhou] at 16:14 11 December 2012

Faculty of Education, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Abstract: Through a qualitative research design, this article investigates the impacts of differentiated laboratory instructional materials on English language learners’ (ELLs) laboratory task comprehension. The factors affecting ELLs’ science learning experiences are further explored. Data analysis reveals a greater degree of laboratory task comprehension when utilizing language-modified and visually modified laboratory instructional materials. The findings suggest the further development of linguistically appropriate science course materials. This study also indicates that teachers must consider the sociopsychological influences affecting the individual ELL in order to better facilitate science learning. Résumé: Grâce a` une recherche qualitative, cet article analyse l’impact du matériel pédagogique différencié sur la compréhension des tâches de laboratoire chez les e´ tudiants d’anglais langue e´ trangère (ALE). Les facteurs qui affectent l’apprentissage des sciences chez ces e´ tudiants sont e´ galement analysés. L’analyse des données montre que les e´ tudiants ont une meilleure compréhension des tâches lorsqu’ils utilisent un matériel pédagogique de laboratoire adapté a` leurs besoins linguistiques. Les résultats suggèrent qu’il faut encourager le développement de matériel pédagogique adapté aux besoins des e´ tudiants d’ALE pour les cours de sciences. L’étude indique aussi que les enseignants doivent tenir compte des facteurs socio-psychologiques susceptibles d’influencer les e´ tudiants d’ALE, afin de faciliter leur apprentissage des sciences.

INTRODUCTION Approximately 18% of the Canadian population were born in other countries (Ray, 2005), and 12% of Americans are immigrants (Capps et al., 2005). This mobility has resulted in a large number of students in North American schools with underdeveloped English proficiency. The Ministry of Education of Ontario (2007) defines English language learners (ELLs) as students “whose first language is a language other than English, or is a variety of English that is significantly different from the variety used for instruction in Ontario’s schools and who may require focused educational supports to assist them in attaining proficiency in English” (p. 8). Thus, ELL students in Ontario may be either Canadian born, as in the case of Aboriginal students, or recently arrived Address correspondence to George Zhou, Faculty of Education, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]


IMPACT OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

335

immigrants from countries where English is not the primary language. More than 4% of students in Ontario secondary schools are ELLs (Education Quality and Accountability Office [EQAO], 2011), and this proportion is expected to increase as a result of the large number of immigrants settling in Ontario (Ministry of Education of Ontario, 2007). Numerous studies and government documents have cited an achievement gap between ELLs and fully English-proficient students (Brown, 2005; Brown & Bentley, 2004). The National Assessment of Educational Progress recently reported that a large majority of ELLs in American schools scored below the basic level in almost all subject areas, including math, science, reading, writing, and history (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005). In Ontario provincial EQAO tests, the gap between ELL students and their counterparts is shrinking but remains wide (People for Education, 2010). Approximately 68% of ELLs passed the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test English test compared to an overall pass rate of 83%; 29% of ELLs were at or above the provincial applied math standards compared to 42% of the general student population; 79% of ELLs were at or above the provincial academic math standards compared to 83% of the general student population (EQAO, 2011). Although the EQAO does not offer a standardized science test, an achievement gap in science can be assumed based on these test differences in English and math. The causes of the achievement gap are multidimensional. In the science classroom, this gap is partially attributed to ELLs’ inadequate English proficiency (Brown, 2005). ELLs must not only learn English as a second language but also learn a third language, the language of science (DeLuca, 2010). Not only are these students newly exposed to the conventions of grammar, semantics, and idioms of the composite English language, but they are required to keep up with their native English-speaking peers as they master complex concepts in science (Case, 2002). Additionally, ELLs must learn to speak, read, and write effectively in this new language while being able to differentiate social and academic English (Rice, Pappamihiel, & Lake, 2004; Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002). Therefore, ELLs with underdeveloped English literacy are handicapped in the science classroom. Given the rising ELL population in North America, there exists an urgent need to explore appropriate methods that will aid ELLs with their academic endeavors (Dong, 2002; Hart & Lee, 2003; Huang & Morgan, 2003). The purpose of this study is to determine how differentiated laboratory instructional materials may assist ELLs with science laboratory lessons. Two central research questions are as follows: 1. How does the use of language modified laboratory instructional materials aid ELLs with task comprehension? 2. How does the use of visual diagrams and icon representations on laboratory instructional materials assist ELLs with the task comprehension? In addition, this study examined some of the issues that ELLs face that may influence their attitudes toward the use of such differentiated materials. REVIEW OF LITERATURE According to two recent literature review reports about ELLs in the science classroom (Janzen, 2008; Lee, 2005), four types of issues influence ELLs’ achievement: (a) linguistic issues, referring to the difficulty ELLs have due to their inadequate language ability; (b) sociocultural issues,

336

MANAVATHU AND ZHOU

referring to the incongruence between the cultural experiences ELLs bring to the classroom and the school culture that is structured around Western science; (c) pedagogical issues, referring to the concerns with instructional strategies, curriculum content, and assessment that may hinder ELLs’ learning; and (d) teacher education issues, referring to the overall inadequate teacher training to address ELLs’ needs. This article will focus on a discussion of the linguistic challenges relevant to the ELLs in this study.


