Bailey Al Maher Ca Wilkinson LC Eds Language Literacy and Le

LANGUAGE, LITERACY, AND
LEARNING IN THE STEM

DISCIPLINES
With a focus on what mathematics and science educators need to know about
academic language used in the STEM disciplines, this book critically synthesizes the
current knowledge base on language challenges inherent to learning mathematics
and science, with particular attention to the unique issues for English learners.
These key questions are addressed: When and how do students develop mastery
of the language registers unique to mathematics and to the sciences? How do
teachers use assessment as evidence of student learning for both accountability and
instructional purposes? Orienting each chapter with a research review and drawing
out important Focus Points, chapter authors examine the obstacles to and latest
ideas for improving STEM literacy, and discuss implications for future research and
practice.
Alison L. Bailey is Professor of Human Development and Psychology at the

University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Carolyn A. Maher is Distinguished Professor of Mathematics Education at the

Robert B. Davis Institute at Rutgers University, USA.
Louise C. Wilkinson is Distinguished Professor of Education, Psychology, and

Communication Sciences at Syracuse University, USA.
“This book examines the language and literacy challenges associated with learn-
ing science and mathematics, and also highlights the additional complexity this
represents for students learning English at the same time. Importantly, the chapters
provide resources for teachers to learn how to blend scientific literacy and the
needs of EL and bilingual students—thus addressing an equity issue and a critical
need for the country.”
—Rodolfo Dirzo, Bing Professor in Environmental Science,
Stanford University, USA
LANGUAGE, LITERACY,
AND LEARNING IN THE
STEM DISCIPLINES
How Language Counts
for English Learners
Edited by Alison L. Bailey,

Carolyn A. Maher, and
Louise C. Wilkinson
First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of Alison L. Bailey, Carolyn A. Maher, and Louise C. Wilkinson
to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors
for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-28428-9 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-28429-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-26961-0 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
“To all students learning STEM in a new language and the
teachers who support them.”
CONTENTS
Foreword by M. Kathleen Heid x

Foreword by Catherine Snow xii
Prefacexiv
Acknowledgmentsxviii
1 Introduction: Language, Literacy, and Learning

in the STEM Disciplines 1
Alison L. Bailey, Carolyn A. Maher, and Louise C.Wilkinson
PART I
Language in the STEM Disciplines 11
2 Talking to Learn Mathematics With Understanding:

Supporting Academic Literacy in Mathematics
for English Learners 13
Judit Moschkovich
3 How the NGSS Science Instructional Shifts and Language

Instructional Shifts Support Each Other for English
Learners: Talk in the Science Classroom 35
Okhee Lee, Scott Grapin, and Alison Haas
viii Contents
PART II
Literacy in the STEM Disciplines 53
4 Reading Mathematics Problems: Exploring How Language

Counts for Middle School Students With Varying
Mathematics Proficiency 55
Mary A. Avalos, Edwing Medina, and Walter G. Secada
5 Reading and Understanding Science Texts 79

Gina N. Cervetti and P. David Pearson
6 Writing in Mathematics Classrooms 101

Richard Barwell
7 Writing the Science Register and Multiple Levels

of Language: Implications for English Learners 115
Elaine R. Silliman, Louise C.Wilkinson, and Maria Brea-Spahn
PART III
Summative and Formative Assessment
in the STEM Disciplines 141
8 Formative Assessment of Mathematics and Language:

Applying Companion Learning Progressions
to Reveal Greater Insights to Teachers 143
Caroline Wylie, Malcolm Bauer, Alison L. Bailey,
and Margaret Heritage
9 Formative Assessment: Science and Language

With English Learners 169
Amelia Wenk Gotwals and Dawnmarie Ezzo
10 The Language of Mathematics and Summative Assessment:

Interactions That Matter for English Learners 187
Tina Cheuk, Phil Daro, and Vinci Daro
11 Assessing Scientific Genres of Explanation,

Argument, and Prediction 206
Beth Covitt and Charles W. Anderson
Contents ix
12 Formative and Summative Assessments in Science and

Literacy Integrated Curricula: A Suggested
Alternative Approach 231
Mark Wilson and Yukie Toyama
Afterword 261
Alison L. Bailey, Carolyn A. Maher, and Louise C.Wilkinson
List of Contributors 266

Index268
FOREWORD
M. Kathleen Heid
This volume contains five chapters (Chapters 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10) that focus on
teaching mathematics to English learners (EL students). The research-based advice
provided for teachers and, by extension, for teacher educators includes practical
recommendations to support EL students such as asking students to revoice others’
arguments and apply their own reasoning to that offered by others and structuring
instruction to build formal language on students’ everyday language. Notably, the
five chapters spotlight the importance of preserving the integrity of the mathemat-
ics while tailoring instruction to the needs of EL students.
The authors issue a clarion call that expectations remain high for EL students.
Moschkovich underscores the inherent danger of a narrow view of language that
can limit EL students’ access to high-quality curriculum. For example, a focus on
the meaning of single words can limit students’ access to complex mathematical
ideas; insistence on using formal language to convey mathematical ideas can limit
the resources upon which EL students can draw. Avalos, Medina, and Secada rec-
ommend that teachers of EL students should focus on connections among registers
(e.g., everyday language, mathematical representation, school mathematical lan-
guage, symbolic language). Echoing this recommendation, Moschkovich advocates
for developing students’ facility with multiple representations through extended
classroom discourse that engages students in finding and articulating mathematical
patterns, making generalizations, and using representations to support their math-
ematical claims. She posits that mathematical activity centered on evidence-based
argumentation contributes to conceptual understanding.
In addition to addressing representation and communication, authors portray
language as a tool for thinking and sense making. For example, Barwell argues that
writing in mathematics helps students organize their thinking about mathematics
as they structure arguments that interrelate natural language, mathematical symbols,
and visual representations. He views learning to write in mathematics as inextrica-
bly linked to learning mathematics and as more than a routine exercise.
Foreword xi
The challenge of engaging EL students in ways that preserve mathematical integ-

rity leads to the question of how to assess that learning. Two mathematics-oriented
chapters focus on assessment. Integrating attention to mathematical understanding
and to language facility, Wylie, Bauer, Bailey, and Heritage center on formative
assessment and examine integration of companion learning progressions—one on
proportional reasoning and one on explanation. The authors demonstrate how the
two progressions can be deeply linked, with language features such as sophistica-
tion of sentence structure, coherence, and establishment of advanced relationships
among ideas providing an essential venue for developing and demonstrating the
depth of understanding of the mathematical ideas. The authors also recognize the
difficulty of teachers simultaneously measuring students’ in-depth mathematics
knowledge and their fluency with language. In discussion of summative assess-
ment, Cheuk, Daro, and Daro focus on the challenge of constructing valid items
for measuring EL students’ mathematical knowledge. Such items need to minimize
difficulty engendered by irrelevant constructs without altering the integrity of the
targeted mathematical construct.
The authors of the mathematics-oriented chapters make a powerful case for
centering EL students’ instruction in mathematics on communication about
important mathematical ideas. These chapters provide compelling arguments that,
as EL students read, discuss, and write about mathematical ideas in ways that honor
and call on their personal resources, they can enhance and deepen their conceptual
mathematical understanding.
The Pennsylvania State University
State College, PA
FOREWORD
Catherine Snow
Language is both a gift and a trap. It is through language that we connect with others,
that we form friendships and resolve disagreements, that we learn new things, that
we organize our thoughts so we can remember what we have learned, and that we
construct world views and interrogate our own thinking. That is the gift. But we
also rely on others’ use of language in judging them, and we too often conclude
that people who don’t speak our language well are deficient in some way. That can
be a trap for all of us, and in particular for teachers working valiantly to convey
complex content to their students. When the stakes are high, as they almost always
are in classroom settings, misunderstanding or lack of understanding can generate
frustration and negative affect. Teachers are constantly confronted with the need
to distinguish the complexity of the content from the complexity of the language
used to convey the content. This is a very difficult task, precisely because the lan-
guage complexity is a mechanism for conveying the content efficiently.
The default approach to educating second language learners of English has been
to focus on language, often in separate immersion or ESL classrooms where speak-
ing, understanding, reading, and writing English become in effect the entire cur-
riculum. Achieving proficiency in English is seen as a prerequisite to accessing
curricular content in math, science, or social studies—because, of course, those
content areas are complex and because students typically learn them by listening to
the teacher speak in English or by reading texts written in English.
The chapters in this volume give a collective overview of how complex science
and math concepts generate the language complexity that teachers and students
must grapple with. At the same time they offer practices and strategies designed to
ensure that all students, in particular English learners (ELs), can navigate through
the language to the content. Students who speak English as a second language
are often provided with simpler language by virtue of simplifying the content,
thus limiting their access to grade-level material. That is a recipe for ensuring they
never catch up with monolingual peers. Engaging topics, excellent instruction,
Foreword xiii
well-designed cumulative curricula, and access to support through the home lan-
guage, through cooperative learning, and through hands-on lessons can ensure that
content learning becomes a mechanism for language learning rather than an activ-
ity postponed until after language learning has been accomplished.
The editors and authors who have contributed to this volume deserve a vote
of thanks for having taken on a challenging set of issues, and having responded
with research-based and usable information. They have considered many dimen-
sions relevant to their work—not just analyzing the challenge, but also exploring
implications for instruction, for teacher education, and for assessment. The new
college- and career-ready standards embraced by American educators hold the
promise of improving educational outcomes for all students in the U.S., but they
also bring with them the danger of exacerbating the gaps between native speakers
and second language learners of English. Information such as that compiled in this
volume will be of great help in ensuring positive outcomes for EL students and for
their monolingual classmates.
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Cambridge, MA
PREFACE1
The Organization of this Volume

This volume reviews the current knowledge base and includes a salient practice-
based component that integrates what we know about language and its develop-
ment as related to students’ learning of mathematics and science. Each chapter
shows where the authors are drawing implications from the corpus of research and,
also, where additional research is needed. The purpose of the volume is to provide
educators with something worthwhile to “take away” from their reading and also
have something significant to think about as they seek to improve their classroom
practices with their own students or with the preparation of teachers. The authors
are internationally recognized scholars in the field of mathematics and science
language and literacy development, teaching, and assessment. They reviewed and
interpreted their own work and that of others for educational practitioners.
The volume emphasizes the implications about what we know from research for
students learning English at the same time they are learning the content areas. Sev-
eral chapter address how programs show accountability and how educators monitor
students’ progress in both language and content learning. The volume integrates
what we know about these areas of research and draws direct implications for class-
room practice. Consequently, this volume is pertinent to practitioners and educa-
tors in the STEM disciplines, literacy and language studies, teaching and leadership,
and those interested in educational policy making and implementation at both the
K-12 and higher education levels.
The topics addressed include oral language (for example, oral justifications, argu-
ments, predictions, and explanations); literacy (including reading comprehension,
writing, and other forms of graphic representation such as tables, charts, images);
assessment (both formative and summative); and special consideration of English
learners (ELs). This volume includes the following three main sections: (1) oral
language (mathematics, science); (2) literacy (reading in mathematics, reading in
Preface xv
science; writing in mathematics, writing in science); and (3) assessment (forma-

tive assessment in mathematics and in science; summative assessment in mathemat-
ics and in science, and an integration of summative and formative assessment in
science).
The chapters are comprehensive in their own right with the focus on one aspect
of this area, but reference crosscutting themes and implications for educational
practice. The volume does not adhere to one theoretical approach to the integra-
tion of language, literacy and the STEM disciplines; rather, the chapters will illus-
trate the array of theoretical approaches to understanding language in scholastic
contexts currently found in the education field; for example, social constructivist
(e.g., Snow, 1999), systemic functional linguistics (e.g., Halliday, 1978; Schleppegrell,
2004), and complex adaptive systems (affordances) (e.g., Ellis & Larsen-Freeman,
2009). Moreover, the book draws on different traditions in the language develop-
ment and literacy fields and differs from volumes that have focused exclusively on
“disciplinary literacy” (i.e., the content knowledge, critical thinking skills, and lit-
eracy skills specific to a discipline), by also including work on oral language devel-
opment (as a basis of literacy and in its own right), second language acquisition,
precursor reading and writing abilities, and on the highly specific needs of K-12
EL students. Each chapter includes sections offering focus bullets on major chapter
points to enable readers and facilitators to review, evaluate, and integrate them with
their own relevant experiences. These sections should prove especially useful for
participants in professional development seminars.
This volume is geared directly to teacher educators who are preparing to teach
courses in the areas of elementary and secondary mathematics and science educa-
tion, in which teachers must develop comprehensive content, cultural sensitivity,
and communication skills. In addition, it can serve as a supplementary text for
teacher candidates in mathematics and science methods courses. The volume may
serve as the central reading in special topics graduate courses on language, literacy,
and STEM disciplines. Finally, we see this volume as being appropriate for inde-
pendent reference or professional learning community studies by in-service math-
ematics and science teachers who are seeking greater knowledge of the integration
of language, literacy, and STEM disciplines for all students but particularly for the
growing number of EL students in their classrooms.
Part I. Oral Language in STEM Disciplines

The first section of the book focuses on what we know about the role of oral lan-
guage in learning mathematics, science, and engineering. In Chapter 2, Moschko-
vich describes how student talk is important for conceptual understanding and
what kinds of discussions and everyday ways of talking support learning math-
ematics with understanding and the ways that teachers can support students in
participation in mathematical discussions focused on understanding. Lee, Grapin,
and Haas (Chapter 3) define teaching and learning of science in terms of blending
the three dimensions of science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts,
and disciplinary core ideas. This chapter describes the critical role of oral language
when students, especially EL students, engage in the NGSS.
xvi Preface
Part II: Reading and Writing in STEM Disciplines

In Part II Avalos, Medina, and Secada (Chapter 4) start off this section on literacy
and the STEM disciplines by providing an overview of challenges and affordances
related to reading mathematics word problems. Their study presents students’ per-
ceptions of the language, technical vocabulary, context, and visual representations
when solving mathematics word problems. In Chapter 5, Pearson and Cervetti
centralize the role of reading in students’ thinking and development of scientific
literacy by focusing on the key practices found in the NGSS, the language of sci-
ence as a specialized academic register, and the design of lessons and activities
responsive to the individual literacy strengths and challenges of students in learn-
ing science. Shifting to the production of literacy, Barwell (Chapter 6) provides a
critical overview of research on writing in mathematics classrooms, including some
of the features of formal written mathematics. He examines the tension between
formal, orthographically correct language and students’ emergent forms of writing
mathematics and the role of writing in marginalizing students who are second lan-
guage learners of mathematics. In Chapter 7, the final chapter in Part II, Silliman,
Wilkinson, and Brea-Spahn examine the role writing assumes in students’ develop-
ment of scientific literacy by focusing on interconnecting key practices found in
the NGSS and the Hayes and Berninger (2014) model of writing.
Part III: Summative and Formative Assessment

in the STEM Disciplines
In this final section of the book, several chapters lay out the latest ideas for assess-
ment of mathematics and the sciences that take account of the role of language
in student learning and testing. In Chapter 8, Wylie, Bauer, Bailey, and Heritage
attempt to jointly apply mathematics and language learning progressions to a writ-
ten mathematical explanation task to describe how dual progressions support and
inform each other in formative assessment of all students, with particular focus on
implications for EL students. Chapter 9 by Gotwals and Ezzo situates the practices
of formative assessment within a framework in which teachers use high-leverage
practices to provide and adapt ongoing model-based learning opportunities for
all students including EL students. In Chapter 10, Cheuk, Daro, and Daro take
the opportunity presented by new college- and career-ready standards in math-
ematics to explore innovative ways to reconceive large-scale assessment used for
accountability purposes. Special considerations for EL students need to be taken
into account to ensure fair and valid assessment of their mathematics knowledge.
Covitt and Anderson (Chapter 11) describe the development of assessments of
students’ performance in situations where they are asked to develop or critique
arguments, explanations, and predictions. They address how these genres are con-
nected to one another in terms of language use, knowledge, and practice and ensu-
ing implications for classroom science assessment. In the final chapter, Wilson and
Toyama (Chapter 12) describe an approach to the construction and empirical vali-
dation of a science learning progression that provides a developmental perspective
on student learning and a match between instruction and assessment.The approach
Preface xvii
moves the field toward combining both summative and formative assessment while
upholding high-quality standards of reliability and validity.
The book concludes with an afterword by Bailey, Maher, and Wilkinson that
synthesizes key ideas to emerge from these chapters.We examine whether the work
of the authors suggests that implementation of “best practices” for instruction and
assessment of STEM disciplines differs for EL students and non-EL students or
whether indeed the distinction is one of emphasis in teaching and assessment prac-
tices with EL students. Finally, we offer suggestions for further research.
Note
1 The editors of this volume are listed in alphabetical order; all contributed equally to this
volume.
References
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system (Special
Issue). Language Learning, 59 (Supplement 1).
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.
Hayes, J. R., & Berninger, V. (2014). Cognitive processes in writing: A framework. In M. J.
Schleppegrell (Ed.), The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Snow, C. E. (1999). Social perspectives on the emergence of language. In B. MacWhinney
(Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 257–276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, we owe great debts of gratitude to our husbands, Frank, Jim,
and Alex. Once again they suffered the absence of their spouses cheerfully and sup-
portively, but we hope they also forged their own bonds of new or closer friendship
as a result of being thrown together several times in the making of this book. We
thank Alejandro and William for their willing participation in Chapter 1—their
efforts have helped to illustrate firsthand the intersection of language and math-
ematics. Our thanks go also to the chapter contributors for each being so willing
and enthusiastic about the volume and their work for the educational communities
the volume is designed to inform. We also gratefully acknowledge M. Kathleen
Heid, Catherine Snow, and Rodolfo Dirzo for their contributions of putting the
work within their respective contexts of mathematics, language development, and
science learning. Finally, we thank former education publisher Naomi Silverman
at Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, who got this volume under way, as well as
Karen Adler, her successor, and Emmalee Ortega during the production stages.
1
INTRODUCTION
Language, Literacy, and Learning
in the STEM Disciplines
Alison L. Bailey, Carolyn A. Maher, and

Louise C. Wilkinson
This volume synthesizes and critically interprets the extant research on the lan-
guage and literacy inherent to learning the STEM disciplines of science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics. In addition, the volume addresses how the
language of mathematics and of the sciences may present specific challenges to the
learning and assessment of English learners (EL students). The chapters of this vol-
ume focus on the following questions:
• What are the language challenges unique to STEM disciplines?

• When and how do students develop mastery of the language registers unique
to the STEM disciplines?
• How do teachers use assessment as evidence of student learning, for both
accountability and teaching purposes, that is, to guide instruction?
• Are there issues unique to EL students in learning (and assessing) the content
and language of the STEM disciplines?
The Policy Context for EL Students Learning

the STEM Disciplines in U.S. Schools
There is a growing crisis in U.S. schools: Far too many students fail to learn the
requisite knowledge of mathematics and science, and they fall far behind their
international peers. The challenge is particularly acute for students who are learn-
ing English at the same time they are attempting to master these content areas.
From a global perspective, U.S. students have not performed particularly well on
international assessments in core academic content areas, as revealed by interna-
tional assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
administered to 15-year-olds. The U.S. ranked 40th out of 71 participating coun-
tries in mathematics literacy (showing a downward trend since 2009) and 25th
in science literacy (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
2 Alison L. Bailey et al.
[OECD], 2015). Implementation of new college- and career-ready standards

in the U.S. places great pressure on teachers to increase students’ achievement.
Communication—oral and written language—is at the heart of success for all stu-
dents in meeting the new standards. The most recent academic content standards
explicitly require mastery of the oral and written communication styles or registers
that characterize the language of instruction, including the STEM disciplines.
Standards-based educational reform of the past decades aims to increase learn-
ing goals for all U.S. students, so that they are better prepared for college and
careers and to enhance equity in the access to college and career readiness for
underserved students, including EL students. For example, the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social
Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects and Common Core State Standards for
Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council
of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010) remain implemented in one form
or another across 42 states and the District of Columbia (National Conference of
State Legislatures, 2016). Similarly, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS
Lead States, 2013) outline the performance expectations for science and have been
adopted by16 states and the District of Columbia.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), which is the reauthorization of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001), continues the federal role in funding states
and local school districts.The law directly impacts U.S. elementary and secondary edu-
cation students, especially those students of different races, incomes, or backgrounds,
who have not achieved at the same levels in the past in comparison with their peers.
That is, there is a question about whether these students have had equal opportunities
to obtain a high-quality education and fair assessment (U.S. Department of Education
[USDOE], 2016). ESSA continues many of the same provisions of NCLB for EL stu-
dents; however, state accountability for their progress in English has been heightened,
with the shift of the mandated annual assessment of English language proficiency
from Title III to Title I. This means English proficiency carries the same weight as
accountability for English language arts and mathematics.While ESSA is the law of the
land and the Department of Education released regulations to be addressed by states’
implementation (USDOE, 2016), the future appears unclear due to the changes in the
leadership of the U.S. after the 2016 election.
Particularly pertinent for this volume are the most recent mathematics and sci-
ence standards. In the case of science, the standards move away from emphasizing
merely knowing science ideas and toward a three-dimensional concept of learn-
ing science integrating disciplinary core ideas, science practices, and crosscutting
concepts. In the case of mathematics, these standards emphasize “general, cross-
disciplinary literacy expectations that must be met by the time students graduate
from high school to be prepared to enter college and workforce training programs
ready to succeed” (CCSS for Mathematics, 2010, p. 4). Today’s high school gradu-
ates do not have the reasoning, cultural awareness, and communications skills essen-
tial for keeping the U.S. workforce competitive, economically secure, and capable
of effective engagement in diplomatic and commercial venues in the global com-
munity. State-led initiatives to increase educational expectations from kindergarten
to the 12th grade provided the impetus for the standards, so that all students would
be college- and career-ready by the end of high school. Students are now required
Introduction 3
to use multiple domains of language and literacy, including media and technology,
all to support their thinking critically.The so-called anchor standards emphasize the
integration of communication processes into the disciplines and refer to literacy
(reading, writing) and oral language (speaking and listening).
While the articulation of the role of language in mastery of content is an
improvement over prior academic standards, it is regrettable that language is largely
defined narrowly in these standards. For the most part, language is treated as the
development of general academic and domain-specific vocabulary knowledge and
effective use of language conventions across multiple modes of expression. Nev-
ertheless, these integrated processes of language and STEM content function as
the foundation for the grade-specific academic standards, which reference require-
ments for mastery by the end of each academic year in content areas.
It is notable that this standards-based reform is occurring at the same time as
the evolving composition of the student population in the U.S., with EL students
showing the fastest growing cohort (National Clearinghouse for English Lan-
guage Acquisition, 2017). Throughout their schooling in the U.S., the standardized
achievement scores of these children and youth are significantly below their peers
(see Tables 1.1 and 1.2).
TABLE 1.1 2015 PISA Mathematics and Science Performances by Match Between Language
Spoken in the Home and Test Language
15-Year-Olds
Mismatch in Home/Test Match in Home/Test

Language Scale Score Language Scale Score
OECD average:
Mathematics 452 496
Science 448 500
U.S:
Mathematics 438 477
Science 459 506
Source: OECD (2015)
TABLE 1.2 2015 NAEP Mathematics and Science Performances by Grade and ELL Status,
Public and Nonpublic School Students Combined*
4th Grade 8th Grade 12th Grade
ELL scale Non-ELL ELL scale Non-ELL ELL scale Non-ELL

score (% scale score (% score (% scale score (% score (% scale score (%
below basic) below basic) below basic) below basic) below basic) below basic)
Mathematics 218 (43) 243 (15) 246 (69) 284 (26) 115 (79) 153 (37)
Science 121 (59) 158 (20) 110 (81) 157 (29) 105 (86) 152 (38)
* English language learner (ELL) is terminology used by NAEP.
Source: USDOE (2015)
Perhaps the most intractable problem in U.S. education is the achievement gap
that exists between groups of children who differ by home language, socioeco-
nomic status, race, and/or ethnicity. The origins of this gap may be due to lack of
opportunity to learn STEM content or due to the linguistic and cultural differences
among students with varying language backgrounds. Students in these categories
achieve far below their peers on standardized achievement tests of mathematics, sci-
ence, and literacy learning. For example, long-standing gaps in achievement for EL
students, who are learning English at the same time that they are learning academic
content such as science, appear early and become amplified as they progress from
first grade through high school.
From a global perspective, reform of the way science is taught and learned in U.S.
schools could not have come soon enough. As a matter of policy and practicality,
students in the U.S. are not doing well in learning how to reason or communicate
like a scientist. Their average PISA science score (496) again was not significantly
different from the OECD average (493) (Kastberg, Chan, & Murray, 2016). This
finding held despite a positive decrease in the variance explained by socioeconomic
status (SES), a measure of equity. The variance for science performance attribut-
able to SES for U.S. students decreased from 17% in 2006 to 11% in 2015 (OECD,
2016). In this sense, relative to its recent large-scale educational reform, the U.S. still
lacks policy and pedagogical “smarts” in the teaching of science (Ripley, 2016), a
predicament in the process of resolution through federal funding of new models for
science teaching, learning, and fairer assessments (USDOE, 2016).
The primary premise of the PISA science assessment is that the immensity of
today’s information flow and rapid changes in technology mean that laboratory-
bound experiments no longer define the whole of scientific practices (OECD,
2016). Rather science is now viewed as the basis for the everyday tools available to
enhance individual quality of life while simultaneously expanding global econo-
mies, from clean drinking water to more productive farming, from climate change
to space exploration. Hence, in this era of “fake” news, there is great urgency for
students to “think like a scientist” (OECD, 2016, p. 2) in considering evidence,
reaching principled conclusions, and understanding that scientific truths can change
over time as new discoveries emerge.
A global assessment of scientific literacy, which is defined as knowledge of
the purposes, procedures, and products of science and science-based technology
(OECD, 2015), the PISA requires students to apply their science knowledge to
solve problems set in everyday, real-world contexts. The PISA therefore assumes
students’ mastery of specialized academic English, in which the multiple levels of
language must be coordinated in precise ways. For example, at the level of mean-
ing and syntax, the linguistic complexity of individual test items, directions, and
questions can include: (a) technical vocabulary; (b) obscure semantic relation-
ships among word meanings; and (c) complex syntactic forms, such as dense noun
phrases, nominalizations, multiple embedded clauses, and passive voice construc-
tions (Silliman, Wilkinson, & Brea-Spahn, this volume). Of note, the PISA compe-
tencies required for scientific literacy (OECD, 2015) do not include any linguistic
or discourse dimensions of the specialized academic language that serves as the
mechanism for interpreting text and translating these understandings into written
expressions. The three competencies are: explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate
Introduction 5
and design scientific inquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically. It should
be noted that PISA scores are not disaggregated by EL student status (or equivalent
across the different nations) (OECD, 2015). There is however, an accompanying
survey item that asks whether the assessment is taken in a language that matches the
student’s home language.While this is not identical to knowing whether a test taker
is proficient in the language in which the test is conducted (students after all can
be proficient speakers of the language used in school while exposed to a different
home language), it may be a close proxy. As a result of disaggregating the mathemat-
ics and science assessments by the match between the test and home language, 2015
test scores show large differences for both the OECD average for participating
nations as a whole and for the U.S. specifically (see Table 1.1). In every instance, the
subgroup of students who experienced a mismatch between the language of the
test administration and their home language scored lower on average for both the
PISA mathematics and the PISA science assessments (OECD, 2015).
While these assessment performances may be discouraging for students learning
the language of school as an additional language at the same point they are learn-
ing new academic content, it is still premature to evaluate progress, considering
the implementation of the new academic standards in the U.S. Presumably, it will
take some time before improvement in instruction based on the new academic
standards shows up in student outcomes on large-scale assessments. Meanwhile, we
need to move forward to determine whether the integration of language and the
STEM disciplines has enhanced the learning of EL students. We can take immedi-
ate action by asking: What knowledge of STEM and EL students are teachers receiving?
What instructional and assessment practices are promising? These are questions that we
now address.
The Approach: STEM Instruction and

Assessment With EL Students
Instruction, learning, and assessment of mathematics and science are a complex
process, requiring both students and teachers to know and use a variety of types
of knowledge. This includes knowledge of the language and communication chal-
lenges inherent to these disciplines. Each academic discipline is defined by a specific
kind of language that is distinct from everyday, natural language. Each disciplinary
register defines the unique way of cultivating reading, writing, speaking, and ways
of reasoning that students must master, if they are deemed to be proficient in that
discipline. We focused both on instruction and assessment practices because they
reveal quite different but equally important language competencies in students.
Instruction
In instruction, task design and implementation procedures are central concerns
in establishing optimal conditions for students’ learning. During instruction, there
are opportunities for students to interact with each other and the teacher and
thereby question and scaffold their own learning utilizing talk and text as tools.
One element of task design is the composition of the participant structure utilized:
individual learner, dyads, small groups, and whole groups. In the case of mathemat-
ics, specific kinds of tasks tend to elicit certain forms of reasoning, in which students
are required to provide oral and/or written justification for their solutions (Mueller,
Yankelewitz, & Maher, 2010). Most effective for students’ learning are tasks requir-
ing students both to convince themselves and others about their solutions and also
to articulate, using language and other forms of representation, why these solutions
are correct and complete (Maher & Yankelewitz, 2017).
The new college- and career-readiness standards clearly set high expectations
for teacher and student uses of language during STEM instruction even while they
do not elaborate on how language and content can best be integrated. For exam-
ple, the CCSS for Mathematics includes Mathematical Practice 3 that states, “Construct
viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.” CCSS for English Language
Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects includes
the following standard for ninth-tenth grades: “Determine the central ideas or con-
clusions of a text; trace the text’s explanation or depiction of a complex process,
phenomenon, or concept; provide an accurate summary of the text.” CCSSO’s
English Language Proficiency Development Framework (2012) expressly provides
descriptions of the language practices found within both the CCSS and NGSS,
including the following: “Describe a model using oral and/or written language as
well as illustration.” This framework is intended to define key language needs of
EL students.
The instructional gap for teachers is calling out how we can have classrooms that
set up situations to give students the opportunity to have rich content discussion;
a second gap is in student exposure to teachers who facilitate in pushing students’
thinking and language to new heights. By the same token, while much is made of
instructional gaps for students, there is also an opportunity to learn gap since not all
students have available to them the kinds of classrooms that support the sustained
and collaborative interactions called for in the academic standards quoted earlier.
With these considerations in mind we turn to how mathematics and science can
be integrated with language to form best practices for assessment of STEM and
language learning.
Assessment
Summative assessment practices reveal successes of programming and aggregate stu-
dent progress to be reported periodically (e.g., annual, large-scale mathematics and
science assessments). Formative assessment practices reveal how teachers respond
contingently to student learning in the moment by adjusting their teaching and
providing feedback for student learning or planning for next steps in decision mak-
ing. In contrast with instruction, during assessment contexts students are predomi-
nantly responsible for producing independent work in their display of knowledge.
This often requires their mastery of decontextualized language in both oral and
written forms, especially in standardized summative assessments. Such test protocols
are mainly unassisted, without mediation or scaffolding from others and with no
opportunities for clarification or immediate feedback; thus, this represents a very
different skill set for students to master.
Introduction 7
National level assessments of STEM and language show in greater detail the
gaps surrounding academic achievement, language proficiency, and the opportu-
nity to learn in U.S. classrooms. The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) provides a comparison of both mathematics and science for EL and non-
EL student performances (USDOE, 2015). While all students performed less well
on these STEM disciplines over time, EL students’ performances by 12th grade are
particularly troubling, with the vast majority of students scoring below basic in both
mathematics and science (see Table 1.2).
At the state level, most states have adopted the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC) or Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC) consortia assessments that were developed for the Race to the
Top initiative of the former federal government’s program to monitor state pro-
gress toward meeting the college- and career-ready standards. Reauthorized under
ESSA (2015), mathematics continues to be assessed annually in third through
eighth grades and once in high school. Science must be assessed once at each of the
third–fifth, sixth–eighth, and ninth–Twelfth grade clusters.
The most glaring shortcoming of the implementation of state standards-based
summative assessments with EL students is the fact that EL students have tradi-
tionally left the pool of EL test takers when they succeed in English language
programming (i.e., are redesignated as fluent English proficient). This means their
successful performances were never captured and credited to the programs they exit
(Saunders & Marcelletti, 2013). Under new federal legislation, former EL students
are now followed for up to two years to better understand their progress and the
success of the programs that serve them.
Student responses to a state standards-based mathematics assessment item illus-
trate the communicative demands inherent in the new standards-aligned assess-
ments. This SBAC released item requires students to first read a word problem and
then construct an explanation of their mathematical reasoning. The responses of
Alejandro and William reveal the types of language and literacy skills students must
command to display their mathematics abilities.The item asks them to explain why
five-eyed space creatures cannot joint a contest to make up a group of 24 total eyes.
The five eyed space creatures cannot join the contest because 5 × 5 = 25 and
5 × 4 = 20 so it cannot be 24.
(Alejandro, a 9-year-old, recently redesignated
EL student from a Spanish-speaking home)
The five eyed creatures could not join the contest because they are in five like 5–10–
15–20–25 and you see that the five eyed creature cant join the contest.
[Original punctuation] (William, an 8-year-old, Spanish second
language learner from an English-speaking home)
Neither boy explicitly states that “24 cannot be divided by multiples of five,” but
their responses do show mathematical understanding of the word problem. Both
boys focus on the fact that multiples of five do not allow for the sum of 24 total
eyes. Alejandro gives examples of the adjacent multiplication operations by five
that skip over the value of 24 and asserts that it “cannot be 24.” William states “they
are in fives” and then elaborates with an example (“like”) using either a repeated
addition model by adding on fives or listing multiples of five—either way, perhaps
implying by its omission from this list that 24 is not a possibility.
Linguistically, both boys use complete sentences, beginning with the full noun
with its adjective modifiers (five-eyed space creatures) that had been given in the
word problem. Alejandro’s response is shorter and chains together two causal clauses
(“because they are . . .” and “so it cannot . . .”), and his choice of tense for the
auxiliary verb “cannot” remains in the present tense of the word problem prompt.
William’s verb usage contrasts with Alejandro’s where he uses the conditional tense
for the auxiliary verb “could not,” marking the contingent nature of the space crea-
tures’ ability to join the contest. He also uses an embedded causal clause “because
they are. . .,” but his writing still has an oral language quality to it when he writes
“they are in five like 5–10–15 . . .” and when he directly addresses the reader with
“and you see that. . . .” In some sense, the responses by both boys, but William’s
choice of the word ‘see’ especially, are suggestive of the fact that they have cho-
sen to give (different) examples to show rather than explicate in words that 24 is
not a viable option. A scoring rubric that anticipates the use of fully explanatory
responses (i.e., explicitly stating that 24 is indivisible by five, rather than give exam-
ples of the impossibility) could miss the understanding that these two boys have.
However, this discussion also highlights the kinds of language opportunities that
the students may need in the future and the work of teachers to prepare students
linguistically for such tasks.
Summative assessment like the NAEP mathematics and science assessments
and SBAC state standards-based assessment item described earlier contrasts sharply
with formative assessment approaches to understanding student progress, with the
focus on assessment for learning not only of learning (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 2010;
Black, Wilson, & Yao, 2011). Formative assessment occurs during instruction and
comprises the information that teachers can glean from their conversations with
students about their work, from overhearing student-to-student discussions, and
from observing students as they complete tasks so that they can modify instruc-
tion accordingly.This approach to assessment is particularly pertinent to instruction
with EL students. Formative assessment can serve as an important complement
to summative assessment with EL students because it can provide teachers with
knowledge not only of what a student says or writes in terms of mathematics or
science content but also of how a student is using language to express learning
(Bailey, 2017).
In the following excerpt of a kindergarten classroom, the teacher (Ms. Escobar)
has shown her Spanish-dominant EL students the plant root system, and later, dur-
ing small group time, she moves around the classroom to observe the students and
ask questions about their work (Bailey, Huang, & Escobar, 2011). One small group
has been given the task of using wooden blocks to represent the root system.
Escobar: Is this one yours, Julia? Let’s see, sit down with it and show me. Show
me what you’ve created. Tell me about your construction. Show me here.
Where is the seed?
Introduction 9
[Julia points to the blocks and correctly identifies the part of her con-
struction that represents the seed.]
Escobar: OK. And where is the primary root?
[Julia points to the root hairs in her block representation.]
Escobar: Are they primary? Las primera que salio? (The first one to come out?)
[Julia then points to the primary root in her representation.]
Escobar: Yes. And where are the secondary roots?
[Julia points to the secondary roots in her representation.]
Escobar: Yes. And where are the root hairs?
[Julia points to the root hairs in her representation.]
Escobar: Excellent.
What is most striking about this exchange is that Julia, as a very beginning
EL student, is able to participate actively in her learning and in her teacher’s forma-
tive assessment of that learning. Escobar’s questions enable Julia to indicate, with
the help of her model, her understanding of English and science content through
nonverbal participation. Escobar is able to monitor her receptive English skills and
uses Spanish as a first language support where necessary so that she can still effec-
tively assess Julia’s science content knowledge.
We have illustrated with our analyses of these brief examples how language and
literacy may either obfuscate or clarify children’s efforts to develop understanding
and to display that understanding via language and nonlanguage tools. One exam-
ple focused on the display of mathematical understanding in summative assessment,
while the second was a display of scientific understanding using visual representa-
tions appropriate to a beginning English level during formative assessment. In the
preface to this volume, we provided an overview of the goals, organization, and
basic details of our approach to the language challenges inherent to learning the
STEM disciplines. The following chapters focus on the authors’ findings for how
the language of mathematics and of the sciences presents challenges for all students
and in particular EL students.
References
Bailey, A. L. (2017). Progressions of a new language: Characterizing explanation develop-
ment for assessment with young language learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
37, 241–263.
Bailey, A. L., Huang,Y., & Escobar, M. (2011). I can explain: Academic language for science
among young English language learners. In P. Noyce & D. Hickey (Eds.), New frontiers in
formative assessment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90.
Black, P., Wilson, M., & Yao, S.Y. (2011). Road maps for learning: A guide to the navigation
of learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9, 71–123.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English Language Proficiency
Development Standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Gen-
eration Science Standards. Washington, DC: CCSSO.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015, December 10). Public Law No. 114–195, 114th Con-
gress, 1st session.
Kastberg, D., Chan, J.Y., & Murray, G. (2016). Performance of US 15-year-old students in Science,
reading, and Mathematics literacy in an international context: First look at PISA 2015. NCES
2017–2048. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Maher, C. A., & Yankelewitz, D. (Eds.) (2017). Children’s reasoning while building fraction ideas.
Heidelberg/Dordrecht/Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2010). Promoting student reasoning through
careful task design: A comparison of three studies. International Journal for Studies in Math-
ematics Education, 3(1), 135–156.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2017). Profiles of English learners.
Washington, DC: Office of English Language Acquisition.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2016). College and career readiness standards legisla-
tion. Retrieved from www.ccrslegislation.info/CCR-State-Policy-Resources/common-
core-status-map
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/
social studies, science, and technical subjects and Common Core state standards for Mathematics.
Washington, DC: Author.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001, December 13). Public Law No. 107–110, 107th Congress,
1st Session.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA): Mathematics and Science literacy. Paris: Author.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA): Mathematics and Science literacy. Paris: Author.
Ripley, A. (2016, December 8).What the U.S. can learn from other nation’s schools. The New
York Times, p. A3.
Saunders, W. M., & Marcelletti, D. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of
reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 35(2), 139–156.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). National assessment of educational progress: 2015 Math-
ematics and Science performances. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). National assessment of educational progress science assess-
ment. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/
PART I
Language in the STEM

Disciplines
2
TALKING TO LEARN MATHEMATICS
WITH UNDERSTANDING
Supporting Academic Literacy in
Mathematics for English Learners
Judit Moschkovich
Focus Points
Learning math with understanding:
• Teachers of English learners (ELs) need to teach mathematics for student

understanding.
• Both procedural fluency (knowing how to calculate accurately and efficiently)
and conceptual understanding (understanding what a math idea means, rep-
resents, and when it should be applied) are important to academic success and
mathematical proficiency for EL students.
• Both types of knowledge expressed in each language (home or school) can
support students’ mathematical proficiency.
• Repetitive worksheets and rehearsal of procedures are not the best ways to
remediate missing procedural skills. If remedial work is necessary to support
procedural fluency (efficient recall of math facts or quick performance of
arithmetic procedures), teachers can embed practicing procedures within les-
sons that also support student talk and understanding.
Talking to learn math with understanding:
• Talk is important when learning mathematics because it supports students’

conceptual understanding, and students share and listen to mathematical
reasoning.
• The kind of talk that students engage in matters for learning mathematics with
understanding. Talk should focus on concepts and reasoning, not on proce-
dures or memorizing or vocabulary.
• Vocabulary should not be the main focus of lessons for students learning
English. When vocabulary is the focus, it should be after students have had
opportunities for engaging in meaningful mathematical activity to develop
14 Judit Moschkovich
meaning for math ideas and procedures. Academic literacy in mathematics is

much more than vocabulary; it includes mathematical proficiency, mathemati-
cal practices, and mathematical discourse.
Resources for teachers:
• Resources are available (many free and online) for designing mathemat-
ics lessons that support EL students in talking to learn mathematics with
understanding.
• Teachers can support student talk during whole-class discussions by using a
variety of teacher “talk moves.”
• Considering how to include a variety of participation structures beyond
whole-class discussions, such as pairs and small groups, is essential for support-
ing EL students in talking to learn mathematics with understanding. Teachers
can work in teams, collaborating with mathematics, language, and ESL special-
ists to design, observe, and polish lessons that support EL students in talking to
learn mathematics with understanding.
• Teachers can use interpreters, translated materials, and cognates to support
students who have had instruction in mathematics in their first language.
Chapter Purpose
This chapter summarizes what we know about the role of oral language in learning
mathematics with understanding. The chapter focuses on why student talk is impor-
tant for conceptual understanding, what kinds of talk support learning mathematics
with understanding, and how teachers can support student participation in math-
ematical discussions focused on understanding. Central issues include hearing the
mathematical content in students’ everyday ways of talking, building on that everyday
language, and supporting more formal ways of talking. The chapter includes a list of
resources for teachers to learn to orchestrate mathematical discussions and address the
needs of students who are bilingual, multilingual, and/or learning English.
A first step in supporting EL students in talking to learn mathematics with
understanding is to shift from a simple view of mathematical language as single
words to a broader definition of academic literacy—not just learning words but
learning to communicate mathematically. This shift from a simplified view of aca-
demic language as single words to an expanded view of academic literacy in math-
ematics (Moschkovich, 2015a, 2015b) that integrates mathematical proficiency and
practices is crucial for students who are learning English (Moschkovich, 2013a,
2013b). Research and policy have repeatedly, clearly, and strongly called for mathe-
matics instruction for this student population to maintain high standards (American
Educational Research Association, 2004) and use high- cognitive- demand tasks
(AERA, 2006). In order to accomplish these goals, mathematics instruction for
students who are learning English needs to shift from defining academic literacy
in mathematics as low-level language skills (i.e. vocabulary or single words) or
mathematical skills (i.e. arithmetic computation) and use an expanded definition of
academic literacy in mathematics to design lessons that support talking to learn math-
ematics with understanding.
Talking to Learn Mathematics 15
The chapter begins with a review of relevant research, summarizing work on

academic literacy in mathematics, the role of the mathematics register, and how
everyday and home languages can provide resources for learning mathematics.
Next, the chapter summarizes best practices for supporting EL students in talk-
ing to learn mathematics with understanding: teacher talk moves, the English
Language Proficiency Development (ELPD) Framework, and sample activities
that support student talk.
Review of Research and Theory

It is difficult to make generalizations about the instructional needs of all students
who are learning English. Specific information about students’ previous instruc-
tional experiences in mathematics is crucial for understanding how bilingual
and multilingual learners communicate in mathematics classrooms. Classroom
instruction should be informed by specific local knowledge of students’ expe-
riences with mathematics instruction, language history, and educational back-
ground. In addition to knowing the details of students’ experiences, research
suggests that high-quality instruction for EL students that supports student
achievement has two general characteristics (Gándara & Contreras, 2009), an
emphasis on academic achievement—not only on learning English—and a view
of language as a resource—not a deficiency.
Research provides general guidelines for instruction for this student population.
Students who are learning English need access to curricula, instruction, and teach-
ers proven to be effective in supporting the academic success of these students. The
general characteristics of such environments are that curricula provide “abundant
and diverse opportunities for speaking, listening, reading, and writing” and that
instruction “encourage students to take risks, construct meaning, and seek reinter-
pretations of knowledge within compatible social contexts” (Garcia & Gonzalez,
1995, p. 424). Some of the characteristics of teachers who have been documented as
being successful with students from nondominant communities include: (a) a high
commitment to students’ academic success and to student-home communication,
(b) high expectations for all students, (c) the autonomy to change curriculum and
instruction to meet the specific needs of students, and (d) a rejection of models of
their students as intellectually disadvantaged. Curriculum policies for EL students
in mathematics should follow the guidelines for traditionally underserved students
(American Educational Research Association, 2006), such as instituting systems that
broaden course-taking options and avoiding systems of tracking students that limit
their opportunities to learn and delay their exposure to college-preparatory math-
ematics coursework.
Mathematics instruction for EL students should also follow current general
recommendations for high-quality mathematics instruction: (a) students focus on
mathematical concepts and connections among those concepts, and (b) teachers use
high cognitive demand mathematical tasks and maintain the rigor and cognitive
demand of those tasks during lessons—for example, by encouraging students to
explain their reasoning (American Educational Research Association, 2006; Stein,
Grover, & Henningsen, 1996). Research in mathematics education describes teach-
ing that promotes student conceptual understanding as having two central features:
One is that teachers and students attend explicitly to concepts, and the other is that
students wrestle with important mathematics (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007).
Mathematics lessons for EL students need to include the full spectrum of math-
ematical proficiency, balance computational fluency with high- cognitive- demand
tasks that require conceptual understanding and reasoning, and provide students
opportunities to participate in mathematical practices (Moschkovich, 2013a,
2013b). Instruction should allow students to use multiple resources (such as modes
of communication, symbol systems, registers, or languages) for mathematical rea-
soning (Moschkovich, 2014a, 2014b) and support students in negotiating meanings
for mathematical language that are grounded in student mathematical work, instead
of giving students definitions separate from mathematical activity (Moschkovich,
2015a, 2015b).
Overall, research provides a few guidelines for instructional practices for teaching
EL students mathematics. Mathematics instruction for EL students should:
• Support EL students’ participation in mathematical discussions as they learn

English (Moschkovich, 1999, 2002, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).
• Focus on mathematical practices such as reasoning and justifying, not accuracy
in using individual words, and address much more than vocabulary.
• Treat home and everyday language as resources, not deficits (Gándara & Con-
treras, 2009; Moschkovich, 2000). Draw on multiple resources available in
classrooms—such as objects, drawings, graphs, and gestures—as well as home
languages and experiences outside of school.
Research shows that EL students, even as they are learning English, can partici-
pate in discussions where they grapple with important mathematical content (for
examples of lessons where EL students participate in mathematical discussions, see
Khisty, 1995; Khisty & Chval, 2002; Moschkovich, 1999, 2007a, 2011). Instruction
for this population should not emphasize low-level language skills over oppor-
tunities to actively communicate about mathematical ideas. One of the goals of
mathematics instruction for students who are learning English should be to support
all students, regardless of their proficiency in English, in participating in oral dis-
cussions that focus on important mathematical concepts and student mathematical
reasoning rather than on pronunciation, vocabulary, or low-level linguistic skills. By
learning to recognize how EL students express their mathematical ideas as they are
learning English, teachers can maintain a focus on mathematical reasoning as well
as on language development.
Research has documented a variety of language resources that EL students use
to communicate mathematical ideas: their first language, everyday language, ges-
tures, and objects. When communicating mathematically, students use multiple
resources from experiences both in and out of school (Forman, McCormick, &
Donato, 1997; O’Connor, 1999; Moschkovich, 2010). Everyday language, ways
of talking, and experiences are, in fact, resources that we can expect students to
use as they participate in mathematical discussions (Moschkovich, 1996, 2007c,
2010). For example, students have been documented using their first language to
repeat an explanation or mixing Spanish and English to explain a mathematical idea
(Moschkovich, 2000).
Students’ use of home or everyday language should not be treated as a failure

to be mathematically precise but as a resource for communicating mathematical
reasoning, making sense of mathematical meanings, and learning with understand-
ing (Moschkovich, 2014a, 2014b). Teachers need to hear how students use eve-
ryday language to communicate mathematical ideas and then build bridges from
student everyday language to more formal ways of talking. Teachers can build
on these language resources in multiple ways. Recommended strategies include
“revoicing” student contributions using more formal ways of talking (Forman et al.,
1997; Moschkovich, 1999; O’Connor & Michaels, 1993), asking for clarifica-
tion (Moschkovich, 1999), and probing a student’s thinking (Herbel-Eisenmann,
Steele, & Cirillo, 2013).
Research also describes how mathematical communication is much more than
vocabulary. Work on the language of disciplines (e.g., Pimm, 1987; Schleppegrell,
2007) provides a complex view of mathematical language as not only specialized
vocabulary—new words and new meanings for familiar words—but also as extended
discourse that includes other symbolic systems as well as artifacts (Moschkovich,
2002; Moschkovich, 2013b), syntax and organization (Crowhurst, 1994), the math-
ematics register (Halliday, 1978), and discourse practices (Moschkovich, 2007c).
(For a sociocultural approach and description of the key features of mathematical
discourse, see Moschkovich, 2007c).
While vocabulary is necessary, it is not sufficient. Learning to communicate
mathematically is not merely or primarily a matter of learning vocabulary. During
discussions in mathematics classrooms students are also learning to describe pat-
terns, make generalizations, and use representations to support their claims, all cen-
tral mathematical practices that should be the focus of instruction. The question is
not whether students who are EL students should learn vocabulary but rather when
and how instruction can best support students as they learn both vocabulary and
mathematics. Vocabulary drill, practice, definitions, or lists are not the most effec-
tive instructional practice for learning to talk mathematically. Instead, vocabulary
acquisition in a first or second language occurs most successfully in instructional
contexts that are language rich, actively involve students in using language, require
both receptive and expressive understanding, and require students to use words in
multiple ways over extended periods of time (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000; Pressley,
2000). To develop oral (and written) communication skills, students need to par-
ticipate in negotiating meaning (Savignon, 1991) and in tasks that require output
from students (Swain, 2001). In sum, instruction should provide opportunities for
students to actively use mathematical language to communicate about and negoti-
ate meaning for mathematical situations.
Mathematics instruction for EL students needs to shift from simplified views of
academic mathematical language as single words, vocabulary, or definitions. Teachers
need to carefully consider when and how it is appropriate and timely to empha-
size correct vocabulary and formal language and when it is useful for students to
use informal language and imperfect ways of communicating, for example during
exploratory discussions. All students need opportunities to learn to talk in mathemat-
ics classrooms; therefore, this shift from a narrow to an expanded view of academic
language is important for all students. However, this shift is essential for EL students
for several reasons. Narrow views of academic language as only words severely limit
the linguistic resources teachers can use to teach mathematics and students can use
to learn mathematics with understanding. Separating language from mathematical
proficiency and practices and focusing instruction on words, vocabulary, or defini-
tions limits EL students’ access to the five strands of mathematical proficiency and
curtails these students’ opportunities to participate in mathematical practices (for
examples of instruction for EL students that focused on word activities and lacked
mathematical content, see de Araujo, 2012a and 2012b). Not allowing EL students
to use informal language, typically acquired before more formal ways of talking, also
limits the resources they can use to communicate mathematically. Lastly, focusing on
correct vocabulary also curtails the opportunities for EL students to express them-
selves mathematically as they learn English in what are likely to be imperfect ways,
especially initially. In contrast, the view of academic literacy in mathematics described
in this chapter provides a complex and expanded view of mathematical language
that is connected to the five strands of mathematical proficiency, includes the CCSS
mathematical practices, and includes informal ways of talking as resources.
What is Academic Literacy in Mathematics?

This chapter uses an integrated definition of academic literacy in mathematics for
students who are learning English.The definition of academic literacy in mathemat-
ics includes three integrated components: mathematical proficiency, mathematical
practices, and mathematical discourse. The chapter first describes each component
of academic literacy in mathematics. These three components of academic literacy
in mathematics are intertwined and should not be separated when designing lessons
that support talking to learn mathematics with understanding.
The view of academic literacy in mathematics presented here is different
than previous approaches to academic language in several ways. First, the defini-
tion includes not only cognitive aspects of mathematical activity—activities that
happen in one’s mind such as mathematical reasoning, thinking, concepts, and
metacognition—but also social and cultural aspects—activities that happen with
other people, such as participation in the eight CCSS mathematical practices—and
discourse aspects—activities that happen when using mathematical language, read-
ing, writing, listening, or talking about mathematics. Most importantly, this defini-
tion provides an integrated view of these three components of academic literacy in
mathematics working in unison rather than isolating mathematical language from
mathematical proficiency or mathematical practices.
Recommendations for students to participate in mathematical discussions were
evident in the NCTM Standards (NCTM, 1989) and thus precede Common Core.
The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM, National Gover-
nors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offic-
ers, 2010) call for several shifts in practices for teaching mathematics. In particular,
the eight Standards for Mathematical Practice described in the CCSSM require
students to be actively engaged in practices such as reasoning abstractly, construct-
ing arguments, and attending to precision.This emphasis on mathematical practices
places language demands on students, as instruction aligned with the CCSSM needs
to provide students opportunities to participate in the described mathematical
practices. Students need to learn not only how to think and reason mathematically
but also to use language (and other symbol systems) to communicate—talk, read,
and write—about mathematics. The eight mathematical practices are not language
intensive in and of themselves. The language intensity of any of the mathematical
practices depends on the ways each mathematical practice is enacted in a lesson and
whether the activity structure includes opportunities to use language.
The definition used in this chapter expands academic literacy in mathematics
beyond narrow views of mathematical language as words. Narrow views of aca-
demic language have characteristics that limit EL students’ access to a high-quality
curriculum: (a) a focus on single words or vocabulary limits access to both complex
texts and high-level mathematical ideas, as well as opportunities for students to
understand and make sense of those texts; (b) the assumption that meanings are static
and given by definitions limits students’ opportunities to make sense of mathematics
texts for themselves; and (c) the assumption that mathematical ideas should always
and only be communicated using formal language limits the resources (including
informal language) that students can use to communicate mathematically. In con-
trast, the view of mathematical language used here assumes that meanings for aca-
demic language are situated and grounded in the mathematical activity that students
are actively engaged in. For example, the meanings for the words in a word problem
do not come from a definition in a word list provided by the teacher before a lesson
using a word problem; instead, students develop these meanings as they work on
the problem, communicate about the word problem with their peers, and develop
their solutions. A complex view of mathematical language also means that lessons
need to include multiple modes (not only reading and talking, but also other modes
such as listening and writing), multiple representations (gestures, objects, drawings,
tables, graphs, symbols, etc.), and multiple ways of using language (formal school
mathematical language, home languages, and everyday language).
In addition, the definition used in this chapter expands academic literacy in
mathematics beyond simplified views of mathematics as computation. First, this
definition includes mathematical practices. Second, this definition includes the full
spectrum of mathematical proficiency, balancing procedural fluency, conceptual
understanding, and reasoning.
What Are Mathematical Practices?

Two sources for descriptions of mathematical practices are the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards (NCTM, 1989) and the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) for Mathematical Practices (CCSS, 2010a, 2010b).
The CCSS standards for mathematical practice overlap in important ways with the
NCTM standards and the definition of mathematical proficiency (Kilpatrick, Swaf-
ford, & Findell, 2001). Although the NCTM Standards did not explicitly label these
practices, they focused on problem solving, sense making, reasoning, modeling,
and looking for patterns, structure, or regularity (Koestler, Felton, Bieda, & Otten,
2013).The CCSS introduced a list of eight “Standards for Mathematical Practice”:1
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.

5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.
What Is Mathematical Proficiency?

A current description of mathematical proficiency comes from “Adding It Up:
Helping Children Learn Mathematics,” published in 2001 by the National Research
Council (edited by Kilpatrick et al., 2001). The NRC volume defines the inter-
twined strands of mathematical proficiency as:
1. Conceptual understanding (comprehension of mathematical concepts, opera-

tions, and relations);
2. Procedural fluency (skill in carrying out procedures flexibly, accurately, effi-
ciently, and appropriately);
3. Strategic competence (formulating, representing, and solving mathematical
problems [novel problems, not routine exercises]);
4. Adaptive reasoning (logical thought, reflection, explanation, and justification);
and
5. Productive disposition (habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, use-
ful, and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy).
I will address only the first two components, procedural fluency and conceptual
understanding, since they are the basis for teaching mathematics for understand-
ing.2 Fluency in performing mathematical procedures or calculations is what most
people imagine when we say “learning mathematics.” Conceptual understanding
is more difficult to define and less well understood by parents, administrators, and
beginning teachers. Conceptual understanding involves the connections, reason-
ing, and meaning that learners (not teachers) construct. Conceptual understanding
is more than performing a procedure accurately and quickly (or memorizing a
definition or theorem). It involves understanding why a particular result is the cor-
rect answer and what that results means, i.e., what the number, solution, or result
represents—for example, explaining (or showing using a picture) why the result of
multiplying 1/2 by 2/3 is smaller than 1/2.
Another aspect of conceptual understanding involves connecting representa-
tions (such as words, drawings, symbols, diagrams, tables, graphs, equation, etc.),
procedures, and concepts (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992). For example, if students
understand addition and multiplication, we would say they have learned to make
connections between these two procedures and expect that they would be able to
explain how multiplication and addition are related (for example, that multiplica-
tion can sometimes be described or modeled as repeated addition). If they under-
stand the procedures for operations with negative numbers, we would say they have
learned to make connections among these procedures and expect that they would
be able to explain, for example how the procedures for multiplication and addition
are similar or different and explain why.
Why Is Conceptual Understanding Important?

One might think, “Fine, so researchers think that students need to be able to draw
pictures and explain what they are doing when they calculate or perform a proce-
dure, but what is the big deal about conceptual understanding? Why can’t students
just learn their multiplication facts or learn that the right procedure to divide frac-
tions is to ‘invert and multiply’ and be done with it? I certainly don’t understand
the arithmetic I learned, and yet I have made it through school.Why does children’s
learning of mathematics need to include conceptual understanding?”
One answer to these questions is that conceptual understanding and procedural
fluency are closely related, even if we, as adults, do not now remember understand-
ing a particular procedure when we learned that procedure. Research in cognitive
science (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) has shown that people remember
better, longer, and in more detail if they understand, actively organize what they are
learning, connect new knowledge to prior knowledge, and elaborate. This means
children will remember procedures better, longer, and in more detail if they actively
make sense of procedures, connect procedures to other procedures, and connect
procedures to concepts and representations. Rehearsal (repeating something over
and over) may work for memorizing a grocery list (and even then, organizing the
list will improve memorization). Rehearsal, however, is not the most efficient strat-
egy for remembering how to perform demanding cognitive tasks such as arithmetic
operations. The research evidence is clear. The best way to remember is to under-
stand, elaborate, and organize what you know (Bransford et al., 2000).
Why Is Communicating Important for Learning Mathematics?