Language Challenges for ELLs in Science Learning Language is not only a means of engaging with and constructing science understandings but also an end because it is a record of such engagement and construction. It communicates the inquiries and understandings to other people so that they can evaluate the knowledge claims and take informed actions on science-related problems (Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003). Unfortunately, the development of language proficiency in science can be daunting to students, particularly ELLs. Cummins (1980, 1981) identified two distinct forms of English proficiency: social English and academic English. Academic English employs not only the simple sentence structure and everyday vocabulary that conversational English relies on but also utilizes complex sentence structures and an extensive amount of content-specific vocabulary (DeLuca, 2010). Most recently, Hudson (2009) reviewed the characteristics of scientific language that make it difficult to learn. Referring to Halliday (1996), Hudson noticed that science is often expressed in very specialized language rather than in colloquial terms. It has a large volume of terminologies whose definitions are often interlocking and hierarchical. He also agreed with Wellington and Osborne (2001) that many logical connectives, such as conversely, essentially, moreover, respectively, and hence, are widely used in formulating hypotheses, drawing conclusions, and attributing cause and effect. Hudson (2009) pointed out that in some cases everyday words are used by science in a specialized way. Words like force, energy, and work in physics can “create significant learning problems because students think that they understand them, but not always appreciated the particular specialized scientific meaning, and when its use is appropriate or necessary” (Hudson, 2009, p. 245). In such cases, “everyday meanings can interfere with scientific ones” (Hudson, 2009, p. 245). Further, Hudson (2009) noticed that science does not only use many terminologies but its terms can have different meanings as theories change. For example, mass and space change their meaning from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. The concept of acid and base also changes from Arrhenius theory to Bronsted-Lowry theory. The academic vocabulary used in science classrooms is not only different from everyday language but also from those found in many narrative texts. In narrative texts, many vocabulary words provide visual imagery and can be easily pictured or imagined, even if the characters or events being described are ones that students have never experienced. The description of a knight in shining armor mounted on a white stallion can be visualized. In the science classroom, terms describing warm and cold fronts or high- and low-pressure movements are not easily visualized. The standard red and blue lines on a weather map do not provide realistic imagery of what cold fronts actually are (Westby, Dezale, Fradd, & Lee, 1999). In order to make knowledge claims apply universally, scientists use very ideal and abstractive language, which omits the details and contexts of particular events. Scientific language often uses the past tense and passive voice to avoid transferring personal bias. It is distinctive from social language “in being expository, analytical and impersonal, and making little or no use of metaphoric



337

or figurative language” (Hudson, 2009, p. 249). Such formalization of knowledge claims can make scientific language authoritative and potentially alienating to all science learners. In terms of the format of scientific language, referring to Lemke (1998), Hudson (2009) described that science conveys meaning through a synergistic integration of words, symbols, graphs, diagrams, images, tables, formulas, equations, and so on. Appreciation of how these different forms of representation interact and support each other is a key to effective communication in science but can be a great challenge to all science learners (Ainsworth, 2006). To summarize the difficulty of scientific language, Hudson (2009) wrote, “The sometimes counter-intuitive nature of explanations, the high level of abstraction of scientific knowledge, its divorce from ordinary daily experience, and its presentation via unfamiliar linguistic conventions are among the factors that make science so difficult to learn” (p. 248). Thus, although many newly immigrated students embody basic decoding skills and rapidly develop social or conversational English within 2 or 3 years, they struggle scholastically and may take up to 5 years to develop the appropriate academic English required to communicate proficiently in specific content areas (Brown & Bentley, 2004; Case, 2002; Milton, 2006). Fang (2006) argued that when students enter the intermediate and senior sciences, the working knowledge of social English that most ELLs possess is no longer sufficient. The language demands of students are significant enough that students are no longer learning to read; alternatively they must now read to learn in order to gain accurate content knowledge and develop advanced oral, aural, and written communication strategies. The school science curriculum is grounded in a tremendous amount of content-specific vocabulary (Echeverria, Vogt, & Short, 2007). Science textbooks and other instructional resources are saturated with high-level vocabulary (DeLuca, 2010; Lumpe & Beck, 1996). In an analysis of popular science text, Fang (2006) identified many complex linguistic features, including new technical vocabulary, metaphors, relative pronouns, abstract nouns, lengthy nouns, and interruption constructions. While reading such science text, students are expected to read information, develop a solid understanding of specialized terminology, and draw the correct contextual meanings from the written piece in order to proficiently articulate their understanding in precise written and oral forms (Dong, 2002). Unfortunately, the linguistic barriers that ELLs face complicate their ability to perform various science language functions such as locating relevant information in science texts and accurately interpreting, analyzing, and reporting pertinent information (Amaral, Garrison, & Klentschy, 2002; Carrier, 2005; Stoddart et al., 2002). The challenges that ELLs face in an inquiry-based science classroom is foreseeable, because they are expected to negotiate meaning not only by reading text but also through participating in small-group and whole-class discussions and by producing various artefacts including posters, presentations, laboratory reports, etc. Each artefact is intended to feed into one another as learners construct meaning about the inquiry activity (Hand & Prain, 2006).

Strategies for Accommodating ELLs in Science Classrooms The need for linguistically relevant resources for ELLs in the mainstream classroom is evident, with very few science textbooks incorporating ESL materials (Carrier, 2005; Lee, 2003). Brown and Bentley (2004) found that many teachers based their lessons and homework activities around language-rich paragraphs found in standard science textbooks. The development of differentiated instructional materials for ELLs is especially pertinent during inquiry-based laboratory


338

MANAVATHU AND ZHOU

activities, specifically at the secondary science level. Secondary school ELLs are required to fully participate in inquiry activities, analyze complex data, and effectively communicate their results in accurate laboratory reports. Yet, many ELLs find themselves confused, overwhelmed, and apprehensive about inquiry-based activities. Buck, Mast, Ehlers, and Franklin (2005) observed that ELL students got lost and somewhat panicked when it came to the step of filling out the laboratory sheet, despite their initial engagement in hands-on activities. Many ideas have been proposed to assist ELLs in the science classroom. For example, Chamot and O’Malley (1996) proposed a cognitive academic language learning approach that integrates content-area instruction with language development activities and explicit instruction in learning strategies. They particularly pointed out that teachers could promote ELL vocabulary development by modeling the use of new vocabulary within their own speech. McDonnough and Cho (2009) suggested that teachers could enhance ELL achievement in the science classroom by introducing key vocabulary explicitly, using visual aids to help ELLs understand science concepts, presenting large concepts in smaller chunks, connecting the prior knowledge of ELLs to the new knowledge being taught, using less text-dense instructional materials, and employing various forms of technology. DeLuca (2010) presented six text comprehension strategies used by ELL teachers: metalinguistic awareness development, classification activities, semantic webs, visualization, learning logs, and key points reviews. Educators have developed some concrete strategies to help ELLs with science language difficulty. The utilization of language word walls and word charts is a proven language acquisition technique among ELL instructors. This simple instructional method can be used to reinforce inquiry-based lessons, further explain textbook passages, and provide a platform for complex written discourse (Case, 2002; Fang, 2006). Research also shows that contextually embedded diagrams and visual representations play a critical role in establishing a shared context for constructing meaning of scientific terms (Buck et al., 2005). Visuals can include pictures, diagrams, gestures, dramatizations, models, and physical materials (National Science Teachers Association, 2006). Cuevas, Lee, Hart, and Deaktor (2005) included visual icons on their inquiry framework as part of their ELL instructional materials for inquiry-based curriculum units. The added visual icons were claimed to serve as a point of reference to assist students in their organization of thoughts, task completion, and concept comprehension. In addition, the use of graphic representations on course materials encouraged students to use visuals, illustrations, and diagrams when communicating scientific theories, models, and ideas. Challenging Aspects of Differentiated Instruction Though ELLs need special attention due to the linguistic challenge, the implementation of differentiated instruction faces many barriers. Literature has well documented this issue by examining school teachers. In general, the teachers felt unprepared to accommodate ELLs in their classrooms (Medina-Jerez, Clark, Median, & Ramirez-Marin, 2007) and have not developed strategies to successfully do so (Webster & Hazari, 2009). Even though teachers have received some training, their instructional differentiation in the classroom is limited by the profound undertow to “teaching to the middle” (Holloway, 2000, p. 83). Teachers are reported to need substantial administrative support in this regard (McQuarrie, McRae, & Stack-Cutler, 2008). In addition, Olson, Levis, Van, and Bruna (2009) reported that many teachers feel a myriad of negative emotions toward having ELLs in their classes, most of which stem from “feelings of



339

helplessness and doubts about ELLs’ abilities to catch up with grade level content” (McDonnough & Cho, 2009, p. 35). Differentiated instruction may face resistance from the student side as well, which has been less examined in the literature. Adolescents are at a stage where they tend to connect their selfimage with peer judgment. They may feel uncomfortable when being singled out by receiving special treatment. In a study of the perspectives of high school students with disabilities who attended general education classes with paraprofessional support, most participants positively described their paraprofessionals as a mother, friend, and protector; however, they “expressed powerful messages of disenfranchisement, embarrassment, loneliness, rejection, fear, and stigmatization” (Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005, p. 427). ELL students, as a particular special needs group, may have similar feelings when receiving differentiated instruction. In addition, student embarrassment can be worsened by their parents, who feel the same way when they know that their children are receiving different instruction. Guo (2007) reported that immigrant parents had different perspectives about English-as-second-language programs than teachers and complained that schools keeping their children in this program too long. In its valiant differentiation and detracking efforts, a Virginia high school hoped to assist all students in mastering state standards; however, disgruntled parents managed to reinstate the tracking system (Fahey, 2000). In summary, the literature has sufficiently documented that ELLs’ science learning achievement is directly related to their level of English proficiency. Unfortunately, the nature of scientific language can pose great challenges to their learning in science. Although there is no lack of ideas about accommodating ELLs in the science classroom, solid evidence-based research needs to be strengthened. To fill this gap, the authors modified the regular laboratory instructional materials to ease the linguistic burden for ELLs, examined the impacts of these differentiated materials on ELLs’ understanding of laboratory tasks, and explored ELL students’ attitudes toward the use of such materials. METHODOLOGY With an appropriate research ethics approval, this qualitative study was conducted at a private secondary school in Ontario. The school has approximately 500 students and a significant portion are ELL students. The majority of these ELLs are students who have recently emigrated from Korea. All ELLs enrolled in the science courses are integrated in core subject classes along with their English language–proficient peers. The number of ELLs in most science classes is 4 to 5 with the class sizes ranging from 25 to 30 students. TABLE 1 Participant Information Participants