One might think, “I can see why children need to develop conceptual understand-
ing, but what is all the fuss about communication in the mathematics classroom?
I always did math by myself, sitting quietly at my desk.” Communication is impor-
tant because it supports conceptual understanding. If understanding is defined as
the multiple connections that learners make (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992), then the
more opportunities a learner has to make connections among multiple representa-
tions, the more opportunities that learner has to develop understanding. But not
all kinds of communication will support conceptual understanding in mathematics.
A summary of the research on effective teaching shows that instruction needs to
be focused on important mathematical ideas (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). Classroom
communication that engages students in evidence-based arguments by focusing on
explanations, arguments, and justifications builds conceptual understanding. Since
making connections among multiple ways of representing mathematical concepts
is central to developing conceptual understanding (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992),
communication should also include multiple modes (talking, listening, writing,
drawing, etc.).
What Are the Needs of EL Students in Mathematics Classrooms?

EL students need to develop both procedural fluency and conceptual under-
standing, because these are two central aspects of mathematical proficiency. They
also need to have opportunities to engage in mathematical communication, because

this is a central way to develop both procedural fluency and conceptual under-
standing. Now, one might think “Sure, classroom discussions may support concep-
tual understanding. But EL students can’t participate in mathematical discussions
because they are just learning English” or “EL students just need to learn math
vocabulary.Then they can participate in mathematical discussions.”These may seem
like commonsense claims. However, research contradicts these intuitive assump-
tions and shows that EL students, even as they are learning English, can partici-
pate in discussions where they grapple with important mathematical content (for
examples of lessons where EL students participate in a mathematical discussion, see
Moschkovich, 1999a and Khisty, 1995).
The Mathematics Register

Several early studies focused on the mathematics register and proposed that this
register is a source of difficulty for native English speakers and an even greater
source of difficulty for students learning English (Cuevas, 1983; Mestre, 1988; Spa-
nos, Rhodes, Dale, & Crandall, 1988; Spanos & Crandall, 1990). The evidence pre-
sented in these early studies to support this claim is not conclusive. While there
were a few descriptions of the hypothetical ways that the mathematics register
was an obstacle, there were few empirical examples of these difficulties. It was also
unclear what researchers actually meant by the mathematics register.
These studies provided only a few empirical examples of the actual difficulties
that different words, phrases, or meanings presented for students in the studies. For
example, Spanos et al. (1988) and Spanos and Crandall (1990) proposed a complex
framework for analyzing what they called semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic aspects
of mathematical language and used the framework to analyze transcript excerpts for
evidence of three types of difficulties with word problems. Many of the difficulties
documented were pragmatic, not difficulties with mathematical meanings of words.
For example, they reported one student had difficulties understanding when a tax
was applied to a bill, rather than understanding the meaning of the word “tax.”
Overall, these early studies used a restricted view of the mathematics register.
While invoking the mathematics register may have added complexity to how lan-
guage was conceptualized, this notion also presented several challenges. First, using
the notion of register requires that the concept be understood as it was proposed by
Halliday (1978) rather than interpreted as lexicon, vocabulary, or a list of technical
words and phrases: “A register is a set of meanings that is appropriate to a particular
function of language, together with the words and structures which express these
meanings” (p. 195). Some examples of registers are legal talk and baby talk. In
mathematics, since there are multiple meanings for the same term, students who are
learning mathematics have been described as learning to use these multiple mean-
ings appropriately. An example of multiple meanings is the phrase “any number,”
which means “all numbers” in a math context (Pimm, 1987).
Second, whether referring to home languages or to the mathematics register,
the relationship between language and learning mathematics was viewed primar-
ily in terms of language as an obstacle (not a resource) for doing or learning math-
ematics. The mathematics register was initially described as a barrier for students
learning mathematics (for example, see Cuevas, 1983; Mestre, 1988; Spanos et al.,
1988; Spanos & Crandall, 1990). Multiple meanings of the same word were
hypothesized to create obstacles in mathematical conversations, because students
often use the colloquial meanings of terms, while teachers (or other students)
may use the mathematical meaning of terms. An example is the word “prime,”
which can have different meanings depending on whether it is used to refer to
“prime number,” “prime time,” or “prime rib.” Other examples are the words
“function” and “set.”
The notion of register as proposed by Halliday (1978) is much more than a set
of lexical items and also includes phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics as
well as non-linguistic behavior. Most importantly, the notion of register includes
the situational context of utterances. Although words and phrases do have multiple
meanings, these words and phrases appear in talk as utterances that occur within
social contexts, and speakers use situational resources to derive the meaning of
an utterance. For example, the phrase “give me a quarter” uttered at a vending
machine clearly has a different meaning than saying “give me a quarter” while
looking at a pizza. When imagining that students face difficulties with multiple
meanings in mathematical conversations, it is important to consider how resources
from the situation, such as objects and gestures, point to one or another sense,
whether “quarter” means “a coin” or “a fourth” (Moschkovich, 2002).
A third challenge in using the notion of register is that, although it is easy to
set up a dichotomy between the everyday and the mathematics registers, these two
registers should not be treated as dichotomous. During mathematical discussions
students use multiple resources from their experiences across multiple settings, both
in and out of school. Forman (1996) offers evidence of this in her description of
how students interweave the everyday and academic registers in classroom discus-
sions.Thus, everyday meanings should not be seen only as obstacles to participation
in academic mathematical discussions. The origin of some mathematical mean-
ings may be everyday experiences, and some aspects of everyday experiences may
actually provide resources in the mathematics classroom. For example, climbing
hills is an experience that can be a resource for describing the steepness of lines
(Moschkovich, 1996). Other everyday experiences with natural phenomena also
may provide resources for communicating mathematically.
While differences between the everyday and mathematics registers may some-
times be obstacles for communicating in mathematically precise ways and everyday
meanings can sometimes be ambiguous, everyday meanings and metaphors can also
be resources for understanding mathematical concepts. Rather than emphasizing
the limitations of the everyday register in comparison to the mathematics register,
it is important to understand how the two registers serve different purposes and
how everyday meanings can provide resources for mathematical communication
and learning mathematics with understanding.
Current Perspectives on the Role of Language in Learning Mathematics

Early research studies on the role of language in learning mathematics treated lan-
guage as an individual phenomenon that creates obstacles for learning mathematics.
In contrast, contemporary sociocultural perspectives of language provide a view of
language as a sociocultural activity and a resource for doing and learning mathe-
matics. Instead of viewing language as separate from mathematical activity, research
now considers language as part and parcel of mathematical thinking and learning.
Rather than viewing language only as an obstacle for learning mathematics,
research now considers language as one of the multiple resources that learners use
to understand mathematics and construct mathematical meaning. In order to focus
on the mathematical meanings learners construct, rather than the mistakes they
make, researchers and practitioners need frameworks for recognizing the math-
ematical knowledge, ideas, and learning that learners are constructing in, through,
and with language. Several such frameworks are available, for example functional
systemic linguistics (O’Halloran, 1999, 2000; Schleppegrell, 2007), a communica-
tion framework for mathematics instruction (Brenner, 1994), a situated and socio-
cultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners (Moschkovich, 2002, 2007a)
and a definition of academic literacy in mathematics (Moschkovich, 2015a, 2015b).
These can serve as frameworks for recognizing oral mathematical contributions by
students and shift the focus from looking for deficits to identifying the mathematics
evident in student contributions (e.g., Moschkovich, 1999).
For example, Brenner (1994) provides useful distinctions among different kinds
of communication in mathematics classrooms and describes three components:
“Communication about mathematics” involves describing one’s thinking, “Com-
munication in mathematics” involves mathematical symbols, and “Communica-
tion with mathematics” involves applying mathematics to meaningful problems
(p. 241). Herbel-Eisenmann et al. (2013) also remind us that not all mathematical
talk is formal, and whether students use more or less formal ways of talking depends
on the setting. They provide a useful framework that highlights the variety of oral
communication students can produce in the classroom, depending on the different
communication settings. They describe how students may use more informal talk
that involves pointing and deictic terms (Why did you do that? When I did this,
I got the wrong answer) when talking in a small group with writing or computa-
tions in front of them. That talk may become less deictic and a bit more formal
when presenting a solution at the board (When I multiplied by seven, I got the
wrong answer). And, finally, when presenting a final solution in writing, that talk
would then become even more formal and begin to “sound” more like a textbook
(My calculation was initially wrong, but I changed the operation from multiplica-
tion to division and then the result made more sense).
To summarize, mathematics instruction needs to support EL students both to
reason mathematically and to express that mathematical reasoning orally. However,
it is important to note that, for students learning mathematics, informal language is
important, especially when students are exploring a mathematical concept or first
learning a new concept or discussing a math problem in small groups. Informal lan-
guage can be used by students (and teachers) during exploratory talk (Barnes, 1992;
Barnes & Todd, 1995) or when working in a small group communication context
(Herbel-Eisenmann et al., 2013). Such informal language can reflect important stu-
dent mathematical thinking (for examples, see Moschkovich, 1996, 1999). In other
situations, for example, when making a presentation, developing a written account
of a solution, using more formal academic mathematical language becomes more
important.
Best Practices
How can teachers plan lessons for EL students that balance attention to concep-
tual understanding, mathematical practices, and the language demands of talking
to learn mathematics with understanding? In order to tackle the complex issue of
mathematics instruction for this student population, lesson design needs to draw on
exemplary and high-quality practices and tools that are based on current research
in relevant fields and use a complex view of classroom mathematical language.
In this section, I point to several resources that teachers can use to design lessons
that include attention to both conceptual understanding and student talk. These
resources include research on mathematical discussions (Smith & Stein, 2011; Stein,
Engle, Smith, & Hughes, 2008) and Chapin et al.’s teacher talk moves (2009). I then
briefly describe the Framework for English Language Proficiency Development
Standards3 and several open-source sample student activities that can be used to
plan lessons that attend to oral language.
Teacher Talk Moves That Support Productive

Whole-Class Mathematical Discussions
Work on teacher talk moves in mathematics classrooms provides resources for
teachers learning to support whole-class discussions (Chapin et al., 2009; Herbel-
Eisenmann et al., 2013; Herbel-Eisenmann & Cirillo, 2009; Herbel-Eisenmann,
Drake, & Cirillo, 2009; Michaels & O’Connor, 2015; Razfar & Leavitt, 2010, 2011).
These talk moves create opportunities for students to draw upon the linguistic
resources they bring to class and enable productive classroom discussions in math-
ematics (Chapin et al., 2009). According to Chapin et al., 2009) a productive class-
room discussion supports students’ mathematical understandings by proceeding
through four steps:
Step 1. Helping individual students clarify and share their own thoughts
Step 2. Helping students orient to the thinking of other students
Step 3. Helping students deepen their reasoning
Step 4. Helping students to engage with the reasoning of others
Several teacher moves (Michaels & O’Connor, 2015) have been described that
can support student participation in a discussion: revoicing, asking for clarification,
accepting and building on what students say, probing what students mean, and using
students’ own ways of talking. Teachers can use multiple ways to scaffold and sup-
port more formal language, including revoicing student statements (Moschkovich,
2015c).
Revoicing (O’Connor & Michaels, 1993) is a teacher move describing how
an adult, typically a teacher, rephrases a student’s contribution during a discussion,
expanding or recasting the original utterance (Forman et al., 1997). Revoicing has
been used to describe teacher talk moves in several studies (for example, Enyedy
et al., 2008; Herbel-Eisenmann et al., 2009). A teacher’s revoicing can support stu-
dent participation in a discussion as well as introduce more formal language. First,
it can facilitate student participation in general by accepting a student’s response,
using it to make an inference, and allowing the student to evaluate the accuracy of
the teacher’s interpretation of the student contribution (O’Connor and Michaels,
1993). This teacher move allows for further student contributions in a way that the
standard classroom initiation—response—evaluation (IRE) pattern (Mehan, 1979;
Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) does not. Revoicing can build on students’ own use
of mathematical practices, or a student contribution can be revoiced to reflect new
mathematical practices. Revoicing also provides opportunities for students to hear
and then use more formal mathematical language.
English Language Proficiency Development Framework

The Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards (available
online) can be used to consider the language demands and the mathematical prac-
tices that support students in talking to learn mathematics with understanding.
The ELPD (CCSSO, 2012) mathematics sections of this document provide a high-
quality resource for designing mathematics lessons for EL students that pay atten-
tion to language. The ELPD framework was designed to connect the mathematical
practices described in the CCSS to different ways to use language in a classroom.
The question “What oral, written, receptive, or productive language tasks are
involved for teacher and students to participate in each of the eight mathematical
practices?” provides the detail of language demands for each mathematical practice
in the CCSS. Table 4 in the ELPD framework focuses on making connections
between the mathematical practices and language tasks.
Two sections of the framework focus specifically on mathematics. “Discipline-
Specific Language in the K-12 Mathematics Classroom” (Table 8 on pages 33–34)
describes the features of classroom language (modality and registers), teachers’
receptive and productive language use and associated language tasks, and students’
language use and associated language tasks (receptive and productive, oral and writ-
ten). The “Key CCSS for Mathematical Practice With Embedded Analytical Tasks
and Receptive and Productive Language Functions” (Table 4 on pages 21–25)
describes analytical tasks, receptive language functions and productive language
functions for the eight CCSS mathematical practices. For example, for Math Prac-
tice 1, “Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them,” the general pro-
ductive language function is to communicate (orally, in writing, and through other
representations) about concepts, procedures, strategies, claims, arguments, and other
information related to problem solving. More specific productive language func-
tions are shown in Table 2.1 below:
TABLE 2.1 Productive Language Functions for Math Practice 1 “Make sense of problems
and persevere in solving them”
• Create, label, describe, and use multiple written representations of a problem in presenting
solutions to a math problem;
• Explain in words orally or in writing relationships between quantities and multiple
representations of problem solutions;
• Present information, description of solutions, explanations, and arguments to others;
• Respond to questions or critiques from others; and
• Ask questions about others’ solutions, strategies, and procedures for solving problems.
A public discussion of different approaches to a problem would provide

opportunities for students to participate in several productive and receptive language
functions, as they construct, generate, express, and refine their oral or written
descriptions of one’s own reasoning, solutions, or strategies and to hear, consider,
and critique descriptions of others’ reasoning and solutions (if other students’
solutions are part of a whole-class discussion). A public discussion would also
provide opportunities for modeling participation in mathematical discussions.
Students would hear, read, and/or see how other students and the teacher present
explanations, justify (or not) what they present, respond to questions, uncover
contradictions, etc.
Depending on the nature of the discussion, students would also have oppor-
tunities to engage in several productive language functions such as communicating
(orally, in writing, and through other representations) about concepts, proce-
dures, strategies, claims, arguments, and other information related to problem
solving; creating, labeling, describing, and using multiple written representations
of a problem in presenting solutions to a math problem; explaining in words
orally or in writing relationships between quantities and multiple representa-
tions of problem solutions; presenting information, description of solutions,
explanations, and arguments to others; responding to questions or critiques from
others; and asking questions about others’ solutions, strategies, and procedures
for solving problems.
Student Activities That Pay Attention to Oral Language

The endnotes include links to two open-source student activities that can be used
in lessons that pay attention to oral language. Two tables describe how to use these
tasks. Table 2.2 describes how to select or adapt tasks so that they focus simulta-
neously on conceptual understanding, mathematical practices, and mathematical
discourse. Table 2.3 lists several ways that instruction can pay attention to language
before, during, and after a lesson focusing on word problems.
During a lesson, in pair or small group work: The purpose of the task “Reading and
Understanding a Word Problem”4 is to support students in learning to approach a
mathematics problem by giving students tools for learning to read, understand, and
extract relevant information from a word problem. Students also practice identify-
ing additional information they may need to solve the word problem. Students
begin by reading or attempting to read the problem individually. Students then
form pairs and talk through the problem using the handout. There are several steps
in talking through the problem together, beginning with reading the problem aloud
and then answering questions together, both orally and in writing. The teacher can
ask questions leading to a diagram, students can act out the problem using objects
to represent the quantities in the situation, and students can present their diagrams
to the class.
During a lesson, for whole-class discussions: Teacher talk moves from Chapin et al.
(2009) provide details for scaffolding language during teacher-led discussions. The
strategies include (a) revoicing, (b) asking students to restate another students’ rea-
soning, (c) asking students to apply their own reasoning to someone else’s reason-
ing; (d) prompting students for further participation, and (e) using wait time.
TABLE 2.2 Using a Framework for Academic Literacy in Mathematics to Select or Adapt

Tasks
Math Proficiency Math Practices Math Language

1a. Which strands of math 1a. Which math 1. What typical math texts
proficiency are possible with practices are are involved (or possible)?
the task? necessary (or 2. What modes, purposes,
1b. Can the task be modified possible) for solving or representations are
to include more strands or the problem? involved (or possible)?
address one strand in more 1b. Are additional math 3. Are there any language
depth? practices possible? resources that are specific
2a. Does the task require high 2. What participation to these students or their
cognitive demand? structures are community?
2b. Can the task be modified necessary to engage
to require higher cognitive students in those
demand? math practices?
2c. What is necessary to
maintain high cognitive
demand?
TABLE 2.3 Planning to Support Student Talk to Learn Mathematics With Understanding
Before Lesson During Lesson, During Whole- After Small Following Up

in Small Groups Class Discussion Group and Whole
or Pairs Discussion
1. Identify and Include Implement Additional Follow up by
plan to address activities teacher talk activities providing
challenges for focused on moves from focused on instruction
EL students language, for Chapin, language, over several
at different example O’Connor, for example, lessons that
levels: resources, Language of and Anderson Language of supports
background Math Task (2009) Math Task students
knowledge Reading word Mathematically in moving
2. Plan how to problems speaking toward more
organize formal oral
small groups and written
using math language
and language (see Herbel-
proficiency Eisenmann et
3. Anticipate al., 2013, for
likely student examples)
responses
in terms of
language
proficiency
After a whole-class discussion: The task “Mathematically Speaking”5 gives students

the opportunity to solve a problem and then explain and discuss how they arrived
at their solution using targeted vocabulary. The activity is used for vocabulary
review or guided practice after students have worked on a word problem. Students
are asked to listen for, track, and describe vocabulary they used while their group
was solving a mathematics problem. It is crucial that students do this vocabulary

work after they solve a problem that grounds the meanings for words. To focus on
their mathematical reasoning, students can ask each other these questions: “What
did you do to solve the problem or find an answer? Why did you do that step? Why
is that step is justified mathematically?” or “What is a mathematical reason for that
step?” To refine their descriptions and explanations, students can ask each other
questions such as “Did my explanation make sense?” “Do you have any questions
about what I did?” and “Do you have any questions about why I did this?”
Other Ways to Support Oral Language

This last section points to a few examples that illustrate scaffolding that preserves a con-
ceptual focus and opportunities for using multiple registers.These examples are provided
as a contrast to scaffolding that reduces cognitive demand or opportunities for students
talking to learn mathematics. One area to consider is task selection that supports student
talk (for examples of tasks that support student talk, see http://mathandlanguage.edc.org/
mathematics-tasks). Teachers need to think about selecting tasks that maximize the talk
opportunities for all students, including EL students.Another resource for supporting stu-
dents in talking to learn math with understanding are number talks (Parrish, 2011).6
Lastly, the design of instruction that supports students in talking to learn mathematics
with understanding will also need to pay attention to the organization of small groups
and how to best support mathematical discussion in those groups. For example, in a
mixed language proficiency classroom where EL students, English proficient (EP), and
EOs (English only) students interact, teachers will need to learn to organize groups
and structure classroom discussions so that EL students feel safe and have access to talk
opportunities. Research that examines group work and student status (e.g., Boaler &
Staples, 2008; Cohen & Lotan, 2014; Featherstone et al., 2011) provides resources for
learning how to use groups productively in mathematics classrooms.
Summary of Main Ideas

This chapter describes several ways teachers can support EL students in talking to
learn mathematics with understanding:
1. Shift from focusing on vocabulary or single words to more complex views of

both academic language and mathematics.
2. Support students’ conceptual understanding and mathematical reasoning.
3. View both everyday and home languages as resources for communicating
mathematically (for examples, see Moschkovich, 2014a and 2014b).
4. Teachers should encourage students to use home and everyday language and
experiences to make sense of mathematical ideas.
5. Use high-quality resources to focus on student conceptual understanding (not
only procedural fluency), and support productive whole-class mathematical
discussions.
6. Add new resources developed for EL students that support learning mathemat-
ics with understanding, are specific to mathematics, and include both receptive
and productive language functions.
7. Teachers need to select tasks that provide students opportunities for talking to
learn with understanding and use teacher talk moves that support both talk
and understanding.
Implications for Research and Practice

Research and practice need to continue to focus on how student talk supports learn-
ing mathematics with understanding. Central issues for future research include how
to better support teachers in learning to hear the mathematical content in students’
everyday ways of talking, build on students’ everyday language, and support more for-
mal ways of talking. Although there are already multiple resources for teachers to learn
to orchestrate mathematical discussions, many more examples are needed that address
the specific needs of students who are bilingual, multilingual, and/or learning English,
illustrate talk at multiple grade levels, and focus on a variety of mathematical topics.
To support EL students in talking to learn mathematics with understanding,
research and practice needs to shift from a simple view of mathematical language as
single words to a broader definition of academic literacy. As described in this chap-
ter, this means not just learning words but learning to communicate mathematically.
This expanded view of academic literacy in mathematics (Moschkovich, 2015a, 2015b)
that integrates mathematical proficiency and practices is crucial for students who
are learning English (Moschkovich, 2013a, 2013b). Designing lessons that support
talking to learn mathematics with understanding means no longer focusing on
low-level language skills (i.e. vocabulary or single words) or mathematical skills (i.e.,
arithmetic computation).
Overall, the review of the research summarized here points research and practice in
a direction that moves away from simplified views of language as vocabulary, embraces
the multimodal and multi-semiotic nature of mathematical activity, and shifts from
monolithic views of mathematical talk or dichotomized views of the everyday and
mathematics registers. Research and practice need to leave behind an overemphasis
on correct vocabulary and formal language because that limits the linguistic resources
teachers and students can use in the classroom to learn mathematics with under-
standing. Research and practice also need to avoid dichotomies such as everyday/
academic or formal/informal. Classroom discussions draw on hybrid resources from
both academic and everyday contexts, and multiple registers co-exist in mathematics
classrooms. Lastly, to support the success of bilingual and multilingual students in class-
rooms, mathematical discussions need to build on and link with the language resources
students bring from their home communities. Therefore, everyday ways of talking
should not be seen as obstacles to participation in academic mathematical discussions
but as resources teachers can build on to support students in developing the more
formal mathematical ways of talking as they learn mathematics with understanding.
Notes
1 For more details, see www.ccsstoolbox.com/
2 Other strands of mathematical proficiency, for example strategic competence and adaptive
reasoning, also require opportunities for students to engage in mathematical discussions.
However, this chapter focuses on conceptual understanding as a contrast with procedural
fluency, the typical default emphasis in remedial approaches to mathematics instruction

for EL students. For more details on strategic competence and adaptive reasoning, see
Kilpatrick et al. (2001).
3 The ELPD framework was developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers, the
English Language Proficiency Development Framework Committee, in collaboration with
the Council of Great City Schools, the Understanding Language Initiative at Stanford Uni-
versity, and World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment, with funding support from the
Carnegie Corporation of New York.The full document is available online at www.ccsso.org/
Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf
4 Task 1 “Reading and Understanding a Math Problem,” a task for supporting academic
literacy with word problems, is on pages 37–40 in the document “Language of Math Task
Templates,” available online: http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/math_learnmore_
files/4.Language%20of%20Math%20Task%20Templates%2010-4-13.pdf
5 Task 2 “Speaking Mathematically,” a task for supporting academic literacy with word
problems, is on pages 47–49 in the document “Language of Math Task Templates” available
online: http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/math_learnmore_files/4.Language%20
of%20Math%20Task%20Templates%2010-4-13.pdf
6 Resources for both tasks and classroom videos of number talks include the Inside Math-
ematics web site; for examples, see Inside Mathematics at www.insidemathematics.org/
classroom-videos/number-talks, and the Youcubed web site, for example see www.youcubed.
org/jo-dot-card-number-talk/
References
American Educational Research Association. (2004). Closing the gap: High achievement for
students of color. Research Points, 2(3), 1–4.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Do the math: Cognitive demand makes
a difference. Research Points, 4(2), 1–4.
Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Pub-
lishers Heinemann.
Barnes, D. R., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through
talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers Heinemann.
Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 3, 503–523. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching
approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brenner, M. (1994). A communication framework for mathematics: Exemplary instruction
for culturally and linguistically diverse students. In B. McLeod (Ed.), Language and learning:
Educating linguistically diverse students (pp. 233–268). Albany: SUNY Press.
Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help
students learn, Grades K-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Class-
room Third Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Common Core State Standards. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for Mathematical Prac-
tice. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for Math-
ematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and
the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English Language Proficiency
Development Standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next
Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.ccsso.org/Documents/

2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf
Crowhurst, M. (1994). Language and learning across the curriculum. Scarborough, ON: Allyn
and Bacon.
Cuevas, G. (1983). Language proficiency and the development of mathematical concepts in
Hispanic primary school students. In T. H. Escobedo (Ed.), Early childhood bilingual educa-
tion: A Hispanic perspective (pp. 148–163). New York: Teachers College Press.
de Araujo, Z. (2012a). An examination of non-mathematical activities in the mathematics
classroom. In L. R.Van Zoest, J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual meet-
ing for the North American chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 339–342),
Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.
de Araujo, Z. (2012b). Diminishing demands: Secondary teachers’ modifications to tasks for
English language learners. In L. R.Van Zoest, J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the
34th annual meeting for the North American chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(pp. 76–79), Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.
Enyedy, N., Rubel, L., Castellón, V., Mukhopadhyay, S., Esmonde, I., & Secada, W. (2008).
Revoicing in a multilingual classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(2), 134–162.
Featherstone, H., Crespo, S., Jilk, L. M., Oslund, J. A., Parks, A. N., & Wood, M. B. (2011).
Smarter together! Collaboration and equity in the elementary math classroom. Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Forman, E. (1996). Learning mathematics as participation in classroom practice: Implications
of sociocultural theory for educational reform. In L. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Gol-
din, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of Mathematical learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Forman, E. A., McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (1997). Learning what counts as a math-
ematical explanation. Linguistics and Education, 9(4), 313–339.
Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social
policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garcia, E., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Issues in systemic reform for culturally and linguistically
diverse students. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 418–431.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Cirillo, M. (Eds.) (2009). Promoting purposeful discourse: Teacher
research in mathematics classrooms. Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Drake, C., & Cirillo, M. (2009). “Muddying the clear waters”:
Teachers’ take-up of the linguistic idea of revoicing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2),
268–277.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Steele, M. D., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) teacher dis-
course moves: A framework for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator,
1(2), 181–196.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 65–97). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’
learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 371–404). Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Khisty, L. (1995). Making inequality: Issues of language and meanings in mathematics teach-
ing with Hispanic students. In W. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. Adajian (Eds.), New directions
for equity in mathematics education (pp. 279–297). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Khisty, L. L., & Chval, K. B. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When
teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(3), 154–168.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn math-
ematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press/National Research Council.
Koestler, C., Felton, M., Bieda, K., & Otten, S. (2013). Connecting the NCTM process standards
and the CCSSM practices. Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mestre, J. (1988).The role of language comprehension in mathematics and problems solving.
In R. Cocking & J. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics
(pp. 259–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2015). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional
development approaches for academically productive discussion. In L. B. Resnick, C.
Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue. Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Moschkovich, J. N. (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared descriptions
of linear graphs. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 239–277.
Moschkovich, J. N. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in
mathematical discussions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(1), 11–19.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2000). Learning mathematics in two languages: Moving from obstacles
to resources. In W. Secada (Ed.), Changing the faces of Mathematics (Vol. 1): Perspectives on
multiculturalism and gender equity (pp. 85–93). Reston,VA: NCTM.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics
learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2 & 3), 189–212.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2007a). Beyond words to mathematical content: Assessing English learn-
ers in the mathematics classroom. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing Mathematical proficiency
(pp. 345–352). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2007b). Bilingual mathematics learners: How views of language, bilin-
gual learners, and mathematical communication impact instruction. In N. Nasir & P.
Cobb (Eds.), Diversity, equity, and access to mathematical ideas (pp. 89–104). New York:Teach-
ers College Press.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2007c). Using two languages while learning mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 64(2), 121–144.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2010). Recommendations for research on language and mathemat-
ics education. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multi-
ple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 151–170). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2011). Supporting mathematical reasoning and sense making for English
Learners. In M. Strutchens & J. Quander (Eds.), Focus in high school mathematics: Fostering
reasoning and sense making for all students (pp. 17–36). Reston,VA: NCTM.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2013a). Equitable practices in mathematics classrooms: Research based
recommendations. Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 5, 26–34.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2013b). Principles and guidelines for equitable mathematics teaching
practices and materials for English language learners. Journal of Urban Mathematics Educa-
tion, 6(1), 45–57.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2014a). Building on student language resources during classroom dis-
cussions. In M. Civil & E. Turner (Eds.), The Common Core State Standards in Mathematics
for English language learners: Grades K-8 (pp. 7–19). Alexandria, VA: TESOL International
Association.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2014b). Language resources for communicating mathematically: treat-
ing home and everyday language as resources. In T. Bartell & A. Flores (Eds.), Embrac-
ing resources of children, families, communities and cultures in Mathematics learning (pp. 1–12).
TODOS Research Monograph,Volume 3. San Bernadino, CA: Create Space Independ-
ent Publishing Platform.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2015a). Academic literacy in mathematics for English Learners. Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 43–62.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2015b). A sociocultural approach to academic literacy in mathemat-
ics for adolescent English Learners: Integrating mathematical proficiency, practices, and
discourse. In D. Molle, E. Sato, T. Boals, & C. Hedgspeth (Eds.), Multilingual learners and
academic literacies: Sociocultural contexts of literacy development in adolescents (pp. 75–104). New
York: Routledge.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2015c). Scaffolding mathematical practices. ZDM,The International Jour-

nal on Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1067–1078.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston,VA: NCTM.
O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through
revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,
24(4), 318–335.
O’Connor, M.C. (1999). Language socialization in the mathematics classroom. Discourse
practices and mathematical thinking. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking Math-
ematics (pp. 17–55). New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Halloran, K. (1999). Towards a systemic functional analysis of multisemiotic mathematics
texts. Semiotica, 124(1/2), 1–29.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Lin-
guistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388.
Parrish, S. D. (2011). Number talks build numerical reasoning. Teaching Children’s Mathematics,
18(3), 198–206.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London:
Routledge.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In
M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 3,
545–561. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Razfar, A., & Leavitt, D. R. (2010). Building Mathematics discussions in elementary classrooms with
Latino/a English learners. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tion Research Association, Denver, CO.
Razfar, A., & Leavitt, D. R. (2011). Developing metadiscourse: Building mathematical dis-
cussions in an urban elementary classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and
Technology Education, 11(2), 180–197.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly
25(2), 261–277.
Schleppegrell, M. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning:
A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by
pupils and teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discus-
sions. Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Spanos, G., & Crandall, J. (1990). Language and problem solving: Some examples from math
and science. In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education:
Issues and strategies (pp. 157–170). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Spanos, G., Rhodes, N. C., Dale, T. C., & Crandall, J. (1988). Linguistic features of math-
ematical problem solving: Insights and applications. In R. Cocking & J. Mestre (Eds.),
Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 221–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive
mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.
Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathemati-
cal thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44–63.
3
HOW THE NGSS SCIENCE
INSTRUCTIONAL SHIFTS AND
LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONAL
SHIFTS SUPPORT EACH OTHER
FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS
Talk in the Science Classroom
Okhee Lee, Scott Grapin, and Alison Haas
Focus Points
• Science classroom communities of practice can be rich environments for both
science and oral language learning with English learners (EL students), as they
use language to do science in socially mediated activity.
• The NGSS present key instructional shifts by promoting: (a) a focus on explain-
ing phenomena in the natural world or designing solutions to problems in the
designed world; (b) three-dimensional learning by blending science and engi-
neering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas; and (c)
learning progressions of student understanding over the course of instruction.
• Socially oriented perspectives in second language acquisition offer key instruc-
tional shifts by promoting: (a) use of language for purposeful communica-
tion in the science classroom; (b) meaningful participation of all EL students,
regardless of their English proficiency levels, in rigorous science learning; and
(c) a conceptualization of talk in the science classroom that considers registers,
modalities, and interactions.
• Science instructional shifts promote language learning with EL students, while
language instructional shifts promote science learning with EL students. Rec-
ognizing these shifts as mutually supportive can lead to better and more coher-
ent instructional approaches that promote both science and language learning
for all students, especially EL students.
Chapter Purpose
The new wave of standards in recent years has raised the bar for learning with
the goal of preparing all students for college and career readiness. With regard
36 Okhee Lee et al.
to science standards, as of December 2016, 18 states and the District of Colum-

bia (http://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx) have adopted the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS, NGSS Lead States, 2013a), representing over 35% of the students
in the nation. Additional states adapted the NGSS, and more states are current
developing their standards based on “A Framework for K-12 Science Education”
(National Research Council [NRC], 2012) and the NGSS, which are grounded
in the framework. The framework offers a vision of science teaching and learning
based on extensive research literature. Both the framework and NGSS are likely to
influence science instruction across the nation.
The NGSS were developed with the vision of “all standards, all students” (NGSS
Lead States, 2013b). According to the NGSS, “doing” science and engineering (e.g.,
developing models, constructing explanations, arguing from evidence) inherently
involves using language (Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). This perspective on learning
language in the context of doing specific things differs greatly from the conven-
tional perspective that focuses on learning vocabulary and grammar before they are
put to use. Contemporary thinking recognizes that language learning occurs not as
a precursor but as a product of using language in social interaction (Ellis & Larsen-
Freeman, 2009; Valdés, 2015).
This new wave of standards-based reform and new conceptions of learning
science and learning language coincide with rapidly changing demographics of
the nation’s student population, especially EL students, who represent the fastest
growing subpopulation (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). According to the 2010 U.S.
Census, 21% of school-age children spoke a language other than English at home
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). EL students constituted 9.3% of public school students
in 2013–2014, or an estimated 4.5 million students (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2016).
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a conceptual grounding for how science
instructional shifts associated with the NGSS and language instructional shifts based
on contemporary thinking in the field of second language acquisition support each
other in the teaching and learning of EL students. We provide a video of a fourth-
grade NGSS classroom to illustrate best practices demonstrating this mutual sup-
port (https://vimeo.com/16641094).We conclude by offering recommendations for
research, classroom practice, and educational policy to promote both science learning
and language learning with EL students.The chapter highlights the need for increased
collaboration between content areas, such as science, and the field of EL education in
order to ensure all students, and EL students in particular, are supported in meeting
rigorous content standards while developing proficiency in English.

In recent years, there have been fundamental shifts in thinking about both sci-
ence and language learning. Traditionally, science learning has focused on indi-
vidual learners’ mastery of discrete bits of knowledge with relatively little attention
to how science is actually done in practice or how science is used to make sense
of phenomena or design solutions to problems. In contrast, contemporary views
of science learning emphasize the social nature of scientific enterprise, as students
deepen their understanding of science ideas through collaborative engagement
Talk in the Science Classroom 37
in the practices of the discipline to figure out phenomena or problems (NRC,

2012). At the same time, parallel shifts have occurred in the field of second lan-
guage acquisition. Whereas traditional perspectives in second language acquisition
have conceptualized language as a static body of knowledge to be internalized by
learners, more recent thinking in the field has taken a sociocultural turn (Zuen-
gler & Miller, 2006). From this perspective, language is understood as a dynamic
meaning-making tool acquired through participation in social practice (Ellis &
Larsen-Freeman, 2009). Taken together, these shifts signal a more socially situated
and practice-oriented view of learning in both fields.
We start this section with an overarching framework for couching instructional
shifts that applies to both science and language learning: classroom community of
practice.Then, we discuss instructional shifts for science learning and language learn-
ing in turn. We highlight that science instructional shifts promote language learning
with EL students, while language instructional shifts promote science learning with
EL students. Recognizing these shifts as mutually supportive can lead to better and
more coherent instructional approaches that promote both science and language
learning for all students, especially EL students.
The Science Classroom as a Community of Practice

To provide an overarching theoretical frame for our discussion of science and lan-
guage shifts, we draw on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of communities of prac-
tice. Rejecting traditional approaches to learning that emphasize the internalization
of knowledge by individuals, Lave and Wenger propose a view of learning as “an
integral and inseparable aspect of social practice” (p. 31). Broadly, a community of
practice is defined as a group of people engaged in collective work (e.g., doctors,
artists, scientists, students in a classroom). Such communities are characterized by
the mutual engagement of their members in the activities of the community, a sense
of joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire of communal resources (Wenger, 1998).
Within this community of practice, learners are provided with models of the com-
munity’s practices and opportunities to develop those practices under the guidance
of more experienced members. Through this process of apprenticeship, learners
move from legitimate peripheral participation to increasingly central participation
in the community. Learning, then, is understood as “an evolving form of member-
ship” rather than a prerequisite to meaningful participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991,
p. 53). Importantly, roles within the community are neither fixed nor static but fluid
and variable, as all members, to varying degrees and in diverse ways, contribute to
the collective knowledge and functioning of the community.
Viewed through a community of practice lens (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,
1998), science classrooms can be seen as rich environments for both science and
language learning. In the science classroom, learners are mutually engaged in mak-
ing sense of the natural and designed world. They develop a shared repertoire
of resources (e.g., science notebooks) and practices (e.g., developing models) for
advancing the goals of the community. As learners build on each other’s ideas and
co-construct scientific understanding, they also engage in the types of purposeful
interactions that promote language learning.Through participation in such interac-
tions with the teacher and more experienced peers, learners are apprenticed into
38 Okhee Lee et al.
the practices of the community and supported in developing the language as well
as other meaning-making resources needed to carry out those practices and express
their emerging ideas and understandings. In short, as students use language to do
science in socially mediated activity, they develop their science and language profi-
ciency in tandem.
Science Instructional Shifts

The NGSS present key instructional shifts that are seamlessly intertwined. The
first involves a focus on explaining phenomena in the natural world (in science)
or designing solutions to problems in the designed world (in engineering). The
second instructional shift involves three-dimensional learning by blending science
and engineering practices (SEPs), crosscutting concepts (CCCs), and disciplinary
core ideas (DCIs). The third shift involves learning progressions of student under-
standing over the course of instruction, which occurs across K-12 grades (see
NGSS Appendices E, F, and G) and across shorter time frames within a grade band,
a grade level, a science unit, or even a science lesson. Combining these instruc-
tional shifts, science teachers engage students in three-dimensional learning to
explain phenomena or design solutions to problems and to develop their students’
deeper understanding across time. Furthermore, each of these science instructional
shifts also promotes language learning for all students and EL students in particular,
as described next.
Science Instructional Shift 1: Focus on Explaining

Phenomena and Designing Solutions to Problems
The goal of the NGSS is to enable students to explain phenomena and design
solutions to problems, which presents a key instructional shift from previous stand-
ards (Krajcik, 2015; Reiser et al., 2017). Whereas traditional approaches to science
education have focused on students’ acquisition of a body of knowledge, a focus
on explaining phenomena and designing solutions to problems gives a purpose to
science learning, as students do something with science and become agents of their
own learning.
While selection of phenomena that are compelling and engaging is important
for all students, it is especially important for students who have not experienced
science as real or relevant to their lives or future careers. For these students, selec-
tion of phenomena could serve either to level the playing field by relating the
sciences to their lives or to exacerbate marginalization by alienating them further
from the sciences. When working with diverse groups of students, we argue for
community-based phenomena that involve students’ families and neighborhoods
and are complex enough to require multiple science concepts within or across sci-
ence disciplines (Lee & Miller, 2016).This approach combines place-based learning
in local contexts of homes and neighborhoods (Avery, 2013; Smith, 2002), with
components of project-based learning in which students make sense of phenomena
through collaborative investigations (Krajcik & Czerniak, 2013; Krajcik, McNeil, &
Reiser, 2008).
Science Instructional Shift 2: Three-Dimensional Learning

The keystone of the NGSS involves three major dimensions of science learning.
“A Framework for K-12 Science Education” (NRC, 2012) identifies the three
dimensions as follows:
• Scientific and engineering practices,

• Crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science and engineering through
their common application across fields,
• Core ideas in four disciplinary areas: physical sciences; life sciences; earth and
space sciences; and engineering, technology, and applications of science. (p. 2)
The standards, written as performance expectations (PEs), blend SEPs, CCCs,

and DCIs to express what students should be able to do at the end of a grade band
or grade level. PEs weave together the three dimensions to explain phenomena and
design solutions to problems. Three-dimensional learning in the NGSS presents a
key instructional shift from previous standards.Traditionally, science has been taught
primarily in terms of science content around discrete elements of facts and terms.
Although the “National Science Education Standards” (NRC, 1996) emphasized
science inquiry as the core of science education, it was used either as the goal of
science learning or as a means for learning science content. In addition, CCCs
are often considered “background knowledge for students in ‘gifted,’ ‘honors,’ or
‘advanced’ programs” (NGSS Lead States, 2013b, p. 7). Unlike such traditional
approaches, three-dimensional learning shows SEPs, CCCs, and DCIs working
together as students figure out phenomena or design solutions to problems.
Although three-dimensional learning is challenging for teachers, it is an important
shift for all students. In particular, SEPs are critical for EL students. SEPs represent
a deepening and refining of science inquiry, which was ill-defined in the previous
reform documents (NRC, 1996). Because engagement in SEPs is language intensive,
it calls for a high level of classroom language for all students, especially EL students
(Lee et al., 2013). This approach presents a shift from the traditional approach to lan-
guage learning around discrete elements of grammar and vocabulary.While engaging
in SEPs, EL students are capable of comprehending (receptive language functions)
and communicating (productive language functions) their science ideas using less
than perfect English (Lee et al., 2013). As a result, science classrooms adhering to the
NGSS promote rigorous science learning and rich language learning.
Science Instructional Shift 3: Learning Progressions

Science instruction helps students develop proficiency on a targeted set of PEs over
the course of the unit (i.e., learning progressions), as lessons fit together coherently
and build on each other (Krajcik, Codere, Dahsah, Bayer, & Mun, 2014; Reiser
et al., 2017). A unit of science instruction starts with an anchoring phenomenon
or problem that students generate with the guidance of their teacher. This anchor-
ing phenomenon leads to the driving question for the unit. Over the course of the
unit, students generate a series of subquestions that leads to next steps of the unit.
To answer a question, students engage in three-dimensional learning. They use a
40 Okhee Lee et al.
relevant CCC to frame the question (for example, a question involving the crosscut-
ting concept of cause and effect to explain a phenomenon) and engage in a relevant
SEP (for example, develop a model to explain the cause and effect), which results
in an understanding of a DCI(s). This new understanding, in turn, generates a new
subquestion toward answering the driving question. Over the course of instruction,
students develop deeper and more sophisticated understanding of science to make
sense of the anchoring phenomenon for the unit of science instruction.
As students develop deeper and more sophisticated science understanding, their
language use becomes more precise (NRC, 2014; Quinn, Lee, &Valdés, 2012). Students
learn that the level of precision needed to engage in SEPs demands a comparable level of
precision in language use. This demand for precision goes beyond the meaning of
technical vocabulary to the logic of connecting cause and effect and the validity
of claims and evidence. As students develop deeper and more sophisticated science
understanding, their language use also becomes more explicit (NRC, 2014; Quinn
et al., 2012). Science often involves communicating about objects and events not
immediately present, and explicitness makes language use more effective with “dis-
tant” audiences. In the next section (language instructional shift 3), we expand upon
the importance of precise and explicit language use in the NGSS science classroom.
Language Instructional Shifts

Drawing on socially oriented views in SLA, we present three instructional shifts
that promote language learning for all students and EL students in particular. The
first shift involves the use of language for purposeful communication in the sci-
ence classroom. The second shift calls for seeing all EL students, regardless of their
English proficiency levels, as capable of participating meaningfully in rigorous sci-
ence learning using less than perfect English (Lee et al., 2013). The third shift con-
ceives of language use in the science classroom in terms of registers, modalities, and
interactions. Each language instructional shift is discussed in relation to the science
instructional shifts outlined in the previous section. Taken together, these two sets
of instructional shifts outline a vision for the science classroom as a rich environ-
ment for both science and language learning.
Language Instructional Shift 1: Language Is Used

for Purposeful Communication
For some time, the field of second language acquisition has been dominated by
structuralist views of language and language learning. The assumption underlying
these views is that language is acquired in a linear, bottom-up fashion starting with
the essential “building blocks” (e.g., phonemes) and progressing gradually toward
the use of words, sentences, and discourse (vanLier, 2004). This has led to the pro-
liferation of instructional approaches that attempt to “curricularize” language by
specifying what elements should be learned (i.e., grammar and vocabulary) and in
what order (Valdés, 2015). As a result, language teaching and learning in many class-
rooms have taken the form of decontextualized grammar drills and rote memoriza-
tion of vocabulary lists.
With the social turn in SLA, structuralist views of language learning have been
called into question, and a variety of more dynamic and socially situated concep-
tualizations have emerged. One well-known example is Ellis and Larsen-Freeman’s
(2009) view of language as a complex adaptive system, which recognizes the fun-
damentally social function of language use. This view proposes that the structural
elements of language are acquired not as a precursor to, but as a result of, engage-
ment in cooperative activity and social interaction. In another line of work, Lantolf
and colleagues (e.g., Lantolf & Poehner, 2014) have taken a more sociocultural
approach, emphasizing the mediating role of language in all human activities. This
work builds on Vygotskian sociocultural theory to examine how learners appropri-
ate and internalize ways of using language through participation in carefully scaf-
folded interactions. In a similar vein, research on language socialization has offered
valuable insights into how learners become competent members of their commu-
nities and the role of language in this process (see Duff & Talmy, 2011 for a review).
This body of research has drawn attention to how interactions with more proficient
community members facilitate not only language learning but also socialization
into the values, identities, norms, and practices of the community. Collectively, these
conceptualizations converge in their common belief that language is learned in use.
In other words, language learning occurs as a product of purposeful communica-
tion in the context of joint activity.
In classrooms that embrace socially situated conceptualizations, teachers gener-
ate opportunities for learners to do things with language in pursuit of a common goal.
The NGSS science classroom offers fertile ground for generating such opportuni-
ties. By anchoring learning in phenomena, teachers provide students with a reason
to communicate and a compelling context in which to express their ideas and
emerging understandings. As new understandings lead to new questions, students
are motivated to use language to plan and carry out investigations, analyze and
interpret data, and argue based on evidence to refine their explanation of the phe-
nomenon under study. In both small group and whole-class discussions, they build
on each other’s ideas and collaboratively co-construct meaning, with the goal of
advancing the shared knowledge and resources of the science classroom commu-
nity. Unlike traditional language classrooms, where language is primarily the object
of study, language use in these classrooms is best understood as a form of action
(Walqui & vanLier, 2010). The role of the teacher is no longer to “teach” language
but to “instigate” opportunities for purposeful communication and joint action that
are supportive of both science and language learning.
Language Instructional Shift 2: EL Students Can Participate

Meaningfully With Less Than Perfect English
EL students come to school with a wide range of experiences with English that
mediate their learning. In a certain sense, EL students are newcomers to the science
classroom community, as they are learning in a language they have not yet mastered.
Historically, this newcomer status has been used as justification for delaying access
to content area instruction until EL students have achieved the so-called requisite
level of English proficiency needed to benefit from this instruction. Drawing from
42 Okhee Lee et al.
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) work, a legitimate peripheral participation view of learn-
ing strongly rejects this practice, focusing instead on what learners can do, even
with limited proficiency, when provided adequate and appropriate support. This
perspective recognizes EL students as capable of participating meaningfully in the
science classroom community with less than perfect English (Lee et al., 2013). By
adopting this inclusive stance, teachers facilitate their students’ access to opportu-
nities for apprenticeship and interaction that support both science and language
learning.
In the NGSS science classroom, EL students carry out sophisticated SEPs, such
as constructing explanations and arguing based on evidence, through their emerg-
ing English. Importantly, their contributions to the community are valued for their
meaning and substance rather than their linguistic accuracy. EL students are per-
fectly capable of engaging in the type of cognitively demanding instruction called
for by the NGSS despite needing varying degrees of support in order to demon-
strate what they know and can do. They also bring with them to the science class-
room a vast array of cultural and community resources that help them make sense
of the natural and designed world (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005).
Language Instructional Shift 3: Language Use in the Science

Classroom Involves Registers, Modalities, and Interactions
We offer a conceptualization of talk in the science classroom that considers three
aspects: registers, modalities, and interactions. Registers refer to the linguistic features
used in talk and text to meet the communicative demands of particular interactions
(Biber & Conrad, 2009). Registers can range from colloquial or everyday, as in a
conversation with a friend at the movies (talk) or a text message (text), to special-
ized and disciplinary, as in a presentation at an academic conference (talk) or a legal
contract (text). Differences in register, rather than being absolute, are a matter of
degree. For this reason, we refer to registers as more or less everyday or specialized.
Modalities refer to the multiple and diverse channels through which commu-
nication occurs (e.g., pictures, symbols, graphs, tables, equations, text). Multiple
modalities are important from the perspectives of both the academic disciplines
and second language acquisition. In disciplines such as science and mathematics, for
example, multiple modalities other than oral and written language are used to com-
municate ideas.With EL students at the early stages of English language proficiency,
multiple modalities serve to support them as they engage in language-intensive
practices such as arguing from evidence (Kopriva, Gabel, & Cameron, 2011). Thus,
all students, including EL students at different levels of proficiency, are expected to
use multiple modalities specific to each discipline in strategic ways.
Whether a particular combination of registers and modalities is appropriate or
effective may vary as a function of the characteristics of interactions, including the
purpose and interlocutors involved. Which registers and modalities are used is deter-
mined, in part, by whether interactions are one to one (e.g., one student communi-
cating with a partner), one to small group (e.g., one student communicating with a
small group), or one to many (e.g., one student communicating with the whole class
or a broader audience). For example, whereas one-to-one interactions allow students
to monitor the reactions of their interlocutors and clarify their meanings as needed,
TABLE 3.1 Registers, Modalities, and Interactions Typical of the NGSS Science Classroom
Registers Modalities Interactions

Colloquial/ Specialized/ • Drawings • One to one
everyday disciplinary talk • Symbols • One to small group
talk • Graphs • One to many
• Tables
• Equations
• Oral language
• Written language
one-to-small group interactions and, to an even lesser extent, one-to-many interac-

tions do not always offer such opportunities. In addition, as students communicate
with broader audiences, they can rely less on a shared frame of reference. Thus, they
require the precision and explicitness that a specialized register affords.
Table 3.1, which is adapted from Lee et al. (2013), displays the registers of talk,
modalities, and interactions that are typical of the science classroom. In the NGSS
classroom, students use a range of registers, from everyday to specialized, to com-
municate their ideas and emerging understandings about the phenomenon under
investigation. They also draw on multiple modalities as they analyze and inter-
pret data, use mathematics and computational thinking, and develop models. While
engaging in these and other SEPs, students move fluidly across registers and modal-
ities in response to the communicative demands of different interactions in order
to get things done in the science classroom.
Best Practices: Classroom Vignette

Jennifer Whitten is an 18-year veteran teacher who teaches in a Title I school in
the Pacific Northwest. Whitten started teaching with the NGSS three years ago
through her participation in two professional development projects aimed at pro-
moting NGSS-aligned science instruction and classroom discourse. Currently, she
is participating in a professional development project focusing on science and lan-
guage learning of elementary students, especially EL students.1 While she explains
that the transition to the NGSS has been challenging, she also reports it worthwhile.
In Whitten’s fourth-grade class, approximately one-third of the students are EL
students, representing a range of different language backgrounds (Arabic, Chinese,
Spanish, and Vietnamese) and proficiencies in English. This school year, Whitten is
designing and implementing a new unit to address the following NGSS PE in earth
science: “Make observations and/or measurements to provide evidence of the effects
of weathering or the rate of erosion by water, ice, wind, or vegetation.” Consistent
with NGSS three-dimensional learning, the PE combines a SEP (planning and carry-
ing out an investigation), CCC (cause and effect), and DCI (weathering and erosion).
Throughout the unit, the three dimensions are integrated into Whitten’s instruction.
A short video featuring this unit can be found at https://vimeo.com/166410948.
The video highlights students’ use of oral language, which is the purpose of this
chapter, while written language is also used as students develop scientific models.
44 Okhee Lee et al.
Below, we provide the overview of the unit and then the analysis of the unit with
regard to the science instructional shifts and language instructional shifts described
in the previous section. The names of students are pseudonyms.
Overview of Unit
Implemented over the course of 2 weeks, the unit revolves around the Channeled
Scablands, a barren landscape in eastern Washington State formed by a series of
megafloods thousands of years ago. Though it is now widely accepted that the
landscape was eroded by mass flooding, this was not always thought to be the case.
In 1928, a rebel geologist by the name of J Harlen Bretz proposed the theory of
the megaflood but was met with harsh criticism and opposition. Bretz’s theory
sparked an intense debate among geologists that lasted nearly four decades and
became one of the most well-known controversies in the history of earth science.
Eventually, Bretz’s once outlandish theory was accepted by the scientific commu-
nity, and he was credited with solving the elusive mystery of the Scablands. Because
the Scablands are located in a neighboring state on the West Coast and Whitten’s
students are interested in learning more about their origins, she decides to make
this mystery the anchoring phenomenon of the unit.
Whitten launches the unit by showing the class a short video clip about the
Scablands and Bretz’s theory of how the landscape was formed. She stops the video
before the mystery is revealed and asks students what they observed and what
questions they have about the landscape. In small groups, students discuss their
observations, record their questions on sticky notes, and then place those sticky
notes on the board in the front of the room. As each group shares their questions
with the class, Whitten encourages students to think about how each new ques-
tion relates to the other questions. The class organizes the questions into different
categories on the board (known as the “Driving Question Board”) and soon comes
to a consensus that all of the questions are related to one larger question: How were
the Scablands formed? This question becomes the unit’s Driving Question. The class
agrees that their work as scientists will be to answer this question. At the end of the
unit, students will watch the rest of the video to find out whether they’ve reached
the same conclusion as Bretz.
Having identified the anchoring phenomenon and established the driving ques-
tion of the unit, Whitten asks the class how they might go about solving the mys-
tery of the Scablands. One student suggests testing Bretz’s theory that water played
a role in shaping the landscape, and the class agrees this is a good place to start. Over
the course of the two weeks, students engage in three investigations to answer the
Driving Question.
Students carry out the first investigation to determine what happens when rocks
are exposed to water.They place rocks in a jar and shake for 3 minutes.They record
the size of the rocks before and after shaking and notice that some of the rocks
have worn away. Then, they add water to the jar and shake for another 3 minutes.
They observe that adding water makes the rocks wear away faster, which Whitten
identifies as an example of erosion.
Using evidence from the investigation, students work collaboratively in small
groups to develop initial models of how the Scablands were formed. These models
represent students’ current thinking and will be revised and refined as new evidence
is collected and new understandings emerge over the course of the unit. Once
students have completed their models in groups, Whitten convenes what she calls a
“board meeting” where students share their group model, ask clarifying questions
of other groups, and argue based on evidence for their explanation of the phenom-
enon. Camila shares her group model with the class:
Camila: (pointing to the group model) Lot of water. Rocks get smaller.
Whitten: Interesting. So, Camila’s model shows how water wore down, or eroded,
the rocks in the Scablands. It passed over the rocks again and again and
again (gesturing with her hands) and made the rocks smaller. It eroded
the rocks. What does everybody else think? Did other groups also
include that in their models?
The discussion continues and, at the end of the board meeting, the class agrees
that water is powerful enough to shape the landscape, but there are still gaps in their
models. They will need to continue collecting evidence in order to figure out how
the Scablands were formed. Whitten guides students to consider what other factors
related to water might have affected the erosion of the landscape.
Over the next week, students engage in two follow-up investigations to examine
the erosive effects of water. Students build stream tables to test their ideas about
erosion. While the procedures and instructions for the first investigation of the unit
were mostly determined in advance, Whitten asks students to take a more active
role in planning and carrying out these follow-up investigations.
In the second investigation of the unit, students test whether the angle of the
stream table affects the rate of erosion as water is poured into the table. For example,
when the table is positioned at a 30-degree angle versus a 10-degree angle, will the
water create a canyon more quickly? To test this idea, students plan an investiga-
tion in which they identify variables to control (e.g., amount of sand, amount of
water, pouring speed).Then, they test how the angle of the table affects the amount
of time it takes for a canyon to form. For different trials of the investigation, they
decide on increments for adjusting the angle of the table. All of these decisions
are made collaboratively within each group and under the guidance of Whitten.
While holding the table at various angles, students observe how long it takes for
the canyon to form.They record their observations and plot their results on graphs.
The graphs show that as the angle of the table increases, the canyon is created more
quickly. Students conclude that elevating the angle of the table increases the speed
of the water traveling through the table and the rate of erosion.
Intrigued by these results, Whitten’s students wonder what other factors, in
addition to the angle of the table, might also affect the rate of erosion. Some stu-
dents noticed during the previous investigation that each group poured a different
amount of water into the stream table and that this might have affected the rate of
erosion. For the third investigation, the class agrees to test this possibility. As in the
previous investigation, students ensure a fair test by holding all variables constant
except the amount of water poured into the table. They record their observations
and plot their results on graphs. The graphs show that as the amount of water
increases, the canyon is created more quickly (i.e., the rate of erosion increases).
46 Okhee Lee et al.
Working in groups, students use data from the two follow-up investigations to
construct an argument with a claim, evidence, and reasoning about factors that
affect the rate of erosion. In the whole-class discussion that follows, Dylan argues
that increasing the angle of the table increases the rate of erosion. When asked to
support his claim with evidence, Dylan responds, “The water kept going faster like
when it was 10 degrees, it took 4 seconds, but when it was 55 degrees, it took 1
second.” The class agrees with Dylan’s claim and finds his evidence compelling. As
the discussion comes to a close, Whitten congratulates her students on uncovering
important science ideas and encourages them to think about how they can apply
their new understandings to solving the mystery of the Scablands.
In the final lesson of the unit, each group revises its initial model of the Scablands
and develops a final group model. As they work in small groups, students use evi-
dence from the investigations to arrive at the most complete and coherent explana-
tion of the phenomenon. The following discussion takes place among a group of
three students collaborating to develop their final model:
Brian: Those holes are from those rocks and then the water moved those rocks
to a different area and then made multiple. That’s what I think.
Alonso: What do you think, Phuong?
Phuong: I go with Brian’s idea.
Alonso: Experiment 1 which, uh, most represents the landforms.
Brian: I think it was number 3 [experiment on the amount of water] because
number 3 added more water, and it was like more efficient. Maybe there
was more water than less water. I think number 3 was more efficient
because there was like a little delta, and the whole thing almost collapsed!
As a culminating activity, Whitten convenes another board meeting where each

group shares its final model with the class. Though group models are different, all
of the models use evidence from the investigations to show how a large amount
of water (Investigations 1 and 3) moving at a rapid speed (Investigation 2) eroded
the Scablands, carving wide and deep canyons in the landscape. During the board
meeting, Chen presents his final group model to the class and responds to a follow-
up question from a classmate:
Chen: We think that a flood caused the canyon and carried the boulders to
random places . . . and the stream table experiment supports our ideas
because when the water hit the land, it made a canyon and caused
erosion.
Whitten: Any questions for this group?
Jasmine: How did the bits of rocks make the ash?
Chen: The water chipped away bits of rock.
As the board meeting comes to a close, Whitten facilitates a discussion to high-

light commonalities across the group models, which leads to a class consensus
model that represents the collective understanding of the class. Overall, the class’s
explanation is consistent with J Harlen Bretz’s theory that a massive flood traveling
at ferocious speeds was responsible for the formation of the Scablands. In the final
lesson of the unit, students finish watching the video clip from the beginning of the
unit and are excited to learn that they, along with J Harlen Bretz, have solved the
mystery of the Scablands.
Analysis of Unit
Science Instructional Shifts

In designing and implementing this unit,Whitten enacts the three key instructional
shifts presented by the NGSS. By anchoring instruction in a local phenomenon
(i.e., the Scablands landscape),Whitten gives a purpose to science learning. Her stu-
dents are motivated to figure out what caused the formation of this unique natural
phenomenon and to provide evidence that supports or refutes Bretz’s theory.Whit-
ten’s science classroom represents a thriving community of practice where students
are engaged in doing science as a joint enterprise and in pursuit of a common goal.
Over the course of the unit, students engage in three-dimensional learning as
they apply SEPs and CCCs to uncover DCIs that help them make sense of the phe-
nomenon. Students engage in an iterative cycle of asking questions, developing and
using models, analyzing and interpreting data, engaging in argument from evidence,
and constructing explanations. As students engage in these SEPs, they apply CCCs
to identify cause and effect and discern patterns in their data. In doing so, they learn
a DCI about the rate of erosion by water.
The unit also tells a coherent story from the first to the final lesson. After watch-
ing the video of the Scablands, students identify a driving question for the unit.
This question motivates the first investigation, which provides the evidence used to
develop initial models of the phenomenon. As students present their initial models
to the class and argue from evidence for their explanation of the phenomenon,
they respectfully critique the arguments of others and identify gaps in their models.
These gaps lead to new questions to investigate, and the cycle continues until stu-
dents come to a consensus explanation of the phenomenon. In this way, each lesson
builds on previous lessons and informs next steps. Over the course of the unit, as
students refine their explanation of the phenomenon, they deepen their under-
standing of the DCI and engage in SEPs and CCCs in increasingly sophisticated
ways. For example, Whitten heavily scaffolds the design of the first investigation
but removes this scaffold for the second and third investigations, expecting greater
student independence. Thus, over the course of the unit, she promotes sophistica-
tion of students’ science understanding along a learning progression. Furthermore,
student mastery of the PE at the 3–5 grade band provides the foundation for their
learning at the middle school grade band.
Language Instructional Shifts

Whitten’s classroom is also a rich environment for language learning.The phenom-
enon gives students a reason to communicate and get things done with language. In
both small group and whole-class settings, students engage in language-intensive
practices, such as asking questions and arguing based on evidence, to co-construct
48 Okhee Lee et al.
their explanation of the phenomenon. As illustrated in the group discussion when

Alonso invites Phuong to share her thinking (“What do you think, Phuong?”) and
in the whole-class discussion when Jasmine asks to Chen to clarify an aspect of his
group model (“How did the bits of rock make the ash?”), students in Whitten’s
classroom build on each other’s ideas with the goal of advancing the collective
knowledge of the science classroom community. Because the focus is purposeful
communication rather than discrete bits of language (i.e., grammar and vocabu-
lary), Whitten does not introduce erosion as a vocabulary term at the beginning of
the lesson. Instead, she introduces the term only after students have experienced it
through the first investigation, at which point it becomes a useful communicative
resource for talking about the phenomenon.
Whitten demonstrates a belief that all EL students can participate meaning-
fully in the science classroom community. This is evident in her interaction with
Camila, a beginner EL student, during the first board meeting. Despite Camila’s
less than perfect English, her presentation of the group model demonstrates
understanding of a DCI (rate of erosion by water) and engagement in an SEP
(arguing based on evidence) and CCCs (cause and effect, patterns). Whitten
responds by validating and expanding on Camila’s observation to the class, thus
recognizing her as a legitimate member of the science classroom community.
While the primary objective of Whitten’s response is to further the conversation
and extend students’ thinking about erosion, she also models effective language
use. Whitten amplifies, rather than simplifies, her language (Walqui & vanLier,
2010) by providing multiple opportunities for Camila and her classmates to
make sense of the term erosion and the concept it represents. In doing so, she
promotes both science and language learning.
As students move between small group and whole-class discussions through-
out the unit, they use language to meet the communicative demands of particular
interactions. For example, when Brian explains his theory to the group (“Those
holes are from those rocks and then the water moved those rocks”), he uses a
more everyday register. Because there is a shared frame of reference among group
members (i.e., the group model), an everyday register is effective in this one-
to-group interaction. When he shares his explanation with the class at the next
board meeting (one to many), he will need to use a more specialized discipli-
nary register to make his meanings explicit and precise. This level of precision is
exemplified in Dylan’s presentation of his evidence from the second investigation
(“when it [the angle of the stream table] was 10 degrees, it took 4 seconds, but
when it was 55 degrees, it took 1 second”).
Throughout the unit, students in Whitten’s class also use a range of modalities
to help them figure out the phenomenon. They use a graph to plot the results of
the second investigation and identify patterns in the data. They also develop ini-
tial and revised models using a combination of drawings, symbols, and text. While
modeling serves as a scaffold to Camila, who points to specific parts of her group’s
model while talking to the class, all members of the science classroom community
engage in the SEP of modeling to make their thinking visible, identify gaps in their
understanding, and generate new questions about the phenomenon. Though still
early in the year, Whitten’s class has already begun to develop a rich repertoire of
communal resources for doing science through language.