Gender

Science course

1 2 3 4 5 6

Female Female Female Female Female Male

Grade 9 science Grade 10 science Grade 11 biology and chemistry Grade 12 chemistry Grade 12 chemistry Grade 12 chemistry

340

MANAVATHU AND ZHOU

TABLE 2 Laboratory Handouts Regular handoutsa

ELL modified handouts

1A on matter classification 2A on the law of attraction and repulsion 3A on suspensions and emulsifying agents 4A on the modeling of a photocopier

1B: Language modification of 1A 2B: Language modification of 2A 3C: Visual modification of 3A 4C: Visual modification of 4A


aThe

regular handouts were adapted from Wolfe et al. (1999).

Six ELLs, five females and one male, were recruited on a voluntary basis as study participants with assistance from the ELL support teacher (Table 1). Two participants were enrolled in Grades 9 and 10 science, one in Grade 11 university-bound chemistry and biology, and the remaining three participants were in Grade 12 university-bound chemistry. All participants were of Korean descent. The study utilized four inquiry-based science laboratory exercises as outlined in the Grade 10 Ontario science curriculum relating to two different science strands, chemistry and physics. For each laboratory activity, two instructional handouts were created with a reference to the McGraw-Hill Ryerson textbook: SciencePower 9 (Wolfe et al., 1999). Each set of handouts was given an alphanumeric code to identify the appropriate ELL modification (Table 2). Handouts 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A contained the regular laboratory instructions that are usually implemented in the Grade 10 science classroom. Handouts 1B and 2B modified 1A and 2A, respectively, by using simplified English language and clear definitions for new science vocabulary. Handouts 3C and 4C displayed simple visual diagrams and icon representations that corresponded to the regular laboratory handouts 3A and 4A (Table 3). Participants were not required to conduct these laboratory exercises. They were only to read the handouts and answer comprehension questions about what they read. Participants first read the regular handout and orally answered comprehension questions about the activity. Then, they read the corresponding modified handout and answered the same comprehension questions about the activity. Any changes to the participants’ comprehension were noted. Finally, the participants described their preference between the regular and modified handouts, in regards to readability, ease of comprehension, and confidence in their ability to perform the given laboratory task. Each participant reviewed two sets of handouts: one involved language modification and the other visual modification. Instead of a paper–pencil test format, semistructured interviews were used to collect data about participants’ understanding of the laboratory task after reading the regular handouts and after reading the modified handouts. Each interview last approximately one hour and was audio recorded. Considering the fact that the senior-level participants (Grades 11 and 12) may have conducted the labs before, the interview questions were framed differently from those asked to the intermediate-level participants (Grades 9 and 10). Though the questioning context was described using future tenses for the intermediate-level participants, past tense and subjunctive mood were used for senior-level participants. Throughout the interview, in addition to answering open-ended laboratory comprehension questions, participants were asked to describe their current experiences as ELLs in the science classroom. In order to gain a more comprehensive picture of the ELLs’ learning experiences, the


341

TABLE 3 Illustration of the Contrast Between the Regular and Visually Modified Handouts Regular version

Visual modification


1. Trace the lid of your Petri dish onto paper and cut out that paper circle. 2. Take that paper circle and cut a simple shape out of it (like a circle or a square . . .) that is about 2 cm across. 3. Carefully tape the outside edge of your paper cut onto the lid of your Petri dish so that it sticks to the plastic and doesn’t bubble up.

1. Trace the lid of your Petri dish onto paper and cut out that paper circle.

2. Take that paper circle and cut a simple shape out of it (like a circle or a square . . .) that is about 2 cm across. 3. Carefully tape the outside edge of your paper cut onto the lid of your Petri dish so that it sticks to the plastic and doesn’t bubble up.

+ Note. Color table available online.

researchers had a few informal dialogues with the school ESL support teacher. Her knowledge and experience with ELLs in the school was valuable to this study. Using the qualitative data analysis technique described in Johnson and Christensen (2009), the researchers started data analysis with an open coding technique, where interviews were transcribed and specific interview responses were identified in each transcription. Subsequently, the entire set of interviews was analyzed using axial coding for generalized responses and concepts. Finally, during selective coding, the interview data were analyzed for major themes.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Because this study was designed to investigate how the differentiated instructional materials assisted ELLs with science laboratory lessons and explore some of the issues that may influence their attitudes toward the use of such materials, the study findings will be grouped into two general categories: the impacts of differentiated laboratory handouts on participating ELLs’ task comprehension and the emerging issues with these ELLs’ experiences in science learning. Impacts of Differentiated Laboratory Handouts on ELLs’ Task Comprehension

Language-Modified Instructional Materials Enhance Task Comprehension The analysis of ELL comprehension focused explicitly on participants’ understanding of the given laboratory task instructions. Participants 1 and 2, both intermediate science students, had no previous background knowledge about the science topics. The remaining four participants were senior science students who had previously completed the requirements for Grade 10 science. While reading Handout 1A, participants had difficulty understanding these vocabulary words: vials, heterogeneous, homogenous, mechanical mixture, suspension, and solution. In Handout


342

MANAVATHU AND ZHOU

2A, ELLs were unfamiliar with the terms suspend, ebonite rod, pith ball, neutral, protons, and repulsion. Not only did they not recognize the specialized science terms, but most suggestions of possible vocabulary definition were inaccurate. In one case, the ELL mentally substituted the social English definition for the term suspend and asked the researcher “what getting trouble at school” had to do with the activity. Her personal definitions of suspend and suspension were not the appropriate academic definition for these terms and she questioned the relevance of her social English terms in relation to the activity. As discussed in Rice et al. (2004), multiple meanings of vocabulary words and terminology can cause confusion among ELLs. This participant’s mental substitution of social and academic English words could result in inaccurate task comprehension. With language-modified instructional handouts, participants displayed a greater degree of task comprehension, especially in regards to the explicit instructions. None of the participants reading Handout 2A explained the key instruction, “do not touch the pith ball,” before experimentation, yet after reviewing the corresponding language-modified handout, all participants noted that important step. Participant 3, the Grade 11 ELL, noted that although she understood most of the vocabulary words cited on Handout 2A, she was lost on the actual concept of the experiment. She did not understand the application of the laws of attraction and repulsion in relation to static electricity. An interview excerpt relaying her comments about the language-modified handout is provided: I liked that it [Handout 2B] was more organized, double spaced for the outline. For the content, it has a specific order and I get what it wants me to do, the key points of it. It was easier to get the concepts for B. What I dislike. . . . I got the handout and it looks likes . . . I don’t know. It looks like it has too many numbers, and it looks like you have more things to do, although it has the same steps. The important thing in class, it’s not the steps. It’s what the concept we are learning about. I think that B is more clear about it. Because when I read A, I didn’t know. But when I read B, it was getting clearer what I should be learning.

Participants preferred the language-modified handouts over the regular ones for their use of leading questions, organizational charts, and simplified instructions. Additionally, participants found the definitions for the complex science terminology (heterogeneous, homogenous, etc.) quite helpful, allowing them to successfully interpret the meaning of new and specialized science terminology. Similar to the use of word walls, including pertinent definitions on the instructional sheet provides ELLs with repeated exposure to new vocabulary words. In addition, clear definitions promote more independent work from ELLs and questions about vocabulary definitions and meanings are kept to a minimum (Case, 2002; Rice et al., 2004). As one intermediate participant reported, after reading through the language-modified handout, participants could complete the laboratory activity and answer the discussion questions independently, without teacher or peer support. In addition, participants preferred the format in which the language-modified handouts were organized. The other intermediate participant felt “less scared” or intimidated by the activity when she read the language modified handout. Participant 4, a Grade 12 ELL, stated that the simplified observation chart found on the language-modified handout would allow her to record the data with greater ease and, in turn, provide clear, concise, well-organized notes that she could review in preparation for a laboratory test or exam. She found the handouts detailed enough that she would not have to supplement the concepts noted in the activity with information from another resource such as a textbook or the Internet.


343

Instructional Materials With Visual Icons Enhance Task Comprehension With another two science laboratory activities (3A and 4A), the modification implemented was the addition of simple visual icons and diagram representations to depict the action required for key instructions. After reviewing the visually modified science handouts, participants were able to correctly describe the required actions to complete the outlined laboratory activity. Several ELLs commented that reading the various task instructions was not necessary because the pictures accurately depicted the specific steps in chronological order. Participant 3 relayed the importance of the context-embedded visuals as a link between task and science concept:


Researcher: Okay . . . so when you look at handouts A and C, what do you like or dislike about A? Participant 3: It’s simple, but I don’t get what it says. I read it but I didn’t get the process and I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know the purpose because I didn’t know the process. So I didn’t know why it was connected to the photocopier, I thought you had to put the shape in it. So I couldn’t get it. But now I know. With C it has lots of pictures, now I understand what the process is. So now I understand why it is connected to the photocopier, it is a bit easier with the pictures on it.

For some participants (2 and 5), the regular handout 4A was too difficult to read and neither participant could answer any comprehension questions other than “What materials do you need for this lab?” The comprehension questions about the laboratory purpose, procedures, and discussions remained unanswered. During the interview, one participant began to show signs of mild anxiety and stress when she was asked to review one of the original handouts. She described her emotions while reading Handout 4A in the following interview excerpt: Participant 2: I don’t understand anything. I feel dizzy when I see this. [Student put her head on the desk] Researcher: Okay, so I’ll ask you the same questions as before, so if you don’t understand something, just say what you don’t understand. Participant 2: You know what, I don’t like science, so when I receive stuff about science I feel panic and when I received this stuff I feel like there is too much reading and that makes it hard for me to understand. I feel so much panic before I start.