Recent shifts in thinking about both science and language learning have important
consequences for classroom practice. Couching these shifts within the theoretical
frame of communities of practice, we argue that science classrooms where students
engage in joint activity in pursuit of a common goal can be rich environments for
both science and language learning. In these science classroom communities of
practice, the goals of science and language learning are supportive of each other, as
EL students at all proficiency levels use language to do science.
The NGSS present key instructional shifts by promoting (a) a focus on explain-
ing phenomena in the natural world or designing solutions to problems in the
designed world; (b) three-dimensional learning by blending SEPs, CCCs, and
DCIs; and (c) learning progressions of student understanding over the course of
instruction. The chapter highlights how each of these science instructional shifts
also promotes language learning with EL students.
Socially oriented perspectives in second language acquisition recognize that lan-
guage learning occurs not as a precursor but as a product of using language in social
interaction (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009; Valdés, 2015). These perspectives offer
key language instructional shifts by promoting (a) use of language for purposeful
communication in the science classroom; (b) meaningful participation of all EL
students, regardless of their level of English proficiency, in rigorous science learning;
and (c) a conceptualization of talk in the science classroom that considers modali-
ties, registers, and interactions. The chapter highlights how each of these language
instructional shifts also promotes science learning with EL students.
Based on this conceptual grounding, we describe a science unit to illustrate how
science instructional shifts and language instructional shifts support each other with
EL students. Over the course of two weeks, a linguistically diverse class of fourth-
grade students uses science talk in English, though less than perfect at times, to
investigate a phenomenon. As students engage in SEPs and CCCs and build under-
standing of DCIs over time, they strategically use multiple modalities (e.g., pictures,
symbols, graphs, tables, equations, text) and registers (ranging from everyday to
specialized) in one-to-one, one-to-group, and one-to-many interactions. Under
the skilled apprenticeship of their teacher, students in this science classroom com-
munity of practice share cultural and linguistic resources and co-construct meaning
to advance the collective knowledge of the community. In doing so, they learn sci-
ence and develop language in tandem. Over the course of instruction, as students’
understanding of science becomes more sophisticated (e.g., explaining the effect
of slope on the rate of erosion), their language use also becomes more precise and
explicit (e.g., providing evidence in terms of seconds it took for the water to flow
at different angles).

The conceptual grounding for science and language instructional shifts discussed in
this chapter offers implications for research to promote science and language learn-
ing with EL students. “A Framework for K-12 Science Education” (NRC, 2012),
from which the NGSS were developed, was based on extensive research showing
50 Okhee Lee et al.
that all children come to school with rich knowledge of the natural and designed
world and the ability to think and reason scientifically in both school settings and
informal environments (NRC, 2007). Although there is this foundational research,
learning science according to the vision of the NGSS is new. Learning language
while it is being used to learn science is even more so. Realizing this vision will
require innovative approaches to classroom teaching, curriculum design, assessment,
and teacher preparation and professional development. As the education system
embarks on this new vision, a new research agenda to promote rigorous science
learning and rich language use is needed with the exciting potential to meet the
needs of all students in our increasingly diverse classrooms.
Science and language instructional shifts also offer implications for classroom prac-
tice. The classroom video described in this chapter illustrates the synergistic relation-
ship between science learning and language learning with EL students. As science
and language instructional shifts are new to many teachers and may represent sig-
nificant departures from current classroom practice, case studies and vignettes play an
important role in offering concrete and accessible examples of how these shifts can
be enacted in the classroom and, in particular, how EL students at varying levels of
proficiency can participate in rigorous science learning through their emerging Eng-
lish. Importantly, teachers should not be expected to change their classroom practice
all at once or on their own. Implementing these shifts is an ongoing process that will
require support at multiple levels of the education system. In the case of Whitten, she
has developed NGSS-aligned science instruction through her participation in two
professional development projects over the past three years.
One commonly asked question about classroom practice is whether good
teaching with EL students is any different from good teaching with all students.
While teaching practices aimed at supporting EL students are likely to benefit
all students, the NGSS instructional shifts and language instructional shifts dis-
cussed in this chapter provide specific affordances with EL students where many
traditional approaches have failed. As EL students make sense of phenomena or
problems in local contexts, they leverage their cultural and linguistic resources.
As they use language to do science, their contributions are valued not for their
linguistic accuracy but for their ideas in the discourse. In this way, inclusive class-
rooms that respect diversity and value the cultural and linguistic resources of EL
students fundamentally change a deficit view to an asset view.
Findings and insights from research and classroom practice will influence edu-
cational policy, since the NGSS are principally a policy initiative. As the NGSS
require key instructional shifts for both science and language learning with EL stu-
dents, it will take time for classroom practice to take shape. In addition to providing
resources for research and classroom practice, educational policy should be patient
with the time it takes for implementation in the education system. Moreover, in
the EL student policy context, federal legislation requires that English language
proficiency (ELP) standards align to content standards. In other words, ELP stand-
ards must reflect the language needed to master college- and career-ready standards
such as the NGSS. This policy highlights increasing recognition of the close rela-
tionship between content and language learning.
Implementing the instructional shifts presented here requires understanding of
disciplinary knowledge and practices as well as theories and practices of second
language acquisition. As teachers are asked to assume a variety of roles and respon-
sibilities in their work, this may seem to be a tall order. What we have attempted
to illustrate in this chapter is that synergy across these shifts can help teachers enact
more conceptually sound and practically feasible instruction at the intersection of
content and language learning. As the rapidly growing EL student population is
expected to achieve rigorous college- and career-ready standards, this chapter high-
lights the need for more substantive collaboration between content areas, such as a
science, and the field of EL student education. By providing conceptual grounding
for how science and language instructional shifts are mutually supportive, we hope
to invite researchers, practitioners, and policy makers from both areas into produc-
tive dialogue with the shared goal of supporting all students, especially EL students,
in developing science and language proficiency.
Note
1 Expansion of K-6 NGSS Instructional Specialists Program (William Beck and Carol
Biskupic Knight, Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigator), Portland State
University Center for Science Education, funded through the Oregon Mathematics and
Science Partnership Program.
References
Avery, L. M. (2013). Rural science education: Valuing local knowledge. Theory Into Practice,
52(1), 28–35.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisi-
tion: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson
(Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). NewYork: Routledge.
Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (Eds.) (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language
policies. New York: Teachers College Press.
González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kopriva, R., Gabel, D., & Cameron, C. (2011). Designing dynamic and interactive assessments
for English leanrers that directly measure targeted science constructs. Evanston, IL: Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Three-dimensional instruction: Using a new type of teaching in the sci-
ence classroom. Science and Children, 53(3), 6–8.
Krajcik, J. S., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to
meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Educa-
tion, 25, 157–175.
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. (2013). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms:
A project-based approach (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Krajcik, J. S., McNeil, K. L., & Reiser, B. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Devel-
oping curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-
based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2
education:Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. London: Routledge.
52 Okhee Lee et al.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, O., & Miller, E. (2016). Engaging in phenomena from project-based learning in a place-
based context in science. In L. C. de Oliveira (Ed.), The Common Core state standards in
literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects for English language learners: Grades
6–12 (pp. 59–73). Alexandria,VA: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners
in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common
Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher,
42(4), 223–233.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES
2016–2144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in
grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the Next
Generation Science Standards and Common Core for ELA standards: A workshop summary.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013a). Next Generation Science Standards:
For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013b). Appendix D—“All standards, all
students”: Making Next Generation Science Standards accessible to all students.Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next
Generation Science Standards for English language learners:What teachers need to know. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University, Understanding Language Initiative (ell.stanford.edu).
Reiser, B. J., Michaels, S., Moon, J., Bell, T., Dyer, E., Edwards, K. D., McGill, T. A. W., Novak,
M., & Park, A. (2017). Scaling up three-dimensional learning through teacher-led study
groups across a state. Journal of Teacher Education, 23, 280–298.
Smith, G. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83,
584–594.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from www.census.gov/compendia/ statab/cats/
education.html
Valdés, G. (2015). Latin@s and the intergenerational continuity of Spanish:The challenges of
curricularizing language. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(4), 253–273.
vanLier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston,
MA: Kluwer Academic.
Walqui, A., & vanLier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language
learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA
worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35–58.
PART II
Literacy in the STEM

Disciplines
4
READING MATHEMATICS
PROBLEMS
Exploring How Language Counts
for Middle School Students With
Varying Mathematics Proficiency
Mary A. Avalos, Edwing Medina, and

Walter G. Secada
Focus Points
• Many English learners (EL students) achieve at lower levels than most of their
peers in mathematics, and typically, they do not enroll in advanced secondary-
mathematics classes.
• A better understanding of how EL students and lower-achieving students
approach reading semiotics or sign systems in mathematics (i.e., language,
symbols and notation, visual representations) should lead to a better under-
standing of how these discipline-specific features may create “entry points”
or “exit points” for their problem solving, thereby helping low-achieving
students improve.
• The language of mathematics is complex and creates interrelated meanings; it
incorporates technical terms specific to mathematics, everyday language with
mathematical meaning, synonymous words and phrases, and complex strings of
words. Symbols and notation are used in mathematics to enable precise commu-
nication of mathematical meaning and content; many students struggle with
understanding mathematics symbols and notation.
• We report results from a small qualitative study in which we explore how
higher and lower proficient EL students and non-EL students read mathemat-
ics semiotics when thinking aloud while solving two problems to determine
what the students thought were helpful “entry points” or unhelpful “exit
points” during problem solving.
• We provide suggestions for best practices that promote and engage EL students
with opportunities to flexibly use semiotics and conceptual understanding to
solve mathematics problems.
56 Mary A. Avalos et al.
Chapter Purpose
EL students consistently score lower than their white, English-speaking peers on
mathematics assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Problem solving and
mathematics practices (e.g., perseverance, reasoning, and communication skills) are
key to mathematics achievement in school, as advocated by learning standards (e.g.,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1991, 2001; Common Core
State Standards [CCSS], National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Additionally, mathematics achieve-
ment is necessary for advanced educational opportunities (Morgan, Farkas, & Wu,
2011; Murnane, Willett, Braatz, & Duhaldeborde, 2001). Students may do well with
computation-type exercises but not do well on word problems (Kintsch, 1987); for EL
students this problem is even more evident (Abedi, 2011; Lager, 2006; Wiest, 2008).
There is little published research that investigates students’ use of semiotics or
meaning-making systems for mathematics (i.e., language, symbols, notation, and
visual representations) while problem solving, and how they may assist or hinder
reading and solving mathematics word problems (Avalos, Bengochea, & Secada,
2015; Schleppegrell, 2010).This chapter looks closely at the extent to which middle
school EL students and English proficient (EP) students with varying mathematics
proficiency used the problems’ semiotics to read, understand, and solve two math-
ematics problems.We begin by providing an overview of challenges for EL students’
mathematics problem solving based on research investigating how semiotics inhibit
or promote access to mathematical understanding. We then present the methods
and findings of a small study we conducted with middle school EL and EP students.
Practical implications to facilitate EL students’ reading of mathematical semiotics
to make meaning of and solve mathematics word problems conclude the chapter.
Review of Research and Theory: EL Students and

Mathematics Word Problems
Mathematics is often thought to be a universal language for all students due to the
use of numbers and symbols. This confound between literacy and content knowl-
edge has been recognized as a serious issue by researchers who study the use of
word problems to determine students’ mathematics proficiency on high-stakes tests
(Abedi, 2004; Durán, 2011; Martiniello, 2008; Sireci, Han, & Wells, 2008; Wolf &
Leon, 2009). Powell (2011) describes a word problem as a mathematics calculation
typically set within sentences, requiring the identification of missing information,
a plan, and one or more calculations to solve it. Word problems are composed of a
three-part structure (Gerofsky, 1999) and generally begin by providing a declarative
sentence for situating a context or authentic situation, followed by sentences to give
information that is usually relevant to but can also sometimes be distracting about the
problem, and a request or final statement, usually in the form of a question, that states
what needs to be found for the problem to be solved.When reading word problems,
EL students encounter two principal difficulties: the mental time and effort neces-
sary to process semantic structures, syntax, and vocabulary between languages and
the potential ambiguity of mathematics word problems (Celedón-Pattichis, 1999;
Pimm,1987; Ron, 1999). Barbu and Beal (2010) found that EL students’ performance
Reading Mathematics Problems 57
on mathematics word problems was poorer when the problems were written with
dense, complex sentences than on the same problems written with less complex lan-
guage. Problems that were both linguistically and mathematically complex were the
most challenging, indicating that EL students face additional cognitive demands when
solving word problems in a second (nondominant) language. In another study, the
combined demands of both academic language and content knowledge in analyzed
word problems seemed to be even more challenging for EL students, whereas non-
EL students appeared to have more advanced consolidated meaning-making systems
to meet the interpretive demands of word problems with more and varied semiotics
than EL students (Solano-Flores, Barnett-Clarke, & Kachchaf, 2013). Previous work
has also identified syntactic, lexical, cultural, and test or text layout to be challenging
word-problem features for EL students (Martiniello, 2009; Schleppegrell, 2007; Secada,
1991).
Semiotics and EL Students’ Mathematics Problem Solving

Mathematics semiotics have been known to confuse and hinder EL students’
problem-solving abilities, specifically language, symbols and notation, and visual repre-
sentations pertaining to problems (Kenney & de Oliveira, 2015; Schleppegrell, 2007;
Spanos, Rhodes, Dale, & Crandall, 1988).A semiotics perspective for teaching math-
ematics content recognizes that a discipline’s meaning can be conveyed and repre-
sented in multiple ways (Gutiérrez, Sengupta-Irving, & Dieckmann, 2010; Kress &
van Leeuwen, 2001; Lemke, 1998; O’Halloran, 2005, 2011). Forms of representation
for mathematics include disciplinary language (e.g., grammar, technical vocabulary;
Halliday, 1978) used for problems and problem-solving discussions (e.g., discourse
and discursive practices to explain, justify, pose problems; Lemke, 2003; Solano-
Flores, 2006), symbols and notation, and visual representations (e.g., symbols, graphs,
equations; Lemke, 2003; O’Halloran, 2005). We now describe how mathematics
semiotics may be confusing for EL students, emphasizing language, as that is the
semiotic system for which most work has been done.
Language
Importantly, according to semiotic approaches, language is more than a tool for
representation and communication; it is a tool for thinking and making meaning
(Schleppegrell, 2010). As shown in Table 4.1, mathematics uses language that is
commonly found in everyday use and contexts, along with specialized language,
such as technical terms and distinct grammatical patterns, to make meaning (see
Schleppegrell, 2004 for a detailed discussion).
While everyday and mathematical language are intertwined, school-mathematics
language may draw on everyday language to make meaning in ways that are dif-
ferent than what is typically found when completing outside-of-school tasks (Bar-
well, 2013; Halliday, 1978). This borrowing of everyday language for mathematical
purposes goes beyond the word level; it requires students to learn, to understand,
and to use what has been called the mathematics register (Halliday, 1978). A reg-
ister is the configuration of lexical (vocabulary) and grammatical resources that
TABLE 4.1 Challenging Lexical- and Sentence-Level Features of Mathematics Word Problems
Discourse Feature Definition and Examples
Technical Vocabulary • Vocabulary words or terms needed to express concepts

(specific to efficiently in mathematics
mathematics) — Additive inverse, binomial, coefficient, monomial, graph, data,
plot, value, average, maximum, minimum, grid, length, ordered
pair, order, pictograph, sum, data set, place value, ascending,
vertical, horizontal, round, mean, digit, discrete, origin.
— Any unit of measurement (i.e. foot/feet, inch, yard, meter, etc.)
Natural Language • These polysemous words or phrases could be confused with
Confounds “everyday” language terms that have other meanings (not
specific to mathematics).
• Often these are homonyms or homographs.
— Sum (some), table (as in dining room vs. means to
organize data), and mean (as in cruel vs. average), or
square, power, equality, and rational.
— Bar, key, scale, points, value, age, plot, digit, set, order, place,
feet, yard, figure, model, left.
Synonymous Words • Some mathematics words/phrases are used interchangeably
and Phrases and could be confusing due to the many labels attached to
one concept.
• For example, “The mean of heights was 24 inches. This
average was higher than expected.” In this case, the word
average would be confusing.
• Other examples:
— For addition, add, plus, combine, sum, more than, and
increase by are synonymous.
— For subtraction, subtract, minus, differ(ence), less than, and
decreased by are synonymous.
— Others: less vs. less than; the square vs. the square root;
divided by vs. divided into.
Complex String • Two or more words that together create specific mathematics
of Words or concepts and in other contexts are not generally linked or
Phrases (specific to used together in this way. One term within the complex
mathematics) word string must be technical vocabulary.
— Least common denominator, negative exponent, place value,
ascending order, average number, stem-and-leaf plot.
(Adapted from: Schleppegrell, 2007; Spanos et al., 1988)
are appropriate for particular language use within a particular discourse context
(Schleppegrell, 2004). The mathematics register allows for discursive practices, or
patterns of language use, to be established for multiple purposes, including profes-
sional and educational mathematics.
The acquisition of the mathematics register often takes place within the math-
ematics classroom, while students are engaged in mathematical learning; however,
simply experiencing mathematics instruction does not necessarily prompt the
acquisition of the mathematical register (Halliday, 1978; Huang & Normandia,
2008; Moschkovich, 2015). Sfard and Lavie (2005) demonstrate that learning the
mathematics register requires the use of language while engaging with concepts,
and it is realized by what they call objectification. Objectification takes place when
terms like number words are used as nouns (e.g., six is less than seven) rather than
as determiners (e.g., five cubes). EL students need to acquire concepts prior to
owning and using the mathematics register (Chapman, 2003; Sfard, 2000; Sigley &
Wilkinson, 2015). Uptegrove (2015) found that the uptake of the mathematics
register and abstraction come with increased conceptual understanding and experi-
ence/exposure; students in her longitudinal study increasingly used abstract, discur-
sive patterns as they progressed through the grades, and especially in high school.
Research investigating how the language of word problems might be modi-
fied to make problem solving more accessible to EL students has found mixed
results. Abedi and Lord (2001) modified national test items to explore how fewer
nominal (noun) phrases, more explicit conditional relationships, simpler questions
with active (rather than passive) voice, and more familiar vocabulary would assist in
comprehending and solving the problems. Most participating eighth-grade students
selected the modified problems as those they would do first. Moreover, the students
were more successful solving modified word problems than solving the originals.
EL students and students of lower socioeconomic status (SES) benefitted more
from the linguistic modifications than English speakers and students from middle
to higher SES backgrounds. In another study, three opportunity-to-learn variables
(i.e., students’ report of content coverage in class, their teacher’s content knowledge,
and students’ previous mathematics ability) were compared to see which better
predicted EL student mathematics achievement (Abedi, Courtney, Leon, Kao, &
Azzam, 2006). Although all three were significant predictors of students’ math-
ematics performance, previous mathematics ability and teacher content knowledge
showed greater effects on EL students’ achievement than modified word problems.
The syntax of mathematics word problems presents several challenges for EL stu-
dents including the use of comparatives (such as “x times as much” or “is greater
than”), and when some EL students’ translation of a problem’s text is literal, from left-
to-right (so that “There are 3 times as many boys (b) as girls (g) in a class” is incorrectly
translated as 3b = g, or when 15/4 is translated by Spanish speakers as “Dividir 15 entre
4” or “Divide 15 into 4”) (Celedón-Pattichis, 1999). Castellanos (1980) provides other
examples of syntax challenges for EL students such as when the mathematics symbols
of a given word problem do not have a one-to-one correspondence with the words
they represent (i.e., 15/4 is read as “4 goes into 15”) or in instances involving substitu-
tion (such as when “Substitute 3 for y, meaning to use 3 anytime y was used, is literally
translated into Spanish as “Sustituya 3 por y”, which instructs to use y anytime 3 was
used—the complete opposite of the English instructions). Even minor syntactic vari-
ations on a semantic structure can pose cognitive challenges for EL students, such as
understanding and distinguishing the question being asked in “How many were there
altogether?” “How many were left?” “How many fewer were left?” or “How many
more were there before?” (Celedón-Pattichis, 1999). Finally, the logical connectives
used to link the propositions in reasoning arguments such as “either . . . or,”“if . . . then,”
and “only if ” can also create difficulties for EL students (Celedón-Pattichis, 1999).
Another possible challenge for EL students’ word problem solving is related to
how the problems are contextualized. Word problem contexts are created to help
students link mathematics to the real world; however, these adult-contrived contexts
can create confusion for comprehension and limit accessibility to successful problem
solving for students who struggle with mathematics ( Jackson, Garrison, Wilson,
Gibblons, & Shahan, 2013; Staub & Reusser, 1995). Thus, as an example, contexts
that situate problems in determining the most cost-effective rate for cellular phones
are likely to be foreign for students who lack the experience of and/or responsibili-
ties for making such decisions, even though the use of cellular phones lies within
their realm of experience (and expertise). Additionally, EL students may be unfa-
miliar with cultural contexts commonly used and understood by their native Eng-
lish-speaking peers, such as “spelling bee” competitions (Martiniello, 2008, p. 28).
Symbols and Notation

Used from beginning through the most advanced mathematics, symbols and nota-
tions are important for comprehending the language of mathematics (Earnest, 2006).
Symbols allow precision and carry “informational weight” according to established
conventions for mathematics semiotics (O’Halloran, 2005; Wilson, 2011, p. 439).
Mathematical symbols have six principal uses (Rubenstein & Thompson, 2001). As
shown in Table 4.2, mathematical symbols serve to name a concept, state a relationship,
indicate an operation or function with one or more inputs, abbreviate, and/or indicate
groupings; notation allows for written systems to convey mathematical meanings. As
symbols create meaning in mathematics, they motivate mathematical thinking (Arcavi,
2005). This symbol-induced thinking helps the problem solver focus on the related
concepts, theorems, relationships, functions, words, units, and groupings.The problem
solver simultaneously justifies why other meanings of the same symbol are not appli-
cable in a particular instance (so that a dot, for example, can be distinguished as either
TABLE 4.2 Symbols and Notation as Mathematics Semiotics
Discourse Feature Definition, Purpose, and Examples
Symbols: Create meaning in mathematics and function to:

• Name a concept (% percent, f function, or ∠ angle);
• State a relationship (less than <, equals =, or similarity ~);
• Indicate an operation or function with one input (factorial n!, square root x , or det
[A]);
• Indicate an operation or function with two or more inputs (greatest common
denominator [GCD] of 12, 18, area of a triangle ½(bh));
• Abbreviate words, units, theorems, etc. (% for percent, ' " first or second derivative,
side-angle-side [SAS]);
• Indicate grouping (parentheses, log xy, |5 – 7|).
Mathematical notation: The writing system used to convey meaning in
mathematics.
• Expressions and equations (5x + 4y = 25; standard equation of a linear function).
• Set membership: a∉A (The element a does not belong to the set A).
• Types of functions:𝑓(z) ∈ Cn(A) (The function 𝑓(z) defined on the set A is continuous and
has all derivatives of orders k ≤ n.
(Adapted from: Rubenstein & Thompson, 2001; Wolfram Research, Inc., 2008)
part of a decimal, a symbol for multiplication, or a symbol indicating the intersection

of the x- and y-coordinates on a coordinate plane) (Arcavi, 1994). Furthermore, as
some symbols create mathematical meaning for the problem solver in order to solve
a problem, the same or other symbols may be used to create other meanings in the
problem’s solution (Carpenter, Fennema, & Franke, 1996).
Notation is simply the writing system for recording mathematical concepts. The
use of symbols and images to communicate allow for thematic condensation of meaning
into its smallest and most precise component(s) (Lemke, 1995). The development of
semiotic representational knowledge is said to be essential for mathematical thought
because “mathematical processing always involves substituting some semiotic representa-
tion for another” rather than for objects, since the transformation of representations
is more important in mathematical processing than the representations themselves
(Duval, 2006, p. 107). Unfortunately, the development of semiotic representational
knowledge is often ignored during instruction, thereby creating challenges for stu-
dents as they encounter higher-level mathematics concepts (Duval, 2006).
Visual Representations
Students use visual representations (VRs) as tools that assist in their understanding
and applying mathematical knowledge (Swanson, 2010). With so many types of
mathematical VRs (Table 4.3), EL students may require explicit instruction in order
to help them use and better understand how VRs represent mathematics content
(Avalos, Bengochea, & Secada, 2015). EL students benefit from seeing and hearing
teachers and peers model the language necessary to name and precisely describe the
numbers, shapes, symbols, and reason through the properties and explanations of
solutions (Battey, Llamas-Flores, Burke, Guerra, Kang, & Kim, 2013; Moschkovich,
1999). In turn,VRs familiar to EL students from prior instruction in their first lan-
guage may serve as the basis upon which EL students contribute to mathematical
ideas and problem solving while they acquire a second language (Moschkovich,
2007). EL students have taken greater academic risks when interacting with new
content in class and have used drawings outside of class as a result of lessons that
incorporated VRs such as geometric figures, number lines, clocks, and place-value
charts (Young & Marroquin, 2008). Teachers who use VRs consistently reach more
of their diverse learners where they are, use experiences they bring into the class-
room, use real-life objects that help validate, recall, and transfer mathematics topics
being taught, and are able to more seamlessly infuse higher-level thinking into les-
sons (Young & Marroquin, 2008).
Several studies have found that encouraging students to create independent
drawings and represent aspects of word problems they view to be key, and explicitly
teaching students about specific diagram types, resulted in higher student achieve-
ment on problem solving (Lewis, 1989;Van Essen & Hamaker, 1990; Wolters, 1983;
Zweng, Geraghty, & Turner, 1979). Other studies have looked at the types of rep-
resentations that students create on assessments. Schematic drawings reflect a rela-
tively accurate appearance, structure, or workings of an object or a space by using
proportional spacing between the components represented in the diagram. Non-
schematic drawings, on the other hand, may contain aspects that are unrelated to
TABLE 4.3 Description of Visual Images
Visual Image Definition Descriptions/Examples

Abstract Abstract graphs display
Graphs the functional
relationship between
two or more variables
in the form of lines,
curves, and three-
dimensional figures.
The points are plotted
on a set of co-ordinate
axes and include only
those points which
satisfy the given
relation.
Statistical Statistical graphs show the See examples below for:

Graphs relationship between -bar graph
sets of quantities. -chart/table
-figure (2D/3D)
-histogram
-line graph
-pictograph
-pie chart
Bar A way of showing 115,000

World-Wide Natural Gas Use
Diagram information by the 105,500 4,688
lengths of a set of 96,000
bars. The bars are

Natural Gas Use by Region
Billions of Cubic Feet (bcf)
86,500
drawn horizontally or 77,000

2,038
24,739
Africa
vertically. 67,500
10,484 5,806 Asia & Oceania
Central & South
3,304 America
Eurasia
58,000 21,426
735 1,241 Europe
19,472
2,577
48,500 North America
39,000 16,769
13,328
17,394
29,500
11,193
27,723 33,279
22,559
20,000
1980 2000 2014
Year
Bar Graph A way of showing 35,000

World-Wide Natural Gas Use
33,279
information by the 31,500
lengths of a set of 28,500

27,723
bars. The bars are 24,500

22,559
24,739
Billions of Cubic Feet (bcf)
Africa
drawn horizontally or
21,426
21,000
19,472
Asia & Oceania
17,394
16,769
vertically. 17,500 Central & South

America
13,328 Eurasia
14,000
10,484 Europe
10,500
11,193
North America
5,806
7,000
4,688
3,304
2,577
3,500
1,241
2,038
735
0
1980 2000 2014
Year
Visual Image Definition Descriptions/Examples

Chart/ An outline map showing
Table special conditions or
facts such as a weather
chart, temperatures, or
marine map.
Table -A listing of the
values of a function of
one or several variables
at a series of values of
the arguments, usually
equally spaced.
Figure (3D) These 3-D shapes
represent spatial
properties that
undergo continuous
deformation, like torus.
Also any geometric
shape that is three
dimensional (3-D) such
as rectangular prism,
cube (graph theory or
topology).
Figure (2D) A two-dimensional shape
is a geometric figure
having length and
width, but no thickness
or depth.
Source: O’Halloran, 2005
or visually dissimilar from that which was originally represented. Edens and Potter
(2007) have found schematic diagrams to be more effective in assisting students’ rep-
resentational understanding than nonschematic drawings. Martiniello (2009) found
that schematic VRs mitigate the challenges of linguistic complexity for mathematics
word problems by helping EL students make meaning of the texts that they read.
Summary
The semiotics specific to mathematics are comprised of highly and semitechnical terms,
dense noun phrases, mathematics-specific and precise conjunctions, and complex sub-
ordinated logical relationships (Schleppegrell, 2007). The complex, interconnected, and
constantly evolving nature of mathematics symbols, technical and natural language, and
visual, nonlinguistic representations (O’Halloran, 2005) gives rise to the difficulties that
most students have in learning to communicate their mathematics understanding in
both classroom and assessment settings. In order to consistently and successfully evidence
higher-level secondary-mathematics understandings and practices, students need to
become adept at using the mathematics register (Schleppegrell, 2007; Wilkinson, 2015)
and semiotics, such as symbols, notation, and VRs (O’Halloran, 2005, 2011; Schleppe-
grell, 2010). Some mastery of the mathematics register and semiotics seems to be nec-
essary for students to efficiently read and solve mathematics problems (Barbu & Beal,
2010; Solano-Flores, Barnett-Clarke, & Kachchaf, 2013; Uptegrove, 2015).
Our Study
This small, secondary study was part of a larger research and development effort to
integrate language teaching within mathematics education for EL students (Secada &
Avalos, 2010). The Language in Math project included a comprehensive professional
development (Avalos, Zisselsberger, Langer-Osuna, & Secada, 2015) and classroom
intervention (Avalos, Medina, & Secada, 2015) with the overarching goal of increas-
ing teacher and EL student awareness of mathematical language and literacy. In this
secondary study, we examined middle school students’ audio-recorded think-aloud
interviews to explore how three semiotic features found in mathematics problems
facilitated or hindered higher- and lower-achieving EL and FEP students’ problem
solving.We built on Sigley and Wilkinson’s (2015) work to explore how middle school
students’ “critical events,” or verbalized mathematical ideas and/or shifts in thinking,
indicate a resolution of the problem (p. 80).We use the term “critical reading events” to
highlight students’ think-aloud statements that were related to reading the semiotics
found in the problems. Statements that were mathematically, conceptually, or factually
correct, reflected the information given in the original problem, and/or contributed
to the student’s progress toward a correct answer were deemed to be helpful and
problem-solving “entry points,” and statements that were mathematically, conceptu-
ally, or factually incorrect, that did not reflect the information given in the original
problem, and/or did not contribute to the student’s progress toward a correct answer
were deemed to be not-helpful and problem-solving “exit points,” as they did not
successfully advance students’ problem solving. As such, we address the research ques-
tion, What semiotic systems (e.g., language, symbols, visual representations) facilitate EL and EP
students’ problem-solving capacity when reading and solving mathematics word problems?
Participants
Twenty seventh (n = 9) and eighth grade (n = 11) students participated in this study.
Of the 20 students, five were seventh-grade EL students (three Spanish, one Spanish/
Russian, and one Urdu home language backgrounds) with intermediate English pro-
ficiency.The remaining 15 students were considered English proficient (EP). Fourteen
of the 15 EP students were from homes where a language other than English was spo-
ken (Spanish, Creole, Urdu, and Hindi).An equal number of boys and girls participated
in this study overall. All 20 participating students completed standardized assessments
that were used as diagnostic indicators, including the Test of Mathematical Abilities-
2nd Edition (TOMA-2; Brown, Cronin, & McEntire, 1994). For this study, we used
TOMA-2 Math Quotient scores to select and group the participating students by
their mathematics-proficiency levels into two groups, as determined by the TOMA-2’s
mean score of 100: the Higher Proficient/Average group (n = 10; High Mathematics
Proficiency) scored between 90 and 120; and the Below Average/Poor group (n = 10;
Low Mathematics Proficiency) scored between 70 and 89. All five of the EL students
were in the Low Mathematics Proficiency group.
Think-Aloud Interviews
Students solved four grade-appropriate multiple-choice mathematics word-and-
computation problems during an individual, audio-recorded cognitive interview.
We report on students’ thinking for two of the four problems in this chapter. Stu-
dents were given pencils and interview packets comprised of a practice problem
and four problems, with ample workspace to be used as necessary. After view-
ing a brief video of how to “think aloud,” students were provided with a sample
problem and given time to practice thinking aloud. Once the practice problem
was completed and the students’ questions were answered, they proceeded to the
four problems, reading each problem aloud before solving it and thinking aloud
10
9
8
Elevation in feet
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
x
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance in feet
The length of the base of the ramp is 10 feet and the height at the end
of the ramp is 2.5 feet. Which ofthe following is the slope of the ramp?
1 1
A. 8 B. 4 C. 4 D. 8
FIGURE 4.1 Problem 1: The Graph of the Slope of a Ramp at a Skateboard Park

This sample FCAT/FCAT 2.0 question appears by permission of the Florida Department of Education,
Office of Assessment, Tallahassee, Florida 32399–0400.
FIGURE 4.2 Problem 2: Mrs. Rafferty Put Four Expressions on the Board and Asked
Her Students to Simplify Them
This sample FCAT/FCAT 2.0 question appears by permission of the Florida Department of Education,
Office of Assessment, Tallahassee, Florida 32399–0400.
while solving it. If a student stopped verbalizing his/her thinking while problem
solving, interviewers prompted, “What are you thinking?” after about five seconds
of silence.
The two problems were verbatim, standardized test questions released by the Flor-
ida Department of Education as sample items from its annual high-stakes assessment
at the time of this study. “Problem #1” pertained to Ratios and Proportions1 (Fig-
ure 4.1). “Problem #2” is linked to Number and Operations and to Expressions and
Equations2 (Figure 4.2). All the participating students read (decoded) the problems
with fluency and accuracy. We selected these two problems for this chapter because
they include semiotic resources commonly found in mathematics word problems
that, according to previous work discussed earlier, could be confusing for EL students.
Data Analysis
We analyzed students’ audio-recorded transcripts and extracted the “critical reading
events” (CREs) related to the problems’ text (i.e., language and numbers including
alpha-numeric aspects of the problem and multiple-choice answer options); graph (a
Cartesian coordinate system graph), and symbols (subtraction, radical or square root,
exponent or power, and absolute value bars symbols) to explore how these were
used (or not used) during students’ problem-solving processes. To determine the
CREs, transcripts were analyzed starting from the interviewer’s prompt for students
to begin (or continue on to) each problem. A student’s new statement (often with
a subject and predicate) typically identified the beginning of a CRE (and the end
of the previous CRE). Once the CREs were extracted, we analyzed the data using
grounded theory and constant comparison methods (Charmaz, 1995; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990) to iteratively examine students’ CREs linked to the mathematics
semiotics explained previously. We then looked for common patterns within stu-
dent mathematics- and language proficiency-groups.
Results
Eight of the ten High Mathematics Proficient students solved both problems correctly,
while three of the ten Low Mathematics Proficient students correctly solved both prob-
lems.Three of five EL students and 12 of 15 EP students answered Problem #1 correctly;
only one of five EL students and 11 of 15 EP students answered Problem #2 correctly.
The majority of the higher proficient students solved the interview problems
mentally; they used paper/pencil to illustrate their justification and explanations of
their problem solving. In contrast, most of the lower proficient EP and EL students
used paper/pencil to work out solutions. Interestingly, the EL students who were
unable to solve Problem #2 did not use the paper/pencil at all. This, in addition to
evidence from their think-aloud transcripts, indicates that the EL students had little
interaction with the text while solving the problem.
Students in the higher proficient group responded to language and semiot-
ics in ways similar to their lower mathematics-proficiency peers; however, unlike
their peers they were able to anticipate elements (formulae, data points, technical
terms, prerequisite information, mathematical confidence, and perseverance) neces-
sary to predict, validate, and synthesize mathematics concepts, patterns, inferences,
and solutions. In other words, their “entry points” included and then extended beyond
those of the lower proficiency group. For example, students in the Below Aver-
age/Poor group would read the word “slope” or would see an exponent, and they
would ask themselves if they knew the term, or if they could recall the formula or
the procedure, or if they could recite the phrase their teacher told them as a mne-
monic tool (“rise over run”).
For example, occasionally after long pauses of silence or explicitly rereading the
question, students stated:
“Well, like the slope, so you have to put things, the coordinates.”
“I forgot how to do slope.”
“Negative three times—negative three . . . you have to multiply three times
negative three.”
Students in the higher proficient group read the word “slope” and introduced
synonyms such as the term “steepness;” and/or they described the expected sign of
the slope based on its shape; and/or they narrated the slope as both a rate of change
and a predictor for where the line in question will intersect with more convenient
coordinates on the Cartesian graph (such as whole numbers); and/or they would
recall the mnemonic “rise over run,” the slope formula, and make connections
between these and the patterns seen on the graph. For example:
“So since the elevation is the y, since the line is going diagonally to the left to the
right, it means the slope would be positive. That means at the end of the graph, 10
feet equals 2 and a half feet so Y with a change of X. So for 1 foot the elevation
doesn’t equal to 1 foot so it would have to be less than 1, so C and D would not
be the answer.”
“. . . well, I learned that the slope, as a fraction, is rise over run. So rise will
be—in the picture it shows—in the graph it shows that the rise is 2.5, because
height is the same thing as rise. So 20, I mean 2.5 over 10 is the base, so that’s
the same thing as run. So 2.5 over 10 will be the slope, but now I have to find
it in simplest form, because I see there’s no answers equivalent to mine, so I have
to simplify it . . . .”
Students in the lower proficient group would read discrete, contextualized val-
ues from a word problem (such as a base of 10 feet and an elevation of 2.5 feet)
and try to use those numbers and only those numbers in the slope formula, if they
could successfully recall that formula. Higher proficient students would take this
same information and foreground these data in the context of a graph, thereby
making these discrete values part of a continuous line with many useful values.
Comments by students in the lower proficiency group evidence a focus on num-
bers given or excerpted from the graph’s coordinates:
“Rise is 2.5 feet, and run’s 10 feet, so automatically, you would have to eliminate
A and D since that’s completely out of question. So I would most likely go with B
because of the rise over run concept.”
“Well, like the slope, so you have to put things, the coordinates. 4 and 1. And 8, 2.
Let’s see. B. I guess. I think it’s one-fourth ’cause it’s increasing by one-fourth.”
Comparing the transcribed excerpts of lower proficient student comments above

to a higher proficient student’s comments, who uses these numbers as part of a
pattern or predicted trend, it is evident that the latter’s conceptual understanding
is more elaborated:
“I can see that, from the graph, that within—for every 1 foot of elevation in feet, it
moves a distance of 4 feet. So I know that it would be 1 over 4, so that would be one
move up. And four moves to the right. And to check myself, I’m going to move one
move up again, and four units to the right, again, which gets me to the next point on
the graph, which is 2, 8. So the answer for this would be 1/4th.”
Lower proficient students would read multiple-choice options and try to fit
their rote calculations into at least one choice that fit their intuition. Higher profi-
cient students would assign properties (fraction vs. whole number, positive vs. nega-
tive, etc.) to the multiple-choice options, and then they would use those properties
to reason an option for further consideration or eliminate an option because it
failed to meet preestablished criteria for the correct type of answer. For example, a
student of lower proficiency stated:
“Ten feet equals the length of the base of the ramp; 2.5 feet is the height. We need to
find out which slope—which is the slope of the ramp. I don’t know . . . . It’s 4 feet.
Is it B?”
On the other hand, a higher proficiency student would reason through using gen-
eral properties of the specific arithmetic results:
“I know the answer wouldn’t be 6 or 3 because they’re both positive and I have two
numbers, negative 27 and another negative number, so I would cancel out expression
two and three so I can remember expression two and three on my answers so I would
put an X next to them. I would now estimate 4 minus 5 would be 1 so it would be
negative 1 point something. I know that negative 27 is way lower than a negative 1
point something, so the answer would be D.”
Finally, students in the lower proficient group would read an expression

with a number of symbols and then focus on the “exit point” symbol(s) that
they could not understand or recall. Hence, they lost the opportunity to make
any progress on an embedded operation for which they might have been able
to make at least some progress. In the following quote from a lower profi-
cient mathematics student, the number of digits, the square root symbol (from
Expression 2), and the absolute value bars are mentioned as potential “exit
points” that distract the student from focusing on the remaining aspects of the
expression that they might have been able to solve and progressing toward a
solution:
“I’m gonna subtract . . . . Let me write it, again . . . . Because I thought the 5 was big-
ger, but I didn’t see that the 4.6507 was greater than 5.196 . . . . Because there’s more
number values. And I don’t get Expression 2, so I’ll move onto Expression 3 . . . it
says negative 2 minus 1, so it’s got negative 1, but I forgot what the bars mean . . . . I
think the answer is Expression 3.”
Study Conclusions
Although all 20 students used similar problem-solving strategies when initially
reading the two problems, higher proficient students were able to capitalize on
their strong understanding of the problems’ mathematics concepts and to use the
mathematics register to advance their CREs to a level of abstraction and efficiency
not demonstrated by students in the lower proficient group. Students in the lower
proficiency group attempted to solve problems in similar ways as the higher pro-
ficient students, but their lack of mathematical understanding and basic number
sense often served as the exit point that hindered their problem solving during the
interviews. This was demonstrated by the lower proficient EL students and non-
EL students in our sample.
Higher proficient students could abstract and predict problem-solving pro-

cesses, indicating that their conceptual and flexible understanding of mathematical
knowledge was a key difference between both groups when reading and efficiently
solving the mathematics problems, although some students in the lower proficient
group correctly solved the problems, even though they didn’t appear to have the
same ability to abstract and use the mathematics register.
Students in the higher proficient group demonstrated a fluid and fluent use
of the problems’ language and semiotics. Their lower proficient peers appeared to
overly rely on a literal translation of the problem (as opposed to flexible translation
of the problem’s language that prioritized conceptual understanding) and semiotics
strictly for procedural clues on how to solve the problems.
As emphasized throughout this chapter, mathematics semiotics are complex and
interrelated. The heavy cognitive load of language, when combined with abstract-
content learning, often challenges EL students who have limited conceptual under-
standing of mathematics; our findings indicate that lower mathematics proficient
students look to the problems’ semiotics for procedural clues and language that may
give them solution pathways. Other work demonstrates that students’ participation
in mathematics instruction that includes a focus on conceptual understanding and
mathematical semiotics in a variety of tasks and contexts promotes students’ under-
standing and use of them (Bartolini Bussi & Mariotti, 2008; Ernest, 2006; Seeger,
2005).
Best Practices
Instruction to promote EL students’ problem solving has called for explicit teach-
ing of mathematics semiotics (i.e., language, symbols and notation, visual representations)
while constructing multiple meanings through social interactions (Avalos et al.,
2015; Battey et al., 2013; Morgan, 2004, 2006; Solano-Flores et al., 2013). With an
established and appropriate learning environment, classroom instruction utilizes
discourse and social interaction to focus on semiotics so as to allow students to
construct understanding and to learn content; therefore, learners play dual roles
as active participants and engaged observers communicating mathematical under-
standing, ultimately learning to explore and manipulate mathematics semiotics in
novel or different ways (Seeger, 2004).
To promote and foster EL students’ participation and flexible use of semiotics
during mathematics lessons, instruction should focus on conceptual understand-
ing and exploration of semiotics with discussion that builds on sense making
and shared meaning. Teachers can realize this goal for EL students’ by making
the content relevant to life outside of school (language, culture, and community)
and building on the language resources EL students bring with them to school
(Moschkovich, 2011). Teachers can also shift their discourse to support EL stu-
dents’ use of the math register by incorporating talk moves that revoice (Chapin,
O’Connor, & Anderson, 2009), clarify (Moschkovich, 1999), or probe (Herbel-
Eisenmann, Steel, & Cirillo, 2013) students’ understandings and pose questions
that promote thinking and reasoning during problem solving (Avalos & Jones,
2017; Herbel-Eisenmann et al., 2013; Moschkovich, 1999). It is also benefi-
cial and important for teachers to understand what EL students know about
mathematics content in their first language to inform instruction in English

(Cummins, 1991, 2000). With increasing opportunities to participate (Clarke,
2015) and appropriate classroom norms (Kuhn & Zillmer, 2015), EL students
can use semiotics to communicate and to facilitate their own understanding and
exploration of abstract concepts (Ernst-Slavin & Slavin, 2007).
The literature provides instructional suggestions that demonstrate meaningful
and effective use of semiotics for instruction that teachers can implement. We have
described and provided a planning tool from the Language in Math intervention
that builds on Smith and Stein’s (2011) work to focus on instructing mathemat-
ics semiotics (Avalos et al., 2015). In brief, upon selecting an appropriate task (see
Smith & Stein, 2011), the context, language, and mathematics (including VRs)
are analyzed to determine possible explicit instruction needed to solve the task,
depending on the students’ learning needs. Analyzing the task prior to instruction
anticipates learning needs around semiotics that may need to be highlighted and/
or explicitly taught, thus preparing teachers to integrate semiotics within content
instruction. Barwell (2009) recommends that EL students write and solve their own
mathematics problems to promote understanding of the language and the structure
of word problems.
There is little research on how instruction to promote EL students’ understand-
ings of symbols and notation may improve their mathematics achievement; how-
ever, students often identify the use of literal symbols (most often used to represent
variables in algebra) as the source of many of their difficulties in more advanced
mathematics (Sackur, 1995). Limited opportunities to learn about symbols through
exploration and notation in earlier grades may be the greatest obstacle for achieving
fluent and flexible use of symbols (Gravemeijer, Cobb, Bowers, & Whitenack, 2000).
We therefore recommend exploring how mathematical meanings would change if
substituting similar or different symbols and notation during post-problem-solving
discussions. By comparing and contrasting mathematical meanings based on the
symbols and notation used, EL students and other students may better understand
how they contribute to mathematical meanings and relationships.
Teachers can use VRs during scaffolding and error analysis to develop meaning
in and coherence of word problems and to increase EL students’ engagement and
confidence (Swanson, 2010). Musanti and Celedón-Pattichis (2014) suggest prac-
ticing mathematical communication that requires students to make generalizations
supported by their claims and explicitly describe patterns that may be implicit in
the problem or solution by using representations such as drawings, gestures, sym-
bols, and manipulatives to supplement their explanations. Also, VRs can be used
to convey concepts so as to supplement traditional oral and written instruction.
In a study involving integers, Swanson (2010) used images of a cliff, a boat, an
airplane, and water alongside a vertical number line to help students understand
that the water was at “0”; the cliff, boat, and airplane were in the positive area; and
anything in the water was in the negative area. When teachers pay more atten-
tion to learner-focused pedagogy, they can benefit EL students by leading them
to academic success, and by developing lessons that call for greater use of cogni-
tive skills; teachers that use VRs to target diverse learning styles and position EL
students as active mathematics problem-solvers are able to more quickly convey
and contrast mathematics concepts and terms than if explaining, using language
only (Young & Marroquin, 2008). We would like to point out that the use of VRs
during math instruction in a participatory mathematics classroom may or may not
have an explicit role when students are assessed. This is because the social supports
and the peer discussions that are present in classrooms are absent during assessment
settings. One of the few constants EL students can bring to an assessment from
their instructional environment are some of the VR tools that they have learned
in class; therefore, incorporating VR instruction in meaningful ways (as suggested
earlier) and effectively scaffolding to minimal teacher/peer support is important for
preparing EL students to solve mathematics problems independently.

To summarize, with appropriate instruction and scaffolding, EL students are able
to visualize, make contextual connections, envision cause-and-effect relationships,
and recall and refer to, or create representations for, new vocabulary and content
(Arcavi, 2003; Cipriano, 2011; Swanson, 2010). Along with appropriately scaffolded
instruction, participatory instruction will assist EL students and other lower math-
ematics proficient students to have more “entry points” to problem solving so that
they rely less on procedural clues and language from the problems and more on
their reasoning and understanding of problem concepts.

Lampert and Cobb (2003) differentiate “acquisition” of mathematics knowledge
from “participation” within mathematics classrooms. A student may acquire math-
ematics knowledge as a static set of facts that just sit there, without much under-
standing about how the mathematics connects to solving problems or the world.
Participation in a mathematics classroom, however, treats learning as process that
is oriented to the goal of participating in established mathematics practices, that
is, practices that will foster and promote access to further study for a broad range
of 21st-century careers (National Governors Association Center for Best Prac-
tices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; NCTM, 2009). Participation is
based on seeing concrete situations in mathematical terms, using formal and infor-
mal mathematical terms in different contexts, moving away from typical teacher
recitation toward discussions concerning students’ problem-solving methods, and
building conceptual understanding (Avalos, 2017; Avalos & Jones, 2017; Lampert &
Cobb, 2003). A transmission model of instruction, which remains prevalent in
school mathematics, typically presents information as general statements or rules,
thereby losing important opportunities for meaning making and flexible use of
signs and symbols (Ernest, 2006). By including symbols and notations as language
structures that enable meaning within explicit instruction, teachers can help stu-
dents better develop technical meanings (Schleppegrell, 2010, p. 104). Students who
are proficient in mathematics can reason flexibly and abstractly with multiple repre-
sentations and can understand that there is more than one way to represent and com-
municate relationships between numbers and space (Hoffman, Lenhard, & Seeger,
2005). Different forms of mathematics representation may promote EL students’
meaning making and understanding of the content, depending on the instruction

experienced (Solano-Flores et al., 2013).
Acknowlegments
This work was made possible due to a grant by The Institute of Educational Sci-
ences, Award Number R305A100862. The content of this chapter does not nec-
essarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education,
nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government.We would like to acknowledge the collabo-
rative effort that made this work possible, including the teachers, students, and dis-
trict administrators who contributed invaluably to this project, as well as Margarita
Zisselsberger, Alain Bengochea, Naomi Iuhasz, Kristen Doorn, and Robin Shane.
Notes
1 C-PALMS State Standard MA.7.A.1.4—“Graph proportional relationships and identify
the unit rate as the slope of the related linear function” (Florida State University, 2007).
2 C-PALMS State Standards: MAFS.6.NS.3.7 (“Understand the absolute value of a rational
number as its distance from 0 on the number line; interpret absolute value as magnitude
for a positive or negative quantity in a real-world situation”), MAFS.6.EE.1.1 (“Write and
evaluate numerical expressions involving whole-number exponents”), MAFS.6.NS.2.3
(“Fluently add, subtract, multiply, and divide multidigit decimals using the standard algo-
rithm for each operation”, and MAFS.8.EE.1.2 (“. . . Evaluate square roots of small perfect
squares and cube roots of small perfect cubes . . .”) (Florida State University, 2007).
References
Abedi, J. (2004). The no child left behind act and English language learners: Assessment and
accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 4–14.
Abedi, J. (2011). Assessing English language learners: Critical issues. In M. R. Basterra, E.
Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing linguistic and
cultural diversity (pp. 49–71). New York: Routledge.
Abedi, J., Courtney, M., Leon, S., Kao, J., & Azzam, T. (2006, November). English language
learners and math achievement: A study of opportunity to learn and language accommodation.
Technical Report 702, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Stu-
dent Testing (CRESST), Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Educa-
tion and Information Studies, Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics. Applied Measurement in
Education, 14, 219–234.
Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24–35.
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215–241.
Arcavi, A. (2005). Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 25(2), 42–47.
Avalos, M. A. (2017, March). Communication in whole class mathematics teaching: Shifting discourse
during problem-solving discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association of Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
Avalos, M. A., Bengochea, A., & Secada, W. G. (2015). Reading mathematics: More than
words and clauses, more than numbers and symbols on a page. In K. Santi & D. Reed
(Eds.), Improving comprehension for middle and high school students (pp. 49–74). Cham, Swit-
zerland: Springer International Publishing.
Avalos, M. A., & Jones, L. D. (2017, March). Facilitating diverse students’ discourse during math-
ematics discussions:What do teacher questions have to do with it? Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
Avalos, M. A., Medina, E., & Secada, W. G. (2015). Planning for instruction: Increas-
ing multilingual learners’ access to algebraic word problems and visual graphics. In
A. Bright, H. Hansen-Thomas, & L. C. de Oliveira (Eds.), The Common Core state
standards in math for English language learners: High school (pp. 5–28). Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Avalos, M. A., Zisselsberger, M., Langer-Osuna, J., & Secada, W. G. (2015). Building teacher
knowledge of academic literacy and language acquisition: A framework for cross-
disciplinary professional development. In D. Molle, T. Boals, E. Sato, & C. A. Hedgspeth
(Eds.), Sociocultural context of academic literacy development for adolescent English language learn-
ers (pp. 255–276). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge Publishers.
Barbu, O., & Beal, C. R. (2010). Effects of linguistic complexity and math difficulty on word
problem solving by English learners. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1–19.
Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics
classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini
Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D.Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in Mathematics
education (2nd ed., pp. 746–805). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barwell, R. (2009). Mathematical word problems and bilingual learners in England. In R.
Barwell (Ed.), Multilingualism in math classrooms: Global perspectives (pp. 63–77). Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, No. 73. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Barwell, R. (2013). The academic and the everyday in mathematicians’ talk: The case of the
hyper-bagel. Language and Education, 273, 207–222.
Battey, D., Llamas-Flores, S., Burke, M., Guerra, P., Kang, H. J., & Kim, S. H. (2013). ELL
policy and math professional development colliding: Placing teacher experimentation
within a sociopolitical context. Teachers College Record, 115(6), 1–44.
Brown, V. L., Cronin, M. E., & McEntire, E. (1994). Test of mathematical abilities (2nd ed.).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction:
A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School
Journal, 97(1), 3–20.
Castellanos, G. G. (1980). Mathematics and the Spanish-speaking student. Arithmetic Teacher,
28(3), 16.
Celedón-Pattichis, S. (1999). Constructing meaning:Think-aloud protocols of ELLs on English and
Spanish word problems. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help
students learn, grades K-6 (2nd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
Chapman, A. P. (2003). A social semiotic of language and learning in school mathematics. In
M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V.V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives
on math as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 129–148). Brooklyn, NY
and Ottawa, ON: Legas.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L.Van Langenhove (Eds.),
Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). London: Sage.
Cipriano, J. (2011, August). 32 tips for ELLs. Scholastic Instructor, 121(1), 36–38.
Clarke, S. N. (2015). The right to speak. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.),
Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 167–180). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Cummins, J. (1991). Language development and academic learning. In L. Malavé & G.

Duquette (Eds.), Language, culture and cognition (pp. 161–175). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Durán, R. P. (2011). Ensuring valid educational assessments for ELL students: Scores, score
interpretation, and assessment uses. In M. R. Basterra, E. Trumbell, & G. Solano-Flores
(Eds.), Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing linguistic and cultural diversity (pp. 115–142).
New York: Routledge.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of math-
ematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.
Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2007). The relationship of drawing and mathematical problem solv-
ing: Draw for math tasks. Studies in Art Education, 48(3), 282–298.
Ernest, P. (2006). A semiotic perspective of mathematical activity: The case of number. Edu-
cational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 67–101.
Ernst-Slavin, G., & Slavin, D. (2007). Educational reform, mathematics, & diverse learners:
Meeting the needs of all students. Multicultural Education, 14, 20–27.
Florida Department of Education (2011). 2011 FCAT 2.0 (Florida Comprehensive Assess-
ment Test)—Grade 7 FCAT 2.0 Mathematics Sample Questions. Retrieved from: www.
fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/history-of-fls-statewide-
assessment/fcat-2-0/sample-questions-answer-key.stml
Florida State University. (2007). CPALMS (Curriculum Planning and Learning Management
System). Retrieved from www.cpalms.org/Public/search/Standard
Gerofsky, S. G. (1999). The word problem as genre in mathematics education (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada.
Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and
instructional design. In P. Cobb, E.Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communi-
cating in math classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 225–273).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Sengupta-Irving, T., & Dieckmann, J. (2010). Developing a mathematical
vision: math as a discursive and embodied practice. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language
and math in education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 29–71). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Hodder Arnold.
Herbal-Eisenmann, B., Steele, M. D., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) Teacher discourse
moves: A framework for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1(2),
181–196.
Hoffman, M. H. G., Lenhard, J., & Seeger, F. (Eds.) (2005). Activity and sign: Grounding math-
ematics education. New York: Springer.
Huang, J., & Normandia, B. (2008). Comprehending and solving word problems in math-
ematics: Beyond key words. In Z. Fang & M. Schleppegrell (Eds.), Language and reading
in content areas: Toward a linguistically informed secondary reading pedagogy (pp. 64–83). Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Jackson, K., Garrison, A.,Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships
between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class
discussions in middle-grades math instruction. Journal for Research in Math Education, 44,
646–682.
Kenney, R., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2015). The role of symbol sense in mathematical semiotic
systems for English language learners. Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics,
6(1), 7–15.
Kintsch, W. (1987). Understanding word problems: Linguistic factors in problem solving.
In M. Nagao (Ed.), Language and artificial intelligence (pp. 197–208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary
communication. London: Arnold.
Kuhn, D., & Zillmer, N. (2015). Developing norms of discourse. In L. B. Resnick, C. Aster-
han, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 77–86).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Lager, C. A. (2006). Types of mathematics-language reading interactions that unnecessarily
hinder algebra learning and assessment. Reading Psychology, 27(2–3), 165–204.
Lampert, M., & Cobb, P. (2003). Communication and language. In J. Kilpatrick, W.
G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for
school mathematics (pp. 237–249). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics. London: Taylor & Francis.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In
J. R. Martin & R.Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses
of science (pp. 87–113). New York: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (2003). Math in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign and word. In M.
Anderson & A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V.V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives
on math as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Ottawa, Canada:
Legas.
Lewis, A. B. (1989). Training students to represent arithmetic word problems. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 81(4), 521–531.
Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math
word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 333–368.
Martiniello, M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and Differential
Item Functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14,
160–179.
Morgan, C. (2004). Word, definitions and concepts in discourses of mathematics, teaching
and learning. Language and Education, 18, 1–15.
Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer math education research? Edu-
cational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219–245.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2011). Kindergarten children’s growth trajectories in
reading and mathematics: Who falls increasingly behind? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
44, 472–488.
Moschkovich, J. N. (1999). Understanding the needs of Latino students in reform-
oriented mathematics classrooms. In L. Ortiz-Franco, N. G. Hernández, & Y. De La
Cruz (Eds.), Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on Latinos (pp. 5–12). Reston,
VA: NCTM.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2007). Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 64(2), 121–144.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2011). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and direc-
tions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2015). Academic literacy in math for English learners. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 40, 43–62.
Murnane, R. J., Willett, J. B., Braatz, M. J., & Duhaldeborde, Y. (2001). Do different dimen-
sions of male high school students’ skills predict labor market success a decade later?
Evidence from the NLSY. Economics of Education Review, 20, 311–320.
Musanti, S. I., & Celedón-Pattichis, S. (2014). Promising pedagogical practices for emergent
bilinguals in kindergarten: Towards a mathematics discourse community. Journal of Multi-
lingual Education Research, 4(1), 41–62.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching math-
ematics. Reston,VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2001). Principles and standards for school math-
ematics. Reston,VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Executive summary: Focus in high school
mathematics: Reasoning and sense making. Retrieved from www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/
Math_Standards/FHSM_Executive_Summay.pdf
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematical Practice. Washington, DC:
Officers. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism, and visual images. New
York: Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.),
Companion to discourse. London: Continuum.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Powell, S. R. (2011). Solving word problems using schemes: A review of the literature. Learn-
ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 94–108.
Ron, P. (1999). Spanish-English language issues in the mathematics classroom. In L. Ortiz-
Franco, N. G. Hernandez, & Y. De La Cruz (Eds.), Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspec-
tives on Latinos (pp. 23–33). Reston,VA: NCTM.
Rubenstein, R. N., & Thompson, D. R. (2001). Learning mathematical symbolism: Chal-
lenges and instructional strategies. The Math Teacher, 94(4), 265–271.
Sackur, C. (1995). Blind calculators in algebra: Write false interviews. In E. Cohors-
Fresenborh (Ed.), Proceedings of the first European Research Conference on Mathematics Educa-
tion (ERCME ’95) (pp. 82–85). Osnabruck, Germany: European Society for Research in
Mathematics Education (formerly the European Research Conference on Education).
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of math teaching and learning: A research
review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Language in mathematics teaching and learning: A research
review. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives
and directions for research (pp. 73–112). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Secada,W. G. (1991). Degree of bilingualism and arithmetic problem solving in Hispanic first
graders. The Elementary School Journal, 92(2), 213–231.
Secada,W. G., & Avalos, M. A. (2010–2013). Language in math.Washington, DC: U. S. Depart-
ment of Education, The Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.
ed.gov/ncer/projects/grant.asp?ProgID=59&grantid=1034
Seeger, F. (2004). Beyond the dichotomies: Semiotics in math education research. ZDM,
36(6), 206–216.
Seeger, F. (2005). Notes on a semiotically inspired theory of teaching and learning. In
M. H. G. Hoffman, J. Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and sign: Grounding Mathematics
education (pp. 67–76). New York: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
Sfard, A. (2000). Symbolizing mathematical reality into being: How mathematical discourse
and mathematical objects create each other. In P. Cobb, K. E.Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.),
Symbolizing and communicating: Perspectives on mathematical discourse, tools, and instructional
design (pp. 37–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sfard, A., & Lavie, I. (2005). Why cannot children see as the same what grown-ups cannot
see as different? Numerical thinking revisited. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 237–309.
Sigley, R., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2015). Ariel’s cycles of problem solving: An adolescent acquires
the mathematics register. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 75–87.
Sireci, S. G., Han, K.T., & Wells, C. S. (2008). Methods for evaluating the validity of test scores
for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 108–131.
Solano-Flores, G. (2006). Language, dialect, and register: Sociolinguistics and the estimation
of measurement error in the testing of English language learners. Teachers College Record,
108(11), 2354–2379.
Solano-Flores, G., Barnett-Clarke, C., & Kachchaf, R. R. (2013). Semiotic structure and
meaning making: The performance of English language learners on math tests. Educa-
tional Assessment, 18, 147–161.
Spanos, G., Rhodes, N. C., Dale,T. C., & Crandall, J. (1988). Linguistic features in mathemati-
cal problem solving: Insights and applications. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.),
Linguistic and cultural influences on learning math (pp. 221–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Staub, F. C., & Reusser, K. (1995). The role of presentational structures in understanding and
solving mathematical word problems. In C. A.Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher (Eds.),
Discourse comprehension (pp. 285–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and tech-
niques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Swanson, P. E. (2010). The intersection of language and mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in
the Middle School, 15(9), 516–523.
U. S. Department of Education. (2015). National center for education statistics, National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009,
2011, 2013, and 2015 math assessments. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d15/tables/dt15_222.12.asp?current=yes
Uptegrove, E. B. (2015). Shared communication in building mathematical ideas: A longitu-
dinal study. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 106–130.
Van Essen, G., & Hamaker, C. (1990). Using self-generated drawings to solve arithmetic
word problems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 301–312.
Wiest, L. R. (2008). Problem-solving support for English language learners. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 14(8), 479–484.
Wilkinson, L. (2015). The language of learning mathematics—Introduction. Journal of Math-
ematical Behavior, 40, 2–5.
Wilson, A. A. (2011). A social semiotics framework for conceptualizing content area literacies.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6), 435–444. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.6.5
Wolf, M. K., & Leon, S. (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assess-
ments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 14, 139–159.
Wolfram Research, Inc. (2008). Functions. Retrieved from http://functions.wolfram.com
Wolters, M. A. D. (1983). The part-whole schema and arithmetical problems. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 14, 127–138.
Young, E., & Marroquin, C. (2008, October). Mathematics on the playground. School Science
and Mathematics, 108(6), 279–283.
Zweng, M. J., Geraghty, J., & Turner, J. (1979). Children’s strategies of solving verbal problems. Final
report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED 178 359).
5
READING AND UNDERSTANDING
SCIENCE TEXTS
Gina N. Cervetti and P. David Pearson
Focus Points
• Understanding what we read involves the simultaneous extraction and con-
struction of meaning in response to written text.
• The traditional texts and textbooks of classroom science learning are replete
with challenging linguistic features, which may present problems for all learn-
ers but especially for English learners (ELs).
• There are many well-documented instructional routines and scaffolding tools
that teachers can use to promote greater understanding of science text on the
way to deeper learning of science content and inquiry practices.
• Teaching EL students to analyze and unpack science texts may support their
comprehension of science content.
• Modifying science texts to include more transparent links among ideas and
more elaborations may support comprehension for EL students and all readers,
but modifying texts presents a risk of simplification at the cost of cohesion.
• Alternative texts may provide opportunities for students to engage in more
authentic approximations of scientific reading, reasoning, and practice and may
be more accessible for EL students and all readers.
Chapter Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a valid and useful account of reading in
science, one that will equip teachers, especially teachers of EL students, with the
knowledge and conviction to champion the inclusion of reading (and writing and
discourse) as important allies in helping students learn science. In carrying out our
persuasive purpose, we begin by traversing several facets of theory and research:
(a) the nature of reading, both in general and in science, (b) the nature and role of
80 Gina N. Cervetti and P. David Pearson
text in science reading, and (c) the efficacy of curriculum and pedagogy designed
to improve reading in science as a means of improving science learning, inquiry,
and achievement.
How Do We Understand What We Read?

In 2002, the federally commissioned RAND Reading Study Group described
comprehension as:
The process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through

interaction and involvement with written language.We use the words extract-
ing and constructing to emphasize both the importance and the insufficiency of
the text as a determinant of reading comprehension (p. 11).
They went on to suggest that comprehension entails three primary elements:
• The reader who is doing the comprehending

• The text that is to be comprehended
• The activity in which comprehension is a part (p. 11).
The RAND panel added that comprehension always occurs in a surrounding socio-
cultural context “that shapes and is shaped by the reader and that interacts with each
of the three elements” (p. 11).
Reader and text factors are not new.They have been a part of reading theory since
humans first set eyes on print (or stone or picture) to make meaning of symbols.
Along with context these three have they have been a staple of theories of reading
comprehension since the cognitive revolution in the early 1970s (Pearson & Cer-
vetti, 2015). Reader variables include cognitive capacity, knowledge, language, and
motivational dispositions. Text variables entail genre, structure, media, sentence and
word complexity, content, and engagingness.
The activity factor, while implicit in earlier work, signals a unique contribu-
tion to the field by emphasizing all of the “things we do with text”—before, as,
and after we read. For example, we summarize, answer questions, and write essays
to prove to others that we have understood what we read, and we use reading to
accomplish personal and social goals. Most important, activities tend to differ from
one setting and discipline to another.
Context includes physical location and the expectations they entail.These expec-
tations often include implicit or explicit purposes that can be found in classrooms,
workplaces, or community settings. Context includes disciplinary settings, such as
science, literature, and history. Context also includes other people, especially teach-
ers in school settings, and the support or interference they provide. Finally, context
includes broad cultural, political, and historical practices that shape what counts as
legitimate ways of making sense of texts. Of all of the elements of school context,
Reading and Understanding Science Texts 81
none is more influential than teachers, for they engage in a range of moves that
shape student success—selecting texts, designing activities, and scaffolding their
reading (see Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011).
There is little reason to believe the general processes of the Rand model do
not operate in explaining reading texts in STEM domains as they do in literature
or history. Similarities aside, there are clear contrasts across disciplines. Something
as basic as getting the main point of a piece depends upon the discipline: In sci-
ence, main points are often the most superordinate idea in an explanation, but in
literature they are often more like themes of human experience.
What most clearly distinguishes reading in science from reading in other disci-
plines are the peculiar characteristics of the discourse we use to “do” science—how
we talk science, how we argue science, how we marshal evidence in science, how
we write science, and, of course, how we read science (see, for example, Cervetti,
Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2013). Shanahan, Shanahan, and Misischia (2011), in
a core investigation on reading across disciplines, argue that despite core reading
practices across all disciplines (mainly decoding words and figuring out what the
text says), what really counts in disciplines are those discourse practices. If it is true
that the traditions of discourse in a discipline like science are primary drivers of
reading and writing practices, then the nature of texts assumes a large role in shap-
ing reading practices. Thus, to understand reading in science, we must understand
how science texts embody these discourse traditions.
The Challenge of School Science Texts

In recent years, examinations of science textbooks by language researchers have
yielded an exhaustive list of challenging features, including the density of informa-
tion, technical vocabulary, and abstractness of language and concepts. Fang (2005,
2006, 2013) and others (e.g., Unsworth, 2001) have used functional language analy-
sis to provided detailed descriptions of features of scientific textbook writing that
present challenges for many students.
High Density of Information

Relative to other kinds of text, science texts are often characterized by high density
of information, as evidenced by the proportion of content words per clause in text
(Fang, 2005).This kind of density appears, in part, as long noun phrases that condense
information. Fang (2005) provides the following example of a long noun phrase in a
description of asthma:“a disorder in which the respiratory passages narrow significantly and the
substances and activities that trigger attacks” (Fang, 2005, p. 338). Fang notes that this kind
of compacting of information can present significant challenges for reading compre-
hension, because the amount of information can feel overwhelming to students and
because the embedding of information can be confusing for those without sophisti-
cated knowledge of clause structures. It’s almost as if for comprehension to occur, the
reader must translate (unpack really) the nominalization into a deep structure, which
might be realized as a two- or three-sentence explanation of what happens when
asthma does its business on the respiratory system.
Technical Language
Science textbooks tend to include a high proportion of specialized vocabulary terms,
such as names (e.g., mineral), adjectives (e.g., nocturnal), and process verbs (e.g., con-
dense), and verb phrases that define and categorize information (e.g., belong to) (Fang,
2005). Further complicating the language load is the number of these specialized
words that are orthographically identical to words that have everyday meanings
(e.g., volume) or have flexible parts of speech (e.g., record, result) (Fang, 2006).
Complex Sentences
Science textbooks are often filled with complex sentences that have multiple
dependent clauses that result in complicated syntactic structures. Fang (2006)
provides the following example: “Stars shine with their own light, while Venus
shines because it is reflecting light from the sun, just as the other planets and moons
do” (Fang, 2006, p. 503). The logical links in sentences like this one can be chal-
lenging for all students to unpack.
Implicit Relationships
In an examination of the logical relations in middle school science textbooks,
Roman, Jones, Basaraba, and Hironaka (2016) found that only about one-quarter
of the clauses in these textbooks included logical connectives. Thus, in most
cases, students need to infer the relations among ideas based on their knowledge
of how concepts are introduced and discussed in science texts. Unsworth (2001)
demonstrates how relationships that could be made explicit in science textbook
explanations are often left implicit, creating some ambiguity in the text. For exam-
ple, Unsworth points out how temporal markers such as “then” or “next” are often
omitted, as in this example, in which the addition of “then” at the beginning of the
second sentence would make the temporal sequence more explicit: “As the object
moved to the right, it pushes or compresses the air particles next to it. The com-
pressed air particles push on the particles to their right . . .” (p. 589). As Davison &
Kantor (1982) and Pearson (1974–75) pointed out long ago, textbook authors often
omit these connectives in order to reduce sentence length and readability scores.
For example, Davison and Kantor (1982) demonstrate how simplifications aimed
at lowering readability, such as replacing unfamiliar vocabulary (e.g., Hippocrates
becomes “One of the most famous Greek doctors”) and pulling apart complex sen-
tences (e.g.,“. . . tree will heal its own wound by growing” becomes “. . . tree will heal
its own wounds. It will grow”) can actually result in more difficult-to-understand
texts (pp. 204, 192). As yet, we do not know a great deal about how specific features
of these texts impact students’ comprehension, though it seems that lexical com-
plexity (the presence of technical science words) is a particular challenge for both
EL and non-EL students (Arya, Hiebert, & Pearson, 2011).
It is logically possible that linguistic complexity and conceptual complexity may
not be orthogonal; that is, authors may need complex syntax and vocabulary to
do justice to the complexity of the ideas they are trying to convey. To attempt
to explain those ideas with simple syntax and common words may introduce
misconceptions into the communication process. In other words, there may be no

scientifically valid “plain English” version of certain ideas or processes. It may be
more effective to offer “better” explanations (with more examples and analogies,
for example) rather than “simpler” explanations of complex phenomena. Suffice it
to say that text complexity is itself complex, even fraught with internal tensions if
not contradictions.
Best Practices: Helping Students Negotiate Science Texts
The Problematic History of Texts in Science Learning

Texts have had a stormy history in science education. Despite, or perhaps because
of, their ubiquitous role in science curricula, they have been positioned as the
enemy of inquiry-based science (see Cervetti & Barber, 2008), leading to practices
that promote science as a received rather than a constructed curriculum—even sup-
porting science as learning little more than a long list of arcane vocabulary. Despite
the assumption of text dominance in such critiques, Greenleaf and Valencia (2017)
found in their studies of high school science and history classes that texts are rarely
actually read by students in middle and high schools, which echoes a 30-year-old
finding by Gallagher and Pearson (1982). How can this paradox be resolved—some
experts claim that texts drive science curriculum, and yet other experts, armed
with data, argue that students seldom read them? One explanation is that textbooks
determine the course of study in that teachers use them to determine the scope
and sequence of topics and assignments. However, teachers, because they know that
students either cannot or will not read them, do the reading “for” their students,
either by reading key segments aloud in class or by providing a lecture that deliv-
ers the content the students might have encountered if they had actually read the
relevant text (see Greenleaf & Valencia, 2017). This paradox may be moot due to
recent developments such as the Common Core State Standards (NGA/CCSSO,
2010), the Framework for K-12 Science Education, and NGSS (NGSS Lead States,
2013). Unlike past science standards, the new framework and the NGSS, like the
CCSS, embrace text as part of learning about and practicing science. As Kloser
(2013) points out, eliminating texts from science education is impractical, undesir-
able, and politically untenable.
What do we know about ways to help students access texts in science? We
review two distinct but related approaches to increasing student access to science
text. The first involves pedagogical interventions designed to promote (a) greater
access to the text at hand or (b) students’ more general capacity to negotiate chal-
lenging texts on their own. The second involves changes in the nature of the texts
offered to students.
Approach 1: Provide Direct Support for Students’

Comprehension of Science Text
Best practices in helping students negotiate the complexities of reading sci-
ence texts involve variations of scaffolding—ways of intervening in the reading
process to provide supports in the text (altering aspects of the text to render
them more comprehensible), in the instruction provided by the teacher (things
teachers DO before, during, or after reading), through the actual tasks students
do to demonstrate their understanding (e.g., answering factual questions, sum-
marizing, or using text-based ideas to solve a problem), or in the contextual
surround (e.g., changing the social nature of the reading through collaboration).
In searching for approaches that support EL students’ comprehension of science
text, and following the lead of Goldenberg (2008, 2011, 2013), we gathered
evidence from several potentially relevant lines of inquiry; namely, practices that
promote the reading comprehension of:
1. All texts for all learners.

2. Science texts for all learners.
3. All texts for EL students.
4. Science texts for EL students.
Even though the fourth area (science texts for EL students) is the ideal target
for this chapter in this volume, we wanted to leave no relevant stone unturned, so
we chose to examine the three other areas to mine insights that can be applied to
the EL students’ reading of science texts.
All Texts for All Learners

Using the nomenclature established by Palincsar and Brown in 1984, compre-
hension interventions fall into two big categories: comprehension-fostering
and comprehension-monitoring practices. Fostering activities tend to promote
comprehension of the text at hand; they involve a range of scaffolds includ-
ing invoking background knowledge, asking questions, teaching or discussing
vocabulary, and focusing on authorial purpose or authorial tools (e.g., employ-
ing word choice and syntactic moves to positioning the reader, the topic, or a
character in a narrative). Comprehension-monitoring activities are more meta-
cognitive in character and have an air of self-regulation about them (Paris &
Paris, 2001); they also tend to involve two sorts of comprehension strategies: (a)
those that tell you whether you are on the right track (does what I just read in
this last sentence jive with what I read in the previous paragraph and with what
I know to be true of the world?) and (b) those that involve taking some action
toward resolving an anomaly (a “clunk” if you will), such as rereading, clarifying
a word meaning, trying to summarize what you have read so far, paraphrasing
what the author said in your own words, or trying to pose a question and then
answer it for yourself.
Several researchers have reviewed the general literature on comprehension
instruction with an eye toward unearthing practices that have either great potential
or documented effectiveness for EL students (e.g., Goldenberg, 2008, 2011, 2013;
Bernhardt, 2011). Most recently, the National Academy of Science (NAS) has issued
a new report summarizing a wide range of issues related to dual-language and
EL students (National Academy of Sciences, 2017), including pedagogical strategies
for promoting text comprehension. Among the practices recommended in multiple

reviews are:
• Instruction in using strategies for monitoring and repairing comprehen-

sion (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Dole, Nokes, & Drits, 2009;
National Reading Panel, 2000).
• Activating background knowledge, or asking students what they already know
about the topic of a text so that knowledge might be more easily leveraged in
comprehending the new text (see, in particular, Verhoven, 2011; Goldenberg,
2011) and exploiting funds of knowledge and cultural assets (Duke et al., 2011;
National Academy of Sciences, 2017).
• Focusing on the linguistic features of text, including text structure and syn-
tax (Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2011;1 Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010;
Wong-Fillmore & Fillmore, 2012) and words (Graves, August, & Mancilla-
Martinez, 2013).
• Stimulating reading engagement by employing motivational supports, such as
autonomy/self-efficacy, choice, interest, collaboration, and assessment/feed-
back in student learning opportunities (Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012).
• Grappling with text interrogation (e.g., Duke et al., 2011; Wilkinson & Son,
2011) in the context of rich discussions.
Science Texts for All Students

Several studies have focused on improving the reading comprehension performance
of all students on science texts, particularly through approaches that integrate a
focus on science with a focus on language and literacy. The most ambitious study
in science reading is a randomized control experiment conducted on a secondary
intervention dubbed Reading Apprenticeship (Greenleaf et al., 2011). Greenleaf
and her colleagues, using professional development as the primary intervention,
engaged teachers throughout the year in a comprehensive science-literacy inter-
vention involving “increased support for science-literacy learning and use of meta-
cognitive inquiry routines, reading comprehension instruction, and collaborative
learning structures” (p. 647). Teachers who received the professional development
training changed their practices substantially, increasing their support for all aspects
of science-literacy learning, including reading comprehension instruction—
especially metacognitive monitoring and fix-up strategies. These pedagogical
changes were associated with significant, positive changes in student outcomes,
including distal measures such as state standardized test scores in language arts, read-
ing comprehension, and biology.
In addition to Reading Apprenticeship, several other curricular interventions
(e.g., Cervetti et al., 2012; Palincsar & Magnusson, 2001; Romance & Vitale,
2001) have adopted the goal of broadly improving reading comprehension for
science texts, not by itself but along with other goals such as (a) increasing
students’ knowledge of science ideas, (b) writing science essays or arguments,
(c) improving oral discourse in science, both explanations and arguments, and/
or (d) improving mastery over science vocabulary. The general thrust of these
interventions (see Cervetti, 2013, for a discussion of this work) is to situate

reading, writing, and language practices as tools that can enhance the acquisi-
tion of conceptual knowledge and inquiry in science. Working with diverse
populations of students, a consistent finding in several of these studies is that
students acquire greater knowledge of science and more control over the sci-
ence vocabulary embedded in the units of instruction. Several of these studies
have also found positive effects on transfer assessment of reading comprehen-
sion and/or writing.
All Texts for EL Students

As suggested earlier, the key question—one that Goldenberg has addressed in at
least three reviews in the past decade (2008, 2011, and 2013)—is whether there
are pedagogical practices that are uniquely suited to EL students. After pointing
out that several reviews of EL pedagogy have confirmed that what works for many
students also works with EL students, Goldenberg was able to locate reliably posi-
tive effects for the several practices, all of which appear to be particularly if not
uniquely beneficial to EL students:
• Cognates (words with shared meanings that have common etymological roots,
such as geography and geografía); brief explanations in the home language (not
direct concurrent translations, which can cause students to “tune out” while
English is being spoken);
• Lesson preview and review (lesson content is previewed in students’ home
language to provide some degree of familiarity when the lesson is taught; fol-
lowing the lesson, there is a review in the home language to solidify and check
for understanding); and
• Strategies taught in the home language (reading, writing, and study strategies
are taught in the home language but then applied to academic content in
English) (p. 10).
A recent but as yet only partially validated approach to EL pedagogy involves

the age-old practice of translation but with a new theoretical twist. This move-
ment is based on the theoretical assumption that every dual-language learner
operationalizes each of her languages from a single linguistic reservoir (Garcia,
2009). This situates dual languages for EL students as simply two sides of the
same coin. With an approach dubbed TRANSLATE (Teaching Reading And
New Strategic Language Approaches To English learners), translanguaging has
recently moved from the theoretical to the pedagogical sphere in work by Jiménez
and colleagues (Puzio, Keyes, & Jiménez, 2017). The results of their recent design
experiments with EL students are quite encouraging, with robust effects for both
reading comprehension and writing. A particular benefit of the approach seems
to be encouraging bilingual students to use BOTH languages at any point in
the translation process, thus promoting the very construct of translanguaging—
consulting a single linguistic reservoir with two (or more) methods of bringing
competence to the surface.
Science Texts for EL Students

It has only been in the past few years that scholars have turned their attention to
specific studies designed to improve science reading for EL students. In this section,
we review two complementary approaches: comprehension strategy instruction for
EL students and language analysis.
Comprehension Strategies for EL Students

Taboada and her colleagues have conducted at least two intervention studies dedi-
cated to improving science reading (and content knowledge) for EL students.Taboada,
Bianco, and Bowerman (2012) sought to evaluate the role of student-generated ques-
tions on the reading comprehension of both EO students and EL students. The inter-
vention consisted of asking students to generate questions in response to a text about
the Earth, after which they answered several types of questions, ranging from literal-
factual to more conceptual in nature.The finding of interest is that for EO students, the
quality of their question generation explained additional variance in the comprehen-
sion outcome irrespective of whether it was entered before or after a general vocabulary
measure, but for EL students, question-generation performance explained significant
variation only when it was added to the regression equation before vocabulary. In short,
for EL students, vocabulary explained the greater variance on the science comprehen-
sion measure. That is, general vocabulary is a potent predictor of text-specific reading
comprehension, even when controlling for an indirect index of metacognitive control
(i.e., asking questions).The researchers conducted a second, more design-based, study to
assess the feasibility of teaching EL students to generate questions over a longer period
of time.They did not have enough power in the design to assess the statistical impact of
the longer-term questioning intervention, but they were able to demonstrate that EL
students could improve their question-generation capacity with extended time.
In a related study, a formative experiment with EL students, Taboada teamed
with another colleague (Taboada & Rutherford, 2011) to compare the relative effi-
cacy of three components of traditionally effective pedagogy—vocabulary (either
contextualized or intensified), motivational supports (autonomy supporting moves),
and comprehension strategy routines. They established two interventions, contex-
tualized vocabulary instruction (CVI) and intensified vocabulary instruction (IVI),
with the primary difference being that in the CVI group, key vocabulary terms
were encountered and acquired in the broader context of emphasizing the appli-
cation of comprehension strategies and providing explicit autonomy supports. By
contrast, in the IVI group, the steadfast goal was to learn the intentionally and
richly taught set of science words identified for the unit of study on living systems.
The results of this design study were interesting in that the IVI group learned and
retained more of the key vocabulary but the CVI group excelled in text compre-
hension and in their perceptions of their own autonomy.
Language Analysis Approaches for EL Students

Halliday’s oft repeated epiphany (Students learn language through language
and about language) could provide a rationale for teaching students about the
linguistic features of science texts. Turkan, De Oliveria, Lee, and Phelps (2014)
argue that teachers should be prepared to help students, and especially EL stu-
dents, participate in disciplinary discourses and understand how textual meanings
are constructed in different disciplinary texts. They suggest that teachers need to
know what linguistic features (vocabulary, grammatical structures, syntactic struc-
tures, etc.) are associated with texts in different disciplines and how these might
challenge EL students’ comprehension and communication of disciplinary ideas.
This kind of knowledge enables teachers to model reasoning with texts, moving
back and forth between everyday language and the academic registers. In particular,
they should be able to unpack form-meaning relationships in text and make these
explicit for students in ways that support comprehension. Turkan et al. also dem-
onstrate this knowledge in action as they describe ways that teachers can help EL
students participate in the disciplinary discourse through supported writing experi-
ences, noting that “participation in the ways of conveying meaning could make a
significant difference in students’ opportunity to learn the content and the valued
ways of learning disciplinary knowledge” (p. 21).
Turkan et al. offer images of this kind of teaching in a middle school science
classroom. In one example segment, the teacher, Mr. Meadows, is working with an
EL student to revise her writing about a science experiment about the impact of
temperature on the chemical reaction between yeast, water, and sugar. The student
has written, “Every 10 minutes, we measured the water that the bags pushed out.”
Meadows uses questioning and rephrasing of language choices to guide the student
toward the use of more precise scientific terminology, e.g., “Did you measure the
water or the volume of the water?” “Do you mean displaced [with respect to “pushed
out”]?” (p. 19). As Meadows questions and rephrases the students’ writing, he pro-
vides guidance for increasing the scientific precision of the text.
Fang and Schleppegrell (2010) offer language-oriented strategies for supporting
students’ close reading of disciplinary texts. Their approach, functional language
analysis, uses the examination of the language in texts to help students understand
and discuss the patterns of language and associated meanings that are characteristic
of particular disciplines, such as science. The intent is to help students understand
how language works in the discipline, so they can “comprehend and critique” the
texts they encounter in secondary content area study (p. 588). Fang and Schleppe-
grell describe ways teachers can model how to read dense science texts. This
involves first teaching students a set of constructs for naming language features in a
text, such as processes (usually the verbs), participant (actors or goals) and types of
processes (e.g., being processes and doing processes). The teacher then leads students
in a process of identifying and reworking the text in the interest of meaning making
and critique. This includes unpacking dense phrases, identifying the processes and
associated participants/actors in the text, and rearranging passive sentences to make
clear the actors and goals. Ideally, students engage in active conversations about
the meaning of sentences and, through this process, gain insight into the construc-
tion of texts—e.g., that definitions often become long noun phrases that condense
information. The analysis also includes attention to the overall organization of the
text. Students often use visual displays to highlight the organization and flow of
information and identify the important themes in the text. Finally, the teacher leads
students in exploring choices in mood, modality, and the selection of words that
reveal something about the perspective of the author.
Others operating in a functional language analysis tradition have offered a set
of related strategies for helping students uncover and make sense of the organization
of scientific language in school texts. Fang (2006) and others have recommended
helping students develop an awareness about the specialized use of keywords and
phrases (e.g., prepositions) in the development of scientific arguments (p. 514).
This would include things like understanding how words and phrases such as like-
wise, unlike, in contrast, and similarly are used to introduce comparisons in science
(Fang, 2006, p. 515). It may also involve teaching students specific morphologi-
cal features (e.g., affixes, combining forms, and roots—especially Latin and Greek)
to build students’ knowledge of science vocabulary and their ability to infer word
meaning from word-internal (i.e., morphological) resources.
Unsworth (2001) and Fang (2006) recommend both unpacking or “talking out”
highly nominalized science texts to create more familiar noun-verb structures and
also modeling how to build nominalized forms and noun phrases. Unsworth points
to progressive cloze tasks that demonstrate how verbs become nominalized in sci-
ence texts, for example, how “the object . . . compresses” becomes “the compression
travels” later in a paragraph (p. 606).
Studies are beginning to demonstrate how language mediation can support EL
students in appropriating science registers in talk and writing (e.g., Gibbons, 2003).
In addition, using these approaches with EL students to support comprehension of
complex disciplinary texts has preliminary support in disciplinary-based research,
though not yet in science. For example, in the context of high school history, Achu-
gar and Carpenter (2012) used a design experiment to investigate how language
analysis could be used to support EL students’ comprehension of historical docu-
ments. The teacher in the study guided students through close readings of primary
texts, attending to how linguistic choices made by authors worked to make mean-
ing. The researchers were able to document changes in students’ comprehension
of historical documents. They were also able to document changes in students’
appropriation of features of academic language (e.g., grammatical intricacy and use
of technical vocabulary) in writing.
Though not in the tradition of systemic functional linguistics (SFL), some schol-
ars have demonstrated that teaching students to analyze the features and struc-
tures of scientific texts can support their comprehension and their science learning.
Romance and Vitale (2001) have developed rich routines for guiding students’
understanding of complex science texts.The routines involve text analysis in which
students learn to identify the various linguistic and visual features common to
science texts and how these are used to represent science ideas. Following the
text analysis, the teacher and students work together to develop concepts maps
that represent the ideas graphically. These maps are then used as the basis for stu-
dents’ writing about the science ideas. These analysis-mapping-writing sequences
not only helped students make sense of the concepts in the texts but also helped
students come to understand how these texts are organized. Experimental studies
of this approach showed positive impacts on students’ science learning and reading
comprehension.
Consistent Pedagogical Themes

Looking across these four bodies (EL students and EO students for ALL text
and science text) of instructional work, consistent themes emerge. First, as has been
documented in numerous reviews, many of the tools that work for EL students also
work for the broader population of students. Second, approaches that take advan-
tage of L1 assets—such as cognates, the metacognitive and metalinguistic advantages
of bilingualism, L1 academic language knowledge—provide an extra and uniquely
bilingual focus particular to EL students. Third, it must be said that the potential
tool kit available to teachers is quite extensive, based on both our review and many
other reviews. Perhaps an appropriate way to conclude this section is to compare our
conclusions with those from the recent National Academy of Science report (2017)
focused on our current knowledge base for supporting the academic development of
EL students. The NAS (2017) report recommends these pedagogical practices:
• Develop academic English and its varied grammatical structures and

vocabulary intensively as part of subject-matter learning.
• Integrate oral and written language instruction into content-area teaching.
• Provide regular structured opportunities to develop written language
skills.
• Develop the reading and writing abilities of EL students through text-
based, analytical instruction using a cognitive strategies approach.
• Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.
• Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and
interpretation.
• Foster student motivation and engagement in literacy learning.
• Provide regular peer-assisted learning opportunities.
• Provide small group instructional opportunities to students struggling in areas
of literacy and English language development (p. S-7).
We have bolded the six NAS recommendations that overlap with the insights we
have garnered about reading instruction from our journey through this literature.
It is interesting to note the degree of congruence observed; moreover, had we
reviewed some other bodies of literature beyond just reading comprehension, we
might have incorporated even more, perhaps all, of the NAS practices.
Approach 2: Use Better Texts
Choose Cohesive, Well-Elaborated Texts

A number of studies have tested the impact of various text modifications on EL stu-
dents’ comprehension of science texts. The goal of these modifications is typically
to elaborate or simplify in ways that either increase the explicitness of the infor-
mation or reduce the cognitive-processing demands. As Crossley and McNamara
(2016) point out, however, there are trade-offs: Authentic texts tend to be difficult
to comprehend due to their syntactic and lexical features, but simplifying texts
can result in misrepresentations of the ideas or the loss of coherence, as our early
examples from Davison and Kantor so aptly illustrate. Fillmore and Snow (2002)
have also cautioned that text simplifications for EL students often result in the kinds
of short, choppy sentences that compromise, rather than support, comprehension.
Crossley and McNamara (2016) assessed L2 high school and college students’
recall and comprehension of authentic and simplified texts (beginning and inter-
mediate level) on a variety of topics, including some science topics. The simplified
texts were designed for stronger cohesion (“more semantic similarity, noun overlap,
word repetition, syntactic similarity, and causality”) and simplified vocabulary. The
participants recalled more text-based propositions from the simplified texts. How-
ever, participants who read the intermediate and authentic text produced more
relevant elaborations in their retellings—i.e., possibly an indication that the partici-
pants were forming connections to prior knowledge and forming more coherent
mental representations of the text. The authors suggest that simplified texts may
be useful if the instructional goal is recall of information. However, if the goal is
learning from text, the more challenging, authentic texts appear to better support
this goal.
Rahimi and Rezaei (2011) examined the effects of two kinds of text modifications—
syntactic elaboration and syntactic simplification—on EL college students’ under-
standing of passages related to civil engineering. Syntactic elaboration involved
adding redundancy and paraphrasing to signal the thematic structure of the text.
For syntactic simplification, the researchers applied techniques such as replacing
complex sentences with two simple sentences and shifting sentences from passive to
active ordering. Both types of modifications resulted in improved comprehension
over the original textbook passages, though there was some suggestive evidence
that students benefited more from the elaborations.
Hall et al. (2015) found that secondary school students (12–13 years old) had
better comprehension of science textbook passages that were designed to be high
cohesion compared with low cohesion texts.Text cohesion is the degree to which a
text supports the reader in establishing a coherent mental model of the material by
including inference-supportive language features, such as connectives and overlap-
ping words and clear pronoun references (often other nouns to “rename” a concept
rather than pronouns). In addition, higher cohesion texts include elaborations on
concepts that increase explicitness. By way of example: In the Hall et al. study, a
high cohesion text contained the sentence “When you heat a solid the particles
within it start to vibrate faster” (p. 128). The parallel low cohesion version read,
“Heated solid particles vibrate faster” (p. 128). The lower cohesion version of the
text requires the reader to generate inferences that include information that is not
explicitly provided in the text in order to achieve meaning. In addition to recom-
mending the use of more cohesive texts, Hall et al. suggest pedagogical approaches
similar to those described earlier: Teachers lead students through question-driven
inquiries of how meaning is established and built in the texts. Manavathu and Zhou
(2012) developed a set of differentiated instructional texts for high school students
engaging in laboratory exercises in chemistry and physics. EL students read regu-
lar or modified instructions for the laboratory experiments and were interviewed
about their comprehension. The modified instructions were of two types. The first
included the same text but used illustrations to support understanding of the pro-
cedures.The second involved language modifications such as simplified English and
the addition of simple definitions for new vocabulary words.The researchers found
that the students had better task comprehension when reading both kinds of modi-
fied instructions. They also preferred the modified handouts.
The small body of research on text modification for EL students in science
seems to suggest that modification can be helpful, but simplification may not be
the best approach. Most important is the finding that high cohesion and well-
elaborated texts may do more to support students’ learning from science text and
participation in science than attempts to simplify texts to the point where they no
longer carry key information. Visual representation and other elaborations appear
to achieve greater cohesion, leading to more coherent mental representations.
Use Alternatives to Textbooks

A second response to the complexities of science textbooks is to consider alterna-
tives. Science textbooks are not only challenging to comprehend but also rarely
reflect the types of texts or purposes for reading and writing that are part of the
activity of science (which, for example, tend more toward procedural accounts
of scientific investigations). As Ford (2009) points out, texts should reflect the
unique purposes of the discipline, but science textbooks often support “grave mis-
conceptions” that science is a collection of facts—a conception of science that is
“authentic to no one” (387). This is important in part because research has indi-
cated that developing a more constructivist view of science—that science is created
by humans through a process of inquiry and is ever-evolving—supports students’
ability to build conceptual understanding through reading about and engaging in
science experiments (e.g., Wallace, Tsoi, Calkin, & Darley, 2003).
There is growing evidence that novel texts may have the potential to enable
students to engage in texts in ways that reflect the literacy practices of learn-
ing and engaging in science, to help students develop more constructivist views of
science, and to create opportunities for developmentally appropriate approxima-
tions of scientific reading practices for children. For example, Palincsar and Mag-
nusson (2001) engaged elementary students in “secondhand” investigations using
a fictional scientist’s notebook. The notebooks described one scientists’ questions,
investigations, data, and sense-making processes. Although the scientists’ notebook
was not authentic in the sense that it was a fictional text and a hybrid genre, it was
designed to allow students to participate in authentic inquiry and reasoning and
inquiry practices. The texts were designed to help students develop flexible and
constructivist notions of science by enabling them to experience multiple ways of
representing science data and exposing them to the ways that scientists revise their
thinking through engagement with data and others in the scientific community.
Compared with traditional expository texts, the science notebook enabled students
to engage in conversations that reflected the inquiry process and involved them in
taking a critical stance toward evidence. In addition, students were able to use the
notebook as a model for their own investigations.
In a second example of novel texts, adapted primary literature—simplified ver-
sions of scientific research articles—has been used with secondary students as a way
to support more authentic science practice in classrooms by allowing opportunities
for students to engage with current science and to better understand the process
of conducting and reporting research. Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2005) found
that, compared with popular secondary science literature, using adapted primary
literature helped high school students take a more agential stance toward the sci-
ence described in the article, raising more criticism of the researchers’ work and
methodology, and suggesting more future applications of the technology described
in the article. Hearkening back to our earlier claim that oversimplification may be
a mistake, it is important to note that in this work, the resulting “simplified” texts
were still rather sophisticated in comparison to conventional science texts; what
made them “alternative” was their adherence to the structure of reporting scientific
results from empirical investigations. Other studies have similarly shown that stu-
dents think more critically about the information presented in APL texts than in
more conventional texts (e.g., Norris, Stelnicki, & de Vries, 2012).
A second type of alternative text present science concepts as the product of sci-
entific experiments. For example, Kloser (2013) engaged high school students in
reading traditional textbook accounts and more “epistemologically considerate”
(EC) accounts of biology concepts. The EC texts were presented as narratives of
historical experiments that led to scientific claims about the biological concepts
addressed in the texts. In think alouds and interviews, some students described chal-
lenges in comprehending the EC texts in part because the genre was unfamiliar.
In general, however, students expressed stronger interest in the EC accounts and
higher levels of trust in these texts. Similarly, Arya and Maul (2012) compared mid-
dle school students’ recall and understanding of science concepts after reading one
of two versions of a text on two science topics. The first version was a traditional
expository text. The second was a “discovery narrative,” which presented the same
information as a narrative description of how scientists made the discoveries—
e.g., the process that led Marie Curie to her theory of radioactivity. Students who
read the discovery narratives had higher scores on the outcome measure for one of
the two texts immediately after reading and for both texts on a delayed posttest.
A third approach to alternative texts is to use trade books and trade-type texts.
Fang (2013) argues that trade books can be used to expose students to a wide variety
of reading materials in disciplinary learning. Fang suggests that, “compared to tradi-
tional textbooks, trade books are better able to accommodate the needs of students
with diverse backgrounds, interests, needs, and reading levels. They also provide more
contextualized, focused, in-depth, and up-to-date coverage of content” (p. 274). Fang
and Wei (2010) augmenting sixth-graders’ inquiry-based science curriculum with a
reading component involving explicit strategy instruction and the use of trade texts.
The strategies taught to students included predicting, questioning, concept mapping,
paraphrasing, and morphemic analysis. The trade books were selected from award-
winning science books on a wide variety of topics and at a wide variety of levels.The
sixth-graders who received the augmented curriculum made greater gains over six
months in reading comprehension (on a standardized measure) and knowledge of the
science content. Trade-type texts have also been used in a number of science inter-
ventions at the elementary level that have demonstrated positive impacts on students’
science (and literacy) learning (e.g., Guthrie, McRae, & Klauda, 2007).
In our own work in an integrated science-literacy curriculum, Seeds of Sci-
ence/Roots of Reading (Seeds/Roots), we developed texts that helped students to
engage in inquiry and enhance their conceptual understandings while also learning
and applying strategies to read challenging texts. That is, activity of science should
shape the nature of the texts rather than the other way around. One of the main
principles underlying the Seeds/Roots model is that texts can and should be used in
a variety of roles in support of students’ inquiries.
We developed a framework for the roles that text can play in supporting stu-
dents’ involvement in inquiry-based science (Cervetti & Barber, 2008). We pro-
posed, for example, that texts can provide models of students’ investigations, of the
kinds of writing scientists and student-scientists do, and of the dispositions that
scientists bring to their work. Texts can also provide information to directly fuel
students’ firsthand experiences. This idea that texts can and should be used in a
variety of roles in support of students’ inquiries became one of the main principles
underlying the Seeds/Roots instructional model. In line with this approach, students
read texts that model the inquiry processes and writing genres that they will use
in their own investigations, they search handbooks for information that they can
leverage as they investigate in a firsthand way, and they read books that situate their
classroom-based inquiries in the wider natural world. The text roles framework
demonstrates how text and firsthand experiences can work together in support of
students’ learning. Using the text roles framework helped us to design texts that
students could approach as tools for their ongoing investigations—and could use
in ways that more authentically mirror scientists’ use of texts. It also enabled us to
design texts that were accessible for young students, including young EL students,
without the kinds of simplifications that compromise cohesion. Bravo and Cer-
vetti (2014) found that fourth- and fifth-grade EL students who used the Seeds/
Roots instructional materials made greater growth in their science understanding
and vocabulary than students using content-comparable curricula with a hands-on
focus. Although the differences in growth cannot be attributed to the texts alone,
the use of the texts was one key difference between the two approaches.

Reading is an authentic part of the practice of science, yet the kinds of reading
purposes and texts that students encounter in schools bear little resemblance to
those that scientists use. In fact, the texts of school science are often opaque in their
language and in their representation of the discipline of science. In this chapter, we
have proposed a number of approaches to helping students engage more produc-
tively with texts in school science, approaches that may be particularly supportive
of EL students.These approaches include four key moves that are—or should be—a
part of the curriculum and pedagogy of science practices in our schools, especially
now that what we do is guided by the more central and challenging role of text in
science championed in the Common Core State Standards (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Spe-
cifically, we found merit in two pedagogically oriented moves:
• Building students’ comprehension skill through specific pedagogical routines;

• Emphasizing the routine that enhances students’ ability to identify, unpack, and
understand the complex features of science textbooks;
and two text-oriented moves:
• Modifying texts in ways that create greater elaboration and cohesion; and
• Choosing alternatives to traditional science textbooks.
First Steps in Improving our Practice

Some of the heavy lifting that it will take to transform the research findings
reported in this chapter into practice will have to be done by those who design
curriculum, and indeed there are significant efforts underway to make this happen.
But we who work at the local level don’t have to wait for the curriculum designers
and policy makers to do their part. To the contrary, a lot can be done tomorrow
at the local level—by teachers who work together to (a) change the pedagogical
supports they provide to students, (b) engage students in truly close reading of texts
so that they can really get inside of the aura of textual mystery and learn how texts
work, and (c) offer students alternative texts that convey a richer sense of how sci-
ence and scientists work. Professional development leaders do not need to wait for
permission or guidance to mount local and regional efforts to help teachers build
the tools they need to change both the WHAT and HOW of science reading in
our schools.
Relying on Proven Tools

A core implication of this review is that the best practices in reading comprehen-
sion instruction that have been with us for decades are likely our best resources
for supporting students, including EL students, in contending with complex sci-
ence texts. However, helping students acquire a repertoire of comprehension-
monitoring and -fostering skills and a depth of linguistic knowledge about science
texts will require that science teachers embrace the important roles of text in sci-
ence and work to better understand the particular skills and knowledge that sup-
port reading in and about science. While there is evidence that these best practices
benefit all learners, more research is needed to determine whether additional prac-
tices or modified versions of these practices are particularly beneficial for students
who are learning science in a second language.
Exploiting Home Language Expertise

Although we do not yet know a great deal about modifications to the best
practices that might best support EL students in a unique way, we do know
that the use of home language in instruction and application of these practices
is likely to benefit EL students in several ways. To the extent possible, teachers

should strategically employ home language (e.g., texts, explanations, instruc-
tion) and approach home language as a resource for making sense of complex
science ideas and texts (e.g., cognate connections, peer discussions in home lan-
guage, translanguaging). In addition, teachers should consider ways to heighten
attention to language development concurrent with disciplinary learning. This
includes explicit vocabulary instruction and a focus on uncovering the linguistic
features that are particular to science texts.
Consider the Important Role of Science Texts

Equipping students with the ability to contend with complex texts is essential,
but even more important is providing high-quality texts that convey valid scien-
tific information and support science learning, inquiry, and participation. Although
modifications of science texts have been shown to benefit EL students’ compre-
hension, it is unwise and impractical to suggest that teachers do the work of modi-
fying texts. Instead, teachers should seek out texts that provide elaboration and
illustration of important ideas and that connect ideas in ways that build coherence
and help students understand relationships among ideas. This is likely to benefit all
learners and to be especially supportive of EL students.
The Search for Unique Solutions

A daunting question that, while woven throughout our review, deserves special
consideration as we close focuses on whether—or to what degree—curriculum
and instruction need to be different for EL students. As we have suggested through-
out, much of what works for all students and all texts also works for EL students and
science texts. Just as surely there are some practices that are especially useful for EL
students and for science texts.
Equally as important, the instructional advantages are likely to be reciprocal
in science, especially in the case of texts. One of the unique advantages that a
teacher with a classroom of linguistically diverse students accrues with science texts
is that because of the specialized discourse (vocabulary, syntax, and text patterns)
of science, all of her or his students are, in both a metaphorical and a real sense,
“English learners of science discourse.” For no issue is this “All my students are EL
students” perspective more transparent than in the case of the explicit teaching of
complex structures such as nominalization within the tradition of systemic func-
tional linguistics (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010); these structures are as unfamiliar and
vexing to EO students as to EL students.
Finally, on this matter of cross- or dual-language development, we join our col-
leagues (e.g., Goldenberg, 2013; National Academy of Science, 2017) in accepting
the compelling evidence for maintaining and even exploiting heritage language
expertise—both because students deserve to maintain and expand their herit-
age language(s) and because such competence enhances second language English
expertise, including reading expertise.
Next Steps in Research

One of the most common strategies in dealing with complex and challenging texts
is allowing students to “outsource” their reading responsibilities to their teachers
or more accomplished peers (Hiebert, personal communication). We (and maybe
a few fluent student readers) read the texts aloud during class. Even more likely,
we assign the readings as homework, but the next day, we tell and show students,
increasingly through elaborate visual, auditory, and multi-media presentations, what
they might have learned from the text had they actually completed (or been able to
complete) the reading on their own (Valencia & Greenleaf, 2017). These outsourc-
ing schemes are misguided; they compromise students’ abilities to contend with
complex texts independently in college classrooms and workplace settings. What
we need to be doing is rethinking the type and nature of the texts we choose to
hold students accountable to and then assisting them in developing the knowledge
and strategies they need to contend with whatever level of challenging text is
needed to do justice to the content learning goals of the science curriculum.
We may have much to learn about making the reading of science text more
transparent, but we have even more to learn about how to do it effectively with EL
students. On each of the two major approaches we reviewed (changing pedagogy
and changing text), there were precious few studies focused on how the approach
works for EL students. Thus we, like so many who work on educational practices
for EL students, must assert the classic need for even more research in this area.
However, the need is real, and the stakes, as indexed by denial of opportunity and
achievement for the increasing populations of EL students in our society and bilin-
gual readers around the world, are higher than ever.
Although creating elaborated and coherent versions of traditional texts holds
some promise for supporting access to science text for EL students, what we really
need is a model of scaffolding for text development that does within the texts what
good teachers do when they attempt to support students as they cope with complex
texts. It is time that we developed and evaluated, through elaborate design research
efforts, theories of “text” scaffoldings. And we think that there is room for even
more scholarship on textbook alternatives. The work thus far has largely avoided
EL students in spite of the fact that there are reasons to believe these approaches
may provide linguistically and epistemologically more transparent representations
of scientific ideas. Were we to find and validate the use of these alternatives, we
would be allowing better access for EL students and supporting their understand-
ings about how the construction of science knowledge takes place.
Note
1 We could review this literature in several of our subsections because there is work on text
structure for EL students and for all students and in all disciplines, including science, social
studies, and literature. Because of the focus of this volume, we have chosen to focus our
review on the literature most relevant to EL students reading science texts.
References
Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B. D. (2012). Developing disciplinary literacy in a multilingual
history classroom. Linguistics and Education, 23, 262–276.
Arya, D. J., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2011). The effects of syntactic and lexical com-
plexity on the comprehension of elementary science texts. International Electronic Journal
of Elementary Education, 4(1), 107–125.
Arya, D. J., & Maul, A. (2012). The role of the scientific discovery narrative in middle
school science education: An experimental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104,
1022–1032.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific
literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 403–428.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. London: Routledge.
Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2014). Attending to the language and literacy needs of
English Learners in science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47, 230–245.
Cervetti, G. N. (2013). Integration of literacy and science. In B. M. Taylor & K. Duke (Eds.),
Handbook on effective literacy instruction (pp. 371–393). New York: Guilford Press.
Cervetti, G. N., & Barber, J. (2008). Text in hands-on science. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Sailors
(Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 89–108).
New York: Guilford Press.
Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. (2012).The impact of
an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 49, 631–658.
Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Greenleaf, C., & Moje, E. B. (2013). Science? Literacy? Syn-
ergy! In W. Banko, M. L. Grant, M. E. Jabot, A. J. McCormack, & T. O’Brien (Eds.), Sci-
ence for the next generation: Preparing for the new standards (pp. 99–124). Washington, DC:
NSTA & STANYS.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Text-based recall and extra-textual generations
resulting from simplified and authentic texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28, 1–19.
Davison, A., & Kantor, R. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable
texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187–209.
Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In G. G. Duffy &
S. E. Israel (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347–372). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fos-
tering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Educa-
tion, 89, 335–347.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International
Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520.
Fang, Z. (2013). Disciplinary literacy in science: Developing science literacy through trade
books. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57, 274–278.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Support-
ing secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 53, 587–597.
Fang, Z., & Wei,Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through read-
ing infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262–273.
Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T.
Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp.
7–53). Washington, DC and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Sys-
tems Co., Inc.
Ford, D. J. (2009). Promised and challenges for the use of adapted primary literature in sci-
ence curricula: Commentary. Research in Science Education, 39, 385–390.
Gallagher, M. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1982, December). The role of reading in content area instruc-
tion. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Clearwater, FL.
García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A.
Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for
social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 140–158). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning:Teacher interactions with ESL students in a
content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247–273.
Goldenberg, C. (2008).Teaching English language learners:What the research does-and does
not-say. American Educator, 32(2), 8–44.
Goldenberg, C. (2011). Reading instruction for English language learners. In M. Kamil, P. D.
Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 684–710).
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and
don’t yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–11.
Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). Teaching vocabulary to English lan-
guage learners. New York: Teachers College.
Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J., . . . &
Jones, B. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology:Teaching and learning impacts
of Reading Apprenticeship Professional Development. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 48, 647–717.
Greenleaf, C., & Valencia, S. W. (2017). Missing in action: Learning from texts in subject-
matter classrooms. In K. Hinchman & D. Appleman (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy
(pp. 235–256). New York: Guilford Press.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented read-
ing instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational
Psychologist, 42, 237–250.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and
achievement in reading. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook
of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). New York: Springer.
Hall, S. S., Kowalski, R., Paterson, K. B., Basran, J., Filik, R., & Maltby, J. (2015). Local text
cohesion, reading ability and individual science aspirations: Key factors influencing com-
prehension in science classes. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 122–142.
Kloser, M. (2013). Exploring high school biology students’ engagement with more and
less epistemologically considerate texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10),
1232–1257.
Manavathu, M., & Zhou, G. (2012). The impact of differentiated instructional materials on
English Language Learner (ELL) students’ comprehension of science laboratory tasks.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 12, 334–349.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educa-
tional success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: The
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of the Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards.pdf
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel:Teaching children to read: An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for read-
ing instruction: Reports of the subgroups.Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
Norris, S. P., Stelnicki, N., & de Vries, G. (2012). Teaching mathematical biology in high
school using adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 633–649.
Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and text-based inves-
tigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning.
In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp.
151–193). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learn-
ing. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101.
Pearson, P. D. (1974–1975).The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehen-
sion, recall and conception of semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155–192.
Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and
practice. In P. D. Pearson & E. H. Hiebert (Eds.), Research-based practices for Common Core
literacy (pp. 1–24). New York: Teachers College Press.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Science and literacy: Each in the service of
the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
Puzio, K., Keyes, C., & Jiménez, R. T. (2017). Let’s translate! Teaching literary concepts with
English language learners. In K. A. Hinchman & D. A. Appleman (Eds.), Adolescent litera-
cies: A handbook of practice-based research (pp. 276–291). New York: Guilford Press.
Rahimi, M. A., & Rezaei, A. (2011). Use of syntactic elaboration techniques to enhance
comprehensibility of EST texts. English Language Teaching, 4, 11–17.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding:Toward a research and develop-
ment program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Office of Education Research
and Improvement.
Roman, D., Jones, F., Basaraba, D., & Hironaka, S. (2016). Helping students bridge infer-
ences in science texts using graphic organizers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60,
121–130.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model
in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 23, 272–304.
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disci-
plines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.
Taboada, A., Bianco, S., & Bowerman, V. (2012). Text-based questioning: A comprehension
strategy to build English language learners’ content knowledge. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 51, 87–109.
Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic
vocabulary for English language learners through science content: A formative experi-
ment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113–157.
Turkan, S., De Oliveria, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for
teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowl-
edge. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–30.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior
high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585–609.
Verhoeven, L. (2011). Second language reading acquisition. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson,
E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 661–683). New
York: Routledge.
Wallace, C. S., Tsoi, M. Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, W. M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based
laboratories in nonmajor biology: An interpretive study of the relationships among
inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual growth. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40, 986–1102.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching
to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Rosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359–387). New York: Routledge.
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Fillmore, C. J. (2012). What does text complexity mean for English
learners and language minority students? Proceedings from the Understanding Language
Conference: Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University.
6
WRITING IN MATHEMATICS
CLASSROOMS
Richard Barwell
Focus Points
• Writing in mathematics involves considerable complexity, including the inte-
gration of natural language, symbols and images, and the coordination of dif-
ferent overlapping functions of written language (i.e., to communicate ideas,
to relate to the reader, and to organize the text).
• There are multiple purposes for writing in mathematics, including writing for
oneself or writing for others, writing to advance mathematical thinking, and
writing for assessment or evaluation.Writing in mathematics can help students
to organize and deepen their mathematical thinking.
• English learners (ELs) may draw on a wide range of linguistic or semiotic
resources to make meaning through writing in mathematics by drawing on a
variety of discourses, voices, and languages.
• Learning to writing mathematically and teaching students to write mathemat-
ically entails negotiating a tension between the imposition of the conventions
of formal mathematical discourse on the one hand and allowing students to
draw on other resources in order to write in ways that are meaningful to them.
Teachers therefore need to adopt a responsive instructional approach to sup-
port students’ learning of the conventions of written mathematics.
Chapter Purpose
In this chapter, I provide an overview of research on writing in mathematics class-
rooms, including some of the features of formal written mathematics, and with par-
ticular attention to EL students. I introduce a Bakhtinian perspective on language,
including an emphasis on the inherent tensions between standard or conventional
forms and students’ diverse expressions of mathematical meaning. I highlight the dif-
ferent kinds of resources EL students may use in their development of mathematical
102 Richard Barwell
writing. I illustrate my discussion with examples of the role of writing from the
literature and from my own research into second language learners of mathematics.
Curtis and Alex are in a combined Grade 5/6 mathematics class for EL students.
They are both from an indigenous Canadian background and speak Cree and Eng-
lish.1 They are working on the following problem:
The students in a school planted tulip bulbs last fall.