In effect this student felt overwhelmed when asked to read, internalize, and communicate her understanding of the instructional sheet, so much so that she could not move beyond the primary step of reading the entire handout. Upon receiving the corresponding visually modified handout (4C), her disposition and attitude toward the information changed. The student was more responsive to the task comprehension questions after reading the modified handout and was able to accurately describe the procedural steps with the aid of the visual icons. Although she felt that the text instructions were linguistically complicated, the use of authentic visuals offered enough contextual meaning to help her understand the text and adjust her attitude toward the activity. As discussed in Buck et al. (2005) and Cuevas et al. (2005), the use of authentic visuals incorporated in science activities better portrays concepts without relying solely on language for comprehension, and these diagrams are generally well received by students. In our study, the male participant (a Grade 12 ELL) offered the following analogy regarding the validity of using authentic visual diagrams in conjunction with science text:

344

MANAVATHU AND ZHOU

Participant 6: The material [4A] is bias[ed] against ELL students. These kinds of questions require imagery in their head. Researcher: What do you mean? Participant 6: Like when you tell a stranger which way to go [directionally]. They go straight and go left. It won’t be that hard for the person to find the way to go, especially if they had been speaking English for a really long time. But, for ELL people, if they don’t know what the word straight means, then it’s hard. If you say, go straight and then turn left, most of the natives [English speakers] would understand. But for foreign people, it will be difficult.


Researcher: Okay . . . Participant 6: See, even if they know what straight and left mean [in terms of direction], they would have to do their image thing. But if you gave the person a map, then the images are already there for them. Then they will figure out how to get to the place.

This simple map analogy validates the benefits of utilizing context-embedded visuals in science instructional materials. The visually modified instructional materials helped participants gain a better understanding of the inquiry process and the actions required to complete the laboratory tasks. This finding concurs with Cuevas et al. (2005), who found that added visual icons served as a point of reference to assist students in organization of thoughts, task completion, and concept comprehension. Challenging Issues for English Language Learners The utilization of qualitative methodologies during this investigation resulted in a greater degree of participant–researcher discussion about participants’ concerns regarding the use of modified handouts, peer interaction with native English speakers, and science course selection. Consequently, some issues, both social and academic, specific to ELLs surfaced.

Participant Concern With Differentiated Instructional Materials Although all participants exhibited better task comprehension after reviewing the visually modified handouts, for some the negative connotations associated with the documents overshadowed the benefits for classroom use. Participant 1, a Grade 9 ELL, provided her concerns and attitude in regards to the visually modified handout: Researcher: What do you dislike about Handout 3C? Participant 1: The pictures explain everything . . . so when the teacher questions me, she feels like I can’t understand anything. The pictures are kinda babyish and I would be so embarrassed. Researcher: Does it help you understand the activity better? Participant 1: Yeah, but I still don’t want it in class.

Adolescence is a critical time for the development of personal self-esteem, especially for those students transitioning into a new learning environment. Many ELLs will associate their self-image and self-worth with the opinions and judgments of their classroom peers (Kaufman



345

& Payne, 1994). Receiving specialized or differential instruction can lead adolescent ELLs to feelings of social inadequacy and embarrassment because they are noticeably singled out from the rest of their classmates. For Participant 1, the mere thought of visually modified handouts created some anxiety, even though by her own admission the visually modified handout aided with task comprehension and most likely raised her ability to work independent of peer and teacher facilitation. This participant, arriving in Canada less than 3 years ago, had to simultaneously overcome homesickness and culture shock while attempting to navigate through the new and ever changing socialization rules associated with being a Canadian teenager. Her limited knowledge of Canadian culture and the transition from her familiar, protective elementary school environment to a larger, fast-paced secondary school possibly contributed to her feelings of being ostracized. Therefore, any perceived classroom segregation, either academically or socially, is quite problematic and not conducive to her optimal learning environment. Interestingly, this negative connotation issue was limited to the younger ELL participants. Participant 5, a Grade 12 ELL, expressed similar disdain for the visually modified handouts; she found the visual icon reminiscent of her primary school course materials and did not prefer these modifications. Yet, this participant realized the value of using diagram representations to further clarify key task instructions and stated that she would request her science teacher to provide visually modified handouts, if available. In other words, this participant resolved that the academic benefits of modified course materials greatly compensated for any social embarrassment she might experience. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is maturity. By the senior years of high school, ELLs have developed their own niche among their grade-level peers and have acclimatized to the ebb and flow of the changing adolescent socialization regulations used by their native English-speaking counterparts. The ability to assimilate well with the fully proficient English-speaking students dissipates any sense of awkwardness or embarrassment associated with ELL-specific science instruction (Kaufman & Payne, 1994).

Peer Interaction Another emerging issue involves peer interaction between native English speakers and ELLs. Although most laboratory partner selection is orchestrated by the presiding classroom teacher, when students were given the opportunity to choose their own laboratory partners, most ELLs stated that they would like to choose a native English-speaking classmate in lieu of a fellow ELL. ELLs stated that with native English-speaking partners, task instructions were further clarified by their peers and the activity was completed within a reasonable amount of class time. One participant explained that when partnered with ELL peers, her group was consistently 15 to 20 minutes behind other groups due to lack of task comprehension. In fact, her group of ELLs would wait until the other groups had begun the task and then mimic the exact actions of their science classmates during laboratories, at times resulting in the same inaccurate data results. Even though socialization between the native English speakers and ELLs outside of the classroom is minimal, participants noted that within the learning environment, native Englishspeaking students willingly paired with them for activities. Though further research is necessary to explain native English speakers’ acceptance of ELLs’ request for partnership, the following may be one relevant factor. Participants reported that some of their language-proficient peers were not as academically driven and relied too heavily on the language learner’s computation

346

MANAVATHU AND ZHOU

and numeracy skills. This resulted in a greater proportion of the data analysis workload being unfairly distributed to the ELLs.