In the spring the students noted that:
On April 1, there were 2 tulips in bloom
If the tulips continued to bloom at the same rate,
how many tulips would be in bloom on April 5?
Show all your work.
FIGURE 6.1 The Tulip Problem
Curtis’s solution is 32 and, with some support, he writes the following

explanation:
The pattern develops by

adding 2 in each number
like 8 it add’s 8 again and
if its 16 it add’s 16 again.
Alex’s solution is also 32 and, also with some support, he writes:
The Pattern is 2 times.

Like Example 2 + 2 = 4 + 4 = 8 + 8 = 16 + 16 = 32.
What do you think about their writing? What do you think it shows about Curtis’s
and Alex’s mathematical thinking? Do you think the errors of grammar and punc-
tuation matter? How might you help the two students to develop their mathemati-
cal writing? What does good mathematical writing look like?
I spent a year conducting ethnographic fieldwork in Curtis’s and Alex’s math-
ematics classes (as well as in several other classrooms in different schools). I regularly
observed how students were able to read and solve mathematics problems with
relative ease, but then struggled to formulate written explanations of their solutions.
Why do we ask students to write such explanations? How do they contribute to
students’ learning? How does students’ mathematical writing help teachers? What
challenges do students and teachers face? What might some of the drawbacks be?
Research addressing these questions is not extensive. Nevertheless, there is suffi-
cient research to develop some general observations about writing in mathematics.
In this chapter, I discuss the nature and role of writing in mathematics class-
rooms, with particular attention to EL students like Curtis and Alex. I consider the
Writing in Mathematics Classrooms 103
nature of mathematical writing and some possible purposes for writing in math-
ematics classrooms, as well as ways in which writing in mathematics contributes to
learning mathematics. My focus is particularly on more extended writing, such as
Curtis’s and Alex’s explanations, or students’ justifications of their solutions to prob-
lems, rather than on the traces of students’ calculations or the minimal responses to
a page of exercises, so common in many classrooms. I do not discuss students’ writ-
ing about their experiences of mathematics, such as journal writing (e.g., Borasi &
Rose, 1989; Clarke, Waywood, & Stephens, 1993), preferring to focus on students’
writing as part of doing mathematics.

How can writing in mathematics be conceptualized? There are two broad
approaches to thinking about writing, and more generally about language use in
mathematics classrooms, which I call the formal model and the discursive model (Bar-
well, 2005a). The formal model sees language in terms of a stable rule-based sys-
tem that students must master in order to be successful in mathematics. In this
model, there is a separation between language and mathematical thinking, with
the assumption being that language is used to express thinking. Writing is seen
very much as an individual skill. The formal model is often associated with deficit
perspectives on student performance, such as when students’ “mistakes” are taken to
indicate a lack of knowledge or skill (see Moschkovich, 2002).
In the discursive model, writing is understood as a social, discursive practice.
That is, writing involves people making meaning together and hence is shaped
by the social structure of classrooms, schools, and curriculum, including flows of
power and authority. The discursive model emphasizes, among other things, how
writing is always for a particular audience, for some purpose, in a social context.
From this perspective, the “rules” of written language are socially determined and
are hence flexible and vary according to the situation. There is no intrinsically
correct or “good” way to write about mathematics; rather, there are more or less
socially acceptable forms of writing in any given situation (for a similar discussion
about academic writing in general, see Lea & Street, 2006).
Clearly both perspectives have some value. It is helpful to teach “rules” of gram-
mar, punctuation or orthography and, in the case of mathematics, the standardized
ways of representing mathematical ideas using symbols and diagrams. At the same
time, it is important to see mathematical writing from a social perspective. Rules
can be modified, resisted, or subverted as part of the meaning-making process and
in relation to who and what the writing is for. In this chapter, I largely review work
aligned with the discursive model.
What, then, are the particular features of mathematical writing? Morgan (1998)
draws on the systemic functional linguistic account of language as organized by
three overlapping functions, known in the theory as metafunctions (see, for example,
Halliday & Mathiessen, 2015).
The ideational metafunction organizes the “aboutness” of writing, drawing on
various features of the language system to convey information, experience, and
interpretation such as, in this case, mathematical ideas, thoughts or concepts. In
104 Richard Barwell
Curtis’s writing, for example, lexical items like “pattern” or “2,” actions like “add-
ing,” and qualifiers like “each” all contribute to the ideational aspect of his text.
The interpersonal metafunction organizes the identities of the author and readers
of a piece of writing, as well as the relationship between them. In Curtis’s writing,
he uses passive forms quite common in mathematics:That is, he writes “the pattern
develops” rather than “I developed the pattern” or “you develop the pattern.” Like
any writing, mathematical writing also constructs its reader through, for example,
the assumptions it makes about what the reader knows, as well as in the degree of
formality adopted (see also Pimm & Sinclair, 2009).
The textual metafunction deals with the organization of material within a text.
In mathematics, the textual metafunction is important in, among other things, the
construction of a mathematical argument or explanation, by making connections
across the text, at sentence, paragraph, and discourse levels. In Curtis’s text, for
example, he uses the word “like,” as well as the sequencing of his writing, to link
two instances of the method he used (based on 8 and 16) to his initial general state-
ment of that method (“adding 2 in each number”). Indeed, without his examples,
it would be difficult to interpret “adding 2 in each number” in the way Curtis
intends.
Morgan (1998) uses these ideas to identify some common features of formal
mathematical text, through a comparison of a published mathematics article with
written mathematical explanations of secondary school students. Some preferred
features in the social context of mathematics are shown in Table 6.1.
Morgan (2001) also identifies some general features of mathematics writing
that arise from specific combinations of the three metafunctions: the avoidance
TABLE 6.1 Metafunctions in Mathematical Texts (after Morgan, 1998)
Metafunction Preferred Features of Formal Mathematical Writing
Ideational • Describing how mathematical objects are related (known as relational

processes), rather than how they are acted on (material processes), e.g.,
on Day N, there are 2N tulips (relational) vs. “like 8 it add’s 8” (material).
• Processes are treated as objects, particularly by referring to them using
nouns (known as nominalization), e.g., referring to the process of
adding as an object, through the nominalized form “addition.”
• Frequent obscuring of human agents, e.g., “the pattern is” vs.
“I developed the pattern.”
Interpersonal • Formal relationship between author and reader constructed through the
use of passive voice and particular formulations with personal pronouns,
e.g., “we assume that the pattern continues in the same way.”
• Use of imperatives, e.g., “let x be an integer”; “suppose n is even.”
• Careful formulation of modality, particularly in epistemic claims, e.g., “x
must be prime”; “n may have more than two factors.”
Textual • Use of conjunctions to organize mathematical arguments, e.g., hence,
therefore, because.
• Structure of the text, such as breaking down a proof into a series
of lemmas and their demonstration, from which a theorem is then
demonstrated.
of redundancy; a timeless temporality; and the avoidance of human activity. These

three features reflect a particular ideology of mathematics as the study of patterns
and structures that are true for all time and regardless of human consciousness. So
one answer to the question “What does good mathematical writing look like?” is
that good mathematical writing reflects the various preferred features described by
Morgan.
Finally, mathematical writing involves the integration of three distinct semiotic
systems: natural language, symbols, and visual images. O’Halloran’s (2005) analy-
sis of an undergraduate mathematics textbook shows how each of these semiotic
systems has its own grammatical structure (each of which is organized around the
three metafunctions mentioned earlier). For example, as I have already mentioned,
one feature of natural language use in mathematics is to treat processes as objects
through nominalizations.The grammatical structure of the symbol system also rep-
resents processes as objects, this time through the juxtaposition of different symbols.
For example, x2 represents the process of multiplying x by x. But this process can
be treated as an object by inserting it into larger expressions, such as (x2 + 3x − 1)½.
This expression combines several processes, including multiplying x by three, inter-
preting the exponent intended as square root to be dividing one by two, and com-
bining the results of x2, 3x, and 1. Indeed, it has long been recognized that treating
processes as objects is one of the mechanisms that makes mathematics so powerful
(see, for example, Gray & Tall, 1994).
O’Halloran (2005) goes further, however: She also shows how mathematical
writing interrelates these three semiotic systems in order to make mathematical
meaning, in what she calls a semantic circuit.That is, natural language, symbols, and
visual images rely on connections between each other: Natural language can point
to features of a diagram, or a line on a graph can be related to an algebraic expres-
sion. The interrelation of these three systems is necessary in mathematics because
they each work in different ways (have different grammatical structures). Algebra,
for example, allows for the concise presentation and manipulation of multiple, hier-
archically arranged processes, but natural language is needed to give meaning to
what is expressed algebraically. Similarly, graphs allow for a fluid, continuous rep-
resentation of relationships, something that is difficult to capture in either natural
language or symbols. Graphs rely, however, on symbols to give meaning to the
relationships that are represented. This semantic circuit can be seen in Curtis’s and
Alex’s solutions. Both solutions integrate symbols and natural language, Alex’s in
particular. And, although it is not apparent in the writing, Curtis modeled the situ-
ation portrayed in the problem using small plastic cubes, a form of visual image.
This use of cubes may be the reason for the nature of his explanation: He noticed
that he could add a duplicate of the column of cubes for a given day and get the
number of cubes for the next day.
Consistent with the discursive model, all of the features of formal mathematical
writing I have summarized reflect a social norm rather than any intrinsic need for
particular characteristics. All the authors cited earlier have shown, for example, how
these features have changed over time. One notable change is in the interpersonal
metafunction, with modern mathematical writing featuring much less explicit con-
struction of human activity (see Pimm & Sinclair, 2009). Mathematical writing
also varies according to context: Mathematical writing in an academic journal is
106 Richard Barwell
different from informal notes or a mathematics textbook, although they all have
much in common (see Burton & Morgan, 2000, for an analysis of writing in aca-
demic mathematics journals). The norms of mathematical writing have a purpose:
A shared sense of how mathematics should be written eases communication within
a mathematical community. But these norms are not set in stone and vary over time
and context. Good mathematical writing reflects these norms to effectively com-
municate and contribute to mathematical thinking. Effective communication is a
goal reflected in, among other things, the NCTM process standards, which includes
reference to coherence, precision, and organizing thinking.
Students’ Mathematical Writing

Why do we ask students to write in mathematics? Students may write for them-
selves or others (Pimm, 1987). Misfeldt (2005) interviewed mathematicians about
their use of writing and noted several functions, including (a) trying out and veri-
fying ideas, (b) recording information for later use, (c) communicating with col-
laborators, and (d) writing up a finished paper reporting the work. The first two
of these functions suggest purposes for writing for oneself, while the other two
suggest purposes for writing for others. These functions would seem to be equally
relevant for writing mathematics in reform-oriented classrooms, in which there is
an emphasis on problem solving, as shown in Table 6.2.
Students’ writing in mathematics has additional purposes in classrooms, how-
ever, notably in relation to assessment. Teachers may make use of students’ writing,
including their writing for themselves, to make assessments of students’ thinking,
while students’ “finished products” are in many cases explicitly prepared in order
to be evaluated.
TABLE 6.2 Functions of Students’ Writing in Mathematics
Writing for. . . Functions of Writing of Corresponding Functions of Writing in Reform

Mathematicians (Misfeldt, 2005) Mathematics Classrooms
. . . self • Trying out and verifying • Trying out and verifying ideas, including
ideas. making sense of a mathematics problem,
• Recording information for trying some cases, completing calculations
later use. exploring a pattern, checking a conjecture.
• Recording information for later use, such
as from one class to the next.
. . . others • Communicating with • Communicating ideas to peers during
collaborators. the problem-solving process, e.g., when
• Writing up a paper working in groups or sharing ideas with
reporting the work. the class.
• Writing up work, such as a solution and its
justification, a project report, etc., often for
the purposes of assessment.
• Writing for all of these purposes may also
be interpreted by teachers for formative
assessment or summative evaluation.
In reform-oriented classrooms, students may write for themselves to try out

ideas, complete calculations or record conjectures. The purpose of these writings is
largely to help organize mathematical thinking—that is, it is metacognitive. There
is a reasonable body of research on the metacognitive benefits of writing in math-
ematics (see Pugalee, 2001). This body of work is loosely framed by Vygotsky’s
(1978) theory of learning, in which language is seen as a “tool for thought.” From
this perspective, language is not simply a means of expressing preformulated ideas.
For Vygotsky, language, particularly “scientific” language, is a key means by which
students develop thinking skills in subjects like mathematics. The structure of for-
mal mathematical language reflects the organization of mathematical concepts and
thinking. For example, treating mathematical processes as objects—a fundamen-
tal feature of mathematical thinking—is reflected in the grammatical structure of
formal written mathematics, as I have discussed already. Similarly, ways of organ-
izing the problem-solving process are reflected in the structure and organization
of mathematical texts. Learning to do mathematics is therefore deeply intertwined
with learning to write mathematics. Indeed, Sfard (2008) would argue that they
amount to the same thing.
Drawing on this general theoretical perspective, several studies have examined
how certain forms of writing in mathematics may contribute to the development
of students’ mathematical thinking. Pugalee (2001), for example, collected data
from 24 high school algebra students who were regularly asked to write down
“anything that came to mind” while solving problems (p. 238). Pugalee showed
that students’ writing reflected metacognitive thinking in four stages of problem
solving: orientation (understanding the problem), organization (formulating a plan),
execution (carrying out the plan, performing calculations, etc.), and verification
(review of decisions and results) (Pugalee, 2001, pp. 239–242).The students’ writing
included their observations about information provided in the problem (orienta-
tion), evidence of setting goals or making a plan (organization), tackling subgoals
and performing calculations (execution), and checking the reasonableness of solu-
tions or reworking calculations at different points in the problem-solving process
(verification). For example, in response to a problem showing representations of the
first four triangle numbers and asking students to find the 10th, one student wrote:
Every time you start a new triangle you add the number that comes after the
bottom one. For example, when you had the second triangle the bottom had
2 dots. The next number after two is 3. So when you add three to it plus the
one on top you get 6. I am going to do this for all the numbers. I am check-
ing over the problem now. My correct answer for the tenth triangle is 55.
(Pugalee, 2001, p. 242)
This student’s response displays evidence of interpreting the problem (she notices
a pattern in the diagram), making a plan (“I am going to do this . . .”), perform-
ing calculations and reviewing her work (“I am checking over my problem”). The
value of these kinds of mathematical writing behaviors has been observed in several
other studies (e.g. Steele, 2005; Martin, 2015). From a Vygotskian perspective, this
work suggests that writing in mathematics helps students to organize their think-
ing within the problem-solving process. Asking students to write explanations, for
108 Richard Barwell
example, is not simply a useful way for teachers to learn about students’ thinking;
the writing process is itself an important way of developing mathematical thinking.
Students, of course, do not naturally write in a formal mathematical style. Learn-
ing to write mathematically goes hand in hand with learning mathematics. Santos
and Semana (2015) investigated how students can be guided to develop a more
formal style, with a focus on developing students’ written mathematical justifi-
cations. Groups of Portuguese secondary school students were given a series of
writing tasks to work on, related to complex mathematical problems. Each group
submitted a first version of their writing, received feedback from their teacher, and
then reworked their text. Much of the teacher’s feedback encouraged students to
be more explicit and detailed in their justifications, such as explaining their choice
of calculations and clarifying their ideas. Feedback also prompted students to make
use of all three semiotic systems (natural language, symbols, and visual images) and
make links between them. For example, in the first draft for one problem, stu-
dents presented diagrams with some symbols. The teacher prompted the students
to elaborate their writing by also including explanatory verbal text to clarify what
different values in the diagrams represented. The second version of their writing
was, as a result, more comprehensive and precise than the first. This research sug-
gests that students can be supported to develop more mathematically appropriate
forms of written explanation (in this case, more explicit and detailed), through a
process of drafting and redrafting.
Best Practices
So far, I have reviewed some key ideas arising in research on writing in math-
ematics classrooms in general. For EL students, however, writing in mathematics
may pose particular challenges. Most research on the learning and teaching of
mathematics by EL students has focused on spoken interaction. Among other
things, this work has shown how EL students draw on multiple resources, includ-
ing other languages, everyday language, and diagrams, to think about mathemat-
ics (see, for example, Moschkovich, 2009). These ideas are also useful in thinking
about writing in mathematics.
To think about the notion of resource more carefully, I draw on a dialogic
perspective on language developed by Mikhail Bakhtin. As a literary theorist, his
work focused on understanding the language of novels and poetry, through which
he developed a multifaceted theory of language. All language use reflects multiple
ways of speaking and writing. We can think, for example, of the language of math-
ematics, of the curriculum, of teachers, of the schoolyard, and so on. Language-
as-it-is-used is always diverse and always changing, with new forms emerging and
others disappearing. As noted earlier, for example, the language of mathematics has
changed over time. This constantly shifting diversity is called heteroglossia (Bakhtin,
1981), and without it, it would not be possible to ever say anything new. Bakhtin-
ian scholars further divide heteroglossia into three dimensions: multiple discourses,
multiple voices, and multiple languages (Busch, 2014). At the same time, language
has a certain stability, often thought of in terms of rules and structures, and of cor-
rect and incorrect usage. This underlying stability, or at least the idea of it, is known
as unitary language (Bakhtin, 1981). Heteroglossia and unitary language are both
present in all speech or writing and pull in opposite directions, a bit like centripetal
and centrifugal forces (Bakhtin, 1981).
The various language resources on which EL students may draw to think about
mathematics can be organized according to the three dimensions of heteroglossia
(Barwell, 2015):
• Multiple discourses, such as mathematical vocabulary, genres, symbols, visual

images, forms of explanation and justification, and so on;
• Multiple voices, such as students’ different ideas, teacher’s contributions, infor-
mation in textbooks, etc.;
• Multiple languages, including English, as well as students’ home languages.
In each dimension, students and teachers will be influenced by both centripetal and
centrifugal forces: That is, there is both diversity (heteroglossia) and the idea of cor-
rect or preferred forms (unitary language). Unitary language often reflects the posi-
tion of authority, while less favored forms find themselves at the margins. Learning
to write in mathematics requires students to learn to use or “appropriate” (Bakhtin,
1981, p. 293) forms of writing initially introduced by their teacher, their textbooks,
and other authoritative sources. Nevertheless, the centrifugal and centripetal forces
are constantly at work, and teachers find themselves mediating the tension that
arises between them (Barwell, Chapsam, Nkambule, & Setati Phakeng, 2016).
These three kinds of resources can all be seen in the example of Curtis and Alex.
They draw on multiple discourses, including mathematical discourses (vocabulary,
forms of explanation, use of symbols) and general everyday discourses of explana-
tion (e.g., using the word “like”).They also draw on multiple voices, including their
own meanings and ideas, ideas derived from the word problem, and specific words
suggested by me (I wrote down some useful words, such as “pattern”). For Alex,
I also offered a sentence starter: “The pattern is. . . ” Finally, the two students make
use of both English and Cree at different times, such as when discussing with each
other, or with me, what they should write in their explanation.
In earlier research conducted in the UK, I recorded pairs of upper elementary
school EL students as they worked on the task of writing and solving word prob-
lems of their own.Their word problems and the discussions they had while writing
them were fascinating and provide further evidence for the three forms of resources
mentioned above. For example, Farida and Parveen, two students from a Pakistani
background (Panjabi/Urdu speakers), wrote the following word problem together:
If you have 5 children and 20 Book

how many can you give the Book?=
My analysis of their discussion (Barwell, 2005b) showed that they drew on a variety
of resources (although I did not use that term at the time of the research). They
drew on the discourse of word problems, paying particular attention to the generic
form of word problems. For example, they were aware that their problems needed
to have a scenario, some mathematical information, and a question. They also used
mathematical discourse as a resource, through their reference to the mathemati-
cal structure of the problem. They made use of multiple voices, including their
110 Richard Barwell
negotiation of their different individual ideas and their use of narrative accounts
of their experiences to make sense of what they were writing. And they made use
of multiple languages to make meaning, including explicit discussion of grammar
and spelling, as well as forms of English influenced by their home language. More
specifically, my analysis showed how attention to written English and attention to
the mathematical structure of the problem each informed the other.
In each example, centripetal and centrifugal forces simultaneously shaped
students’ use of the various resources. The students are constantly influenced by
expected norms of the use of English, spelling, punctuation, and mathematical dis-
course. At the same time, their writing reflects their own unique and emergent
versions of these norms, such as in Curtis’s and Alex’s somewhat colloquial expla-
nations, or Farida and Parveen’s rather idiosyncratic orthography. In each case, it is
worth remembering that a different set of norms might result in rather different
writing, such as if the students were working in their home languages.
So far, in this section, I have highlighted some of the resources available to stu-
dents to make meaning while writing mathematics. Nevertheless, EL students’ math-
ematical writing is likely, at first, to be idiosyncratic and reflect informal or everyday
oral discourses. How, then, can EL students be supported to develop more appro-
priate forms of mathematical writing, both in terms of reflecting aspects of mathe-
matical discourse like precision, or in terms of reflecting the conventions of written
English? Supporting students to develop mathematical writing ideally should not
be through imposing a set of rules (reflecting a formal model of writing) but instead
should leave space for students’ voices. What strategies, then, might be appropriate?
Chval and Khisty (2009) conducted an ethnographic study of one Grade 5
class of Latino students in the U.S., in which the teacher included an explicit focus
on writing in mathematics and in which students’ mathematical writing visibly
improved over the course of the school year.The focus of Chval and Khisty’s analy-
sis was on how the students, over time, came to appropriate written mathematical
discourse, as a result of the conditions created by the teacher. They identified three
patterns that seemed to be significant.
First, they noticed that the teacher created a culture that valued writing in math-
ematics. The teacher used a variety of strategies to do this, including the use of
writing tasks every day in mathematics; the use of meaningful writing assignments
to communicate mathematical thinking and understanding; the use of a drafting
process to improve the quality of mathematical writing; public discussion of aspects
of the writing process; and clear expectations and evaluation criteria (pp. 135–136).
Second, the classroom was rich in mathematical language and meaningful dis-
cussion of mathematics in which students played an active part. This observation is
consistent with the idea that it is not enough for students to read and hear math-
ematical discourse in order to appropriate it for themselves; they need multiple,
meaningful opportunities to talk about and write about mathematics. In the class
observed by Chval and Khisty, the teacher used several strategies to create such an
environment for her students. She used rich mathematical language herself; she
ensured writing in mathematics had a clear purpose; and she ensured that students
“experienced and used rich words and language in context” (p. 136). The students
all spoke Spanish as well as English, and so the teacher made use of her own knowl-
edge of Spanish to support students’ writing in English: For example, she would
use English words that have similar forms in Spanish, such as combine (combinar)
or clarify (clarificar).
Third, through the drafting and redrafting process, the teacher engaged in writ-
ten dialogue with her students. She would annotate drafts with questions and sug-
gestions. Much like the drafting process that might be used in creative writing,
the annotations initially focused on clarifying meaning, developing precision, and
organizing ideas, while later annotations focused more on conventions of written
English, such as spelling and punctuation. For early drafts, the teacher used written
questions to elicit clarification, such as “why do you need to build a congruent
triangle?” (p. 14). And she offered general guidance, such as “You would have a bet-
ter explanation if you: 1) reread your work; 2) add details; 3) draw a sketch [. . .]”
(p. 141). Some students worked on as many as eight drafts before a piece of writing
was considered to be ready for final evaluation based on a rubric.
The patterns observed by Chval and Khisty combined to enable students to
make clear progress in writing mathematics and, as a result, in their achievement in
mathematics. The teacher’s strategies made use of various resources, including mul-
tiple discourses (mathematical vocabulary, informal explanations), multiple voices
(such as the students’ voices and the teacher’s voice in the dialogic interaction of the
drafting process), and multiple languages (the teacher and students regularly used
Spanish mixed in with English when discussing their work). The teacher seems
to have found a good balance between centripetal and centrifugal forces, allow-
ing students to use multiple discourses, voices and languages (reflecting centrifugal
forces), while also introducing conventional ways of writing about mathematics
(centripetal forces).

Writing in mathematics appears to have important benefits for children, helping
them to organize and clarify their ideas. To write well in mathematics, however,
requires students to appropriate some complex practices. They need to use and
interrelate three semiotic systems: natural language, symbols, and visual images.
They need to think about three different aspects of writing: the ideas they wish to
communicate, the audience to which they are communicating them, and the best
way to organize their ideas within a coherent text.Teachers need to think about the
different purposes students may need for writing in order to offer them meaningful
writing tasks. In classrooms, these purposes reflect both mathematical and peda-
gogic needs.That is, writing supports mathematical thinking, but is also a means for
teachers to observe and assess that thinking.
While there are recognized standard features of writing in mathematics, I have
argued that they should be seen as norms or conventions (reflecting a discursive
model) rather than as a set of rules (reflecting a formal model). Norms are an intrin-
sic part of language; without conventions, it would be difficult to communicate
effectively. At the same time, norms are often aligned with authority; if this author-
ity is imposed, students’ voices may be marginalized, as we require them to use an
“alien” language. Clearly, students need to appropriate these norms in their own
writing, not least because the conventions of written mathematical discourse have
emerged over time to enable mathematical thinking to be more easily expressed.
112 Richard Barwell
Students should, however, take on these norms as an expansion in their repertoires

of mathematical writing rather than replacing one repertoire with another (see
Barwell, 2016). And we should also keep in mind that the norms of mathematical
language are themselves potentially contested, the product of a continuing inter-
action between mathematicians, educators, policy makers, the general public, and
so on (see, for example,Valdés, 2004). From this perspective, students’ diverse ways
of writing about mathematics are important, since without them there can be no
dialogue and no expansion of repertoires.
EL students face additional challenges, as they must learn both mathematics and
English at the same time. To do so, they draw on multiple resources. They make
use of a variety of discourses, including formal mathematical writing, everyday oral
discourses and common classroom genres. They draw on the multiple voices with
which they interact, including their own ideas, those of their peers and the voice
of the teacher. EL students also make use of all of the languages they speak, making
connections between these languages and making use of information learned in
one language and context to inform writing in mathematics, possibly in a different
language.
These different ideas are all apparent in the example of Curtis and Alex, who
clearly have plenty to write about, but who find the process of writing in math-
ematics challenging.

The ideas I have discussed in this chapter have implications for how writing is
incorporated into mathematics instruction. First, writing in mathematics is poten-
tially valuable, but needs to be supported. Teachers need themselves to be familiar
with the conventions of written mathematics. They need to create a culture of
writing as part of doing mathematics, through the regular, purposeful use of writing
activities. Moreover, students’ writing should be dialogic, in the sense that there is
space within writing activities for students’ ways of writing, their voices and their
languages, even as they engage with and appropriate more conventional forms of
written mathematics. The dialogic drafting process reported by Chval and Khisty
(2009) and the activity of students writing their own word problems are examples
of how a dialogic approach to writing in mathematics can be implemented.
These implications are relevant for all classrooms but are perhaps of particu-
lar significance for culturally and linguistically diverse mathematics classrooms
and, specifically, for teaching EL students. A dialogic approach to the use of
writing in mathematics classrooms allows all students to draw on their own
ideas and experiences, including their experiences of mathematics, and thus
contributes to the meaningful development of their writing. For EL students,
however, this approach can be particularly valuable, since their experiences of
language, of writing, of mathematics, and of schooling may all be rather differ-
ent from those they encounter in their mathematics classroom. For example, the
word problem written by Farida and Parveen is not written in a standard form
of English. Mathematically, however, the students’ work reflects understanding
of the problem solution. Their text provides an opening for interaction with the
teacher about the usual ways to write questions like “How many books do they
each get?” Through such interaction, the two students and the teacher will learn
more about each other and the different resources each uses. A dialogic approach
gives value to students’ experiences and the resources they bring to their writ-
ing, allowing teachers to work with them to expand their repertoires of ways of
writing about mathematics, without negating what they bring to that writing.
In this way, teachers can support students to negotiate the centripetal and cen-
trifugal forces they encounter in their mathematics classroom.
There is a clear link between writing and assessment in mathematics, and, in
particular, summative evaluation (Morgan, 1998). The majority of evaluation relies
on students’ written work. In reform classrooms, students are often asked to work
on complex problems over extended time periods and write up their work for
evaluation.The example of Curtis and Alex shows that students are capable of solv-
ing a problem but struggle to write up an explanation, particularly if they are EL
students. It is therefore crucial that explicit attention is given to writing in math-
ematics and that students have opportunities to develop their proficiency in writing
mathematics, so that evaluation more fairly reflects students’ progress.
There is insufficient research on writing in mathematics. It is particularly notice-
able that there is much more research on spoken interaction in mathematics class-
rooms. We know little about how students experience writing in mathematics,
beyond anecdotal evidence that they often find it challenging. Writing is a cogni-
tively demanding activity and, as teachers have long recognized, students’ writing
in mathematics offers fascinating insights into students’ thinking. Researchers have
not yet explored these insights in sufficient depth.
Note
1 There is unfortunately a history of marginalization of indigenous peoples and languages
in Canadian education, including the removal of indigenous students to residential schools
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the lack of status of indigenous languages,
many of which are endangered, as well as divergent varieties of English or French.
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Ed., M. Holquist; Trans. C. Emer-
son & M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barwell, R. (2005a). Ambiguity in the mathematics classroom. Language and Education, 19(2),
118–126.
Barwell, R. (2005b). Integrating language and content: Issues from the mathematics class-
room. Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 205–218.
Barwell, R. (2015). Language as a resource: Multiple languages, discourses and voices in
mathematics classrooms. In K. Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th
conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp.
97–104). Hobart, Australia: University of Tasmania.
Barwell, R. (2016). Formal and informal mathematical discourses: Bakhtin and Vygotsky,
dialogue and dialectic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(3), 331–345.
Barwell, R., Chapsam, L., Nkambule,T., & Setati Phakeng, M. (2016).Tensions in teaching math-
ematics in contexts of language diversity. In R. Barwell, P. Clarkson, A. Halai, M. Kazima, J.
Moschkovich, N. Planas, M. Setati Phakeng, P.Valero, & M.Villavicencio (Eds.), Mathematics
education and language diversity:The 21st ICMI study (pp. 175–192). New York: Springer.
114 Richard Barwell
Borasi, R., & Rose, B. (1989). Journal writing and mathematics instruction. Educational Stud-
ies in Mathematics, 20(4), 347–365.
Burton, L., & Morgan, C. (2000). Mathematicians writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 31(4), 429–453.
Busch, B. (2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity:The experience of a multilin-
gual classroom. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy
(pp. 21–40). Dordrecht/The Netherlands: Springer.
Chval, K. B., & Khisty, L. L. (2009). Bilingual Latino students, writing and mathematics:
A case study of successful teaching and learning. In R. Barwell (Ed.), Multilingualism in
mathematics classrooms: Global perspectives (pp. 128–144). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Clarke, D. J., Waywood, A., & Stephens, M. (1993). Probing the structure of mathematical
writing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25(3), 235–250.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of
simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116–140.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. (2015) An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.).
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B.V. (2006). The “academic literacies” model: Theory and applications.
Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368–377.
Martin, C. L. (2015). Writing as a tool to demonstrate mathematical understanding. School
Science and Mathematics, 115(6), 302–313.
Misfeldt, M. (2005). Media in mathematical writing: Can teaching learn from research prac-
tice? For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 36–41.
Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically:The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer Press.
Morgan, C. (2001). Mathematics and human activity: Representation in mathematical writ-
ing. Research in Mathematics Education, 3(1), 169–182.
Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics
learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 189–212.
Moschkovich, J. (2009). How language and graphs support conversation in a bilingual math-
ematics classroom. In R. Barwell (Ed.), Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms: Global
perspectives (pp. 78–96). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
O’Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London:
Continuum.
Routledge.
Pimm, D., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Audience, style and criticism. For the Learning of Mathematics,
29(2), 23–27.
Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections
through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics,
101(5), 236–245.
Santos, L., & Semana, S. (2015). Developing mathematics written communication through
expository writing supported by assessment strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
88(1), 65–87.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and
mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steele, D. (2005). Using writing to access students’ schemata knowledge for algebraic think-
ing. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 142–154.
Valdés, G. (2004). The teaching of academic language to minority second language learners.
In A. F. Ball & S.W. Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning
(pp. 66–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (Eds. M.
Cole,V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
7
WRITING THE SCIENCE
REGISTER AND MULTIPLE
LEVELS OF LANGUAGE
Implications for English Learners
Elaine R. Silliman, Louise C. Wilkinson, and

Maria Brea-Spahn
Focus Points
• The Next Generation Science Standards were developed with the perspective
that “doing” science depends on competent language processing in the four
language systems of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
• As a group, Hispanic students, including those who are English learners (ELs),
continue to display an achievement gap in science at grades 4, 8, and 12.
• Foundational literacy, much less the academic language and science registers,
cannot be separated from the larger context of the multiple levels of language
within and across the four language systems and their supporting cognitive
infrastructures.
• Science is a blending of natural language, science symbolism, and visual display;
specific language and discourse characteristics of the science register allow
insights into what may make it potentially difficult for all students, but more
so for EL students, to acquire science knowledge or present their scientific
ideas.
• A writing model that focuses on cognitive processes and includes the multi-
ple levels of language is uncommon in the teaching of science content to EL
students.
• Promoting EL student engagement with science requires asking deeper ques-
tions about science vocabulary, incorporating multiple language levels into the
explicit teaching of writing, and providing multiple opportunities to develop
and demonstrate scientific ideas.
Chapter Purpose
This chapter highlights the critical function that the multiple levels of language
play in science writing in general and, specifically, in the thinking, development,
and expression of science literacy by all students, and, in particular for this chapter’s
116 Elaine R. Silliman et al.
purpose, EL students whose heritage language is Spanish. Writing is a sociocogni-

tive and sociolinguistic behavior that serves as the medium of expression through
which concepts are translated into written language. Despite its central role in the
communication of ideas, writing has received minimal attention in the literature
on how students learn to do science and even less notice in how EL students
learn to employ writing effectively in science activities. Among other requirements,
learning to write effectively in any disciplinary domain requires sensitivity to the
multiple levels of language.
The chapter is organized into three topics: (1) a description of science as a
specialized academic language register that all students, but especially EL students,
must acquire for attaining science literacy; (2) a model of writing, which details
the cognitive processes underlying writing is outlined as instrumental for effective
recruitment and utilization of the multiple language levels comprising the science
register; the model is subsequently illustrated with a classroom-based chemistry
report produced by a monolingual English-speaking adolescent; and (3) a road
map to best practices that has the potential to meet the individual writing needs
of EL students in learning to write science. The chapter is intended for teachers
to appreciate the multiple language levels of the science register and support EL
students who are learning to navigate this register for three pragmatic purposes:
“when using science in their lives, interacting with science information, and mak-
ing decisions related to science” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine [NASEM, 2016, p. 2]).
Multiple Levels of Language

Language levels are dynamic and interconnected, from the subword level (sounds
that govern pronunciation or phonology, letters that comprise spelling or the
orthography) to the word level (formation of words that constitute the lexicon,
including derivational morphology) to the semantic-syntactic level (meaning rela-
tions that hold between words and the word order that arranges how phrases and
clauses cohere as permissible in a language) to the discourse or text level (the
organization of themes and topics and their continuity). Competence as a lan-
guage user, which emerges gradually in the early years and develops into young
adulthood, depends on how these levels are continuously integrated (Abbott, Ber-
ninger, & Fayol, 2010).
In the broadest sense, there are four foundational language systems (Berninger &
Chanquoy, 2012; James, Jao, & Berninger, 2016): listening (language by ear), speak-
ing (language by mouth), reading (language by eye), and writing (language by
hand). Each of these systems is multileveled (subword, word, multiword meaning
and syntax, and text); each interacts with the other systems and also interacts with
the infrastructures of “sensory, motor, social emotional, cognitive, and attention/
executive functions in the brain” ( James et al., 2016, p. 116). However, as James et al.
caution, how these systems interact with each other or with specific ability levels in
the other systems depends on the developmental level, including the background
Writing the Science Register 117
knowledge, of the listener, speaker, reader, or writer and the particular situation in
which he/she engages.Thus, foundational literacy, much less the academic language
and science registers, cannot be dissociated from the larger context of the multiple
levels of language within and across the four language systems and their supporting
infrastructures (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000).
Writing Science
On an individual level, science literacy is an understanding of scientific practices,
the knowledge of disciplinary content, and the perspective that science is a social
process whereby others with membership in a scientific group validate and assign
expertise. Science literacy can extend beyond the individual to communities when
people who are not scientists in an academic sense collaborate to resolve a science-
related problem (NASEM, 2016), such as the source of polluted drinking water.
At the core of science literacy, whether in the form of creating science or utilizing
science information, is foundational literacy, “the ability to access text, construct
meaning, and evaluate newly encountered information in the specific domain of
science” (NASEM, 2016, pp. 15–16). We extend the case for foundational literacy
further with the interrelated premises that the science register, a specialized sub-
category of the academic language register, and its productive engagement with
multiple levels of language are keystones for science literacy.
The Science Register

The academic language register reflects a distinctive way of communicating, like
the everyday conversational register. All children acquire the conversational register
because it is designed for face-to-face communication. In contrast, the academic
register is the “language, both oral and written, of academic settings that facili-
tate communication and thinking about disciplinary content” (Nagy & Townsend,
2012, p. 92).
Science is constructed in a blending of semiotic systems, including natural
language, science symbolism, and visual display (O’Halloran, 2005, 2015).Con-
sequently, for science learning, students must be able not only to articulate the
natural language that is highly technical, dense, and precise, but also make con-
nections among the varied representations of these three semiotic systems (Yore &
Treagust, 2006). At the text level, the science register is designed to cultivate more
interpretive reasoning through explanation, comparison, and description (Bailey &
Butler, 2007). These functions are interlocked with the lexical-syntactic-discourse
interface and, as noted earlier, are often characterized by conceptual, lexical, syntac-
tic, and topic density (Avenia-Tapper & Llosa, 2015; DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, &
Rivera, 2014; Fang, 2006; Kachchaf et al., 2016; Scott & Balthazar, 2010; Silliman &
Wilkinson, 2015).
Specific characteristics of the science register provide insights into what may
make it potentially difficult for all students, but in particular for EL students, that
consequently may interfere with their developing science knowledge (Frantz,
Starr, & Bailey, 2015). For example, there are characteristic phrases and certain
modes that are acceptable for representing scientific reasoning in writing, such as
providing explanations. An overriding feature of both the disciplinary-general aca-
demic register and the more specialized science register is the linguistic/discourse
complexity of multiple language levels, a feature that increases the likelihood that
EL students will encounter major obstacles in formulating well-knitted explana-
tions. For example, think about activities EL students must initiate to “unpack”
complicated instructions for crafting an explanation, such as the following sentence
devised for the chapter: Explain why Einstein, who was the renowned German physicist
who published influential papers over multiple decades, never claimed that he was omniscient.
First, they must have available the requisite concepts and background knowledge
(inferring who and what Einstein represented in the history of physics). Second, if
this information is accessible, they must apply a flexible repertoire of cognitive and
linguistic/discourse resources to hold in mind and efficiently manage the syntactic
challenge of interpreting a sentence with a long-distance dependency.This depend-
ency has two embedded relative clauses marked with who and a series of elabo-
rated noun phrases (ENPs) (in brackets) (who was [a renowned German physicist] who
published[influential papers]over[multiple decades]). Any or all of these constructions
can sidetrack comprehension (Scott & Koonce, 2014). At the same time, students
must uncover the lexical and semantic relationships embedded in the main and
subordinate clauses, for example, the complex morphological derivation omnisci-
ent. Here, students must (a) deconstruct the word into its base (science); (b) know its
general meaning; (c) be familiar with the Latin origin of the prefix, omni- (in Span-
ish and English the prefix is identical); hence EL students who are Spanish speakers
may be able to draw on cognate knowledge [omnisciente] to aid in interpretation of
the word meaning); and (d) lastly, overcome the opaqueness of the semantic rela-
tionship between science and omniscient through understanding that the derivation
represents a subword dual shift: in pronunciation (phonological level) and spelling
(orthographic level). Finally, and at the same time, EL students must continuously
reassemble these language levels into topic units at the text level, if they are to write
a coherent explanation.
Lastly, an effective instructional model for developing the academic language
proficiency of EL students does not exist (August, Goldenberg, Saunders, &
Dressler, 2010). For many EL students, who may be recent immigrants and do
not bring grade-level background knowledge and a repertoire of English aca-
demic language to the science classroom (Goodrich & Lonigan, 2017), learn-
ing to write science well may require a triple border crossing. They must cross
over from their home language and everyday conversational register to steer-
ing through the linguistic/discourse complexities of the academic register to
navigating the multileveled nuances of a disciplinary-specific science register
(Yore & Treagust, 2006). For students crossing these borders, Lee, Quinn, and
Valdés (2013) make the case that initially embedding the language of the science
classroom in the everyday conversational register, a resource that all EL students
possess, may serve as a bridge for crossing over to writing the language of the
science register (see also Buxton, Cardozo-Gaibisso, Xia, & Li, 2017). In sum,
our view is that writing is an essential conceptual medium for learning how to
communicate science content.
Learning to Write in the Science Register: A Writing Model

Prior research on the science register has concentrated on reading comprehension
(e.g., Fang, 2006). However, in cultivating science literacy, writing is a powerful tool
for the learning of a critical mind-set toward the integrity of scientific evidence. Of
equal relevance is the reciprocal relationship between a critical stance and classroom
science writing that enculturates students into the discourse practices underlying
the interpretation of genres, from descriptions to explanations and argumentation
(Yore et al., 2004). Given the importance of this reciprocity, it is surprising that
minimal empirical research has been conducted on best practices for the teaching
of writing to EL students (Perin, De La Paz, Piantedosi, & Peery, in press). Few
studies have focused on instructional aspects of science writing by EL students
(e.g., Brown & Ryoo, 2008; Buxton et al., 2013; Gibbons, 2003; Lee, Mahotiere,
Salinas, Penfield, & Maerten-Rivera, 2009; Schleppegrell & Go, 2007). Intervention
designs for the science content that EL students learned through writing did not
necessarily include either an empirically based model of writing or comprehensive
inclusion of multiple levels of language.
The absence of attention to writing as “externalized cognition” (Richards, Ber-
ninger, & Fayol, 2012, p. 86) mirrors its status as less consequential than the role
of reading comprehension in foundational literacy learning despite findings that
writing places more demands on executive functions than does reading (Richards
et al., 2012). Nearly two-thirds of teachers indicated that they received little to no
preprofessional preparation in using writing to support students’ learning across a
range of disciplinary areas, including science (Ray, Graham, Houston, & Harris,
2016). Secondary teachers reported that they seldom used the writing tools des-
ignated in the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS, 2010). An under-
standing of the cognitive processes involved in writing and their interaction with
the multiple levels of language is critical for teachers to internalize if they are to
develop instructional approaches that would benefit EL students in acquiring and
employing the academic language and science registers.
The Hayes and Berninger writing model describes writing-specific cognitive
processes and operations (Hayes & Berninger, 2014; Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015).
In expert writers, the three levels of the model function in harmony: (a) a bottom
resource level or a general infrastructure of executive functions that writers employ,
such as working and long-term memories, and rapid attentional shifts; (b) a mid-
dle or process level reflecting the cognitive processes writers utilize in composing
combined with the situational context in which these processes are deployed; and
(c) a top or control level, which represents how the writing task is initiated and
subsequently planned, and the genre and strategic knowledge about the particular
text’s properties and how to achieve the intended outcomes. The chapter focuses
on the four processes that define the middle level:
• Proposing—Ideas, which are non-verbal, have to be “mulled over” for inclu-

sion in a text. The sources of these ideas can originate from planning, the situ-
ational context, long-term memory, or even “the text written so far” (Hayes &
Berninger, 2014, p. 6).
• Translating—Nonverbal ideas must then be translated either through listen-

ing or reading into (verbal) language units from subword to text levels for
expression. Translation, which is a neglected aspect of writing (Fayol, 2016), is
the multifaceted means for transforming cognitive representations into writ-
ten form. The developmental complexity of translation is attributed in part to
whether students have enough working memory resources for the task, a suffi-
cient fund of knowledge about the text topic and its organization, a linguistic/
discourse repertoire ample enough to produce cohesive and coherent text, and
adequate spelling knowledge (Fayol, 2016; Hayes & Berninger, 2014).
• Transcribing—Language units abstractly produced through translation must
be converted into actual language levels from letters and words to sentences
and text through spelling. If spelling is not automated, then a “bottleneck”
(Hayes & Berninger, 2014, p. 7) will be created that affects translation fluency
because of the cognitive demands on working memory resources.
• Evaluating—For texts to be coherent and cohesive, they must be continu-
ously reviewed and updated (revised), which entails self-monitoring (Rich-
ards et al., 2012). Evaluation can occur during proposing, translation, and
transcription, as well as after transcription into sentences and text. Self-
regulated evaluation, which is essential for developing flexibility as a writer
in the formulation of more coherent and cohesive texts, emerges in middle
childhood, when students begin to integrate writing with reading (Ber-
ninger & Chanquoy, 2012).
The cascading nature of the writing model (Hayes & Berninger, 2014; Hayes &
Olinghouse, 2015) suggests three conclusions for all students, including EL stu-
dents. First, for students to learn to write in a variety of science genres, including
their development of academic content knowledge, teacher education at elemen-
tary and secondary levels must incorporate explicit and systematic instruction on
composing in the academic and science registers. Second, varied and in depth
experiences with writing should begin early. A reason is that writing reorganizes
“existing reading and writing systems to create a new functional system . . . that
requires switching back and forth across the roles of reader and writer in creating
a new text” (Berninger & Chanquoy, 2012, p. 65). Third, multiple language levels
are intertwined in oral and written language. Research findings indicate that the
oral and written systems concurrently employ distinctive and common processes
(Berninger & Abbott, 2010).
The next section offers an example of how the writing model applies to
construction of a chemistry lab report, produced by a 15-year-old female who
is a high school sophomore and a monolingual English speaker. The example
illustrates how learning to write the science register requires knowing how to
layer multiple language levels, as demonstrated by a student still in the process of
mastering these levels. The requirements of the science register are a matter of
degree of linguistic precision and alignment with the tasks. This is the case for
EL students and monolingual English speakers. In other cases, knowledge of the
conversational English register may provide a foundation upon which to build
the science register.
An Example of NGSS Writing in the Classroom:

Integrating Science Competencies and Multiple
Language Levels Into a Chemistry Report
A key feature of the NGSS is that scientific learning activities for students should
be presented as rich and accessible scientific phenomena. For the purpose of this
chapter, we define scientific phenomena as “observable events that occur in the
universe and that we can use our science knowledge to explain or predict” (NGSS,
2016, p. 1).The central point is that, for students, scientific phenomena are puzzling
and consequently have the potential to engage them in learning in an authentic
manner. Although they are accessible to students, scientific phenomena require stu-
dents to make sense of them. Students have to work together to discover phenom-
ena and design solutions to the problems presented.
By applying the cognitive writing model (Hayes & Berninger, 2014; Hayes &
Olinghouse, 2015), we offer an analysis from the perspective of multiple language
levels on the complexity of scientific writing based on a chemistry lab report that
a 10th-grade student, Jenna, prepared ( Jenna attends a large suburban high school
in western New York State). Her report concerned the properties of oxygen and
hydrogen. The essential question was whether the two chemical elements reacted
in the same manner under the same conditions (a single replacement reaction).
Students investigated this question over a two-week period in their chemistry class.
Once the chemistry teacher introduced unit concepts in class, students next worked
with a lab partner to make predictions, generate data and accompanying equa-
tions, and provide written evidence through constructing explanations of how the
elements reacted differently. Initially, the examination of oxygen was conducted.
Students engaged in an investigation of hydrogen in a subsequent lab. Follow-
ing completion of the lab, they wrote up their individual observations as a Word
document in accord with a teacher-prepared format consistent with the NGSS for
producing the report, submitting the final product to the chemistry teacher.
The Cognitive Dimensions: Conceptual

Generation and Translation
Jenna’s particular report on hydrogen aligns in a general manner with the learning
expectations of the NGSS, in particular Practice 8 (NGSS, 2013, p. 15): Obtaining,
Evaluating, and Communicating Information: Being able to read, interpret, and produce
scientific and technical text are fundamental practices of science and engineering, as is the abil-
ity to communicate clearly and persuasively. The functions of her report are primarily
procedural and explanatory.
From a conceptual perspective, Jenna’s ideas coalesce around four key features
(see Table 7.1 indicating key features aligning with the NGSS learning criteria):
(1) prediction (“I predicted”); (2) observation and data collection (“To begin the
lab. . .”); (3) results (“what happened”); and (4) conclusion and reflection (“I found my
prediction was wrong. . . . The result of the hydrogen lab was far different from the oxygen
lab. . . .In this lab, I learned the difference between how hydrogen and oxygen react with heat
and what material produce them”). At the conceptual level, the process of proposing
TABLE 7.1 Jenna’ s Hydrogen Lab Report That Reflects the NGSS Learning Criteriaa
In this lab, I predicted that it would have similar results to the oxygen lab because
the procedures were the same. The importance of this lab is for the students to be
familiarized with metal-acid reaction that produces hydrogen gas, water displacement,
and several properties of hydrogen gas. Safety precautions in this lab consist of wearing
goggles and aprons to ensure that no material gets on our clothes or in our eyes; make
sure that hair is tied back so it does not get caught in the experiment; and make sure that
when the graduated cylinder is not in use that it is laying down on the table because it
may break.
To begin the lab my lab partner and I filled the pneumatic trough with water only up to
overflow spout. We placed the over flow spout of the sink, so if water were to pour out
it would go in the sink. Next, we took the gas collecting bottle and filled it with water
from the sink until it was overflowing. Then we took the square glass plate and placed
it on top of the collecting bottle. Then, we placed the bottle and the glass in trough;
being careful not to let any air in the bottle. Making sure that the neck of the bottle
was submerged in water, I slid the glass out from underneath of the bottle. I placed the
bottle above the indentation on the trough so the tubing would be allowed to enter the
bottle. I then obtained the Erlenmeyer flask and placed it on the ring stand. In order to
keep it in place I tightened the clamp. Then I collected some hydrochloric acid, trying
to measure it as close to 30mL as possible using a graduated cylinder. I poured the HCI
into the flask and then took the tubing that was attached to the stopper and placed it
into the collecting bottle through the indentation. We had to be careful that the tubing
was not pinched because then material would not be able to be transferred through
the tubing. I then made my way over to the side counter to get 3 pieces of mossy zinc
and placed it into the small plastic beaker. I quickly and carefully poured the mossy
zinc into the flask containing the HCI and then placed the rubber stopper on the flask
immediately. When the bottle was filled with gas, bubbles started coming out of
the collecting bottle. This was our sign to remove the tubing from the bottle
and then we slid the square glass plate under the collecting bottle and took
it out of the trough being careful not to let any air out. We placed the bottle on
the table with the neck facing down and the glass lying on the table. Then to test the
gas in the bottle we lit a wood stick on fire and lifted up the bottle and placed the stick
underneath it. This caused a loud popping sound to occur.
The single replacement reaction occurred with the burning of metals (corrode) inside of
the flask. The equation for this reaction is HCI(aq)+ Zn(s)→ ZnCl2(aq) + H2(g). The reactants
are hydrochloric acid and zinc metal and the products is Zinc Chloride and hydrogen
gas. The zinc pushes ion hydrogen atom out of the compound and replaces it in this
reaction. The second equation used in this lab is synthesis H2 (g) + O2(g)→ H20 + heat.
The reactants in this equation are the hydrogen gas and oxygen from the atmosphere
that yield s water and heat. This is an exothermic reaction because the products needed
heat to be added in order to equal the reactants. Some traits that we acquired through
this lab was that hydrogen is colorless, ordorless, tasteless, and is less dense than the
atmosphere. Hydrogen doesn’t combust but acts violently with heat which causes an
explosion. The excess heat increases kinetic energy and the molecules slam against the
side causing a noise. This shows that hydrogen reacts easily when given a little bit of
activation energy.
After completing the hydrogen lab, I found that my prediction was wrong. The result
of the hydrogen lab was far different from the oxygen lab. One difference is that when
we took the collecting bottle out of the trough we placed it faced down whereas in
the oxygen lab we faced the neck of the bottle upwards. This was because hydrogen
has a smaller mass and more molecules would be able to escape out of the tiny spaces
(effusion). Placing the neck of the bottle downwards would minimize the amount of
effusion because the weight would help seal the bottle. Also, in this lab the hydrogen
did not combust, but it did in the oxygen lab. The hydrogen was very reactive to the
heat and caused an explosion within the bottle, while the oxygen allowed for the stick
to start fire and burn. Lastly, in the end of the oxygen lab there was oxygen left in the
gas collecting bottle, while in the hydrogen lab there was hydrogen left in the collecting
bottle. This was because there were different reactants in the lab causing a different these
different elements to be produced in the gas collecting bottle. In this lab, I learned
the difference between how hydrogen and oxygen react with heat and what
material produce them. Also, another example of water displacement is used
when measuring the volume of a substance. By subtracting the final volume of the
water by the starting volume the water displacement is calculated. Sources of error in
this lab may have consisted of contaminated HCI or Zinc. Faulty tubing that may have
affected the transferring of materials, and hydrogen escaping from the collecting bottle
due to effusion.
Bolded text indicates NGSS key features
a
ideas to include in a text will not likely culminate in any visible outcome until
combined with the process of translating ideas into language (Hayes & Oling-
house, 2015). Hence, Jenna’s familiarity with the necessary science concepts seems
interconnected with her ability to generate the relevant ideas and translate them
into conceptual relationships, which are then transformed into language with an
emerging knowledge building approach to expository text production, a hallmark
of the more literate writer. As these authors observe, learning through knowledge
building “like scientific discovery and theorizing—is a process of working toward
more complete and coherent understanding” (p. 38), in this case through writing.
Linguistic/Discourse Dimensions: Translation,

Transcription, and Evaluation
Table 7.2 displays examples of the linguistic and text levels of complexity that Jenna
employed to communicate through writing what she did and what she learned.
An important point is that the orchestration of the multiple language levels
illustrated in Table 7.2 is dynamic and not a step-by-step process, either bottom up
or top down. Instead, all levels continuously interact, shifting one way or the other
with choices made, refined, or deactivated (Fayol, 2016), depending on a multitude
of factors, not all of which may be internal to the writing process. For example,
other influential aspects at the control level may include the writer’s disciplinary
knowledge, motivations, extent of planning, and schemas for composing a par-
ticular science text, all of which will fluctuate in accord with instructional quality
and positive experiences with writing (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015). Furthermore,
although Table 7.2 does not show the subword level, its importance cannot be
underestimated, as word formation and spelling are intertwined at this level; that is,
spelling is a language activity that supports new word learning. The reason for this
relationship is due to the fact that spelling enables written recording of the results
from the translation of concepts into the vocabulary of written language through
the medium of word creation (Bahr, Silliman, & Berninger, 2009; Silliman, Bahr,
TABLE 7.2 Examples from Jenna’s Hydrogen Lab Report of the Disciplinary-General (Aca-
demic Language) and Disciplinary-Specific (Science) Registers Co-Constructed
Through Multiple Levels of Languagea,b,c,d,e
Level
Word/ Disciplinary— Disciplinary— Disciplinary—

Lexical— General Specific Meanings Specific
Semantic Derivational • oxygen Derivational
Meanings • hydrogen gas Meanings
• procedures • (graduated) cylinder • (metal-acid)
• familiarized • pneumatic trough reaction
• safety • Erlenmeyer flask • (water)
• precautions • (hydrochloric) acid displacement
• submerged • 30mL • hydrochloric
• indentation • HCI (acid)
• stopper (hydrochloride) • beaker
• quickly • flask • (single)
• carefully • mossy zinc replacement
• remove • zinc metal (reaction)
• atmosphere • ion hydrogen atom • reactants
• immediately • compound • equation
• explosion • synthesis H2 (g) + • exothermic
• prediction O2(g)→ H20 + heat (reaction)
• difference • kinetic energy • activation
• violently • molecules (energy)
• minimize • effusion
• substance • reactive
• faulty
Lexical- Premodification Postmodification Pre-and
Syntactic • similar results • several properties of Postmodification
(ENPs) • oxygen lab hydrogen gas • metal-acid reaction
• hydrogen gas • little bit of that produced
• safety precautions activation energy hydrogen gas, water
• water displacement • water from the sink displacement, and
• overflow spout • the neck of the several properties
• gas collecting bottle bottle of hydrogen gas
• the graduated • the indentation of • the overflow spout
cylinder the trough of the sink
• the pneumonic • the tubing that was • Some traits that we
trough attached to the acquired through
• the square glass plate stopper this lab
• mossy zinc • oxygen from the • Another
• small plastic beaker atmosphere that example of water
• single replacement yields water and displacement
reaction heat • Faulty tubing that
• ion hydrogen atom • the result of the may have affected
• exothermic reaction hydrogen lab the transferring of
• kinetic energy material
• contaminated HCI
or Zinc
Level
Syntactic Noun Clauses Relative Clauses Adverbial Clauses
(Subordinate • I predicted [that • The importance • I predicted that
Clauses) it would have] of this lab is for it would have
similar results to the students to be similar results
oxygen lab because familiarized with to the oxygen
the procedures were metal-acid reaction lab [because the
the same. [that produces procedures were
• We had to be hydrogen gas, water the same].
careful [that the displacement, and • We placed the
tubing was not several properties of over flow spout
pinched] because hydrogen gas]. of the sink, [so if
the material would • I poured the HCI water were to
not be able to be into the flask and pour out] it
transferred through then took the would go in the
the tubing. tubing [that was sink.
attached to the • I placed the
stopper] and placed bottle above the
it into the collecting indentation on
bottle through the the trough [so
indentation. (that) the tubing
• The reactants in this would be allowed
equation are the to enter the
hydrogen gas and bottle].
oxygen from the • We had to be
atmosphere [that careful that the
yield s water and tubing was not
heat]. pinched [because
• Hydrogen doesn’t the material
combust but acts would not be able
violently with heat to be transferred
[which causes an through the
explosion]. tubing].
• [When the bottle
was filled with
gas], bubbles
started coming
out of the
collecting bottle.
• This shows that
hydrogen reacts
easily [when
given a little bit of
activation energy].
Syntactic • Safety precautions in this lab consist of wearing goggles and
(Embedding aprons to ensure [that no material gets on our clothes or in our
Chain) eyes]; make sure [that hair is tied back] [so it does not get caught
in the experiment]; and make sure [when the graduated cylinder
is not in use] [that it is laying down on the table] [because it may
break].
(Continued)
TABLE 7.2 (Continued)
Level
Text (Clause Thematic Topic Shift Conclusion
Package) Introduction (Move-on) • Lastly in the end
• In this lab • To begin the lab of the oxygen lab
I predicted that it my lab partner there was oxygen
would have similar and I filled the left in the gas
results to the pneumatic trough collecting bottle,
oxygen lab because with water only up while in the
the procedures to overflow spout. hydrogen lab there
were the same. Elaboration was hydrogen left
The importance • We placed the over in the collecting
of this lab is for flow spout of the bottle. This was
the students to be sink, so if water because there
familiarized with were to pour out were different
metal-acid reaction it would go in the reactants in the lab
that produces sink. causing . . . these
hydrogen gas, water different elements
displacement, and to be produced in
several properties of the gas collecting
hydrogen gas. bottle.
a
Word/lexical-semantic level—Words in parentheses are included only to provide a linguistic context
for the general or derivational meaning displayed in the columns. Disciplinary-general items represent
lower frequency words “that are common across various content-area texts” (Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan, 2013, p. 132) and support but are not critical for the text topics in which they appear (Cox-
head, 2000, p. 214), such as stopper, graduated, and plastic, among others. In contrast, academic vocabulary
that is technical or specialized and may have German, Latin, and Greek origins, like Erlenmeyer flask,
kinetic, hydrochloric, and exothermic, occur within a specific content area, and their meaning often can be
variable depending on the disciplinary domain (Greene & Coxhead, 2015). For example, compound, as
applied in Jenna’s report, has a meaning that differs from the legal meaning of compound.
b
Lexical-syntactic level (ENPs)—ENPs provide important information about the sequence of permis-
sible multiword relationships among English words (Arnon, McCauley, & Christiansen, 2017). At a
minimum, the ENP consists of a determiner + head noun, such as the procedures. However, because
this form is high frequency, ENP types were identified as at least a modifier either preceding the
head noun (a premodification) or following the head noun (a postmodification). Additionally, ENPs
can assume highly dense architecture when pre-and postmodifications co-occur (modifier(s) precede
and follow the head noun), as illustrated in the third column, which increases the depth of head
noun-modifier relationships. Of note, relative clauses can function as postmodifiers; however, their
occurrence in written English accounts for only 10–15% of all postmodifiers (Biber & Clark, 2002).
c
Syntactic level (subordinate clauses)—Main (independent) clauses are obligatory in any sentence con-
struction for meaning to take place. In contrast, subordinate (dependent) clauses cannot standalone
and must be connected to a main clause. The three types of subordinate clauses are ( Justice & Ezell,
2016): (1) noun (or nominal) clauses that serve as nouns and may function as subjects, direct or indirect
objects, or a complement; (2) relative (or adjective) clauses, which follow the noun or pronoun that
they modify in the main clause; and (3) adverb clauses, which give information about time, place, man-
ner, reason, and conditions. Subordinate clauses are notated with brackets. For economy, subordinate
clauses from the report’s last paragraph are not listed.
d
Syntactic level (embedding chain)—The function of an e-chain is to incorporate ideas at increasing
depths (Karlsson, 2007).
e
Text level (clause package)—A clause package is a text (discourse) unit that consists of several clauses
linked by thematic, syntactic, or topical criteria (Katzenberger, 2004). Its primary function is to pro-
vide coherence or thematic continuity. A clause package consists of an introduction/move-on, which
serves to introduce a new topic; elaboration/expansion that develops a previously introduced topic
with more detail; and a conclusion that summarizes the information presented and must be linked to
a move-on or elaboration.
Nagy, & Berninger, 2018).Transcription is also bound up with the subword level as
the lexical-syntactic “strings” produced, as the output of translation must be honed
into spelling patterns at the word, syntactic, and text levels (Hayes & Berninger,
2014). Finally, to some extent, motivation depends on the degree of ease with the
transcription process, since more problems with transcription can impede writing
fluency (Hayes, 2011).
Linguistic Levels
The linguistic levels represent the local context of writing: the words, phrases, and
syntax that are stitched and re-stitched to “hang together” and provide cohesion.
How Jenna managed these local processes offers a window into her efforts to con-
struct complexity and cohesiveness.
• The subword and word levels are intertwined in Jenna’s complexity building
and point to the relevance of rich lexical representations underlying word
knowledge in the science register. To begin, all of her words are transcribed
correctly, an outcome that may be related to a combination of spell-checker
and the lexical scope of disciplinary-general and disciplinary-specific mean-
ings, particularly as represented in derivations (see Table 7.2). Derivations are
morphological units that convey new meanings through attachment of affixes,
whether prefixes and/or suffixes (e.g., replacement), to the root word (place).
They are critical to academic vocabulary learning for at least two reasons. First,
morphologically complex derivations often alter syntactic roles as occurs with
dent/indent/indentation; hence, morphemic units unite meaning and form (Car-
lisle, 2007), and students must learn how to manage both dimensions. Second,
metalinguistic awareness of these meaning-form relationships correlates with
vocabulary and spelling knowledge (Nagy, Carlisle, & Goodwin, 2014). This
means that rich experiences with translation of science meanings and their
transcription are essential for strengthening connections among the subword,
word, and syntactic levels. These experiences seem necessary if students are
to attain “tighter links between the representations of sounds, spellings, and
meanings of words and morphemes (whether roots or affixes) and the spelling
of words in morphemic chunks” (Nagy et al., 2014, p. 5), such as the chunked
spelling of the morphemic units in re-act-ive.
• ENPs have a critical function: to unlock “meaning in text because they often
serve the purpose of identifying and further specifying complex concepts”
(DiCerbo et al., 2014, p. 454). As Table 7.2 shows, ENPs are the primary lin-
guistic device that Jenna employs at the phrase level to compact more precise
conceptual information. At the same time, these complex ENPs contributed to
increased length of expression, for example ENPs with nested relative clauses.
The condensing and expansion operations support two interrelated assump-
tions. One is that “the complexity of academic writing is phrasal” (Bieber,
Gray, & Poonpon, 2011, p. 22) rather than clausal. The other is that, when
combined with academic vocabulary, ENPs are a major device for constructing
informational density in academic texts (Biber et al., 2011; Ravid & Berman,
2010) due to their function in uniting lexical and syntactic complexity (Silli-
man, Brea-Spahn, & Danzak, 2016). Of note, although some data are available
on the development of more complex ENPs in the writing of particular top-
ics from age 9 years upward (e.g., Ravid & Berman, 2010), there is minimal
research on the production of multifaceted ENPs, such as postmodifications
and the even more complex pre-and postmodifications found in Jenna’s sci-
ence writing (see Table 7.2, lexical-syntactic level, ENPs).
• Regarding the larger but still local level of syntax, as a rule, complex sen-
tences are usually longer (Balthazar & Scott, 2017), repeating the point just
mentioned with ENPs that condensing and increased length frequently co-
exist. Condensing takes place through embedding or the structural insertion of
ideas via noun, relative, and adverbial subordinate clauses resulting in a vertical
(hierarchical) relationship that yields a sense of depth to the content being
expressed. Apparent from Table 7.2 is that Jenna engages in an intricate weav-
ing of subordinate clauses. The depth of this interweaving is displayed most
prominently in the 64-word example of an embedding chain (e-chain; Karls-
son, 2007), which illuminates the meaning of complexity. Here, the e-chain
that Jenna builds consists of: (a) a “less deep” main clause (Safety precautions in
this lab consist of wearing goggles and aprons); (b) center-embedded subordinate
clauses ([that hair is tied back] and [so it does not get caught in the experiment]);
and, in relation to the main clause, (c) increasingly “deeper” multiple center-
embedded clauses ([when the graduated cylinder is not in use] [that it is laying down
on the table] [because it may break]). E-chains rarely have been identified in the
school-based writing literature; however, they are important for learning “syn-
tactic control” or the metalinguistic ability to generate “a variety of sentences
that clearly express an intended meaning” (Saddler, 2012, p. 9).
Global Level and Evaluation

The largest unit is the “big picture” or the super-structure discourse level (Katzen-
berger, 2004, 2005), where clauses are assembled into text. These clause packages
maintain the thematic coherence of the information flow. The global level likely
drives linguistic choices at the local levels, since the “what” and “how” of writing
content are bound to “why” the content is being written. A global view of the why,
what, and how involves the control level of the writing model we have described
(Hayes & Berninger, 2014; Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015), since ongoing planning and
self-evaluation regulates how adequately the global and local levels are interfacing
or need revision (Katzenberger, 2005) to balance coherence with cohesion.
Unlike narratives, which have an organizing structure generally described as a
beginning, middle, and end, clause packages comprising expository texts have a
nested structure for maintaining coherence. As shown in Table 7.2, these compo-
nents are (Katzenberger, 2004): (a) an introduction or initial move-on that explic-
itly states a generalization (the topic); (b) a body that expands on the topic with
specifics, and (c) a conclusion that summarizes the main point(s) made in a particu-
lar topical segment. Linguistic connectives, such as first, for example, so/then, in con-
trast, however, finally, etc., signal transitions or shifts from one clause package to the
next one, conveying “I am moving-on.” These move-ons can stand on their own,
but expansions and conclusions must be linked to another move-on or expansion.
The coherence of an academic composition depends therefore on the degree of
connections among these three components as the text evolves.
Well-developed clause packages begin to emerge during the high school years
(Katzenberger, 2005), and this emergence correlates with the frequency and quality
of writers’ experiences with expository texts throughout their schooling (Gra-
ham, Harris, & Chambers, 2016), a possible reason why EL students and their
non-EL counterparts may continue to produce underdeveloped academic texts.
Even skilled adult writers find difficulty with conclusions, perhaps because they
require a generalized synthesis of the text written so far (Hayes & Olinghouse,
2015). Jenna’s framing of her chemistry report (see Table 7.1) can be character-
ized as fully hierarchical (both the global and local levels are linked to the larger
theme), but it does not yet meet criteria for a fully developed expository text.
That is, she produces instances of top-down organization through clause packages,
which by definition are nested (move-on-expand-conclusion or a more truncated
move-on-expand). However, her global text organization and information flow is
not always signaled by explicit transitions (Katzenberger, 2004). These transitions
vary from clear-cut (In this lab, I predicted, to begin, lastly, after completing the hydrogen
lab, In this lab I learned) to ambiguity (e.g., the use of then as a general discourse signal
to mark the sequence of procedures), to implicit where the reader must infer that a
topic transition is occurring.
Best Practices
This section describes best practices, which: (1) are consistent with the conceptual
frame presented in this chapter; (2) offer potential curriculum effectiveness (Gra-
ham et al., 2016); and (3) align with the NGSS, CCSS, and the reauthorized ESSA
regulations for progress monitoring of EL students.
Engaging Students in Developing Scientific Understandings

Motivates Learning and Use of the Science Register
The NGSS practices require students to build their own data set, make sense of it,
and experience firsthand, scientific discovery. These standards presuppose engage-
ment because rich scientific experiences lead to robust scientific representations,
which include both oral and written language. Writing is an explicit requirement
of some NGSS practices (e.g., Standard 8), but writing crosscuts through all of the
standards (NGSS, 2013). From this perspective, writing and scientific investigation
are tandem processes, since students record their scientific thinking as exempli-
fied by writing down their predictions. Thus, writing serves as a tool for students
to communicate what they think and also serves as a tool for students to cap-
ture their thinking at any given moment. However, as students proceed with their
investigations, they may use “unscientific language” both orally and in writing as
they express their observations and insights. The absence of a fully formed science
register with its precision and efficiency of expression cannot be regarded as a
deficiency. Students, both EL and native English-speaking students, can be encour-

aged to recast their budding scientific expressions with the increasing precision
and efficiency that the science register affords. Instructional recommendations are
highlighted for the explicit teaching of science vocabulary, syntactic and textual
complexity, and writing to promote engagement and motivation in student use of
the multiple language levels.
Teach Science Vocabulary

The specialized vocabulary of science is a challenge for all students (Fang, 2006), but
its mastery is particularly daunting for EL students who are recent immigrants to
the United States (DiCerbo et al., 2014). These students, who may arrive equipped
with different levels of literacy knowledge in their native language, are developing
proficiency in academic language skills in a new second language. While transla-
tion from Spanish (L1) to English (L2) may be deemed productive in the access of
some high frequency vocabulary for the conversational register, when it comes to
science terminology, direct and literal transference between languages is not likely
to be effective, particularly if the EL student does not have the concept to some
degree (Miller, 2009). That is, in science, the understanding of word meanings may
necessitate grasping of the corresponding conceptual representations. For example,
the word ‘density,’ which has a cognate in Spanish, ‘densidad,’ may necessitate the
experience of measuring the differences in such a trait in liquids and solids. Even
when translation equivalents are available, they can present further obstacles to
comprehension. For instance, words that may seem to be cognates, like argument
(disagreement; in Spanish: disputa or pelea) and argumento (reasoning) can differ in
meaning across the two languages an EL student speaks.
Selecting Science Words to Teach

One major question that arises in teaching science vocabulary for all students is the
role of preteaching, which is a common practice with both EL and non-EL stu-
dents, yet the efficacy of this practice is unclear. Nagy and Hiebert (2011) challenge
the preteaching notion as simplistic. Instead, they offer a conceptual framework for
considering “the impact of how words relate to the knowledge that students are
supposed to be gaining” (p. 397) relative to instructional aims, content and contexts.
Teachers should consider four factors:
1. The word’s academic role, such as how often it occurs in the science register
being taught.
2. The word’s relationship to other words that the student knows or needs to
know; for example, word families are easier for students to infer meanings
from, such as place-replacing-replaced-replacement (see Greene & Coxhead (2015)
for science word families), than are words with limited family relationships,
such as theme-thematic. Teachers can make word-family relationships explicit
teachers, thus supporting students’ development of metalinguistic awareness
(see Snow, 2010).
3. The extent to which the student can use the word in a variety of situations and,
if not, the extent to which the word can be explained in a “student-friendly”
way (see Beck et al., 2013) to make meaning conceptually transparent.
4. The extent to which the student needs to know the word for the specific writ-
ing/reading activity and the frequency with which the word will be encoun-
tered again.
A teacher implementing Nagy and Hiebert’s word-selection factors for inst-

ructing EL students might need tools in order to select appropriate vocabulary.
Townsend and Kiernan (2015) suggest that corpus linguistic studies may prove
useful for this purpose. For example, Davies (2009) developed the Word and Phrase
Tool, which allows the search of specific word properties, like frequency. This web-
based utility identifies the most frequent academic words in a text. When selecting
a particular target word, it also lists synonyms, antonyms, parts of speech, words
that occur frequently with it, and sentences from different genres using the word.
The tool is sufficiently versatile to allow for the identification of discipline-specific
science vocabulary, as well. It is important to note, however, that this particular
tool includes English-only words. In addition, Davies (2009) makes available two
Spanish corpora and a Portuguese corpus that may prove useful in identifying true
cognates, if the desire is to make connections across the word forms in an EL stu-
dent’s two languages. Additionally, Gardner and Davies (2014) provide free access
to searchable, web-based, academic vocabulary lists. Similar to Nagy and Hiebert,
Graves et al. (2013) offer Selecting Words for Instruction from Texts (SWIT) for
identifying words to teach. This approach requires the classification of words into
one of four categories: (1) essential words (crucial for understanding the text); (2)
valuable words (broad and of general utility in reading science informational texts);
(3) accessible words (common or high frequency); and (4) imported words (help
learning from the text but are not included). These four types of words should be
explicitly explained in student-friendly ways. Teachers implementing the SWIT
approach must first determine words unfamiliar to their EL students and then
proceed to classify these unfamiliar words into the four types of word categories.
The Influence of Culture in Acquiring Science Vocabulary

Another factor that influences vocabulary learning in EL students is the essential
role of culture. Culturally relevant content, or materials that integrate a student’s
funds of knowledge, may facilitate the activation of prior knowledge to assist in the
retention of new vocabulary and in text comprehension (Conrad, Gong, Sipp, &
Wright, 2004; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992), as well as influence transla-
tion and transcription in writing. One way to accomplish connectivity between
home language and practices and schools is to create extensions of vocabulary
to everyday life. For instruction to become culturally responsive, teachers must
develop knowledge of strategies and resources required in EL students’ households,
or their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992). In turn, this knowledge may result
in EL students demonstrating more engagement and more motivation and taking
ownership over their own learning.
As an example of ownership in science learning, a two-year study conducted

in New Zealand (Parkinson, Doyle, Cowie, Otrel-Cass, & Glynn, 2011), employed
a “boundary object” (p. 5), a home learning book, to obtain information about
Māori students’ knowledge and experiences related to the ocean. From a simple,
home sharing activity on experiences related to the ocean, complex scientific top-
ics emerged, like conservation, protectionism, or cultural practices related to fishing.
Identification of familiar home vocabulary also can be revealing and provide teach-
ers with information about how to extend topics. Other models have incorporated
family science nights and mathematics home study bags to engage families with the
curriculum. Parkinson et al. (2011) suggest that time must be set aside for home
learning to be shared in order for curricula to be enriched.
Repeated Experiences With Key Science Vocabulary

In addition to the Nagy and Hiebert factors and cultural relevance, research shows
that multiple experiences with key science vocabulary items are critical so that the
EL students can link concepts to their representations in both L1 and L2 (Bedore &
Peña, 2011). A variety of instructional interventions have strengthened this con-
nection. For instance, Word Generation (Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009), is a
vocabulary program that provides direct instruction in general purpose academic
vocabulary words across content areas (i.e., language arts, mathematics, science,
and social studies). More recently, an extension to the science register is included
as a supplement. Teachers utilizing the Science Generation (SciGen) program
will encounter teaching materials for scientific concepts and related scientific-
specialized vocabulary that would be learned in middle school. The SciGen pro-
gram also provides opportunities for all learners to read, write, discuss, and build
arguments about scientific topics in multiple semantic contexts. All are activities
that require the integration of many academic language levels, including syntactic
and textual complexity.
Teach Syntactic and Textual Complexity

As a start, ask whether the content complexity generated at the linguistic level
through dense ENPs, complex subordinated clauses, and e-chains stand as a bar-
rier to conceptual understanding. As noted earlier, dense ENPs (see Table 7.2)
are relatively common in science texts and tests, especially in the higher grades
(Fang, 2006; Fang, Scheppegrell, & Moore, 2014). Unpacking test and text sen-
tences for EL students assumes that the requisite conceptual and global text
organization knowledge is accessible to them. If so, they then must apply a
flexible repertoire of cognitive, linguistic, and text level resources to maintain
and efficiently manage the lexical and semantic relationships embedded in the
dense ENPs inherent in the language of the science register. They must also
learn how to construct sentences that are more complex, including the building
of e-chains, if they are to express their understandings more precisely (see Sad-
dler, 2012, for strategies to support students in their writing of more complex
sentences). Important questions to ask are whether teachers do, or should, model
the register and its use in both texts and tests and whether they provide opportu-
nities for students to be aware of multiple representations of science knowledge,
including the science register.
At any given point in science learning, students may not be in full command—
for production and comprehension—of the science register until they understand
the science. Teachers might find it beneficial to construct tasks for which students
deploy all of their diverse repertories of science knowledge and skills. Since science
proficiency includes a blend of understanding about how and when to use scien-
tific symbolism, natural language, and visual displays, students can make connec-
tions among all three semiotic systems; each has its own conventions and each poses
specific challenges (Lemke, 1990; O’Halloran, 2005). EL students can be encour-
aged to mix and mesh elements of their oral and written language, thus utiliz-
ing all of their linguistic and cultural resources as tools to support their academic
language development and literacy learning (Cummins, 2014). That is, while con-
structing their scientific understanding, students should be encouraged to commu-
nicate those understandings about the multiple levels of language by employing all
of their communicative resources—linguistic, symbolic, and gestural. For example,
writing individual science journal entries, drawing scientific procedures, or play-
ing charades to enact meanings of words learned might be beneficial (Ardasheva &
Tretter, 2017).
Best practices for science instruction require that, to encourage engagement,
EL students focus first and foremost on grasping and solving the scientific prob-
lem at hand, using all of their resources—language and nonlanguage. The practice
of segregating EL students in one location during science instruction, so that the
material can be “watered down” and focused primarily on rote memorization and
procedures, should be avoided for all learners.
Teach Science Writing Explicitly

Students’ experiences with writing play a significant role in their writing achieve-
ment (Mo & Troia, 2017). Learning to write in the science register can be daunt-
ing for all struggling writers but notably for many EL students, where the depth
of academic and science-specific language levels may vary more in comparison to
monolingual peers. Teachers also face a quandary because they are the gatekeepers
charged with implementing evidence-based instructional practices that assimilate
writing into the science register.
As a start to resolving the dilemma, best practices require that science teach-
ers explicitly teach the writing components as described in this chapter (Hayes &
Berninger, 2014; Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015) and that connections between the
multiple levels of oral language and written language be forged—early and often
(Graham et al., 2016). All students should be given multiple opportunities to express
their scientific ideas, predictions, observations, and discoveries orally and in writing,
even though those expressions may not align with mastery of the science register.
Moreover, all students need to be taught note-taking strategies, but especially EL
students, since note taking in a second language can be cognitively demanding
(Piolat, Olive, & Kellogg, 2005). Finally, opportunities to practice writing frequently
and for varied purposes must be presented, as these are positively related with writ-
ing achievement (Mo & Troia, 2017).
In summary, as Jenna’s chemistry report illuminates, in engaging with the sci-
ence register the integration of coherence and cohesion in generating expository
texts requires advanced planning combined with an array of complex writing pro-
cesses. Writers must also constantly attend to evaluating how adequately they are
succeeding in achieving their writing goal and revise in flexibly adaptive ways, an
ability that can be explicitly taught (see Berninger & Chanquoy, 2012).
Alternatives to Standardized Tests for EL Students to

Demonstrate Their Scientific Knowledge
Assessments of scientific knowledge (formative and summative) are valid when they
permit students to demonstrate what they know about the science and not solely
what they know about the science register (see chapters in this volume by Got-
wals & Ezzo; Covitt & Anderson; and Wilson & Toyama). Best practices require that
teachers identify the many science understandings and resources and repertories
of each student and then determine how best to leverage those resources so that
each student can take full advantage of the learning opportunities and the assess-
ments presented in classrooms. However, the linguistic complexity of test items may
obstruct students’ comprehension of the items, and thus students may not be able to
demonstrate what they do know.
Most often on standardized assessments, advanced knowledge and the integra-
tion of the multiple levels of language are required by students to understand test
items. Best practices require that teachers question the validity of tests, for example,
as follows: Does the item measure knowledge of a scientific principle or process
knowledge of the science register and English linguistic or textual complexity? For
EL students, the larger question is whether the language challenges built into the
test items themselves attenuate students’ opportunities to demonstrate what they
do know about the science these instruments assess. Do students know the science
content but are unable to formulate/demonstrate their knowledge as required by
the test (e.g. in written form)? Perhaps students fail to understand what the test
item requires because they do not possess the linguistic, cultural, and background
knowledge assumed by the test item. Alternatively, they have partial knowledge that
is not well coordinated. Best practices require that teachers provide alternatives to
formal assessments with written forms of representation, such as graphical images,
nonverbal figures, and or manipulatives, to determine what EL students do know
about scientific content.

In this chapter, we have highlighted the critical functions that the multiple levels
of language play in scientific writing in general and, specifically, in the thinking,
development, and expression of scientific literacy by all students and in particular EL
students. Writing is a sociocognitive and sociolinguistic behavior that serves as the
medium of expression of self to others through which concepts are translated and
transcribed into written language. Writing plays a central role in the communica-
tion of ideas, a point highlighted by the NGSS (2013). Nonetheless, writing has
received minimal attention by researchers investigating how students learn to do
science through literacy and even less notice in how EL students learn to employ
writing effectively in scientific activities. Effective writing in any disciplinary domain
requires sensitivity to the multiple levels of language. In this chapter we focused on
five interrelated topics: (1) the implications of the NGSS (2013) for learning to write
in the science register; (2) the multiple dimensions of language (Abbott, Berninger,
Fayol, 2010) as central for our understanding the varied purposes of science literacy;
(3) an approach to science as a specialized academic language register that all students,
but especially EL students, must master for procuring scientific literacy; (4) a writing
model that interfaces with the multiple language levels of the science register, further
illustrated through a chemistry report drafted by a 15-year-old monolingual English-
speaking female; and (5) a discussion of best practices that have the potential to meet
the individual writing needs of EL students in doing science. The chapter suggests
instructional directions for teachers to consider as they orchestrate multiple language
levels in science writing and address the needs of EL students who are learning to
navigate writing within the science register.
Implications
Educational reform is in a period of uncertainty. The political polarization in the
United States is contributing to questions about what will be possible to accom-
plish with the new ESSA, the CCSS, and the NGSS. For example, it is unknown
whether the best intentions of ESSA, CCSS, and NGSS will be implemented in
ways that will better reconcile the existing access–achievement gap and lead to
fulfillment of the vision in which American students excel internationally. Even if
the ESSA is implemented fully by states, educational reform will take more than a
decade, perhaps even a generation; and this time line assumes that the policy is not
dramatically altered with each new presidency and Congress.
We do not have the crystal ball that would allow us to see into the future. We
anticipate that our colleagues in science, literacy, and EL education will continue
to appreciate the centrality of academic language learning for academic success. In
real-life contexts, language operates as a synergetic system of multiple levels, always
in the service of communication; therefore, it is not possible to separate language
and communication from their social and academic discourse functions.
References
Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of
language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology,102, 281–298.
Ardasheva,Y., & Tretter, T. (2017). Developing science-specific, technical vocabulary of high
school newcomer English learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingual-
ism, 20, 252–271.
Arnon, A., McCauley, S., & Christiansen, M. (2017). Digging up the building blocks of lan-
guage: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases, Journal of Memory and Language,
92, 265–280.
August, D., Goldenberg, C., Saunders, W. M., & Dressler, C. (2010). Recent research on
English language and literacy instruction. In M. Shatz & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), The edu-
cation of English language learners: Research to practice (pp. 272–297). New York: Guildford.
Avenia-Tapper, B., & Llosa, L. (2015). Construct relevant or irrelevant? The role of linguistic
complexity in the assessment of English language learners’ science knowledge. Educational
Assessment, 20, 95–111.
Bahr, R. H., Silliman, E. R., & Berninger,V.W. (2009).What spelling errors have to tell about
vocabulary learning. In C. Wood & V. Connelly (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on reading
and spelling (pp. 109–129). New York: Routledge.
Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. A. (2007). A conceptual framework of academic English language for
broad application to education. In A.L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting
academic English to the test (pp. 68–102). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Balthazar, C. H., & Scott, C. M. (2017). Complex sentence intervention. In R. J. McCauley,
M. E. Fey, & R. B. Gillam (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children (2nd ed., pp.
349–386). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013).Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Bedore, L., & Peña, E. (2011). Ways with words: Learning a second language vocabulary. In
M. Shatz & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), The education of English language learners: Research to
practice (pp. 87–107). New York: Guilford Press.
Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading
comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in grades
1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 635–665.
Berninger,V.W., & Chanquoy, L. (2012).What writing is and how it changes across early and
middle childhood development. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.),
Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 65–84). New York: Psychology Press.
Biber, D., & Clark, V. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun
phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In T. Fanego, M. J. Lopez-Couso,
and J. Perez-Guerra (Eds.), English historical syntax and morphology (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation
to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45,
5–35.
Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content-first” approach
to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 529–553.
Buxton, C. A., Allexsaht-Snider, M., Suriel, R., Kayumova, S., Choi,Y. J., Bouton, B., & Baker,
M. (2013). Using educative assessments to support science teaching for middle school
English-language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 347–366.
Buxton, C., Cardozo-Gaibisso, L., Xia,Y., & Li, J. (2017). How perspectives from linguistically
diverse classrooms can help all students unlock the language of science. In L. Bryan & K.
Tobin (Eds.), 13 questions: Reframing education’s conversation: Science. New York: Peter Lang.
Carlisle, J. F. (2007). Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and read-
ing comprehension. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary
acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 78–103). New York: Guilford Press.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English
language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from
www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Conrad, N.K., Gong, Y., Sipp, L., & Wright, L. (2004). Using text talk as a gateway to cul-
turally responsive teaching. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31, 187–192. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000012137.43147.af
Coxhead, A. (2000), A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34: 213–238.
doi:10.2307/3587951
Cummins, J. (2014). Beyond language: Academic communication and student success. Lin-
guistics and Education, 26, 145–154.
Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word corpus of contemporary American English
(1990-2008+): Design, architecture and linguistic insight. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 14, 159–190.
DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature
on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research,
84, 446–482.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International
Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520.
Fang, Z., Scheppegrell, M. J., & Moore, J. (2014). The linguistic challenge of learning across
academic disciplines. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.),
Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 302–322). New
York: Guilford Press.
Fayol, M. (2016). From language to text: The development and learning of translation. In
C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.,
pp. 130–143). New York: Guilford Press.
Frantz, R. S., Starr, L. E., & Bailey, A. L. (2015). Syntactic complexity as an aspect of text
complexity. Educational Researcher, 44, 387–393.
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014).A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35, 305–327.
Gibbons, S. P. (2003). Mediating language learning:Teacher interactions with ESL students in
a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247–273. doi:10.2307/3588504
Goodrich, J. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2017). Language-independent and language-specific aspects
of early literacy: An evaluation of the common underlying proficiency model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 109(6), 782–973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000179
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chambers, A. B. (2016). Evidence-based practice and writing
instruction: A review of reviews. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 211–226). New York: Guilford Press.
Greene, J. W., & Coxhead, A. (2015). Academic vocabulary for middle school students: Research-
based lists and strategies for key content areas. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects
on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction,
19(4), 354–367.
Hayes, J. R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling: Modeling early writing development. Journal
of Writing Research, 3, 73–92.
Hayes, J. R., & Berninger,V. (2014). Cognitive processes in writing: A framework. In B. Arfé,
J. Dockrell, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Writing development and instruction in children with hearing,
speech, and language disorders (pp. 3–15). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hayes, J. R., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2015). Can cognitive writing models inform the design of
the Common Core State Standards? The Elementary School Journal, 115, 480–497.
James, K. H., Jao, R. J., & Berninger,V. (2016). The development of the multileveled writing
systems of the brain. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of
writing research (2nd ed., pp. 116–129). New York: Guilford Press.
Justice, L., & Ezell, H. (2016) The syntax handbook: Everything you learned about syntax but forgot
(2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kachchaf, R., Noble, T., Rosebery, A., O’Connor, C., Warren, B., & Wang,Y. (2016). A closer
look at linguistic complexity: Pinpointing individual linguistic features of science multiple-
choice items associated with English language learner performance. Bilingual Research
Journal, 39, 152–166.
Karlsson, F. (2007). Constraints on multiple initial embedding of clauses. International Journal
of Corpus Linguistics, 12, 107–118.
Katzenberger, I. (2004). The development of clause packaging in spoken and written texts.
Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1921–1948.
Katzenberger, I. (2005). The super-structure of written expository texts: A developmental
perspective. In D. Ravid & B. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language develop-
ment (essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp. 327–336). New York: Springer.
Lee, O., Mahotiere, M., Salinas, A., Penfield, R. D., & Maerten-Rivera, J. (2009). Science
writing achievement among English language learners: Results of three-year interven-
tion in urban elementary schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 32, 153–167.
42, 223–233.
Lemke, J. L. (1990).Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publish-
ing Corporation.
Miller, J. (2009).Teaching refugee learners with interrupted education in science:Vocabulary,
literacy and pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 571–592.
Mo, Y., & Troia, G. (2017). Predicting students’ writing performance on the NAEP from
student- and state-level variables. Reading and Writing, 30, 739–770.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a Qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31,
132–141.
Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2014). Morphological knowledge and literacy
acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 3–12.
Nagy, W. E., & Hiebert, E. H. (2011). Towards a theory of word selection. In M. L. Kamil,
P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV). New
York: Routledge.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012) Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language
acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy:
Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi:10.17226/23595
Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Practice 8 obtaining, evaluating, and communicating
information. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20
F%20%20Science%20an d%20Engineering%20Practices%20in%20the%20NGSS%20-
%20FINAL%20060513.pdf
Next Generation Science Standards. (2016). Phenomena. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.
org/resources/phenomena
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. Lon-
don/New York: Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2015). The language of learning mathematics: A multimodal perspec-
tive. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 63–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmathb.2014.09.002
Parkinson, A., Doyle, J., Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., & Glynn, T. (2011). Engaging with chil-
dren’s science learning home learning books. Teaching and Learning, 1, 3–9.
Perin, D., De La Paz, S., Piantedosi, K. W., & Peercy, M. M. (2017). The writing of language
minority students: A literature review on its relation to oral proficiency. In Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 33(5), 465-483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1247399
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age:
A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30, 3–26.
Ravid, D., Dromi, E., & Kotler, P. (2010). Linguistic complexity in school-age text produc-
tion: Expository versus mathematical discourse. In M. A. Nippold & C. M. Scott (Eds.),
Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 123–154). New York: Psychology
Press.
Ray, A. B., Graham, S., Houston, J. D., & Harris, K. R. (2016).Teachers’ use of writing to sup-
port students’ learning in middle school: A national survey in the United States. Reading
and Writing, 29, 1039–1068.
Richards, T.L., Berninger,V. W., & Fayol, M. (2012). The writing brain of normal child writ-
ers and children with writing disabilities: Generating ideas and transcribing them through
the orthographic loop. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing:
A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 85–105). New York: Psychology Press.
Saddler, B. (2012). Teacher’s guide to effective sentence writing. New York: Guilford Press.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & Go, A. L. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A func-
tional approach. Language Arts, 84, 529–538.
Scott, C. and Balthazar, C. (2010).The grammar of information challenges for older students
with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30, 288–307.
Scott, C. M., & Koonce, N. M. (2014). Syntactic contributions to literacy learning. In C. A.
Stone, E. R. Silliman, G. P. Wallach, & B. J. Ehren (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy:
Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 283–301). New York: Guilford Press.
Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R. H., Nagy, W., & Berninger, V. (2018). Language bases of spelling
in writing during early and middle childhood: Grounding applications to struggling
writers in typical writing development. In B. Miller, P. McCardle, & V. Connelly (Eds.),
Writing development in struggling learners: Understanding the needs of writers across the lifecourse
(pp. 99–119). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Silliman, E. R., Brea-Spahn, M. R., & Danzak, R. L. (2016, November). Academic writing in
math and social studies by students with LLD: Orchestrating language complexity. Short course
presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Asso-
ciation, Philadelphia, PA.
Silliman, E., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2015). Challenges of the academic language register for
students with language learning disabilities. In R. Bahr & E. R. Silliman (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of communication disorders (pp. 291–302). New York/Oxford: Routledge Taylor
& Francis.
Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of learning about science. Science,
328(5977), 450–452.
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language
among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2,
325–344.
Townsend, D., & Kiernan, D. (2015). Selecting academic vocabulary words worth learning.
The Reading Teacher, 69, 113–118.
Wilkinson, L.C., & Silliman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M.
Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III,
pp. 337–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., &
Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading
Research Quarterly, 39, 347–352.
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and
science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of
Science Education, 28, 291–314.
PART III
Summative and Formative

Assessment in the STEM
Disciplines
8
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
OF MATHEMATICS AND
LANGUAGE
Applying Companion Learning
Progressions to Reveal Greater
Insights to Teachers
Caroline Wylie, Malcolm Bauer, Alison L. Bailey,

and Margaret Heritage
Focus Points
• With the advent of college- and career-ready standards, the language demands
on students and on English learners (ELs) in particular have increased, with
greater focus on explanation discourse practices in mathematics instruction
and assessment.
• Learning progressions trace the development of students’ thinking in relation
to core ideas and principles in a domain from rudimentary to sophisticated
levels. They support teachers’ ability to engage in “interpretive listening,” that
is, to gain insight into student understanding.
• Since the ability to explain one’s mathematical thinking is an important skill
in mathematics standards and explanation more generally is an important lan-
guage development skill, we explored the joint application of two learning
progressions.
• Applying companion progressions of proportional reasoning and explanation,
we found that few students in our sample were able to convey high levels of
mathematical knowledge without corresponding high levels of explanation
abilities.
• Formative assessment is part of classroom practice and focuses on learning as
it is taking place. Using companion progressions during formative assessment,
teachers may be better able to target instructional next steps that are high-
lighted by different configurations of student performance.
• Teachers will need ongoing support to understand progressions and how they
relate to standards.
144 Caroline Wylie et al.
Chapter Purpose
This chapter explores the joint application of the Proportional Reasoning Learning
Progression developed by researchers at Educational Testing Service (ETS) and the
language progressions created via the Dynamic Language Learning Progressions pro-
ject at the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA). Specifically, it focuses
on attempts to apply both mathematics content and language learning progres-
sions to student mathematics tasks to describe how companion progressions can
be used for the purpose of formative assessment and instructional planning and to
inform how teachers engage students in discussions. Mathematics learning pro-
gressions can support teacher understanding of what strategies students are using,
provide teachers with a broader understanding of the range of strategies that stu-
dents might use, and support their instructional planning around how to deepen
and develop students’ understanding. Language learning progressions can provide
insight into the sophistication of student explanations, which may help teach-
ers understand whether a student’s mathematical explanation is lacking due to
a relatively naïve understanding of the mathematics or the challenge to put into
words his or her own thinking. While the study we describe includes analyses of
mathematical explanations predominantly written by English-speaking students,
our work illustrates the potential benefits of applying companion progressions for
all students. Specifically, companion progressions hold promise in providing more
targeted feedback and instruction to support improved content and language
learning for EL students.
Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010) have
established clear expectations for mathematical achievement, as well as expectations
for what students need to do with language as they engage in mathematics learn-
ing. Students must acquire specialized mathematics vocabulary and participate in
extended discourse in mathematics to learn and also to communicate their learning
(Moschkovich, 2012). While these language demands are inherent in the standards
for all students, they take on a particular salience for EL students, who are learning
content and language simultaneously (Bailey & Heritage, 2014).
In the context of CCSS, assessment aligned with the mathematics standards
relies to a great degree on the oral and written use of language (Bailey, Blackstock-
Bernstein, & Heritage, 2015). Standards-based assessment are now (1) multipart
rather than multichoice, (2) require students not only to work through word prob-
lems but to create their own text in providing an answer, and more specifically, (3)
require students to display their mathematical understanding and reasoning in writ-
ten explanations for their answers (for example, see Smarter Balanced practice test
items, practice.smarterbalanced.org) (Bailey, 2017). In the same way, classroom forma-
tive assessment relies on what students say or write in terms of their explanations to
provide evidence to teachers of how student learning is developing. By employing
the intersection between mathematics and language progressions, we hypothesize
that teachers will be better able to engage in formative assessment, with corre-
sponding benefits for the instruction of all students but with particular relevance to
meeting the needs of EL students. Our goal in the descriptions of learning progres-
sions and their potential to support teaching, learning, and formative assessment is
Formative Assessment: Math and Language 145
to illustrate how teachers could use the companion progressions approach in their
daily classroom practice and to suggest some preliminary thoughts around what
would be necessary to make such a practice accessible and useable.
We begin the chapter with a discussion of formative assessment and the place of
learning progressions in this assessment approach. We then review prior work on
learning progressions in mathematics and language learning in order to motivate
our work on two progressions—one on mathematics on proportional reasoning
and the other on explanation in language learning. We then discuss the use of the
proportional reasoning progression applied to a specific item and sample of student
responses followed by an exploratory analysis connecting the two progressions and
describe the possible added value of using the two together.We present an example
of a mathematical explanation from an EL student in response to a different prompt
to illustrate how an analysis of both the mathematics and the language usage tied
to companion progressions can be integrated to inform next instructional steps.
Finally, we describe potential formative assessment practices that stem from this
early exploration.
Formative Assessment
Formative assessment focuses on eliciting evidence of understanding for students
and teachers while student learning is still in progress. It is assessment that is part
of everyday classroom practice; its purpose is to assist teachers and students to
advance learning. In the 1980s (Crooks, 1988; Natriello, 1987; Sadler, 1989), form-
ative assessment was seen as a way to connect the two assessment activities of
making judgments about student learning and providing feedback to students to
move learning forward. A major landmark in establishing formative assessment as
an explicit domain of practice was Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam’s research synthe-
sis (Black & Wiliam, 1998), which Shepard (2009) characterized as encompassing
“diverse bodies of research, including studies addressing: teachers’ assessment prac-
tices, students’ self-perception and achievement motivation, classroom discourse
practices, quality of assessment tasks and teacher questioning, and the quality of
feedback” (p. 32).
While there are a variety of perspectives on the definition and purpose of learn-
ing progressions, there is a consensus view that, in essence, learning progressions
trace development of students’ thinking in relation to core ideas and principles
in a domain, shifting from rudimentary to increasingly sophisticated (Corcoran,
Mosher, & Rogat, 2009). They reflect the transitions or incremental changes in
student thinking over time. Unlike grade-level standards, progressions are not
prescriptive, but rather they convey a sequence of “expected tendencies” in stu-
dent learning along a continuum of developing expertise (Confrey & Maloney,
2010). Furthermore, standards do not illuminate how partial or naïve understand-
ings might present themselves. Partial or naïve understandings are a prime interest
in formative assessment; teachers need to understand what these are in order to
move students to more complete understandings (Heritage, 2008; CCSSO, 2008;
Sztajn, Confrey, Wilson, & Edgington, 2012). It is important to note, however, that
a learning progression is not intended to be a prescription for how all students
will develop understanding of an important concept in a linear sequence. Students

may simultaneously display evidence of understanding that is represented by several
levels of the learning progression, depending on the complexity of a question or
task and the nature of the concepts used in the item or task, or having displayed
evidence consistently at one level, regress to a lower level when presented with a
new context or type of problem. With the extension of progressions to their joint
application in different areas of learning, as we are exploring here, the assumed
course of learning becomes even more complicated.
In general, progressions are based on research about how students’ learning
within a concept advances. Researchers develop hypotheses about how student
understanding emerges and develops, which are then tested empirically to gather
evidence of construct validity (Corcoran et al., 2009).To date, much of the work on
learning progressions has been conducted in the context of mathematics and sci-
ence (e.g., Smith,Wiser, Anderson, Krajcik, & Coppola, 2004;Wylie, Arieli-Attali, &
Bauer, 2014), although interest is emerging in other areas, such as English language
arts (Bailey & Heritage, 2008; Song, Deane, Graf, & van Rijn, 2013), modern for-
eign languages (Black & Jones, 2006), and in English language development for EL
students (Bailey & Heritage, 2014).
The value of progressions for formative assessment is that they offer teachers a
“cognitive lens” through which they can view evidence of student learning, make
hypotheses about students’ current status with respect to specific points of develop-
ment (e.g., the transitions or changes in thinking and skills), as well as their profile
of partial understandings, and based on this information take pedagogical action
to advance learning (Heritage, 2008). Additionally, progressions provide what Ball
and others have described as “horizon knowledge”—a sense of where learning is
going beyond what might be relevant to a particular grade level (Ball, Thames, &
Phelps, 2008). This knowledge is particularly important for formative assessment
and instruction in instances where students’ learning has progressed beyond the
specific grade-level standards.
In the next sections, we provide background on research and theory that informs
the conceptualization and development of the Proportional Reasoning Learning Pro-
gression and the Dynamic Language Learning Progressions.
Background on Mathematics Progressions

We now describe in more detail a learning progression on proportional reasoning,
since it is the mathematics component of the companion English–mathematics
progression that is the focus of this chapter. Baxter and Junker (2001) proposed a
Proportional Reasoning Learning Progression that primarily relies on strategies, and this
model was later empirically supported in Weaver and Junker (2004).They observed
that students tend to initially bring a qualitative-intuitive approach to problems
involving proportions, reasoning without mathematizing the situation. For exam-
ple, a student who has not yet mastered ratios may be able to explain how to vary
either the amount of water or the amount of punch mixture to make a drink more
or less sweet but cannot describe the solution using numbers. At a more advanced
level, students recognize the importance of the numbers in the ratio. However,
initially as understanding develops a student may apply additive approaches rather
than multiplicative strategies, leading to the misconception, constant additive differ-
ences strategy, that has been identified by various researchers (e.g., Baxter & Junker,
2001; Noelting, 1980). This incorrect strategy can lead students to argue that the
ratios 2:3 and 3:4 are equivalent since the difference between the two quantities in
each ratio is the same. Students can use more or less sophisticated approaches—
from creating models or representations of the situation (using objects or diagrams),
using build-up (scale-up) strategies to calculating unit rates—to solve problems.
The build-up strategy is mathematically correct, unlike the additive misconception.
Using a build-up strategy a student is able to reason about a problem such as the
following: If four students can sit around a table, how many tables are needed for
12 students? A student can “build up” a solution, either with a diagram or through
writing an explanation, noting that if four students can sit at one table, then eight
students can sit at two tables, and 12 students can sit at three tables. As students have
more experience with multiple strategies, depending on the problem type and type
of unit rate (integer or not), they come to understand the multiplicative structure of
ratios and then ultimately learn to use more sophisticated strategies such as calculat-
ing unit rates or writing an equation.
In this progression, as in others, there are two types of transitions: concep-
tual transitions and fluency transitions. A conceptual transition or a conceptual
jump involves a distinct shift in understanding, while a fluency transition consists
of establishing a deeper understanding of concept ratio or proportional reason-
ing situation, which mostly manifests itself through more flexible procedural skills
and representational fluency. While the transitions from level 1 to level 2 and from
level 2 to level 3 involve a conceptual jump, the transitions from level 3 to level 4
and then to level 5 are more focused on increasingly deeper understanding of the
concepts acquired in level 3 and on gaining broader procedural skills and represen-
tational fluency. The transition from level 1 to level 2 requires a shift in perceiving
the situation from a holistic intuitive way to perceiving the situation as one that can
be modeled mathematically using ratios. The second transition also requires a leap
in understanding from an additive perception to a multiplicative view of the rela-
tionship between the quantities. In level 3, students know how to work with a pair
of ratios (i.e., the full proportional relationship); however, they still cannot apply it
either to complex situations that include more than two ratios or to when the unit
rate is not an integer. Hence the two advanced levels are achieved by acquiring
procedural and representational skills leading to deeper conceptual understanding.
For the analysis presented in this chapter, we focused on the first four levels of this
learning progression.
As part of the development of items mapped to proportional reasoning learning
progression, we engaged in the use of evidence-centered design principles (e.g.,
Mislevy, Almond, & Lukas, 2003) to identify the claims that we wanted to meas-
ure with respect to the learning progression, the nature of the evidence needed to
support those claims, and the types of items that would elicit evidence of student
understanding. We collected content validity evidence for those items from outside
experts. We drew on previous work by Graf and colleagues (van Rijn, Graf, &
Deane, 2014; Graf & van Rijn, 2016), who have described one component of the
larger validation process for progressions as the “recovery of the learning progres-
sions,” which entails examining “whether or not the data support the sequence as
well as the specification of the levels” (p. 9), along with an exploration of an “alter-
native account for a pattern of results” (p. 10).
We conducted a large online field test with middle school students of 98 items
that mapped to the Proportional Reasoning Learning Progression (Wylie, Bauer, &
Arieli-Attali, 2015). We collected responses for each item from at least 600 students
from across 59 volunteer schools throughout the U.S.The items included multiple-
choice, numeric-fill-in-the-blank, and short constructed response items. The items
were designed to target different levels of the progression. As such, we treated them
as independent when we used them to estimate students’ demonstrated level in the
learning progression with item response theory.
Using a three-parameter-logistic item response model, items were placed on a
theta scale grouped by predicted learning progression level. Theta is an estimate of
(latent) ability that in this case ranges from about −4 to 4 (mean = 0, std = 1). We
developed a task progression map (Van Rijn et al., 2014) that places each item at the
ability (theta) level where there is a probability of 65% for students at this level to
answer the item correctly. For example, an item that is placed at theta = 1.0 means
that students at ability level of one standard deviation above the mean have 65%
probability of answering this item correctly. Theta can be considered a proxy for
level of the progression—if items from each predicted progression level are shown
to best reflect a specific range of ability level, and these ranges, although somewhat
overlapping, are ordered according to the order of the hypothesized learning pro-
gression, then we have some evidence that we can use items to measure the levels.
Appendix 8B shows the item maps for the Proportional Reasoning Learning Progres-
sion, with ordering of items by level as we predicted.
Background on Language Learning Progressions

The learning progressions for language proposed in the past have been based on
syntheses of prior research on language development, but not to our knowledge
empirically based before the start of the Dynamic Language Learning Progressions
(DLLP) project’s efforts to collect samples of student explanations in both academic
and nonacademic contexts (Bailey & Heritage, 2014). Although developmental tra-
jectories of children’s language have been intensively studied throughout children’s
early years, there is surprisingly little research on the continued development of
children’s language throughout the school-age years. While the language develop-
ment of EL students has been a focus, this research tends to be conducted with the
large-scale, standardized assessments administered by school districts or states (e.g.,
Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Slama, 2012) and mandated annually by the federal
government in both the current and immediate past reauthorizations of the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015), whereas, the
individual developmental trajectories of EL students’ language have largely gone
ignored, such that we know very little about the progression of language by school-
age students who are acquiring English alongside academic content (Hoff, 2013;
Bailey & Heritage, 2014).
Explanation is a key communicative competency that requires students to

combine language skills at the word, sentence, and discourse levels in order
to convey their knowledge of events, procedures, and processes. Explanation
requires students to control language that can convey logical and chronologi-
cal relationships among others. This involves the relevant and precise use of
vocabulary, syntactic structures that support contrasts, comparisons, causes, etc.,
and providing information sequenced and in sufficient detail that a listener or
reader can make meaning (Bailey & Heritage, 2014). Such explanatory talk was
chosen as a focus of the DLLP project because it is a crosscutting language
practice (i.e., use of language to meet the communitive demands of a particular
context) of the CCSS and is highlighted in the Framework for English Language
Proficiency Development (ELPD) (CCSSO, 2012) that guides creation of English
language development standards and assessments. Explanation is also a produc-
tive language practice common across content-area discourse, texts, and tests
(Bailey, Butler, Stevens, & Lord, 2007). While the myriad language demands of
explanation at the word, sentence, and discourse levels can be a challenge for any
student, they will likely be particularly challenging for students who are learning
English as an additional language at the same time they are learning mathematics.
Progressions of explanatory language expected of students can therefore provide
a basis for teachers’ understanding of students’ language development and the
language needed for academic success (Bailey & Heritage, 2014; Bailey et al.,
2015; Bailey, 2017).
The DLLPs were created from linguistic analysis of explanation language
samples in the longitudinal corpus, which had been elicited across several time
points with 324 students from grades K-6. Thirty-two percent of the corpus
data were from EL students and 68% were from English-only/English profi-
cient students. The increasing sophistication of eight language features (shown
in Table 8.1) were arrayed on progressions for gauging the characteristics of
language at word, sentence, and discourse levels. These features and the phases
charting their development were generated inductively from linguistic analysis
of the first 200 explanations analyzed in the DLLP corpus (see Bailey & Herit-
age, 2014 and Bailey, Blackstock-Bernstein, Ryan, & Pitsoulakis, 2016 for fur-
ther details) and are consistent with the linguistic characteristics identified in the
developmental literature on explanation (Bailey, 2017).
Appendix 8C provides the descriptions of the four phases of the DLLPs rang-
ing from Not Evident, Emergent, Developing, to Controlled. Based on our analyses of
the original corpus, the phases were written at a sufficiently abstract level that each
language feature can be characterized using the same developmental dimensions,
such as completeness/omission, size of repertoire, and eventually accuracy.
Each language feature of an explanation can be placed on the progression
independent of other language features. We conceive of this judgment as a fea-
ture’s “best fit” at a specific phase of the explanation progressions. “Best fit”
highlights how this placement or determination by a teacher carries no “stakes”
for a student, or is, in fact, “day-to-day stakes” for a student. It is the best-fitting
description of a student’s current language competencies and is helpful to a
teacher providing instruction to move the language feature to the next highest
phase of the progression (Bailey, 2017).
TABLE 8.1 Eight Dynamic Language Learning Progression Features
Feature Description
Sophistication of topic A small core topic vocabulary progressing to a more

vocabulary extensive topic lexicon and use of precise and low
frequency topic vocabulary.
Sophistication of verb forms Simple tensed verbs progressing to inclusion of gerunds,
participles, and modals verbs such as would, should, could.
Sophistication of sentence Simple sentences progressing to complex sentences.
structure
Coherence/cohesion Limited attempts progressing to the use of temporal
connectors and different cohesive devices such as
pronouns, substitutions.
Establishment of advanced Limited repertoire progressing to an expanded array through
relationships between ideas the use of causal, conditional, comparative, and contrastive
discourse connectors.
Control of perspective-taking Progression from omitted, ambiguous, or incorrect personal
pronoun use to the maintenance of appropriate personal
pronouns throughout.
Expansion of word groups Growing repertoire of different word groups and an
increasing number of different types within groups,
including different derived words, nominalizations such as
multiplication, goodness, adverbs, adjectives, relative clauses,
prepositional phrases, and general academic vocabulary
such as answer, comparing.
Stamina Progressing from little evidence of a mental model of the
relevant content of a response to use of sufficient detail and
elaboration for the listener to make meaning.
In the following section, we present a mathematical problem that calls for stu-
dents to explain their answer. We first apply the proportional reasoning learning
progression to a sample of student explanations. We then examine those explana-
tions through the lens of the language progression. In the original sample we did
not collect information about students’ English proficiency. For this stage of our
collaborative work, this is a secondary analysis of the mathematics explanations
designed to initially explore the relationship between mathematics and language
progressions.
Applying a Mathematics Learning Progression

The mathematics learning progression was applied to the explanations of 756 sixth-
and seventh-grade students who were a subsample of the larger project on propor-
tional reasoning and discourse (Wylie et al., 2015). Student responses were scored
by six trained raters, and approximately 25% of the responses were scored by two
raters so that we could calculate agreement levels. The explanations were given by
the students in response to the proportional reasoning task shown in Figure 8.1.
The item in Figure 8.1 provides an opportunity for students to provide evi-
dence of understanding that corresponds to the first four levels of the proportional
Brenda bought 20 pieces of candy with 12 quarters. Marisa has 15 quarters.