Science Course Selection


The final concern emerging from the discussion with participants was the matter of science course selection. ELLs were less likely to enroll in senior biology courses due to the linguistically complex nature of terminology, difficulties with writing academic essays, and the necessity for pervasive rote memorization of major biology concepts. When discussing science course selection, Participant 2 stated: Chemistry is okay but Biology . . . [pause]. I would take it if I was in Korea, but in Canada, there are so many things to memorize and understand. That is really hard for us. Writing an essay about biology is really hard. I want to take it but obviously I would get a low mark, so I couldn’t.

At the time of data collection, Participant 4, the only participant enrolled in a senior biology course, expressed the possibility of dropping the course in favor of a less language-dependent science course. The ELL support teacher confirmed the school’s declining ELL enrollment in the biological science stating that “A lot of ELL students don’t take biology. Biology requirements are too demanding for them. They would rather deal with numbers than deal with words” (personal communication, December 4, 2009). Referencing Fang’s (2006) discussion of intermediate textbook, the linguistic demands of typical biology curriculum exceeds that of other physical and earth sciences. Geology courses focus primarily on the exploration and analysis of the concrete and physical materials, whereas chemistry and physics rely on the use of mathematics equations to obtain tangible and numerically accurate results. With the heavy integration of numeracy and mathematics in these courses, the language of science is reduced to that which is content compatible. Unlike the physical sciences, the biological concepts described in content-obligatory narrative texts require a literal unpacking of multiple linguistic functions to effectively comprehend the desired scientific outcome. These grammatical functions include basic decoding skills for abstract and lengthy nouns, the deconstruction of academic texts riddled with subordinate clauses, prepositions, conjunctions, and pronouns. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Participants demonstrated a greater degree of task comprehension after reviewing both the language-modified and visually modified laboratory instructional handouts. In relation to the language-modified handouts, the simplified task directions and the defined science vocabulary fostered greater ELL laboratory comprehension due to the linguistically compatible material. Those handouts with visual icons and diagrams provided greater visual imagery by accurately depicting the actions required to complete the corresponding task instructions. These contentembedded visual representations fostered easier handout readability and constructed further contextual meaning by connecting laboratory instructions with the overall scientific concepts. These findings coincide with previous studies that validated the importance of teachers using linguistically appropriate, context-embedded course materials when providing inquiry-based science instruction to ELLs (Cuevas et al., 2005; Rice et al., 2004; Stoddart et al., 2002).



347

Echoing the opinions of participants, the utilization of modified materials will only aid ELLs if the benefits overshadow any perceived ostracizing. Study findings suggest that ELLs prefer receiving modified handouts in certain circumstances. If the student’s preferred ELL modified handout is available, he or she will feel more comfortable using it. However, she will not necessarily ask the teacher to provide her with these materials. Therefore, an individualized deliberate course of action that accommodates ELLs’ linguistic needs must be composed prior to any classroom implementation. This regulates the perceived embarrassment or academic segregation felt by ELLs (Kaufman & Payne, 1994). The relating issue of peer interactions between ELLs and native English-speaking students within the science classroom warrants discussion. Though past studies have documented that the integration of ELLs in the core content classrooms is essential for better second language acquisition (Callahan, 2005; Carrier, 2005; Lee, 2003; Stoddart et al., 2002), care must be taken when grouping ELLs and native English-speaking peers together for laboratory activities. Addressing the concerns of study participants, the classroom teacher should monitor the distribution of laboratory workload among the group members and prompt ELLs to collaborate with their native peers during all components of the activity rather than just the analytic stage of the laboratory procedure. To ensure greater language acquisition and concept comprehension among ELLs, teachers can practice the submission of individual written reports, as opposed to group reports, to ensure equitable participation among all group members. Additionally, teachers can obtain accurate, anecdotal notes during inquiry activities to maintain a consistent and fair task assessment of each individual student. The optimal learning environment would maximize the ELLs’ contribution to collaborative work while minimizing their peer reliance for laboratory data analysis. The issue of ELLs’ science course enrollment needs to be addressed. This study found that ELLs are less likely to enroll in senior biology courses due to the language complexity. Instead, they opt for less linguistically dependent courses such as physics, chemistry, and earth science. Participants felt that in senior grades, they had a better chance to achieve higher marks in physical science courses because their numeracy and mathematical skills were well developed and the course language requirements were relatively less. As a result, ELL enrollment in biology courses is lower even though it is the desired subject choice. The feasibility of achieving higher grades in a science course outranks students’ interests or subject preferences. Educators should circumvent this enrollment trend by fostering greater language acquisition at the intermediate science levels. With the provision of linguistic accommodations specifically for biology-related concepts during Grades 9 and 10, students’ negative preconceptions about the life sciences can be reduced. Although the senior biology curriculum will remain quite linguistically complex, teachers can implement language modifications during context-rich class lectures and depict abstract concepts through clear visuals. Lastly, as some participants suggested, to provide ELLs with an optimal learning tool, educators should design science instructional materials to incorporate both types of ELL modifications. Language modification used in conjunction with visual icons will provide ELLs with comprehensible context-embedded instructions. The development of science-literate ELLs requires the commitment of the mainstream teachers and the ELL support teachers. In order to promote differentiated ELL instruction, the school board and teacher education faculty should promote a greater focus on in-service teachers’ professional development opportunities to transform stagnant ELL strategies into education practice for ELLs. New teacher candidates should enroll in teacher education courses that illustrate successful ELL teaching strategies. If our current and

348

MANAVATHU AND ZHOU

future teachers grasp the teaching strategies developed for ELLs, they may better help non-ELL students learn science as well, because we believe that many ELL teaching strategies such as the ones we discussed in this article will benefit all students.