How many pieces of candy can Marisa buy with her money?
Explain how you found your answer.
FIGURE 8.1 Sample Item That Requires Mathematical Explanation
reasoning learning progression. Since there are only two ratios involved in this
question, the prompt does not provide an opportunity for a student to demonstrate
evidence of understanding at level 5. The prompt asks students to explain their
answer rather than just calculating the number of pieces of candy that Marisa can
buy because the explanation provided greater insight into students’ mathematical
understanding than the numerical answer alone. Consequently, this prompt is plac-
ing a demand on students for the kinds of language clearly articulated in the CCSS
for mathematics. Originally a three-point rubric was then used to score student
responses to this item as shown in Figure 8.2. Responses with nothing written at all
were classified as “omit.” Double-scored items had a rater agreement level of 95%.
While some students could have elected to draw a diagram to help them under-
stand the problem, due to the online nature of the data collection, we did not see
responses from students in the form of diagrams.
This item proved to be quite challenging, with 56% of students responding
incorrectly. A score of 1 or 2 indicates a correct response, with a score of 2 reserved
for an appropriate explanation or indication of a correct approach, not just a
numeric answer.
We selected between 6 and 12 responses at each score level, 30 responses in
total, for further exploration of alignment with the Proportional Reasoning Learning
Progression as well as for “best fit” on the DLLPs (described in a later section) for a
total of 30 explanations. Although the original student responses were scored using
the 0–2 scoring rubric presented in Figure 8.2, two of the authors independently
reviewed the 30 selected student explanations to align them directly with the levels
2 1 0
Student correctly states 25 pieces of candy Student states 25, but Anything else,
and provides one of the following: provides no explanation including when
• sets up the ratio to solve for x as of how he or she the student
12/20 = 15/x arrived at the answer. provides an
• calculates pieces of candy per quarter OR incorrect
as 1.667 (unit rate) and multiplies by Student states 25 and explanation of
15 to get the correct answer provides an incomplete the process.
• sets up a grouping strategy, e.g., but not incorrect
grouping 5 pieces of candy with 3 explanation.
quarters and continues reasoning from
there
• other correct mathematical approach.
FIGURE 8.2 Three-Point Rubric Used to Evaluate Responses to Selected Item

of the proportional reasoning learning progression, then discussed any differences

and came to a final reconciled decision for each one. In Table 8.2 we provide eight
of the responses (as the students typed them) that we thought represented a range of
responses at each rubric level. The first six responses are discussed here to illustrate
the range of responses that were obtained with this item. Some of these examples,
along with the explanations from Students G and H, are used to illustrate language
aspects in the section that follows.
Students A and B provided incorrect answers, students C and D answered cor-
rectly but with incomplete explanations, while students E and F provided correct
answers with thorough explanations. Each pair of responses is quite different from
the other in the pair, particularly at the extreme scores. Students A and B have likely
quite different understandings. While E and F are both correct, they are different
in terms of the sophistication of the responses. While scoring rubrics provide a
useful tool for evaluating student responses to constructed response items and the
scores help with identifying patterns in learning across a class, a review of the first
six examples from Table 8.2 illustrates how the rubrics can hide certain features of
student responses.
Reexamining the student responses in Table 8.2 through the lens of the learn-
ing progression provides a more nuanced view of their work. Student A answered
incorrectly, but looking at the explanation reveals that the student compared the
given ratio of 20:12 with the new ratio of __:15 and reasoned that since 12 is
three greater than 15, the answer must be three greater than 20. This response is an
example of the additive misconception that is described by level 2 of the learning
progression. Student B’s response is more difficult to interpret, in part because the
student made a computational error (perhaps having worked out the problem on
scrap paper before responding on the computer) and reversed the answers to 12
divided by 20, and 15 divided by 20. However, the rationale is unclear. At best there
is evidence that the student understands that there is a relationship between the
amount of money and amount of candy, and that with more money, Marisa should
be able to buy more candy. This could be evidence of at least level 1 thinking.
Student C provided an incomplete explanation. The student arrived at the cor-
rect answer, but with no detail of what equation was written. It is likely that this
is evidence of at least level 3 thinking, but it is not possible to distinguish between
level 3 and 4 with the information provided. Student D’s explanation, while incom-
plete, provided sufficient information to visualize the table that the student created,
with the first row showing 20 pieces of candy and 12 quarters. Dividing in half
(cutting the numbers in two) results in a second row of 10 and 6, and dividing again
gives 5 and 3. At this point the student likely realized that he could add the infor-
mation in the first and third rows to get 12 plus 3 quarters, and hence the answer
of 20 plus five pieces of candy. This is a clear example of a student using a build-up
additive strategy, which is evidence of level 3 thinking.
Student E’s response is a more complete explanation of the same additive build-
up strategy used by student D, but in the case of Student E each step in the rea-
soning was clearly laid out so that a reader could follow along without having to
make any inferences about what the student was thinking. Student F provides a
fully explained cross multiplication approach to the problem and uses the most
TABLE 8.2 Eight Selected Student Responses*
Student ID Score Student Response
A 0 marisa can buy 23 pieces of candy. i got my answer simply by

comparing ratios. brenda’s ratio of candy to quarters is 20:12,
while maris’a ratio is __:15. after seeing it brenda’s quarter ratio
is 3 nukbers smaller than marisa’s, i added 20 3 to get to get my
final answer
B 0 About two or three more. The price of 12 candies divided by 20
is about .75, so if you do fifteen divided by 20, you get around
.6 which leaves a bit of room to buy more candy. All and all, the
total of candy would be around 17–18.
C 1 Marisa can buy 25 pieces of candy because if you set it as an
equation, that is the outcome.
D 1 25 because if you put it into a table and cut the 2 numbers in half
then you relize you will be going by 5’s and by 3’s so you just
add it
E 2 she can buy 25 pieces of candy with 15 quarters beacuse 12
quarters = 20 pieces 6 quarters = 10 pieces and 3 quarters = 5
pieces and when u subtract 12 from 15 u get 3 and with that left
over 3 u can get 5 candy so all together u can buy 25 pieces of
candy
F 2 Marisa can buy 25 peices of the same candy with 15 quaters.
I set up a proportion to solve this. Brenda’s 20 peices per 12
quaters = Marisa’s x peices per 15 quaters. I cross multiplied to
get 12x = 300. I divided both sides of the equal sign by 12 to
isolate the variable x. 12x divided by 12 = x. 300 divided by
12 = 25. x (peices of candy Marisa can buy) = 25 peices.
G 2 Brenda = 20/12 Equation: 20/12 = x/15 Marisa = x/15 20x =
20(15) 20x/20 = 300/20 x = 25 Marisa can buy 25 pieces of
candy.
H 0 marisa can buy 23 pieces of candy. i got my answer simply by
comparing ratios. brenda’s ratio of candy to quarters is 20:12,
while maris’a ratio is __:15. after seeing it brenda’s quarter ratio
is 3 nukbers smaller than marisa’s, i added 20 3 to get to get my
final answer
* Original spelling, spacing, and punctuation of students is maintained.
mathematical language of all the six students.This response would provide evidence
of level 4 reasoning.
Superimposing Companion Language Learning Progressions

The 30 explanations at a range of levels on the Proportional Reasoning Learning
Progression were next analyzed by two of the authors for “best fit” on the lan-
guage progressions while still blind to their 0–2 mathematics score levels and to
their placement on the mathematics progression. We then cross-tabulated place-
ment on both the mathematics and language progressions as either High or Low
(see Figure 8.3). A placement at levels 3 or 4 on the Proportional Reasoning Learning

Progression was considered evidence of High MATH understanding and levels 1 or
2 were considered evidence of Low MATH understanding.1 Five or more of the
eight language features were placed at the Developing phase or above on the lan-
guage progressions for a students’ explanation to be considered evidence of being
at a High DLLP phase, with a majority of Not Evident and Emergent placements
considered to be evidence of being at a Low DLLP phase overall.2 Two student
explanations could not be simultaneously placed on both progressions: One did not
respond to the prompt sufficiently to determine fit on the language progressions,
and one gave the correct mathematical solution but not an explanation of his or
her problem solving in prose.
Of particular interest in our exploration of the application of learning pro-
gressions in two different content areas is whether competencies in the two areas
would be consistent with one another (i.e., high on both mathematics and language
progressions, low on both progressions); if students were displaying mathematical
knowledge of proportions but not verbalizing their reasoning with explanatory
language as prompted; or if it were possible for students to produce explanations
that sounded competent (i.e., high on the language progressions) without display-
ing mathematics content knowledge (i.e., low on mathematics progression), as has
been suggested in the language development literature with other types of knowl-
edge, i.e., the rules of chess (Nippold, 2009).
Examining each quadrant of Figure 8.3 can reveal how language may play a
role in a successful mathematics performance. In our analysis, we placed 11 (37%)
High
MATH
High-High High-Low
High Low
DLLP DLLP
Low-High Low-Low
Low
MATH
FIGURE 8.3 Possible
Configurations for Student Performance on the Extremes of the
Companion Progressions
explanations in the High DLLP–High MATH quadrant. The following example

is of a student explanation placed at level 3 on the mathematics progression,
since the student clearly understood how to set up an equation and manipu-
late it to solve for the unknown value. While the explanation gives a reasonably
sophisticated mathematical response, the student still uses cross multiplication
rather than explicitly describing the proportional relationship and using it to
solve the problem. From a single response, it is unclear if the student has a pro-
cedural understanding or a deeper conceptual understanding. The explanation
from Student F was also at the Controlled phase on the progressions of most of
the language features:
Marisa can buy 25 peices of the same candy with 15 quaters. I set up a propor-
tion to solve this. Brenda’s 20 peices per 12 quaters = Marisa’s x peices per 15
quaters. I cross multiplied to get 12x = 300. I divided both sides of the equal sign
by 12 to isolate the variable x. 12x divided by 12 = x. 300 divided by 12 = 25. x
(peices of candy Marisa can buy) = 25 peices.
[Student F—original spelling]
Student F’s explanation has an opening with a clear statement of the correct
answer. There is a range of verb forms and precise mathematics topic vocabulary
(italicized) and a cohesive tie with the deictic pronoun “this” (bolded). There
are examples of complex sentence structures (underlined) that include a very
sophisticated nominalization in parentheses (“peices of candy Marisa can buy”).
This is a nominalized phrase that functions as a noun to define the meaning of
x in this explanation. The explanation was amongst the most elaborated we ana-
lyzed in this corpus, but note there is still room for improvement in the student’s
use of language, including the fact that the use of “this” rather vaguely most
likely refers to the equation in the initial question rather than to any referent in
the immediately preceding sentence, and thus this cohesive tie could be ambigu-
ous and misleading for a reader.
There was just one (3%) explanation showing the combination of Low DLLP–
High MATH, which was anticipated given the prompt asked for students to explain
their reasoning. The following example from Student G (Table 8.2) was also placed
at level 3 on the mathematics progression. This response is similar to the previous
one but shows a reliance on mathematical notation rather than prose, which may
ultimately prove unfortunate because explanatory skills are now necessary for dis-
playing mathematical knowledge on the new mathematics assessments aligned with
new standards.
Brenda = 20/12 Equation: 20/12 = x/15 Marisa = x/15 20x = 20(15) 20x/20 =
300/20 x = 25 Marisa can buy 25 pieces of candy.
[Student G]
However, our findings suggest language alone is not of course sufficient to make a
fully adequate explanation of proportional reasoning:We placed seven (23%) expla-
nations as Low MATH despite the “best fit” placing them as High DLLP. The
following example was placed at level 2 on the mathematics progression (having
provided evidence of the additive misconception), but at higher phases of the pro-
gressions for most language features:
marisa can buy 23 pieces of candy. i got my answer simply by comparing ratios.
brenda’s ratio of candy to quarters is 20:12, while maris’a ratio is __:15. after seeing
it brenda’s quarter ratio is 3 nukbers smaller than marisa’s, i added 20 3 to get to
get my final answer
[Student H—original spelling and punctuation]
Linguistically and discursively the example above is very similar to the first highly
placed example (Student F). The student starts with an opening statement, includes
precise math topic vocabulary and a range of verb forms and uses complex sentence
structures. Like example Student F, Student H also uses a pronoun (“it”) as a cohe-
sive device that is possibly tied somewhat ambiguously to the referent “brenda’s
quarter.”
A further 11 (37%) student explanations were placed as low on both progres-
sions. For example:
About two or three more.The price of 12 candies divided by 20 is about. 75,

so if you do fifteen divided by 20, you get around .6 which leaves a bit of room to
buy more candy. All and all, the total of candy would be around 17–18.
[Student B]
In this explanation, Student B barely provides evidence of level 1 on the mathemat-

ics progression. The student manipulates the numbers provided in the problem, but
not in a manner that makes very much conceptual sense. Although the student
appears to recognize that there is a relationship between the number of quarters
and the number of candies, the student produces a final answer that is fewer candies
than are available in the original problem, without appearing to realize that more
money should result in more candies. We placed the explanation at the Emergent
phase on the progressions of most language features (although note that the sophis-
tication of sentence structure was categorized in the Developing phase). This exam-
ple is produced without using the academic mathematics “register”; rather, the
language is predominantly casual in its use of such phrasing as “a bit of room” and
“all and all” as well as the use of vague, imprecise modifiers such as “about two or
three” and “get around .6,” which are clearly not desirable for the precision needed
for a mathematical solution to this particular task.
The analysis of the 30 explanations provides a preliminary suggestion that lan-
guage and mathematics performances on the progressions are related. Eleven of the
30 explanations were placed High on both the language and the mathematics pro-
gressions. Another third of the explanations were placed Low on both progressions.
Just one explanation was placed Low on the language progression and High on the
mathematics progression. Thought (i.e., reasoning mathematically in this instance)
and language are arguably closely intertwined (Vygotsky, 1962), but language also
serves to express that reasoning and knowledge. Sophisticated language alone is not,
however, sufficient for mathematics performance. Seven explanations were placed
Low on the mathematics progression but High on the language progression. It
would seem from these data that a well-crafted explanation is no guarantee of a

quality mathematics response.
Best Practices
Use Progressions as an Interpretive Framework

Learning progressions are not developmentally inevitable such that students do not
acquire increasing sophistication in the foundational ideas of a discipline nor the
associated language without effective instruction. Effective instruction is depend-
ent on teachers’ ability to obtain and interpret evidence of learning as it is unfold-
ing (Fennema et al., 1996). Clear progressions provide teachers with the necessary
resources to guide their evidence-gathering strategies in planned and systematic
ways at the level required for formative assessment and to interpret that evidence
in terms of students’ current learning status (Heritage, 2012). In this regard, learn-
ing progressions provide the interpretive framework for how teachers can success-
fully implement formative assessment. When teachers elicit evidence of language
and mathematics learning, they can use progressions to decide on the focus of
the evidence they want to obtain and can map the evidence back to the progres-
sions to determine the students’ “best fit” on the progression. Essentially, “evidence”
does not become tractable information unless there is a structure, such as teachers’
understandings of learning progressions, to which the evidence can be mapped in
order to support interpretation. Black, Wilson and Yao (2011) describe the process
by which a teacher can elicit evidence of student understanding through discussion
and guide that discussion by probing student explanations to deepen understand-
ing, connecting student ideas, helping students see contradictions, and summarizing
key ideas as they emerge from the discussion.
To do this skillfully and productively, one essential ingredient that the teacher
needs is to have in mind an underlying scheme of progression in the topic; such
a scheme will guide [. . .] the orientation which the teacher may provide by
further suggestions, summaries, questions and other activities.
(Black et al., 2011, p. 74)
In the absence of clear progressions, despite teachers’ best intentions, the evidence
gathering is unlikely to be systematic but instead rather unconnected to a picture
of the progressive development of understanding and language skills. The best-case
scenario of planned approaches to gathering evidence that can be used to consist-
ently move learning forward is enabled by progressions.
Davis (1997) referred to the process that teachers must engage in to support
student discussions as “interpretive listening” and teacher’s own placement of stu-
dent explanations on the learning progressions can lead to informed attention to
student responses. The learning progressions allow a teacher to anticipate common
student responses and monitor student discussions either as a whole class or in
small groups (Smith & Stein, 2011). Once teachers have qualitative insights about
the status of student learning (from students’ explanations while they are engaged
in a mathematical task, for example), they are likely better able to decide on next
instructional steps to advance learning. However, progressions by themselves do
not suggest what specific pedagogical action a teacher might take in response the
students’ location on the progression, either in terms of language or mathematics
or both. Nonetheless, by understanding students’ current learning within a broader
trajectory of learning, teachers are better informed about potential next steps in
learning than they would be in the absence of progressions (Heritage, Kim, Vend-
linski, & Herman, 2009). Consequently, there will likely be a closer match between
what the students need next in order to progress and the pedagogical action teach-
ers take. Furthermore, with an understanding of the intersection of language and
mathematics progressions, teachers are better positioned to focus on the reciprocity
of language and mathematical understanding; that is, as teachers gain deeper insights
into students’ thinking through their explanations, and by helping students improve
their mathematical explanations, they are able to advance language learning and
mathematics understanding simultaneously. Such a situation may well obviate the
“Cinderella” status (i.e., largely ignored by educators) of language (e.g., Wong Fill-
more & Snow, 2002) and place emphasis on the role of explanation in developing
thinking and communicating thinking for the purposes of formative assessment.
Use Evidence to Move Learning Forward

in Both Mathematics and Language
When teachers can interpret evidence of learning within a progression’s structure
they can better make decisions about learning experiences intended to move learn-
ing forward. While we expect that using companion progressions in mathemat-
ics and language will enable teachers to better target the instructional next steps,
future work will enable us to determine the degree to which teachers are able to
match their action to the different configurations of student performance needs.
For example, some students may need assistance extending already-learned expla-
nation abilities to mathematics (i.e., Low MATH–High DLLP), others might ben-
efit from both mathematics and language assistance (i.e., Low–Low performances
on both progressions); still others may need help transitioning from a mathematical
representation of their knowledge to being able to verbalize their reasoning for
others (i.e., High MATH–Low DLLP). Even students who are placed high on both
progressions can be encouraged to explain their proportional reasoning to different
audiences, in different scenarios, with different quantities, and so on, as a means to
strengthening their mathematics and communicative skills.
We did not have information about the EL status of the students whose expla-
nations we examined. However, we want to conclude with Figure 8.4 that is an
example from the DLLP project corpus and comes from an EL student who is
literate in his home language, Spanish. The student provides a written explanation
in English in response to a prompt to explain and justify to a classmate (who he
was told had never seen the task) his chosen procedure for determining the total
number of individual cubes presented to him.We use this example to illustrate how
dual progressions may be interpreted to support both the mathematical reasoning
and English language development of a language learning student. In this example,
the student needs to draw on multiplicative or division understanding.
FIGURE 8.4 Written Explanation of Sixth-Grade Language Learner
Using a multiplication/division learning progression (Cayton-Hodges, 2017) to

consider typical stages of developing understanding, the student’s explanation provides
evidence of using a more sophisticated strategy than just direct counting by proposing
the grouping of the cubes (“make lines of [cubes]”). However, the student does not
explicitly say that each line has to be of equal length. The student recognizes that by
using multiplication the counting process can be simplified but does not specifically
say that by selecting a number such as 5 or 10 for the size of each group the multipli-
cation process would be more straightforward. The student does realize that the pile
of cubes may not divide evenly into the groups and that there may be some numbers
left over that have to be added into the total obtained from the multiplication of the
number of cubes in a line and the number of lines, which suggests a sophisticated
understanding of grouping.Appropriate next mathematical steps for the teacher would
be to determine whether the student understands that each line (group) has to have
the same number of cubes and to explore whether the student is able to work with
groups of varying sizes or is reliant on familiar groupings such as 5 or 10.
Appling the DLLP progressions, the explanation reveals that the student has
control of mathematics vocabulary (i.e., multiply, add, problem, equation) and task-
specific vocabulary (i.e., cubes, lines, pile). However, his control of cohesion via a
pronominal tie (e.g., “it” or “them”) to refer back to already introduced elements
of the explanation is still at the Developing phase: He has some recognition of hav-
ing already introduced material, for example “the rest of the cubes” in line three in
which “the” is appropriately used to signal given information (i.e., “cubes” already
mentioned in the first line), but he still shows some lack of linguistic control, for
example “it” in the second line is a singular pronoun and is ambiguously tied to a
prior referent. This pronoun could refer to either “cubes” or “lines” mentioned in
the first line, both of which incidentally are also plural nouns. Coherence is also at
the Developing phase still, with reliance on “and” and “then” to organize his expla-
nation. There is evidence of also being at the Developing phase on the DLLP for
sentence sophistication, with just a small repertoire of complex sentence types that
include an embedded adverbial clause (“when . . .”) in line two that shows temporal
sequencing of information and a relative clause (“cubes that weren’t added . . .”) in
line three, allowing the student to refer to specific cubes.
Drawing on the insights gained from both the multiplication/division learning
progression and the language features progressions, a teacher may want to assist the stu-
dent in articulating his mathematical thinking more to clarify his approach to group-
ing the cubes. Depending on the level of student understanding, the teacher may want
to provide some additional supports to deepen the student’s mathematical understand-
ing of group size, to provide practice opportunities using groups of different sizes, or to
help the student more clearly articulate his thinking, especially making salient to him
where ambiguity in cohesive ties makes replicating his procedural explanation difficult
for a naïve listener. More varied temporal connectives could also be modeled for him
in an attempt to further develop coherent explanations.
Create Opportunities for Sustained Cross-Disciplinary

Collaborative Practices
We recognize that our findings suggest additional work for mathematics teachers
who, like most teachers, are already working at full capacity to meet the demands
of academic standards and assessments. Attending to companion progressions
will undoubtedly be a challenge for many teachers, especially if they have little
knowledge or experience of the other content area being formatively assessed.
Best practices with EL students suggested by Dove and Honigsfeld (2010), among
others, reveal that content-area teachers and English language specialists working
collaboratively can help bridge that gap in distributed expertise. Furthermore, if
mathematics teachers are assisted by knowledgeable facilitators and well-designed,
sustained professional development, they learn to identify the linguistic register spe-
cific to their discipline, over time moving beyond salient vocabulary characteristics
to an appreciation of a wider set of characteristics found in mathematical explana-
tions (Herbel-Eisenmann, Johnson, Otten, Cirillo, & Steele, 2015). Teachers left
to attend to both language and mathematics learning on their own may be chal-
lenged to make the most of the information yielded by companion progressions.
Understanding how to support teachers in this kind of work will be a challenge
worthy of significant study. It may also be worthwhile to understand how different
approaches to teacher development impact the development and acceleration of
EL student learning. For example, are there differences between supporting English
as a second language (ESL)/English as a new language (ENL) teachers to develop
deeper understanding of the mathematics and supporting mathematics teachers to
develop more sophisticated understanding of language development?
Pilot implementation of the DLLPs was conducted with 16 general education
teachers across grades pre-K–6 in two elementary schools. One school site involved
teachers for an entire school year. Teaching across the content areas revealed that, at
first, teachers could focus only on one area at a time—either language or content
(e.g., mathematics) (Bailey & Heritage, 2014, 2017). As one teacher explained:
I found it challenging to be transcribing, writing what they were saying,

listening too, and being able to give them feedback [about language and
mathematics], all on the spot.
Only as the teachers’ implementation of progressions developed through the sup-

port of a monthly community of practice, did they find that they were able to
attend to both. One teacher, who had felt overwhelmed when first asked to listen
for her students’ sentence sophistication at the same time she was monitoring their
mathematics learning, later reported:
Where this time I just felt more at ease. . . . It wasn’t necessarily looking for
one or the other [math/language]. But simultaneously . . . I mean how was
one informing the other? How was language being used to help them articu-
late their reasoning?
We posit that the advantage of companion progressions in language and in math-

ematics may be supportive of formative assessment and teaching and learning.
However, teachers will need ongoing support to understand the progressions and
how they relate to standards, as well as to become attuned to a synthesis of math-
ematical practices and the iterative interactions between content area and discursive
practices such as explanation. For teachers to be able to apply companion progres-
sions to their work, teacher professional development will need to become increas-
ingly crossdisciplinary so that content and ESL/ENL teachers can learn from one
another. As opportunities are developed to support this kind of learning, it will be
critical that early adopter teachers are able to share their challenges and successes
with their colleagues. The realism and authenticity of these testimonies may then
serve to encourage others beyond the early adopters to take on this interdiscipli-
nary thinking. As traditionally underserved students benefit from these approaches
to teaching and learning, this may in turn provide motivation for others.

Analyses of mathematics and language learning progressions applied jointly give a
more detailed and nuanced picture of how teachers could use learning progressions
to inform instruction and formative assessment. The student responses examined
for this chapter revealed how challenging the proportional reasoning item was to
sixth- and seventh-grade students in terms of both mathematics knowledge and the
discursive skills needed to convey that knowledge to others. Each progression pro-
vides teachers with insight into student thinking that shifts their focus from correct
versus incorrect to a more sophisticated appreciation of the ways in which students
are developing both mathematical and linguistic competencies.
Jointly applying companion progressions of proportional reasoning in math-
ematics and the language of explanations revealed that few students are able to
convey high levels of mathematical knowledge without corresponding high levels
of explanation abilities. We also found that sounding competent without content
knowledge is not common in these middle school explanations of proportional
reasoning; it is very difficult to be cogent (e.g., produce cohesive and coherent
explanations) without a grasp of the underlying mathematics.
By examining student responses with the companion progressions rather than
using each alone or simply by using a scoring rubric for either content area, we
gain insights into how teachers might better understand those responses and use the
information to target different kinds of contingent responses that take account of

the relevant phases of language and mathematics learning for individuals or groups
of students.

The analysis presented in this chapter explored a very narrow aspect of how
language and mathematics intersect, namely, the role of explanations in a single
proportional reasoning problem.There is need for more research in this area to spe-
cifically address how learning happens in tandem and the codependencies of math-
ematics and language. Moreover, we will need studies of what the actual challenges
are for teachers in the specifics of how to interpret and respond to the patterns of
performance revealed on the two progressions. To date, we do not know whether
these challenges are different for teachers working with EL students in comparison
with native and proficient English-speaking students. We suspect, however, that the
different linguistic needs and greater potential for asymmetries in language and
mathematical knowledge presented by EL students will mean that teachers will
face different kinds of demands on their instructional expertise. For example, the
need to attend to fundamental aspects of language (i.e., basic vocabulary in addi-
tion to discipline-specific vocabulary) will be foundational to both language and
mathematics learning for EL students.
Applying companion progressions can also be further explored as a foundation
for educational technology that uses formative assessment to support EL students’
learning of mathematics (or other subject specific learning). Zapata-Rivera and
Bauer (2012) for example, describe an English-mathematics assessment-based learn-
ing environment (EM-ABLE) designed to support EL students’ learning of math-
ematical language associated with fractions along with conceptual and procedural
knowledge of fractions. Replacing EM-ABLE’s competency model (a probabilistic
model of students’ understanding—a Bayes net) with companion progressions in
mathematics and language can provide a stronger basis for identifying the sources of
students mis- or partial understandings, providing formative feedback, and dynami-
cally connecting students with learning activities to close gaps in their knowledge.
Applying companion progressions has potential implications for the preser-
vice and in-service preparation teachers receive. As the proportion of EL students
continues to expand, knowledge of language and how it is used across different
disciplines becomes an increasingly important aspect of content knowledge for
teaching, as captured by the concept of disciplinary linguistic knowledge (Turkan,
De Oliveira, & Phelps, 2014). But we are optimistic that this extra challenge can
be met with the structure provided through professional learning, modeling of
practices, teacher inquiry, and crossdisciplinary collaborative approaches to ESL/
ENL and content teaching. This work is timely given academic standards that now
expressly include language practices found in the disciplines and the new emphasis
placed on the academic achievement of EL students by the Every Student Succeeds
Act (2015). The new federal mandate forges closer ties between language and con-
tent now that English proficiency assessment and accountability for the academic
progress of EL students are part of Title I of ESSA (i.e., placed in tandem with
assessment of academic achievement).
As described earlier, implementing progressions for language learning during

content teaching was challenging for teachers (Bailey & Heritage, 2014), so we
realistically anticipate the additional strain of applying companion progressions for
both language and a content area. However, from pilot implementations of the
DLLP project we know that teachers can develop the necessary skills and broad-
ened outlook to support an effective dual focus on the teaching and learning of
language and content.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, through Grant Reference R305A100518 to ETS and by
the ASSETS Enhanced Assessment Grant from the U.S. Department of Education/
WIDA Consortium at the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research to UCLA.
The contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of
Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government.
Alison Bailey also acknowledges serving as a consultant and advisory board mem-
ber for WIDA projects. Earlier versions of this chapter were presented at CCSSO
NCSA, 2015 in San Diego and AERA, 2016, in Washington, DC.
Notes
1 Recall the prompt did not provide an opportunity for students to provide responses at
level 5 on the Proportional Reasoning Learning Progression.
2 This work is exploratory in nature, and the dichotomy of low-high was an initial place
to begin the application of dual progressions. Future, larger-scale studies could attempt an
expanded number of points along the two progressions. However, we question the utility
of a greater number of points because this will increase complexity for teachers making
instructional decisions, and such fine-grained information from combined placement on
the two progressions may go beyond the repertoire of instructional responses that teachers
have available.
References
Bailey, A. L. (2017). Progressions of a new language: Characterizing explanation develop-
ment for assessment with young language learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
37, 241–263.
Bailey, A. L., Blackstock-Bernstein, A., & Heritage, M. H. (2015). At the intersection of
Mathematics and Language: Examining Mathematical explanations of English profi-
cient and English Language learner students. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 6–28.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.03.007
Bailey, A. L., Blackstock-Bernstein, A., Ryan, E., & Pitsoulakis, D. (2016). Data Mining with
natural language processing and corpus linguistics: Unlocking access to school-children’s
language in diverse contexts to improve instructional and assessment practices. In S. El
Atia, O. Zaiane, & D. Ipperciel (Eds.), Data mining and learning analytics in educational
research (pp. 255–275). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language
demands of school. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic
English to the test (pp. 103–156). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, Grades K-6: Building read-
ing and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage
Press.
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2014). The role of language learning progressions in improved
instruction and assessment of English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3),
480–506.
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2017). Imperatives for teacher education: Findings from studies
of effective teaching for English language learners. In M. Peters, B. Cowie, & I. Menter
(Eds.), A Companion to research in teacher education. Berlin: Springer.
Ball, D.L.,Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching:What makes
it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Baxter, G. P., & Junker, B. W. (2001, April). Designing cognitive-developmental assessments: A case
study in proportional reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council for Measurement in Education, Seattle, Washington, DC.
Black, P., & Jones, J. (2006). Formative assessment and the learning and teaching of MFL:
Sharing the language learning road map with the learners. Language Learning Journal,
34(1), 4–9.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles Policy and Practice, 5, 7–73.
Black, P., Wilson, M., & Yao, S. Y. (2011). Roadmaps for learning: A guide to the navigation
of learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research And Perspectives, 9(2–3),
72–123.
Cayton-Hodges, G. A. (2017). The development of Learning Progressions for Elementary Students.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2010, June). The construction, refinement, and early validation of
the equipartitioning learning trajectory. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of
the Learning Sciences—Volume 1 (pp. 968–975). Chicago: International Society of the Learning
Sciences.
Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An
evidence-based approach to reform. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from http://repository.
upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/53
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment.
A work product coordinated by Sarah McManus, NC Department of Public Instruction,
for the Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers (FAST) collaborative. Council of
Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English language proficiency devel-
opment standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation
Science Standards. Washington, DC: CCSSO.
Crooks,T. J. (1988).The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 58, 438–448.
Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355–376.
Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities
to develop teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1(1),
3–22.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Public Law No: 114–195 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996).
A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.
Graf, E. A., & van Rijn, P. W. (2016). Learning progressions as a guide for design: Recom-
mendations based on observations from a mathematics assessment. In S. Lane, M. R.
Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (2nd ed., pp. 165–189).
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency? Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research
Institute.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Johnson, K. R., Otten, S., Cirillo, M., & Steele, M. D. (2015). Map-
ping talk about the mathematics register in a secondary mathematics teacher study group.
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 29–42.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Wash-
ington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from www.ccsso.org/
content/PDFs/FAST Learning Progressions.org
Heritage, M. (2012). Formative assessment: A process of inquiry and action. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Heritage, M., Kim, J.,Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seam-
less process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3),
24–31.
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and
language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psy-
chology, 49(1), 4.
Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered
design. ETS Research Report Series, 2003(1) i–29.
Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for
mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. Commissioned papers on
language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Gen-
eration Science Standards. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/
pdf/academic-papers/02-JMoschkovich%20Math%20FINAL_bound%20with%20
appendix.pdf
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist,
22, 155–175.
Nippold, M. A. (2009). School-age children talk about chess: Does knowledge drive syntactic
complexity? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(4), 856–871.
Noelting, G. (1980). The development of proportional reasoning and the ratio concept Part
I—Differentiation of stages. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(2), 217–253.
Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional
Science, 18, 119–144.
Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Evaluating the validity of formative and interim assess-
ment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 32–37.
Slama, R. B. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of academic English proficiency outcomes for
adolescent English language learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 104(2), 265.
Smith, C.,Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., Krajcik, J., & Coppola, B. (2004). Implications of research
on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Paper commissioned
by the Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Center for Education,
National Research Council.
Song,Y., Deane, P., Graf, E. A., & van Rijn, P. (2013). Using argumentation learning progres-
sions to support teaching and assessments of English language arts. R&D Connections, 22,
1–14.
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based
instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41, 147–156.
Turkan, S., De Oliveira, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for
teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowl-
edge. Teachers College Record, 116(3), 1–30.
van Rijn, P.W., Graf, E. A., & Deane, P. (2014). Empirical recovery of argumentation learning
progressions in scenario-based assessments of English language arts. Psicología Educativa,
20(2), 109–115.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (Trans. E. Hanfmann & G.Vakar). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Weaver, R., & Junker, B. W. (2004). Model specification for cognitive assessment of proportional
reasoning (Department of Statistics Technical Rep. No. 777). Pittsburgh.
Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In
C. A. Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language
(pp. 7–54). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wylie, E. C., Arieli-Attali, M., & Bauer, M. I. (2014, April). Channeling teacher noticing with
learning progression-based formative assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Wylie, E. C., Bauer, M. I., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015, April). Validating and using learning progres-
sions to support mathematics formative assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
Zapata-Rivera, D., & Bauer, M. (2012). Exploring the role of games in educational assess-
ment. In J. Clarke-Midura, M. Mayrath, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Technology-based assess-
ments for twenty-first-century skills:Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (pp.
147–169). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 8A Abbreviated Proportional Reasoning Learning Progression
Level Description
1 Intuitive Students have intuitive understanding that allows them

understanding to make qualitative comparison of more or less.
2 Begin to quantify, Students attempt to quantify, beginning to recognizing
work with single the inner relation within the “mixture,” i.e. the single
ratios ratio. They understand that changing the ratio
results in a changed outcome but mostly focus on
one part of the ratio (the numerator), which may
be perceived as the “cause” of the outcome.
3 Recognition of Students have recognition of multiplicative relationship:
multiplicative They understand the inner symmetric relation
relationship within the ratio so much as to map it to another
ratio, but also may use build-up (scale-up) additive
strategies to solve problems.
4 Accommodating Students are accommodating covariance and invariance:
covariance and They understand the model behind the
invariance proportional ratios. They understand the “constant”
or invariant aspect of the ratio mapped (as is) to
other ratios, building the covariance quantities.
5 Generalized model Students acquire a generalized model of proportionality:
of proportionality They understand that proportional relationship can
be represented with more than two quantities.
APPENDIX 8B Item Map for Proportional Reasoning Learning Progression
4
1
Theta
-1
-2
-3
-4
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Min Outlier Median
APPENDIX 8C Phases of the Dynamic Language Learning Progressions for Each Language
Feature
Phase Description
Not evident Students’ competencies with the language feature are not yet detectable.
They may use only language from the prompt or provide a
non-English response.
Emergent Students’ inclusion of the language feature occurs infrequently or
intermittently. Their use of the feature is incomplete and may be
inaccurate. Students do not include any repertoire of types for the
feature (i.e., rely on just one form of a feature, such as repetitive
use of and for additive relations between ideas).
Developing Students’ use of the feature occurs more often. Their use of the feature
is more complete but may still be inaccurate. Students have a small
repertoire of types for the feature (i.e., have two or more forms for the
same feature such as use of and, as well as for additive relations but also
express other types of relations between ideas, such as causal relations
using the forms because, so, etc.).
Controlled Students use of the feature occurs where expected or in obligatory
contexts. Their use of the feature is complete and most often used
accurately. Students have a broad repertoire of types (i.e., many forms
for the same feature such as use of and, as well as, in addition to but also
express many other types of relations between ideas, such as causal,
adversative, etc. and their relevant forms).
9
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Science and Language With
English Learners
Amelia Wenk Gotwals and Dawnmarie Ezzo
Focus Points
• The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) provide an opportunity for
teachers and teacher educators to reconsider the nature of science instruction.
Central to this reconsideration is to shift instruction away from emphasizing
the “knowing” of facts and ideas and move toward student sense making about
scientific phenomena.This shift requires teachers to use different techniques to
formatively assess students throughout units of instruction.
• Formative assessment, or assessment for learning, can be defined as a “part of
everyday practice by students, teachers, and peers that seeks, reflects upon, and
responds to information from dialog, demonstration, and observation in ways
that enhance ongoing learning” (Klenowski, 2009, p. 264). In this chapter, we
examine three main dimensions of formative assessment centered on questions
teachers and students can ask themselves: (1) Where are we going? (2) What
does the student understand now? (3) How can we get to the learning target?
• Scientific phenomena can be used to ground opportunities for science instruc-
tion and formative assessment practices. Scientific phenomena are “observable
events that occur in the universe and that we can use our science knowledge
to explain or predict.” Using an anchoring phenomenon can provide coher-
ence in a unit and a reason for instruction. It also allows for deeper engage-
ment with the science, which can allow teachers richer formative assessment
opportunities.
Chapter Purpose
This chapter examines the critical role of formative assessment in supporting all stu-
dents in the three-dimensional learning called for by the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) (Achieve, 2013). The Framework for K-12 Science Education
170 Amelia Wenk Gotwals and Dawnmarie Ezzo
(NRC, 2012) and the associated NGSS move away from emphasizing just the
“knowing” of science ideas and toward a “three-dimensional” conception of learn-
ing science that integrates disciplinary core ideas, science practices, and crosscutting
concepts. Disciplinary core ideas are the big ideas, and organizing concepts in sci-
ence needed to explain phenomena (i.e., observable events that occur in the world
or universe that we can predict or explain using understandings about science;
Moulding, Bybee, & Paulson, 2015). Science and engineering practices are the
types of activities that scientists engage in as they investigate phenomena (e.g., ask-
ing questions, developing and using models). Crosscutting concepts provide a lens
that give students an organizing framework for how knowledge is interrelated and
applicable across the different science disciplines (e.g., patterns, cause, and effect).
The types of instruction that will be necessary to teach three-dimensional
science will look different than traditional science instruction, and the language
demands in these instructional environments may also be quite different. Students
will not simply listen to lectures, take notes, and do labs that only require them to
“follow the steps.” Rather, students will be investigating the world around them by
asking questions, developing and discussing models, and explaining how and why a
phenomenon happened. All of these activities involve language—including reading,
writing, listening, and speaking—and teachers will need to use formative assess-
ment to monitor and support students’ learning along the way.
Formative assessment, or assessment for learning, can be defined as a “part of eve-
ryday practice by students, teachers, and peers that seeks, reflects upon, and responds
to information from dialog, demonstration, and observation in ways that enhance
ongoing learning” (Klenowski, 2009, p. 264). Important to note about this defini-
tion is that: (1) formative assessment is an everyday practice, not a product or thing;
(2) both teachers and students are involved in this process; and (3) the information
gathered during this process must help to inform teaching and learning. In this
chapter, we focus on the role of language in the ways in which teachers can work
to elicit students’ science ideas and how teachers interpret these ideas in order to
inform future instruction.
It is especially important to consider language demands when using forma-
tive assessment practices in science. Students from non-U.S. cultural and linguistic
backgrounds bring a vast array of experiences and knowledge with them to the
classroom. It is important that their ideas are elicited and valued even if they do
not have as fluent an English with which to communicate. While the NGSS shift
away from memorization of vocabulary and facts toward deeper meaning making,
sophisticated explanations of scientific phenomena require students to be able to
use scientific language and ways of thinking. For example, in science instruction,
students will need to be introduced to aspects of argumentation and reasoning as
ways of understanding events that are different in science than in other disciplines
or in their everyday life. Similarly, they will have to understand that some words
commonly used in conversation (e.g., force) have different meanings in science
than in everyday conversation.
Engaging in science learning that embraces deeper meaning making and using
scientific language and ways of thinking may place a heavy language burden on
all students, but there are particular language considerations for English learners
(ELs) because they are learning new types of sense making while also learning a
Formative Assessment: Science and Language 171
new language. Three-dimensional instruction, however, can provide rich language

and science learning opportunities and be structured to provide an environment
in which all students are supported in science learning (e.g., see Quinn, Lee, &
Valdez, 2012). This type of science instruction can help EL students learn science
and English in synergistic ways. In this chapter, we discuss the role of language in
formative assessment for all students but also examine particular considerations
for EL students.

Formative assessment has always been a critical component of high-quality instruc-
tion known to impact student learning (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 1998), and there
is no exception with science instruction that is aligned to the NGSS. As Wiliam
and Black (1998) described, assessment refers “to all those activities undertaken by
teachers—and by their students in assessing themselves—that provide information
to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning activities” (p. 140). Forma-
tive assessment involves both teachers and students in the gathering of evidence
and use of feedback to modify teaching and learning. These practices require that
both teachers and students know what they are trying to accomplish, the extent to
which prior attempts to meet learning goals have been successful, and what steps, if
any, both students and teachers must take in order to achieve success. For organiza-
tional purposes in this chapter, we will utilize work on feedback by Sadler (1989)
and Hattie and Timperley (2007)1 and posit that formative assessment practices can
be characterized into three large dimensions structured around key questions that
teachers and students should ask themselves and each other as they move through
the learning process.
1. Use of learning targets and goal setting: Where are we (teachers and students)
going?
2. Evidence of student understanding: What does the student understand now?
3. Closing the gap/responding to students: How do we (teacher and students) get
to the learning target?
Science Language in the Context of the NGSS

Learning three-dimensional, “next generation,” science involves engaging in spe-
cific forms of academic language. Academic language can be thought of as the set
of (1) vocabulary, (2) syntax, and (3) discourse strategies used to describe complex
concepts, abstract ideas, and cognitive processes in a given discipline (Schleppegrell,
2004). With NGSS, the focus is shifted to place equal importance on all three
aspects of academic language (vocabulary, syntax, and discourse strategies), whereas,
prior to NGSS, more focus was placed on vocabulary.
Throughout a NGSS unit, students might “make and share observations,”
“describe patterns,” “ask questions,” and “construct an argument supported by evi-
dence.” Initial forms of engaging in these practices can and should encourage a
range of student language—especially familiar (e.g., home language) and informal
ways of discussing and explaining phenomena (Goldenberg, 2013; Lee, Quinn, &
Valdes, 2013; Lee & Buxton, 2013). However, as students move through a unit, they
will need support in moving toward discipline-specific language [e.g., what does
observation mean in the context of science (vocabulary); what types of questions do
scientists ask (syntax); what is a science explanation compared to an everyday expla-
nation (discourse)].
Appendix M of the NGSS makes specific connections to language and literacy
standards and lays out the multiple aspects of language and literacy that are specific
to science:
[R]eading in science requires an appreciation of the norms and conventions

of the discipline of science, including understanding the nature of evidence
used, an attention to precision and detail, and the capacity to make and assess
intricate arguments, synthesize complex information, and follow detailed
procedures and accounts of events and concepts. Students also need to be able
to gain knowledge from elaborate diagrams and data that convey information
and illustrate scientific concepts. Likewise, writing and presenting informa-
tion orally are key means for students to assert and defend claims in science,
demonstrate what they know about a concept, and convey what they have
experienced, imagined, thought, and learned.
Some of these science-specific forms of reasoning will likely be unfamiliar to many

students regardless of their primary language; thus, teachers will need to support
all students, which will necessitate the use of sophisticated formative assessment
practices. Next, we describe a research basis for the three dimensions of forma-
tive assessment practices and discuss how science language plays a role in each
dimension.
Dimension 1: Learning Target Use: Where Are We Going?
Formative Assessment Practices

In formative assessment, the ongoing feedback between students and teachers and
among students requires clearly articulated learning targets (also known as learning
goals or student learning objectives) (Popham, 2008; Randel & Clark, 2013). Learn-
ing targets allow teachers to align instruction, assessment, and feedback toward
a common learning outcome, ensuring coherence in the learning process (Wig-
gins & McTighe, 2005). Learning targets should be connected to state, district, or
national standards, and quality learning targets often include rubrics or other tools
that help to make the criteria for meeting various levels of performance explicit
(e.g., the NGSS; Randel & Clark, 2013).
In addition, if learning targets are to be helpful, they should be reviewed and
explained frequently in language that students can understand, so that students
can make connections between the activities and their intended learning. This
is especially important for EL students, who are working to build not only their
three-dimensional science knowledge but also their English fluency (including
science-specific language) (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2003). When teachers

explicitly review discipline-specific and language-specific learning targets with
EL students, it supports students in making specific connections between the
discipline-specific content being taught, students’ related experiences and prior
knowledge, and students’ emerging academic and everyday English language
(Echevarria,Vogt, and Short, 2013).
Science Language
The three-dimensional nature of NGSS performance expectations requires mov-
ing beyond learning targets where students must define or recognize factual infor-
mation. Rather, these learning targets necessitate that students engage in science
and engineering practices such as developing and using models or constructing
explanations. These more language-intensive goals for science learning may pose
particular challenges for EL students. Buxton and colleagues found that in highly
supportive science learning environments, EL students performed similarly as non-
EL students on assessments of content knowledge and experimental practices.
However, EL students still fell behind when researchers assessed the complexity
of their scientific reasoning, which can require advanced language skills (Buxton,
Salinas, Mahotiere, Lee, & Secada, 2015). This likely points to the double challenge
of learning to reason scientifically while simultaneously learning a new language.
Therefore, it is particularly important for teachers to provide supports along with
learning targets to help EL students.
One way of supporting EL students (and all students) as they navigate new ways
of reasoning about scientific phenomena may be to include rubrics and criteria
that include examples for what reaching learning goals look like. For example, if
teachers have an explanation or argumentation-based learning target, they could
use the claims-evidence-reasoning (CER) framework to provide supports for stu-
dents. In this framework, a claim is an answer to an investigable question; evidence
includes scientific data (i.e., measurements and observations) that are both appro-
priate and sufficient in supporting the claim; and reasoning is an explanation of
how the evidence supports the claim, which often includes scientific principles
(McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006). A teacher in a sheltered English immer-
sion classroom who posted CER supports on the wall for her students found that
students used these supports as they worked in small groups to make sense of data
(Gonzalez-Howard & McNeill, 2016). As the types of discourse in classrooms shift,
learning targets that include scaffolds like the CER supports will be essential for
supporting students.
Dimension 2: Evidence of Student Understanding (Where Is the

Student Now?)

Done well, formative assessment is a dialogic process that allows students’ ideas to
guide instruction and learning (e.g., see Crossouard & Pryor, 2012). An essential
component, then, is providing opportunities for students to share their ideas and
understandings, because without knowing what students know, teachers cannot
provide feedback or make informed instructional decisions and students do not
have the information to regulate their learning (Heritage, 2007). These opportuni-
ties to elicit student understanding may be based on whole-class discussions, small
group work, one-on-one conversations, or written work, such as scientific models
or “tickets out the door.”
Significant insight into student understanding is also gained when teachers
blend instructional and eliciting strategies by working alongside their students in
“joint acts of meaning-making and knowledge construction” (Wolfe and Alexan-
der, 2008, p. 1). As students and teachers consult and work together to develop the
students’ understanding and progress on a particular task or learning goal, teach-
ers can simultaneously scaffold students’ developing understandings as they work
to elicit student thinking and sense making (Ruiz-Primo & Furtak, 2006). Thus,
this dimension of formative assessment, “evidence of student understanding,” is
not neatly separated from the third dimension, which is what teachers do with
the information that they gather. Teachers who work with their students and ask
questions that are intended to both elicit and scaffold student thinking gain richer
insight into student thinking. This can enable them to “interpret student responses
in the moment and determine next pedagogical steps, including feedback, that will
move the students closer to successful performance” (Heritage & Heritage, 2013).
In characterizing these types of assessment opportunities, Ruiz Primo and Fur-
tak (2006) suggested the use of cycles named ESRU in which the teacher: Elic-
its students’ ideas; Students respond; Recognizes students’ responses; and Uses the
information to promote future learning. This type of classroom discourse moves
beyond traditional discussion formats such as “initiate-respond-evaluate” (IRE;
Mehan, 1985; Cazden, 2001), which is especially important for EL students because
teachers must ensure they understand students’ levels of understanding in order to
support both their disciplinary learning and their English learning.
When teachers provide opportunities for students to demonstrate rich under-
standings (moving beyond just declarative knowledge), they are better able to
understand students’ ideas (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef, 1989),
are better able to provide feedback targeted to students’ specific ideas, are more
likely to use student ideas in their planning ( Jones & Krouse, 1988), and are able to
make instructional decisions that promote student learning (Fuchs et al., 1991). In
addition, the ways in which teachers follow-up in these initial questions have impli-
cations for the types of information that students may be willing to share (Davis,
1997) and for the larger classroom culture (Supovitz & Turner, 2000).
Science Language
Language demands are especially important to consider when eliciting students’
ideas. Learning science is a sociolinguistic endeavor, meaning that students’ under-
standing and sense making are co-created among individuals engaged in social
interaction and discussion (Leach & Scott, 2002; Carlsen, 1991). This sociolin-
guistic perspective of learning suggests that students share and construct meaning
and develop conceptual understanding in a social context of teacher-student and
student-student interactions that are scaffolded, shaped, and guided to a large degree
by teacher prompts and questions (Carlsen, 1991). Likewise, second language acqui-
sition can also be thought of as a sociolinguistic endeavor, in which users of one
language develop the ability to use another through interactions with peers and
teachers (Duff, 2002; Lantolf, 2006; Pica, 2008).
In order to support EL students’ learning, teachers need to scaffold and support
their students’ emerging understandings of the English language while simultane-
ously attending to their students’ emerging science ideas. When teachers are able
to attend to both students’ language development and science understandings, they
are more likely to realize the potential for language-based miscommunications and
the need to ask follow-up questions of students. These follow-up questions can
allow teachers to: (a) ensure accurate understanding of the student’s science ideas,
regardless of potential struggles with the English language; (b) probe for additional
information into student science thinking; (c) press students to deepen their expla-
nations and include more sense-making processes regarding the science; and (d)
support students as they learn new academic language (van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose,
Simpson, & Wild, 2001; Zhang et al., 2010).
Dimension 3: Responding to Students’

Ideas (How Do We Get There?)

The evidence that teachers and students gather that pinpoints the current status of
a student’s learning should be used to inform the next steps in the learning pro-
cess. Specifically, “for formative assessment to be valid, it must [also] yield tractable
insights” (Heritage, 2010, p. 185). Evidence of student understanding can be used to
guide subsequent teacher and student moves, which often take the form of feedback
(either from the teacher to student or between peers) or the next instructional or
learning decision. Feedback is information that flows to and from the teacher and
students or between students and is conceptualized as “information provided by an
agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s
performance or understanding” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). This information
is “designed to reduce discrepancies between current understandings or performance
and a desired goal” (Wiliam, 2013). The goal of feedback is to provide clear and
descriptive information to help students close the gap between their current under-
standing and the learning goal (Sadler, 1989). Clearly, language—both written and
verbal—plays a large role in structuring the nature of feedback.
In addition to feedback, Black and Wiliam (2009) categorized “moments of con-
tingency” where teachers continually consider evidence of student understanding
to guide their instructional decisions. Ruiz-Primo and Furtak (2006) found that
students tended to have better scores in summative assessments when their teachers
used the information collected in assessment conversations to push student learning
forward. Specific examples of observable instructional decisions include: reteach-
ing or teaching differently (e.g., using different examples or wording); grouping
students differently; providing different activities; or adjusting assessments to better
assess learning.
Science Language
After teachers elicit students’ ideas, it is critically important for teachers to know
what to do with these ideas. Some researchers use a construct of “noticing” to
describe what teachers do with students’ ideas. Noticing consists of three parts: (1)
attending to and identifying useful student ideas, (2) reasoning about these ideas,
and (3) making instructional decisions on the basis of analyzing these student ideas
(Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007). Many teachers struggle with identifying
students’ ideas as useful and may view ideas in a dichotomous fashion of “right” or
“wrong” rather than as seeing potentially productive stepping stones in students’
ideas (Otero, 2006; Wiser, Smith, & Doubler, 2012). This may be especially true for
teachers working with students with limited proficiency in using the English lan-
guage to explain their understanding of unfamiliar science ideas. In these instances,
teachers may be more likely to misattribute a struggle with communicating an idea
in English as an inaccurate understanding of the science idea itself, particularly if the
teacher views student ideas dichotomously as either “right” or “wrong.” Thus, it is
important for teachers to support students in explaining their ideas in multiple ways
and formats (e.g., discussion, written explanations, models).
In addition to the care and attention to the ongoing development of their stu-
dents’ science ideas and understandings, science teachers working with EL students
can use what they have “noticed” about their students’ ideas to support their stu-
dents’ developing language needs as well. In particular, teachers should attend to
supporting their students’ understanding of science discourse as well as supporting
their students’ ability to use common academic language structures in science to
describe the relationships between science ideas (Schleppegrell, 2002;Avenia-Tapper,
Haas, & Hollimon, 2016).This may be especially important because developing dis-
cipline-specific language (such as in science) takes students longer than the time it
takes most students to become proficient with everyday informal language (Fang &
Schleppegrell, 2010).
Best Practices: Phenomenon-Based Instruction

While each of the practices associated with quality formative assessment have been
shown to support students, enacting these practices is sometimes difficult (Davis,
Petish, & Smithey, 2006). Specifically, some of the problems teachers face in the
classroom are limited abilities with framing questions that elicit more than declara-
tive knowledge from students. Teachers may focus primarily on whether students
“get it” or not rather than on eliciting student reasoning and understanding (Fur-
tak, Thompson, Braaten, & Windschitl, 2012). In addition, many teachers do not
“notice” students’ ideas even when they are elicited (e.g., van Es, 2011); for exam-
ple, they may not realize that a student has a productive (although not scientifi-
cally accurate) idea. The idea of noticing is particularly important for EL students
because they may bring in ideas with which the teacher is not familiar and teachers
may struggle to notice how the students’ idea is related to the discussion or topic.
However, when teachers open their classrooms for sense making about scientific
phenomena, they bring opportunities for students from all backgrounds to con-
tribute. For example, in work as part of the Cheche Konnen Center in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Hudicourt-Barnes (2003) describes a Haitian cultural practice called

bay odyans—a form of discourse similar to scientific argumentation. In bay odyans,
one person begins by making a statement, then another challenges in an entertain-
ing and theatrical way with exaggerations. The discussion continues as both then
engage in an entertaining argument or debate. While this is a different approach
to discourse than what typically happens in the discipline of science, Hudicourt-
Barnes argues that this cultural practice of challenging and debating ideas that many
Haitian students are familiar with from their nonschool lives predisposes students
toward scientific inquiry. Teachers who take the time to learn not only about their
students’ cultural experiences but also about their students’ cultural ways of know-
ing, learning about, and discussing ideas are best situated for noticing ways to draw
in and connect to their students’ nonschool lives, languages, and experiences in
ways that support their learning of three-dimensional NGSS science.
In this section, we focus on the importance of situating science instructional
units in rich and accessible science phenomena as a way to promote formative
assessment opportunities and to scaffold science language use for all students. Phe-
nomena may be as simple as a glass of ice water getting “sweaty” on a hot day or
an acorn growing into an oak tree. The key points about these phenomena are
that they are puzzling, they are either familiar to students or all students are given
a common experience to begin the unit, and they require the three-dimensional
nature of science advocated in the NGSS to help make sense of them.
Where Are We Going? Learning Targets

in Phenomena-Based Teaching
Anchoring units with a puzzling phenomenon to guide learning provides a way of
providing coherence for each “step” of the formative assessment process. First of all,
it provides a clear starting point for a unit and provides context for why students
will be studying the content in the unit. For example, students may watch a video
of a railroad tanker car that had imploded after being steam cleaned on the inside
(see Windschitl & Thompson, 2013 and https://vimeo.com/153063393) and the
teacher can begin the unit asking students to ponder how and why this might
have happened. In addition, teachers can ask students to draw “before-during-after”
models with their initial hypotheses for what happened and discuss their ideas
in small groups. Instead of only requiring written hypotheses, developing models
allows EL students more opportunity to participate. If the phenomenon is puzzling
enough, this first step often ends with incomplete explanations and models—and
hopefully with students who are anxious to figure out what is going on.
From these initial models and explanations, the teacher and students, together,
can develop learning targets that they believe will help them explain this phe-
nomenon. Thus, the learning targets may include students’ own language (e.g., “we
need to know the role of the temperature of the steam in the implosion”). This
type of learning target looks different than a traditional science learning target (e.g.,
“I can use temperature to explain the rate of molecular movement”) in that (1) it
is directly connected to a concrete phenomenon, (2) it uses students’ own language
to describe goals for learning, and (3) it is based on what students “need to know.”
The teacher may need to include additional learning targets not brought up by
students to ensure that all learning objectives are met. In addition, the teacher will
need to introduce both scientific vocabulary (e.g., molecular movement) and syn-
tax and discourse practices (e.g., using evidence to support their claims) at appro-
priate places throughout the unit in order to support students in reaching learning
goals. However, allowing students to take more responsibility and use their own
language (either non-science-specific language or home language) to decide what
they need to know provides increased instructional congruence (Lee & Fradd,
1998) and gives students a clear purpose for their learning.
Where Are We Now? Eliciting Student Reasoning

in Phenomena-Based Teaching
Grounding science units in rich science phenomena also provides meaning-
ful formative assessment opportunities throughout the unit. Using the tanker car
example, beginning a unit with students drawing group models and developing ini-
tial explanations is not a traditional “pretest.” Rather, it allows students to use their
own words and their prior knowledge to explain what they think is happening.
Because there are many possible initial explanations for the phenomenon, students
can use language that makes sense to them (and their group) to begin making sense
of the tanker car implosion. In addition, allowing students to use their prior knowl-
edge to begin the unit can open doors for EL students because, if the invitation to
make sense of the phenomenon is framed correctly, it can allow students to bring
in their own experiences as a valued resource for making sense of the phenomenon
(Warren & Rosebury, 2008).
Framing the phenomenon in productive ways can include introducing the phe-
nomena as something puzzling that the class will work together to try to under-
stand (rather than looking for a single correct answer) (Windschitl, Thompson,
Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012). Teachers can ask students if they have any experiences
that might relate to the phenomenon and bring those ideas into the discussion.
This opens doors for students with varied backgrounds to participate. In addition,
allowing students to work in groups on models or explanations of the phenom-
enon before having to speak to the entire class helps all students, but especially
EL students. This is because EL students can use each other as resources to better
understand how to engage in school (e.g., Moje et al., 2004), especially in terms of
modeling classroom discourse norms (Gonzalez & McNeill, 2016;Yoon, 2008). For
EL students, peer interactions also provide opportunities to learn and meaningfully
use their developing English (Valdés, Capitelli, & Alvarez, 2010).
Beginning with a phenomenon also allows teachers to gauge student under-
standing right at the beginning of the unit. It is not helpful for teachers to know
that students don’t know how to define temperature or the relationship between
volume and pressure. However, when teachers structure units that are based on
phenomena that are either everyday experiences or when they provide these expe-
riences to students (e.g., the tanker car video), all students can ponder the reason for
how and why something occurred and students can venture an explanation, which
provides richer evidence of student understanding than traditional pretests.
As the unit progresses, having activities that relate back to the phenomenon
also provide context for coherent and quality formative assessment opportunities.
Units that are based on NGSS and engage students in making sense of phenomena
over time will include opportunities for students to engage in the science practices
and crosscutting concepts contained in the Framework for K-12 Science Educa-
tion (NRC, 2012).2 When students are working on activities that necessitate using
the science practices (and reasoning with the crosscutting concepts), there will be
rich opportunities for them to demonstrate their current levels of understand-
ing. Rather than only having worksheets or engaging in disconnected activities,
students and teachers can gauge their current levels of understanding based on
how close they are to being able to explain the phenomenon. This gives students
more opportunities to engage with self-assessment (Brown & Harris, 2013) and to
regulate their own learning (Allal, 2010). In addition, when students are engaging
with the science practices, the evidence of understanding that teachers can gather
will likely be very rich so that teachers will have better information with which to
make their next instructional decisions.
How Do We Close the Gap? Supporting Student

Sense Making in Phenomena-Based Teaching
Phenomenon-based science teaching also supports formative assessment practices
by providing rich opportunities for scaffolded science discussions that provide feed-
back to students and allow for teachers to make productive instructional decisions.
These discussions may be whole-class discussions or mediated small group discus-
sions where students try to make sense of activities aligned to the phenomenon. In
the example of the tanker car, the unit may progress with students working through
learning opportunities, such as lab work, simulations, and readings, and then, at
regular intervals, returning to their models and explanations to revise them based
on new evidence from an investigation or information from a reading. As students
work together to revise their models, they will have to use multiple ways of mak-
ing sense of the phenomenon—by redrawing or modifying the model, writing and
labeling to explain the model, and having small group discussions while doing the
drawing and writing. Students with strengths in each of these areas can take the
lead in them, so if a student is more comfortable drawing than talking, he or she can
demonstrate their understanding that way (Bell & Cowie, 2001).
Finally, using phenomena allows teachers to use instructional tools for a clear
purpose. For example, many teachers use a KLEWS chart to introduce science
principles and vocabulary at appropriate points in the unit by tying them into
specific activities (Hershberger & Zembal-Saul, 2015). The components of the
KLEWS chart are connected to the CER framework, where teachers and students
work together to fill out:
• K: What do we think we know? (preassessment)

• L: What are we learning? (claims)
• E: What is our evidence? (e.g., from labs, readings, simulations)
• W: What do we still wonder about?
• S: What scientific principles or vocabulary help explain the phenomenon? (rea-

soning) (Hershberger & Zembal-Saul, 2015, p. 67)
These types of organizers are helpful for all students. However, they are especially
helpful for EL students because they can connect ideas of vocabulary, syntax, and
discourse together—providing a structure for learning both science and English at
the same time.