REFERENCES Ainsworth, S. (2006). A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198. Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through inquirybased science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213–239. Broer, S. M., Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. F. (2005). Perspectives of students with intellectual disabilities about their experiences with paraprofessional support. Exceptional Children, 71, 415–430. Brown, C. L. (2005). Equity of literacy-based math performance assessments for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(2), 337–346. Brown, C. L., & Bentley, M. (2004). ELLs: Children left behind in science class. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(3), 152–158. Buck, G., Mast, C., Ehlers, N., & Franklin, E. (2005). Preparing teachers to create a mainstream science classroom conducive to the needs of English-language learners: A feminist action research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 1013–1031. Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/311230 new demography.pdf Carrier, K. A. (2005). Supporting science learning through science literacy objectives for English language learners. Science Activities, 43(2), 5–11. Case, R. E. (2002). The intersection of language, education and content: Science instruction for ESL students. The Clearing House, 72(2), 71–74. Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, M. J. (1996). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A model for linguistically diverse classroom. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 259–273. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337–357. Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant children: Logic or institution? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(2), 97–111. Cummins, J. (1981). Four misconceptions about language proficiency in bilingual education. NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 5(3), 31–45. DeLuca, E. (2010). Unlocking academic vocabulary. The Science Teacher, 77(3), 27–32. Dong, Y. R. (2002). Integrating language and content: How three biology teachers work with non-native English-speaking students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 51(1), 40–57. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2007). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2011). EQAO’s provincial secondary school report: Results of the Grade 9 assessment of mathematics and the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test, 2010–2011. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/pdf e/11/EQAO ProvincialReport Secondary2011.pdf Fahey, J. A. (2000). Who wants to differentiate instruction? We did . . . Educational Leadership, 58(1), 70–72. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520. Guo, Y. (2007). Multiple perspectives of Chinese immigrant parents and Canadian teachers on ESL learning in schools. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 1(1), 43–64. Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London, England: Falmer. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3), 101–107.



349

Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475–501. Holloway, J. H. (2000). Prepare teaching for differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 82–83. Huang, J., & Morgan, G. (2003). A functional approach to evaluating content knowledge and language development in ESL students’ science classification texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 234–262. Hudson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010–1038. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2009). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Kaufman, E. L., & Payne, K. H. (1994). Self-esteem in the ESL female adolescent as compared to self-esteem in the non-ESL female adolescent. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED377710) Lee, O. (2003). Equity for linguistically and culturally diverse students in science education: A research agenda. Teachers College Record, 105(3), 465–489. Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words symbols, images, and actions. Retrieved from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm Lumpe, A. T., & Beck, J. (1996). A profile of high school biology textbooks using scientific literacy recommendations. The American Biology Teacher, 58(2), 147–153. McDonnough, J. T., & Cho, S. (2009). Making the connection: Practical techniques for accommodating English language learner in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 76(3), 34–37. McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., & Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Provincial research review of Alberta Initiative for School Improvement. Retrieved from http://people.uleth.ca/∼m.hollingsworth/ aisi/newsletters/differentiated uofa08.pdf Medina-Jerez, W., Clark, D. B., Median, A., & Ramirez-Marin, F. (2007). Science for ELLs: Rethinking our approach. The Science Teacher, 74(3), 52–56. Milton, P. (2006). Multilingualism: The Canadian way. Education Canada, 46(4), 55–56. Ministry of Education of Ontario. (2007). English language learns ESL and ELD programs and services: Policies and procedure for Ontario elementary and secondary schools, kindergarten to grade 12. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/esleldprograms/esleldprograms.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). NAEP assessment. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ National Science Teachers Association. (2006). Science for English language learners. Arlington, VA: Author. Olson, J. K., Levis, J. M., Van, R., & Bruna, K. R. (2009). Enhancing science for ELLs: Science strategies for English language learners that benefit all students. Science and Children, 46(5), 46–48. People for Education. (2010). A new goal for public education: Schools at the centre. Retrieved from http://www.peopleforeducation.com/annualreport/ONpublicschools2010 Ray, B. (2005). Canada: Policy changes and integration challenges in an increasing diverse society. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/print.cfm?ID=348 Rice, D. C., Pappamihiel, N. E., & Lake, V. E. (2004). Lesson adaptations and accommodations: Working with native speakers and English language learners in the same science classroom. Childhood Education, 80(3), 121–128. Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664–687. Webster, B. J., & Hazari, A. (2009). Measuring language learning environments in secondary science classrooms. Learning Environment Research, 12, 131–142. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Westby, C., Dezale, J., Fradd, S., & Lee, O. (1999). Learning to do science: Influences of culture and language. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21(1), 50–64. Wolfe, E., Clancy, C., Jasper, G., Lindenberg, D., Lynn, D., Mustoe, F., & Smythe, R. (1999). Science Power 9 (Ontario ed.). Whitby, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 Years of language and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725.