In this chapter, we focused on formative assessment as an ongoing everyday process
that involves both students and teachers in improving teaching and learning. First
and foremost, it is critical that teachers prioritize students in all of their formative
assessment decisions. These decisions include working with students to set learn-
ing targets that are: (1) related to an anchoring scientific phenomenon, (2) pro-
vide meaning for future learning activities, and (3) are in language that students
can understand. Specifically, by attending to vocabulary, syntax, and discourse (e.g.,
using a KLEWS chart to connect activities with evidence and explanations for phe-
nomena or scaffolding scientific ways of reasoning, such as supporting claims with
evidence), as well as returning to the learning targets throughout the unit, teachers
can support students in regulating their own learning.
Teachers also need to provide and support multiple opportunities for students
to demonstrate their understandings. When students engage in science practices
such as asking questions, developing models, analyzing data, arguing with evidence,
and crosscutting concepts such as finding patterns, they will have to move beyond
memorizing and regurgitating facts. Student talk and written artifacts based on
these activities will give teachers rich and nuanced information about students’
understandings with which to base feedback and future instructional decisions.
However, these more complex learning activities also impose language demands
on students. Thus, teachers need to allow for students to represent their under-
standings in a multitude of ways. Specifically, by providing multimodal opportuni-
ties to demonstrate understanding—such as verbal evidence from large and small
group discussions, written explanations and collecting data, and models or other
representations—teachers can allow students to communicate their understandings
in ways that work best for them. In addition, teachers need to consider how to scaf-
fold these opportunities to support students. Written scaffolds to support explana-
tions and hypotheses and verbal scaffolds during discussion will help all students as
they begin to engage in the practices of science.
Relatedly, teachers need to focus on noticing students’ ideas both in discussions
and in written work. Students bring in a various prior experiences and language
backgrounds. When teachers listen to and observe students’ ideas, they must help
students negotiate sense making around phenomena rather than quickly evaluating
students’ answers based on whether they have the “right answer.” Teachers can ask
students to explain what they mean by certain ideas and support students in illus-
trating their thinking in multiple ways. They can also scaffold students as students
begin to bridge their experiences from out of school with their new learnings in
the classrooms. Each of these aspects of formative assessment are enhanced by bas-
ing units in rich and engaging scientific phenomena. The anchoring phenomenon
for a unit provides the coherence between aspects of formative assessment that will
help students make connections between their learning goals, the learning activi-
ties, and feedback that happens in the classroom.
Too often, formative assessment has been considered from the teacher’s view-
point only (Coffey, Hammer, Levin, & Grant, 2011). However, students are the
main actors in their own learning, and so formative assessment decisions must
include specific attention to students as well as teachers. It is important to remem-
ber that the “teacher’s role in formative assessment is not simply to use feedback
to promote content learning, but also to help students understand the goal being
aimed for, assist them to develop the skills to make judgments about their learning
in relation to the standard, and establish a repertoire of operational strategies to
regulate their own learning” (Heritage, 2010, p. 6).Thus, every formative assessment
decision teachers make—from setting learning targets, to providing opportunities
for students to demonstrate their understanding, to helping students make progress
in their learning—must consider students’ prior experiences, the students’ abilities
with language, and the most effective ways to support student learning.

The introduction and implementation of NGSS provides educators with exciting
opportunities to think about improved science instruction, including new ways of
conceptualizing and implementing formative assessment and supports for EL stu-
dents. A main shift inherent in the NGSS is a move away from thinking of science
education as learning disconnected facts and a move toward being better able to
explain and predict the world (and universe) around us. Beginning to use phenom-
ena to anchor instruction is a clear way to begin aligning with the NGSS, and it
is also a way of bringing coherence to formative assessment practices and a way to
open opportunities for all students to participate in science classrooms.
However, there are many things to consider with phenomenon-based instruc-
tion. No matter who their students are, teachers should consider phenomena that
will engage their students. When working with EL students, teachers should con-
sider the types of experiences that students and their families may have that provide
a link between students’ home lives and languages and the science they are study-
ing at school (Lee & Fradd, 1998). Appendix D for the NGSS provides case studies
that illustrate examples of working with diverse students.3 In the case study for
EL students, they tell the story of a second-grade classroom studying soil. In this
case, after working in small groups to explore soil from around the schoolyard, the
teacher asked, “Is soil the same everywhere?” After students spoke with each other,
she asked the students to interview their families, which resulted in a grandmother
coming in to speak with the classroom (through a translator) about the type of soil
in Laos. This type of home-school connection allows for students to see connec-
tions to their everyday lives and illustrates to the students that their teacher values
their (and their families’) experiences. More examples and resources for making
these connections are needed to support teachers.
Another consideration with the move toward phenomenon-based teaching is

that the range of ideas that students may bring to the classroom will increase.Teach-
ers will need to be more prepared to elicit a wide range of students’ ideas, notice
these ideas as they come up in discussion, models or other written work, and use
these ideas to shape instruction. Considering this range of ideas may be especially
important for teachers of EL students. As teachers base their units on phenomena,
they will need to be more attuned to what and how EL students express their ideas
using their home language or not-perfect English. In addition, students may bring
in experiences that the teacher is unfamiliar with but could be very productive
ideas to integrate into the unit. Therefore, teachers will need supports and tools
aligned with both NGSS and best practices around supporting disciplinary lan-
guage as they hone their formative assessment practices. While quality formative
assessment practices should support all students, particular types of tools will be
helpful for teachers of EL students so that they best know how to facilitate language
and science learning together.
Several science educators have begun developing and sharing resources aligned to
NGSS, including a heuristic for developing productive phenomena (McKenna, 2016);
teaching tools, including those for formative assessment and engaging EL students
(http://stemteachingtools.org/); and frameworks for grounding instruction (e.g.,
http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org/). However, research on best ways of support-
ing preservice and in-service teachers to enact quality formative assessment practices
aligned with NGSS and for different populations of students is young. In preservice
teacher education, we need research to better understand how to introduce preser-
vice teachers to the practices of science (because they likely will not have experi-
enced three-dimensional science learning and teaching), while also supporting them
in developing instructional techniques to support all of their future students’ learning.
The same considerations are likely true for in-service teachers. With changing
instruction coming with the NGSS, it will be important for teachers and research-
ers to examine the best ways to support students who are learning science and
English together. This will be especially important because as teachers begin to: (1)
anchor their units with scientific phenomena and (2) provide opportunities for stu-
dents to (a) ask more questions, (b) give (perhaps not-fully-formed) explanations,
and (c) argue for their explanation based on evidence, the types of student ideas and
various uses of language will increase. Phenomenon-based instruction integrated
with formative assessment strategies can be beneficial for all students. With careful
consideration for how to choose and present phenomena as well as being “planful”
about opening up classrooms to a wider range of students’ ideas, the shift to NGSS
presents an opportunity for teachers and students from all backgrounds to delve
deeply into science and language learning.
Notes
1 Sadler (1989) delineated three necessary components of feedback: (1) the standard, which is
to be achieved, (2) the actual level of performance, and (3) how to go about closing the gap.
Building on this, Hattie and Timperley (2007) suggested that “effective feedback must answer
three major questions asked by a teacher and/or a student:Where am I going? (What are the
goals?), How am I going? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next?
(What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?) (p. 86).
2 The eight practices in the NRC Framework (2012) are: (1) asking questions (for science)
and defining problems (for engineering); (2) developing and using models; (3) planning
and carrying out investigations; (4) analyzing and interpreting data; (5) using mathemat-
ics and computational thinking; (6) constructing explanations (for science) and designing
solutions (for engineering); (7) engaging in argument from evidence; and (8) obtaining,
evaluating, and communicating information.
The seven crosscutting concepts are: (1) patterns; (2) cause and effect; (3) scale, propor-
tion, and quantity; (4) systems and system models; (5) energy and matter; (6) structure and
function; and (7) stability and change.
3 Appendix D Case Studies: www.nextgenscience.org/appendix-d-case-studies
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). The Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from
www.nextgenscience.org/
Allal, L. (2010). Assessment and the regulation of learning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.
McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, pp. 348–352). Oxford: Elsevier.
Avenia-Tapper, B., Haas, A., & Hollimon, S. (2016). Explicitly speaking. Science and Children,
53(8), 42.
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001).The characteristics of formative assessment in science education.
Science Education, 85, 536–553.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Brown, G.T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.),
SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Buxton, C.A., Salinas, A., Mahotiere, M., Lee, O., & Secada, W. (2015). Fourth-grade emer-
gent bilingual learners scientific reasoning complexity, controlled experiment practice,
and content knowledge when discussing school, home, and play contexts. Teachers College
Record, 117, 1–36.
Carlsen,W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 61, 157–178.
Carpenter,T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge
of children’s mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An empirical study. American
Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse:The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant,T. (2011).The missing disciplinary substance
of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136.
Crossouard, B., & Pryor, J. (2012). How theory matters: Formative assessment theory and
practices and their different relations to education. Studies in Philosophy and Education,
31(3), 251–263.
Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355–376.
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.
Duff, P. A. (2002).The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An eth-
nography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–322.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2003). School reform and standards-based education: How
do teachers help English language learners? (Technical report). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Echevarria, J. J., Vogt, M. J., & Short, D. J. (2013). Making content comprehensible for elementary
English learners:The SIOP model. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Ed.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Support-
ing secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 53(7), 587–597.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P.M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based
measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in math-
ematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617–641.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Dutka, S., & Katzaroff, M. (2000). The
importance of providing background information on the structure and scoring of per-
formance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 1–34.
Furtak, E. M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2012). Learning progressions to
support ambitious teaching practices. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning
progressions in Science. Rotterdam/The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Goldenberg, C. (2013, Summer). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we
know—and don’t know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 4–38.
González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Learning in a community of practice: Fac-
tors impacting English-learning students’ engagement in scientific argumentation. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 527–553.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81–112.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi
Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–146.
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next generation assessment systems: Are we losing
an opportunity? Paper prepared for the Council of Chief State School Officers. Los Ange-
les: UCLA National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST).
Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Teacher questioning: The epicenter of instruction and
assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 176–190.
Hershberger, K., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2015, February). KLEWS to explanation building in
science: An update to the KLEW chart adds a tool for explanation building. Science and
Children, 66–71.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61.
Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003).The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science classrooms.
Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73–93.
Jones, E. D., & Krouse, J. P. (1988). The effectiveness of data-based instruction by student
teachers in classrooms for pupils with mild learning handicaps. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 1(1), 9–19.
Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assess-
ment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(3), 263–268.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,
67–109.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An
approach to drawing upon the concept of learning demands and a social constructivist
perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Integrating science and English proficiency for English
language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(1), 36–42.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-Language
backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12–21.
42(4), 223–233.
McKenna, J. J. (2016). NGSS Phenomena: A Heuristic for Coming up with Academically Produc-
tive Phenomena. Retrieved on November 18, 2016 from https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/56e316c61bbee06d13210ed6/t/582fbda2e58c625a736aedea/1479523749199/
AHeuristicforPhenomena.pdf
McNeill, K., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construc-
tion of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Mehan, H. (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of
discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 119–131). London: Academic Press.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds
of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.
Moulding, B. D., Bybee, R. W., & Paulson, N. (2015). A vision and plan for science teaching and
learning: An educator’s guide to A Framework for K—12 Science Education, Next Generation
Science Standards, and state science standards. Salt Lake City: Essential Teaching and Learning
Publications.
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Otero, V. (2006). Moving beyond the “Get it or don’t” conception of formative assessment.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247–255.
Pica,T. (2008).Task-based teaching and learning. In B. Spolsky & F. K. Hult (Eds.), The hand-
book of educational linguistics (pp. 525–538). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to
Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to
know. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Stand-
ards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 32.
Randel, B., & Clark, T. (2013). Measuring classroom assessment practices. In J. H. McMillan
(Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific
inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3–
4), 205–235.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instruc-
tional Science, 18(119–144).
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Challenges of the science register for ESL students: Errors and
meaning-making. In M.J. Schleppegrell & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced lit-
eracy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 119–142). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence
Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics approach. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Supowitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on sci-
ence teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9),
963–980.
Valdes, G., Capitelli, S., & Alvarez, L. (2010). Latino children learning English: Steps in the journey.
New York: Teachers College Press.
van Es, E. A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice. In M. Sherin,V. Jacobs, & R. Philipp
(Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York: Taylor & Francis.
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher
questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
38(2), 159–190.
Warren, B., & Rosebury, A. S. (2008). Using everyday experiences to teach science. In A. S.
Rosebury & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners: Building on stu-
dents’ strengths (pp. 39–50). Washington, DC: NSTA Press.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Voices from the
Middle, 21(2), 15–20.
Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. (2013, September). The modeling toolkit: Making student
thinking visible with public representations. The Science Teacher, 63–69.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of
instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.
Wiser, M., Smith, C., & Doubler, S. (2012). Learning progressions as tools for curriculum
development. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Cur-
rent challenges and future directions. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. J. (2008, December). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative
pedagogies for a changing world. London: FutureLab (Beyond Current Horizons).
Yoon, S. (2008). Using memes and memetic processes to explain social and conceptual influ-
ences on students understanding about complex socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 45(8), 900–921.
Zhang, M., Passalacqua, S., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M.J., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J., Urban-
Lurain, M., Zhang, T., & Paik, S. (2010). “Science talks” in kindergarten classrooms:
Improving classroom practice through collaborative action research. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 21, 161–179.
10
THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS
AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Interactions That Matter
for English Learners
Tina Cheuk, Phil Daro, and Vinci Daro
Focus Points
• Measurement of students’ mathematics knowledge is confounded by students’
facility in the language of the assessment, threatening the validity of the assess-
ment for students who are learning English.
• The language of mathematics includes the language practices by which stu-
dents engage in mathematics learning, as well as the syntax and discourse
features across a range of genres in mathematics, including the genre of sum-
mative mathematics assessment, which is evolving.
• Mathematics test items assess more than just “the math”; they include both
construct-relevant and construct-irrelevant language demands that interact
with students’ mathematical knowledge and expertise. Assessment developers
need to do a better job of minimizing construct-irrelevant difficulty in items.
• Teachers of mathematics need to prepare their students for the discipline-
specific language demands of mathematics, and policy makers need to under-
stand the limitations on the validity of inferences based on summative tests for
English learners (EL students).
• Assessment developers, teachers, and policy makers need robust understandings
of how sociocultural factors influence the way students make sense of math-
ematics and respond to mathematics test items.
Chapter Purpose
Students interact with mathematics through the use of language. In order for stu-
dents to make sense of a problem situation in a test item, they need to be able to
read, understand, and, in many cases, produce the language of mathematics. This
presents both challenges and opportunities for students learning English, because
mathematics is multisemiotic (O’Halloran, 2000, 2005, 2015; Schleppegrell, 2007;
188 Tina Cheuk et al.
Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000): It is construed through symbolic expressions, visual
displays such as diagrams and graphs, correlational representations such as tables and
charts, and written text, as well as verbal communication and gesture. The purpose
of this chapter is to highlight the significance of the language of mathematics for
assessing student competencies in the context of summative testing and for assessing
EL students’ mathematics competencies. We aim to provide guidance for teachers
who support mathematics learning for EL students, for assessment developers who
face the challenge of minimizing construct-irrelevant difficulty in test items, and
for policy makers who make inferences and decisions based on the results of sum-
mative tests.
First, we will provide an overview of current research on increasing EL students’
access to mathematics items. Then, we offer a framework for understanding the
language demands of summative mathematics assessment items. Lastly, we discuss
implications for interpreting EL student outcomes on high-stakes tests and offer
suggestions for future research and practice that might guide more valid inferences
about students’ competencies in mathematics and the language of mathematics.
Summative Assessment and EL Students

Summative assessments have high stakes for students and educators alike (Amrein &
Berliner, 2002; Au, 2007; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Nichols, Berliner, & Noddings,
2007). For example, placements in course pathways often determine opportunities
for student advancement. Conversely, unnecessary diversions to remedial programs
have high costs to students in both time and opportunities lost, including lowering
expectations on the part of teachers and other providers in the institution. No less
serious a consequence is the impact on a student’s beliefs about himself or herself
and on expectations that drive or dampen motivation (Dweck, 2006).When students
and educators engage with the processes and outcomes that result from high-stakes
testing, these interactions can easily impact students’ sense of self-efficacy, amplifying
motivation and stereotype threat (Steele, 1997). These stakes are made even greater
for EL students, who encounter the dual demands of content and language in the
context of summative assessments (Abedi & Gándara, 2006; Heubert, 2000).
High-stakes summative assessments are first and foremost a transaction between
the educational system and the individual. As such, these assessments should meet
standards for a fair and equitable transaction. While the goal of mathematics assess-
ments is to measure students’ competencies in mathematics, researchers have found
these assessments inadvertently test students’ language and literacy skills. In other
words, math items include language demands that confound the measurement of
what students may know and complicate subsequent inferences we can make about
students’ mathematics competencies (Kiplinger, Haug, & Abedi, 2000; Korpriva,
Thurlow, Perie, Lazarus, & Clark, 2016).
Additionally, assessment developers need to consider how cultural dimensions
influence how students interpret and respond to test items. For example, in Solano-
Flores and Nelson-Barber’s (2001) work on science assessments, they define soci-
ocultural influences to include “the values, beliefs, experiences, communication
Language of Math and Summative Assessment 189
patterns, teaching and learning styles, and epistemologies inherent in students’ cul-
tural backgrounds, as well as the socioeconomic conditions prevailing in their cul-
tural groups” (p. 553). How we assess across cultures often relies on assumptions we
have about student populations. If the assessments are designed for the dominant
culture of English-only students, then the inferences we are making about EL stu-
dents may be inaccurate or biased.
The high stakes of testing also impact the lives of teachers, principals, and district
and state leaders. Within each nested level of the system, assessments pressure indi-
viduals with political, legal, and personnel effects that influence the core of teach-
ing and learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Ho, 2014). When outcomes of summative
assessment are used to draw inferences about the performance and quality of teach-
ers, principals, and schools, these inferences should meet high standards of validity
and fairness.When summative assessments are tightly aligned to decisions related to
resource allocation in schools (e.g., course offerings, teacher assignments, student
placements), test developers need to ensure that an assessment system’s outcomes
accurately reflect and represent the competencies being measured.
Current approaches to interpreting summative assessment outcomes do not
accurately represent the complex nature of the language and linguistic features that
are inherent in items (Solano-Flores, 2014). Math items work together to measure
students’ competencies.Together, these items are defined by a particular mathemat-
ics concept to form a one-dimensional scale for measurement. However, linguistic
and sociocultural features are also found within these same math items. As a result,
in analysis of correlations across item sets, item difficulty is generated by multiple
sources: They assess the targeted mathematics competency, a student’s interaction
with the language of the targeted mathematics, and the student’s interaction with
the item. Students’ interactions with each item produce score variations that are
dependent on the linguistic demands inherent in the item (Solano-Flores & Li,
2009, 2013). While some linguistic demands directly interfere with students’ com-
prehension of mathematics, others do not. The challenge for item developers in
viewing language as an integral part of mathematics learning is that there are not
well-developed explicit strategies or heuristics that can work around the language
of mathematics without compromising the validity of the mathematics construct
to be tested.
The items found on high-stakes tests focus on targeted mathematics, and for the
most part, concepts are treated as unidimensional constructs that do not account
for the complexities of language demands. The language demands of mathematics
go beyond specific vocabulary or specialized terms, as mathematics is multisemiotic
in nature (O’Halloran, 2000, 2005, 2015; Schleppegrell, 2007; Wong Fillmore &
Snow, 2000). Assessment items may be represented by text, visuals, diagrams, tables,
graphs, animations of models, and symbols. Students must navigate among these
various forms, make meaning across these representations with their own linguistic
resources, and produce answers that match the expected mathematical and linguis-
tic outputs of the item.
English-dominant students and EL students may have different linguistic resources
that can help them comprehend and respond to math items. For EL students, perfor-
mance on mathematical word problems may be biased downwards by the language
demands that are inherent in both the task and in their productive responses when
compared to native English speakers (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Cuevas, 1984; Martiniello,
2008, 2009; Pimm, 1987; Roth, Ercikan, Simon, & Fola, 2015; Solano-Flores, 2006).
To the extent that language demands unrelated to mathematics increase the difficulty
of test items, estimates of student mathematics achievement are depressed. Variance
in scores due to construct-irrelevant difficulties can lead to errors in inferences about
mathematics achievement. While all students may face comprehension difficulties
with math items, EL students are impacted differentially.
Language, Mathematics, and the Language of Mathematics

As we have argued so far, we cannot assess mathematics knowledge without
simultaneously assessing students’ facilities with the language of mathematics. As
part of the process of learning mathematics, students must learn what linguists
deem a “mathematical register,” which encompasses a set of meanings, uses,
and functions of language that is used expressly in the teaching and learning
of mathematics (Halliday, 1978; Herbel-Eisenmann, Johnson, Otten, Cirillo, &
Steele, 2015; Moschkovich, 2015; Schleppegrell, 2007). Students and teachers
move back and forth between “everyday” language that aids in students’ sense-
making of mathematical concepts and tasks and a register of specialized semiotic
system that requires intentional instruction and opportunities for student prac-
tice and engagement (O’Halloran, 2015). As we will elaborate in more detail
in the next section, the specialized representational schemes of mathematics
are central to the discipline; mathematical language with its representations is
construct-relevant.
Solano-Flores (2010) organizes mathematical language into two major dimen-
sions: a functional view where language is viewed as a process and as a system of
communications and knowledge building, and a formal view where the structures
of linguistic features can be found across tasks and genres of mathematics. Suppose
a student was asked to describe the following equation to the class:
3x + 2y = 5z
Here are three hypothetical oral responses:
Student 1: “Three x’s and two y’s gives me 5 z’s.”

Student 2: “Three times x plus two times y is five times z.”
Student 3: “Three x plus two y equals five z.”
The first response describes a calculation being carried out, and in this descrip-
tion, “5z’s” has a different status than three x’s and two y’s; it is the answer.
The second response also describes a set of operations, but this response and
the third response are algebraic statements: The verb “is” or “equals” states that
the subject and the predicate refer to the same number; 3x + 2y is a different
name (expression) for “5z.” These different responses likely reflect students’ dif-
ferent experiences in moving among semiotic systems of mathematics, their
everyday language, and the language of mathematics. The processes of moving
among these spheres provide important opportunities for content and language
development for students. Teachers may point out that the “=” sign can be inter-
changeable with the word “is,” serving as an important marker for meaning
making in problem-solving contexts.
Researchers who hold the view that language is a structural component of
mathematics attend to the way linguistic features play out in the organization
of text (Crystal, 1997; Zwiers, 2014). This often includes technical and every-
day vocabulary, syntax, and grammar of the math tasks as units of analysis. It is
here that item developers have made the most significant progress in provid-
ing guidance related to supporting access for EL students (Abedi, 2008; Kief-
fer, Rivera, & Francis, 2012; Sato, 2008). These accommodations range from
modifications that include using simplified English in item design and providing
vocabulary assistance through the use of glossaries, to providing extended time
and matching the language of the test to the language of instruction or in stu-
dents’ primary language (e.g., Spanish) (Abedi, Courtney, & Leon, 2003; Kieffer,
Rivera, & Francis, 2012). These supports are intended to increase students’ com-
prehension of items and provide greater access for students to demonstrate their
competencies in mathematics.
While these accommodations aim at reducing the language load for EL students
when employed at the construct and item development level, they have mixed
student outcomes (Abedi, 2008; Abedi & Lord, 2001; Duran, 2008; Sato, 2008).
A promising language-related accommodation has been the strategy of linguistic
modification (Abedi, 2008; Sato, 2008). Without altering the math construct to be
tested, the aim of linguistic modification for items is to minimize construct-irrelevant
language so that EL students have greater access and interactions with the intended
mathematics of the item. A major challenge to this strategy is to ensure that the
integrity of the math construct is not altered.
In our current conditions of large-scale testing, we are constrained by time,
costs, scoring reliability, and limited feedback mechanisms to students and teachers.
These constraints limit testing to a meager sample of the range of work students can
produce under the current standards.To better understand this dilemma, we have to
better understand the validity of these assessments, especially as they pertain to EL
students.The validity of test scores used to make inferences that impact EL students
depends on the validity of the test items. Construct-irrelevant language difficulties
are a major threat to this validity.
We agree with researchers who argue that decisions about individuals (e.g., stu-
dents, teachers, principals) based on summative assessment outcomes pose serious
validity questions related to EL student performance (Abedi, Lord, & Hofstetter,
1998; Abedi, Courtney, & Leon, 2003; Abedi & Gándara, 2006; Kiplinger, Haug, &
Abedi, 2000; Lane & Leventhal, 2015). After all, large-scale, standardized summative
tests are not designed to be tools to guide individual decision making, as they serve
as blunt instruments in measuring mathematics achievement (Wu, 2012). Rather,
large-scale assessments rely on statistical models that support inferences from sam-
ples to populations.
If we are interested in using large-scale assessment results to learn some-
thing about how well populations of EL students are learning mathematics, then
assessment item development should be informed by instructional practices that

support EL students in developing competencies in both mathematics and the lan-
guage of mathematics. The questions that follow, adapted from Daro and Kokka
(2016, p. 54), serve as considerations for evaluating how well an item is connected
to instructional practices that support EL students:
1. Is the stimulus/prompt presented in a way that is considerate, i.e., in a way that

minimizes construct-irrelevant difficulty by being concise, clear, mathemati-
cally and contextually coherent, and student-friendly?
2. Is the item focused on a core disciplinary idea, process, or representation that
is teachable and learnable, and worth teaching and learning?
3. Are multiple entry points built into the item (e.g., visual representations, tech-
nology enhancements, or response formats) that provide resources which stu-
dents can use to comprehend and reason about the problem and produce a
response?
4. Does the item support multiple approaches to a problem, and is the response
format open enough to allow for more than one correct answer or more than
one way of expressing a correct answer?
5. If there are technology enhancements, do the enhancements offer a productive
scaffold for student reasoning without reducing the construct-relevant rigor of
the item?
6. Is the item situated in a context likely to be meaningful and sensible to stu-
dents from diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds?
In the rest of this chapter, we will focus primarily on the first of these ques-
tions, with illustrations of how to analyze the role that construct-relevant and
construct-irrelevant language demands play in assessment items. Our analysis is
intended to support further discussion of questions about item design and item
quality.
Best Practices
We cannot untangle assessment of students’ mathematical knowledge from assess-
ment of students’ facilities with the language of mathematics. However, to under-
stand how the interaction of language and mathematics generates challenges in the
context of summative assessment, we must distinguish between construct-relevant
and construct-irrelevant language.
It is unclear whether item-writing practices for summative assessments in
mathematics have sufficiently minimized construct-irrelevant comprehension
challenges. Between 25% and 37% of test items on U.S. state and national sum-
mative assessments in use during 2003–2006 were “inconsiderately written” (Daro,
Stancavage, Ortega, DeStefano, & Linn, 2007; DeStefano & Johnson, 2013). We
argue that these inconsiderately written items have contributed significantly to the
construct-irrelevant variance that manifests itself in both the true and observed
score of the item (see Figure 10.1). As we have stated, the goal for item writers is
Error
Construct-Irrelevant
Variance
Observed
Score
True
Valid Measurement Score
Construct
Construct Under-
representation
(Adapted from Messick, 1995)
FIGURE 10.1 Measurement Components of a Construct
to minimize the construct-irrelevant variance so that the linguistic demands do

not contribute to systematic downward bias in scoring for EL students. In decreas-
ing construct-irrelevant language demands, however, the item development process
must not unintentionally increase construct underrepresentation due to lost relevant
mathematical language demand.
Reading comprehension of test items presents multiple challenges for all stu-
dents; some are construct-relevant, but many are construct-irrelevant. Building on
the review of research and theory mentioned earlier, reading comprehension in
mathematics goes beyond specific vocabulary or specialized terms. The grammar
of mathematics can include dense noun phrases, relational processes between ideas,
and precise and technical meanings of conjunctions and disjunctions (Schleppe-
grell, 2007). Often termed “academic language,” this type of language is cognitively
demanding, as the tasks depend on a “broad knowledge of words, phraseology,
grammar, and pragmatic conventions for expression, understanding, and interpre-
tation (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000, p. 20). A broader definition of academic
literacy in mathematics, proposed by Moschkovich (2015), integrates mathemati-
cal proficiency, mathematical practices, and mathematical discourse as three major
components working together; as stated earlier, the language of mathematics moves
between “everyday” language and a language that is used expressly for mathemati-
cal purposes.
As stated previously, the specialized disciplinary representational schemes
can contribute to the construct-relevant difficulty of an assessment item.
Table 10.1 summarizes some common linguistic demands that may hinder
student comprehension and is divided into two parts: language features that
contribute to construct-irrelevant variance and language features that are
construct-relevant. The construct-relevant language features can contribute to
item difficulty but reflect appropriate means for conveying and measuring a
disciplinary construct.
TABLE 10.1 Features That Add Linguistic Demand to Summative Assessment Items
Construct-Relevant Features Construct-Irrelevant Features
Story features that make the mathematical Story features that engage interest away
question engaging from the mathematical question
Compound sentences used to make logical Compound sentences that could be broken
relations explicit (e.g., If. . ., then. . .) up without losing logical connections
Sentence complexity used to express logical Sentence complexity used to express
relations among quantities: clauses and context of a problem
phrases joined by “and, or, if, let . . .”
Phrases used to express quantitative Use of quantifier words referring to
relations: phrases using “of, per, each, something other than quantities of
every, some, all, for all, one, a, the, more interest
than, less than, taller, as tall as, the same as,
equal, greater than . . .”
Unnecessary embedded clauses
Use of passive voice to make abstract Unnecessary use of passive voice to
statements describe action in a word problem
Phrases used to refer and co-refer to Pronouns whose reference is ambiguous.
quantities known, unknown, or variable Using different words to refer to the
same identity (character, quantity,
situation)
In a multiple-choice problem, reference to
the answer set embedded in the context
language
Symbolic expressions Unfamiliar non-mathematical notations or
symbols
Cartesian graphs and standard tables Esoteric graphs, charts or tables
Mathematical representations specified in Unfamiliar charts and diagrams, odd
standards such as number lines, double representations of data, violations of
number lines, tables, tape or bar diagrams, common conventions in diagrams or
histograms, arrays charts
Diagrams that show relationships between/ Illustrations that provide context but
among quantities convey no information relevant to
solving the problem
Diagrams of geometric figures that Violations of conventions in diagrams of
conform to conventions geometric figures
Item Analysis
To solve a word problem, a student must make sense of the problem situation.
Making sense of the problem situation is building a “situation model” or mental
model in comprehending the text of a word problem (Davis, 1984; Kintsch, 1974;
Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978). In other words, reading comprehension of the word
problem and making sense of the mathematics of the problem overlap to a great
extent. If the reading comprehension is made more difficult because of construct-
irrelevant demands, greater error is introduced into the construct. If such irrelevant
comprehension demand is common across items, then systematic errors are intro-
duced, impacting all learners, especially EL students.
In what follows, we analyze two test items (Figures 10.2 and 10.3) to dis-
tinguish between construct-relevant and construct-irrelevant features of word
problems. Our analysis attends to two dimensions of difficulty—language
and mathematics—and includes three parts: (1) likely sources of difficulty;
(2) quantities and inferences in the problem; and (3) construct-relevant and
construct-irrelevant language demands.
1. Likely Sources of Difficulty

This item (Figure 10.2), which is more considerately written than many summative
test items, requires students to develop a mental model of the situation from the
text. From the text, students construct a mental model of a rectangular container
and amounts of water that fit and do not fit inside of this container. The problem
requires several kinds of sensemaking about units of measurement. Students who
have been exposed to problem situations involving rectangular prisms are likely
to recognize the context as familiar from the first sentence. However, the details
about the water in this situation may be challenging to interpret, even for students
with a lot of experience working with rectangular prisms in math class. One pos-
sible source of difficulty in this item is the fact that the phrase “6.5 liters of water
are poured into the container” and the word “overflow” each refer to a volume of
water. Another possible source of difficulty is the management of units across the
set of inferences that must be made in comprehending the problem.
A rectangular container that has a length of 30 cm, a width of 20 cm, and a

height of 24 cm is filled with water to a depth of 15 cm. When an addi-
tional 6.5 liters of water are poured into the container, some water over-
flows. How many liters of water overflow the container?
Use words, pictures, and numbers to explain your answer. (Remember:
1 cm3 = 1 ml)
FIGURE 10.2 Example Item #1

Source: Eureka Math™ for Engage NY, 2015
2. Quantities and Inferences in This Problem

There are four different kinds of quantities in this problem, each linked to different
inferences.
1. The linear dimensions of the rectangular container: “length,” “width,” and

“height.” A student must infer that these three given linear dimensions can be
coordinated into a model of a rectangular container and must infer that this
container has a volume that can be calculated.
2. The “water to a depth of,” which is presented as another linear dimension:
15 cm. This quantity has a different meaning and use than the first three linear
dimensions; an inference must be made that the linear measurement of 15 cm
is an indication of a second volume, specifically the volume of water initially
inside of the container.
3. The “additional 6.5 liters of water are poured” is a third volume, yet given in
another unit of measurement (liters). An inference must be made that a unit
conversion from liters to cubic cm will allow for combining or comparing the
two given amounts of water.
4. The unknown amount “liters of water overflow the container” is a fourth
volume, asked for in liters. The mental model must support the inferences
that a comparison can be made between the volume of the container
and the combined amounts of water given in the problem, and that the
unknown amount of water is the difference between these two derived
quantities. Reading comprehension, including relevant inferences and
visualizations, puts a student in a position to develop a solution strategy
that involves translating the question asked into an equation or set of
calculations.
3. Construct-Relevant and -Irrelevant Language Demands
1. Likely Sources of Difficulty

This Grade 4 item (Figure 10.3) is challenging primarily because of the language in
the item stem, the question asked, and the answer choices rather than because of its
mathematical conceptual or technical difficulty. The item’s difficulty also comes from
the layering of a probabilistic context over the top of more basic mathematics (i.e.,
knowledge of odd and even numbers). The reading comprehension work required by
the item is likely to be more complex than the mathematics competencies targeted
by this item. The mathematical work of this item is numerical and semiotic. To carry
out the numerical reasoning, students must recognize the given numbers 6, 2, and 8 as
even numbers; students must also recognize these numbers as digits that can be arranged
to define distinct multi-digit numbers. Additionally, students must apply their under-
standing of place values to recognize that the digit in the “ones place” of a multi-digit
whole number defines that number as odd or even. This mathematical thinking does
not exceed the bounds of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Grade 2 understand-
ings of number and place value in a base 10 system. The probabilistic context that is
6 2 8
The three digits above can be used to make 6 different 3-digit numbers.
If one of the 3-digit numbers is picked at random, what are the chances that it will be an
odd number?
A. Impossible
B. Possible but not very likely
C. Very likely but not certain
D. Certain
FIGURE 10.3 Example Item #2

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2011
TABLE 10.2 Summary of Construct-Relevant and Construct-Irrelevant Language Demands

for Item #1
Construct-Relevant Language Demands Construct-Irrelevant Language Demands
All of the inferences about the “When an additional 6.5 liters of water are
quantities given require students to poured into the container, some water
engage in the CCSS Standards for overflows.”
Mathematical Practice, specifically The language in this sentence may get in the
MP1, MP2, and MP4. way of mathematical sensemaking. “When an
Although there are many points additional 6.5 liters of water are poured into
within the sensemaking process the container” is in passive voice. Presumably,
where students can go offtrack, this someone (subject) pours an additional 6.5
kind of mathematical sensemaking liters of water (object) in the container, and
is construct-relevant. Imagining the some water overflows. The subject is not
four volumes and their relationships explicitly mentioned, obscuring the intended
are construct-relevant. meaning.
The measurement terms such as The directions are in the genre of procedural
“rectangular container,” “length,” narrative: “Use words, pictures, and numbers
“width,” “height,” “depth,” and “liters” to explain your answer” leads with the
cannot be replaced or simplified objects. These could be worded better as a
and contribute to the mathematical directive: “Explain your answer using words,
construction of the problem. pictures, and numbers.”
layered on top of this mathematical content dials up the complexity of the item into
CCSS Grade 7 territory, conceptually if not technically; this contextual layer carries
much greater potential for interference in mathematical sensemaking for EL students.
The semiotic mathematical work of this item is more complex than the numeri-
cal work involved. The first sentence, which contains the references “three digits,”
“6 different numbers,” and “3-digit numbers,” presents a potential comprehension

challenge for EL students. Even if students successfully decipher the referents, or the
object to which the term or symbol refers, they still may not successfully interpret
the meaning of the sentence as a whole to be about rearranging the three given dig-
its into different three-digit long sequences, to generate a set of distinct three-digit
numbers, or to be about the fact that there are six such distinct numbers. Additional
mathematical semiotic work is required to navigate the probabilistic context of the
item, including linking the question, which asks,“what are the chances?” to the answer
choices, which are presented in a variety of linguistic formats. Students need to inter-
pret, translate, or estimate a math-equivalent meaning of each of the answer responses
(i.e., impossible, possible but not very likely, very likely but not certain, and certain).
The most challenging to interpret are answer choices B and C, which include an
adverb of “very” modifying the likelihood of an occurrence, which is then followed by
negative conjunction “but.” Providing the answer choices as numerical values (e.g., as
decimal values or as percentages) would make the link between the question asked and
the possible answers clearer mathematically; however, the mathematical competencies
required for interpreting these values fall outside of the Grade 4 target of the item.
2. Quantities and Inferences in This Problem

There are several kinds of quantities in this problem that are linked to a set of infer-
ences that must be made by the student.
1. Digits. There are three digits given in this item: 6, 2, and 8.

2. Numbers of a certain length. In this item, the focus is on “3-digit numbers.”
3. A number of numbers. In this item, there are “6 different numbers” (each of
which is a three-digit number).
4. Likelihoods of an event. Each of the answer choices provided is a description
of a likelihood of something happening (an odd number being drawn from a
set of six numbers).
The inferences that must be made to coordinate among these quantities, par-
ticularly given their complex representations in words, presents multiple opportu-
nities for construct-irrelevant difficulty to introduce bias in the assessment.
3. Construct-Relevant and -Irrelevant Language Demands
TABLE 10.3 Summary of Construct-Relevant and Construct-Irrelevant Language Demands

for Item #2
Construct-Relevant Language (Including Construct-Irrelevant Language (Including

Semiotics of Diagrams) Demands Semiotics) Demands
Students need to distinguish the difference The mix of representations of numbers in

between “three digits” and “3-digit the item stem adds construct-irrelevant
numbers” in the problem stem. The first demand for the reader. Specifically, the
references the digits as individual inconsistency in representing
Construct-Relevant Language (Including Construct-Irrelevant Language (Including

Semiotics of Diagrams) Demands Semiotics) Demands
units and the latter references a type “three digits” in word form and
of number that will be used in the “6 different numbers” in numerical
subsequent question. form adds construct-irrelevant
linguistic complexity. Moreover, the
embedded phrase “3-digit” inside of
the expression “6 different ‘3-digit’
numbers” requires disentangling
referents while navigating the mix of
representations.
Students need to understand the meaning Answer choices “B” and “C” include
of “picked at random” to successfully complicated word construction
interpret the question. This phrase is that requires additional logic with
construct-relevant to the extent that the negative conjunction of “but.”
probabilistic reasoning is part of the The phrase “very likely” is seen in
assessment target for this item. two positions, following the “but”
in answer choice “B” and preceding
“but” in answer choice “C.” While “B”
and “C” represent the opposite ends
of a probability scale, students have
to interpret differences between the
“possible” and “not certain.”

We began this chapter with aims of providing guidance for item writers, teachers,
and policy makers who interact with various parts of summative assessment systems
and drive decision making that impacts students, teachers, and school systems. To
this end, we pose some core questions that can guide future research and practice at
the intersection of summative assessment, mathematics learning, and language use.
How do we expand our thinking in the theories we

have regarding the interactions of mathematics
and language learning that guide how we measure
mathematics knowledge and expertise?
In this chapter, we have illustrated that items not only measure students’ competen-
cies in mathematics, but they include unaccounted-for language constructs that
interact with students’ access to the task. This suggests that measurement of student
proficiencies with mathematics test items not only measures students’ mathematics
knowledge but also their construct-irrelevant language proficiencies in navigating
the content. We need to design tests that maximize the distribution of variance to
two or three dimensions and do a better job of representing and reporting on the
multidimensionality of constructs being assessed. We need more robust statistical
models that capture the multidimensionality of tests and provide users with greater
guidance and flexibility in the interpretation of test scores.
How do we empirically test the ways construct-

relevant and construct-irrelevant language
contribute to score variance?
We need to empirically test out our claims that inconsiderate text, including visual
representations found in large-scale test items, produce outcomes that may be weak
in validity and fairness for certain subpopulations. How do we develop a scale for
interference from irrelevant language found in items and estimate the effect on
diverse student populations? The more knowledge we have regarding the ways
language interacts with mathematics learning in these high-stakes tests, the better
informed practitioners and policy makers can be in the inferences they can draw
and the decisions they make for their various constituencies.
How do we build a comprehensive assessment

system so that summative assessments serve as
better beacons (better representations of desired
constructs) to guide the formative assessment
practices found in classrooms?
Summative assessments are often seen as the “tail wagging the dog” in shaping
instruction and learning. These tests serve as measurement tools that have major
influence in “steering the system” with high-stakes consequences (Daro & Bur-
khardt, 2012). Using standards as a guide, these tests need to be designed to be more
reflective of the learning experiences that occur in everyday classrooms for diverse
learners. For EL students, how do we consider their English language development
continuum in their interactions with these high-stakes exams? What guidance can
we provide to practitioners and policy makers so that they can take into account
students’ reading, literacy, and English language competencies when inferences and
decisions are made for individuals and student subgroups?
What do we know about summative assessment

systems in mathematics from nations comprised
of multilingual learners and/or nations comprised
of major subpopulations of learners of different
languages?
The United States has a unique history in testing traditions and accountability sys-
tems. The diverse nature of our student populations generates wide variance in our
student outcomes. What can we learn from other national systems in their summa-
tive assessment practices for their multilingual student populations? While much of
this chapter focused on the analysis at the item level, we need to be able to step back
and understand how various constraints to the assessment system can cause threats
to validity, weakening the inferences we can make in our investments into this
work. We recognize that more effort is needed to synthesize expertise from math-
ematics educators, language and literacy development experts, and psychometri-
cians in order to expand what we know about the theories of interactions between
language, literacy, and learning mathematics, and to operationalize these theories

into fair and valid items that then can be used in making inferences about students.
Inferences about Student Competencies

Construct-irrelevant reading difficulties undermine support for inferences we can
make about students’ mathematics competencies.The reading comprehension chal-
lenge of word problems is so prevalent on summative assessments that any irrelevant
component to these challenges risks systematic error, with bias against students
with language or reading issues. Since inconsiderate text in items increases text
complexity in irrelevant ways, EL students’ mathematics performance can be sup-
pressed. This dampened performance affects subgroups that extend beyond EL stu-
dents to any student with reading comprehension difficulties.
Since “all students with reading comprehension difficulties” is not a small group,
dampened performance of this group may undermine the comfort test developers
take in the statistical analyses of test results. That is, items that function differentially
for the large group “students with reading comprehension challenges” may function
the same within the large group. The subgroup “EL students with comprehension
challenges because they are learning English” shows the same profile across items
as non-EL students members of the comprehension-challenged group. The hidden
mathematics competencies for EL students and non-EL students who have compre-
hension challenges may differ. For item developers and psychometricians, we need
to ask ourselves whether EL students are taking the same test as non-EL students.
To the extent this general reading comprehension bias correlates with total test
score, statistical techniques such as differential item functioning (DIF) analysis can
underestimate the bias. Such weakening of the power of DIF analysis would allow
inconsiderately written items to make it onto tests, diminishing the validity of the
test results for readers who are not agile comprehension puzzle solvers. Increasing
construct-irrelevant processing load can only add to bias against students whose
processing load is strained. For EL students, the increased processing load that result
from inconsiderately written items serve as a barrier, preventing students from
demonstrating their true competencies in mathematics. Our focus needs to be on
measuring the mathematics learned by the student—including the language of
mathematics—and not the short-term cognitive processing prowess demanded by
the linguistic demands of inconsiderately written items.
Testing and Accommodations

The teaching and learning of mathematics is comprised of cumulative knowledge,
where students gain expertise in the practices and representations of mathematical
systems through the use of language built over time. Item developers take into con-
sideration notions regarding these latent traits as they build constructs that inform
item writing. The items and their subsequent responses are part of the downward
flow in the inferences that are made about students (see Figure 10.4).
The current model of item development as shown in Figure 10.4 begins with
the notions we have regarding the latent construct, centered predominantly on
students’ knowledge of mathematics. What we know is that the language and lit-
eracy processes that support students’ comprehension of the mathematics are also
inherent at the construct level. The theories that item developers use in guid-
ing their construct map development and the subsequent downstream activities
need to include both our notions about mathematics learning and the construct-
relevant language demands that are required to comprehend the item. More research,
including in the instructional context of the classroom, is needed to develop strong
theories around our notions of the interactions between mathematics learning and
language so that the inferences that are made are valid and fair for all learners.
In this chapter, we have attended specifically to the construct-relevant and
construct-irrelevant demands found in summative assessment items.These language
issues create threats to validity in the inferences we make for all students, espe-
cially EL students. While reducing or eliminating unnecessary construct-irrelevant
language demands at the item level may increase the precision and validity of the
items in regard to the mathematics tested, there needs to be greater systematic vet-
ting and review of draft items before field testing with diverse populations. Also, our
theories about how students learn mathematics through language use needs to be
augmented. Kopriva, Thurlow, Perie, Lazarus, and Clark (2016) argue that, “incor-
porating the person dimension into validity arguments requires that the quality
of the evidence supporting or questioning validity be considered in terms of the
degree to which the interpretations are valid for all test takers” (p. 109). In other
words, an individual student’s interactions with the item serve as an important
dimension in how we think about individual differences across the construct, the
design of the items, and validity of the score interpretations. Theory building and
empirical testing need to work in concert with one another so that we have a more
Validity
Validity
argument
Theory Item writing

Scoring Statistical
Construct map Cognitive outcomes models
interview
Notions
regarding Construct Items Responses Scores Inferences
trait
FIGURE 10.4 Constructing a Measure

comprehensive view about the interactions between mathematics learning and lan-
guage use by students, both in classroom settings and assessment settings.
Using summative tests to make decisions about individuals is fraught with risks.
The problem of wide error band around an individual’s score, as well as how lan-
guage demands contribute to construct-irrelevant variance, are well known by meas-
urement experts. The risks associated with measurement errors compounded with
the construct-irrelevant variance limit the scope and depth of the inferences we
can make about EL students. The score reliability, score precision, comparability, and
equating across various subgroups pose major psychometric challenges for the field
(Abedi, 2002; Lane & Leventhal, 2015; Sireci, Han, & Wells, 2008). These risks are
compounded by bias and depression of performance for all the reasons stated earlier.
Research on item modification that tests accommodations intended to increase
students’ access to mathematics tasks is needed (Abedi, 2008; DeStefano & Johnson,
2013; Lane & Leventhal, 2015; Sato, 2008); however these types of accommoda-
tions only address students’ interactions with the items themselves. If any other
parts of the continuum are flawed (see Figure 10.4), the investments we make at
this junction can only mitigate a portion of the errors and variance that are pro-
duced when EL students are assessed. More methodological research is needed on
multidimensional models, as well as measurable constructs that integrate mathemat-
ics and language (Briggs & Domingue, 2014). Research that takes into account
both instructional and assessment strategies that influence students’ access to—and
production of—the language of mathematics will deepen our knowledge of the
interactions that matter for EL students.
References
Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric
issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231–257.
Abedi, J. (2008). Linguistic modification. Part I—language factors in the assessment of English lan-
guage learners:The theory and principles underlying the linguistic modification approach.Washing-
ton, D.C.: LEP Partnership.
Abedi, J., Courtney, M., & Leon, S. (2003). Effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English
language learners in large-scale assessment. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 608). Los Angeles, CA: Uni-
versity of California: Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research
on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in
large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practices, 26(5), 36–46.
Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement
in Education, 14(3), 219–234.
Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Hofstetter, C. (1998). Impact of selected background variables on students’
NAEP math performance. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation/
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1–74.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educa-
tional Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education,
5(1), 7–73.
Briggs, D., & Domingue, B. (2014).Value-added to what? The paradox of multidimensional-

ity. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), Value-added modeling and growth modeling with particular application to
teacher and school effectiveness. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cuevas, G. J. (1984). Mathematics learning in English as a second language. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 134–144.
Daro, P., & Burkhardt, H. (2012). A population of assessment tasks. Journal of Mathematics
Education at Teachers College, 3(1), 19–25.
Daro, P., Stancavage, F. B., Ortega, A., DeStefano, L., & Linn, R. (2007). Validity study of the
NAEP mathematics assessment: Grades 4 and 8. A publication of the NAEP Validity Studies
Panel. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
Daro,V., & Kokka, K. (2016). Evaluating item quality in mathematics assessments. In Under-
standing Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, & Equity (Eds.), Large-scale
assessments, Phase I report of the study of state assessment systems (pp. 49–83). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University.
Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning mathematics: The cognitive science approach to mathematics education.
Norwood, NJ: Alex Publishing Corporation.
DeStefano, L., & Johnson, J. (2013). Study of the feasibility of a NAEP mathematics accessible block
alternative. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
Durán, R. P. (2008). Assessing English-language learners’ achievement. Review of Research in
Education, 32(1), 292–327.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset:The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Johnson, K. R., Otten, S., Cirillo, M., & Steele, M. D. (2015). Map-
ping talk about the mathematics register in a secondary mathematics teacher study group.
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40(Part A), 29–42.
Heubert, J. P. (2000). Graduation and promotion testing: Potential benefits and risks for
minority students, English-language learners, and students with disabilities. Poverty and
Race, 9(5), 1–2, 5–7.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and gradua-
tion: A report of the National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Ho, A. D. (2014).Variety and drift in the functions and purposes of assessment in K-12 edu-
cation. Teachers College Record, 116(11), 1–18.
Kieffer, M. J., Rivera, M., & Francis, D. J. (2012). Practical guidelines for the education of English
language learners: Research-based recommendations for the use of accommodations in large-scale assess-
ments. 2012 update. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center of Instruction.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch,W., & Van Dijk,T. A. (1978).Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychological Review, 85(5), 363.
Kiplinger,V. L., Haug, C. A., & Abedi, J. (2000). Measuring math—not reading—on a math assess-
ment: A language accommodations study of English language learners and other special populations.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New Orleans, LA.
Kopriva, R. J.,Thurlow, M. L., Perie, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Clark, A. (2016).Test takers and the
validity of score interpretations. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 108–128.
Lane, S., & Leventhal, B. (2015). Psychometric challenges in assessing English language learn-
ers and students with disabilities. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 165–214.
Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math
word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 333–368.
Martiniello, M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item
functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4),
160–179.
Messick, S. (1995).Validity of psychological assessment:Validation of inferences from persons'

responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist,
50(9), 741–749.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2015). Academic literacy in mathematics for English Learners. The Jour-
nal of Mathematical Behavior, 40(Part A), 43–62.
Nichols, S. L., Berliner, D. C., & Noddings, N. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing
corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multi-semiotic analysis.
Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London:
Continuum.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2015). The language of learning mathematics: A multimodal perspective.
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40(Part A), 63–74.
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Roth, W. M., Ercikan, K., Simon, M., & Fola, R. (2015). The assessment of mathematical lit-
eracy of linguistic minority students: Results of a multi-method investigation. The Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 40(Part A), 88–105.
Sato, E. (2008). Linguistic modification. Part II—A guide to linguistic modification: increasing English
language learner access to academic content. Washington, D.C.: LEP Partnership.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning:
A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139–159.
Sireci, S. G., Han, K. T., & Wells, C. (2008). Methods for evaluating the validity of test scores
for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13(2–3), 108–131.
Solano-Flores, G. (2006). Language, dialect, and register: Sociolinguistics and the estimation
of measurement error in the testing of English-language learners. Teachers College Record,
108(11), 2354–2379.
Solano-Flores, G. (2010). Function and form in research on language and mathematics edu-
cation. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives
and directions for research (pp. 113–149). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Solano-Flores, G. (2014). Probabilistic approaches to examining linguistic features of test
items and their effect on the performance of English language learners. Applied Measure-
ment in Education, 27(4), 236–247.
Solano-Flores, G., & Li, M. (2009). Language variation and score variation in the testing
of English language learners, native Spanish speakers. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4),
180–194.
Solano-Flores, G., & Li, M. (2013). Generalizability theory and the fair and valid assessment
of linguistic minorities. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on
Theory and Practice, 19(2–3), 245–263.
Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assess-
ments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553–573.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and per-
formance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics, & National Assessment of Educational Progress (2011). Mathematics Assess-
ment [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Wu, H-H. (2012). Assessment for the Common Core Mathematics standards. Journal of Math-
ematics Education at Teachers College, 3(1), 6–18.
Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting Common Core Standards across disciplines,
Grades 5–12 (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11
SSESSING SCIENTIFIC GENRES
A
OF EXPLANATION, ARGUMENT,
AND PREDICTION
Beth Covitt and Charles W. Anderson
Focus Points
• Scientific explanation, argument and prediction genres are different from anal-
ogous genres in nonscientific contexts (e.g., vernacular or polemic); Bakhtin
suggests that people rely on different social languages in these different contexts.
• Developing capacity for scientific genre production poses a double challenge
for English learners (ELs) because they need to simultaneously learn the new
national language of their adopted country and the new social language of
scientific discourse.
• Producing scientific explanations, arguments, and predictions requires drawing
on a related suite of scientific knowledge and practice.
• Learning progression frameworks, which describe trajectories from less sophis-
ticated, informal discourse to more sophisticated, scientific discourse, and asso-
ciated assessments can be used to examine students’ developing capacity to
produce scientific explanations, arguments, and predictions.
Chapter Purpose
Explanation, argument, and prediction are basic functions of all languages. We
engage in these practices every day in many contexts. Scientific communities have
developed explanation, argument, and prediction as specialized genres that differ
from vernacular versions in obvious ways (e.g., using technical terminology and
mathematical formulas) and in less obvious but deeper ways involving the goals
and uses of language. Deeper characteristics that separate scientific genres from ver-
nacular ones are reflective of disciplinary discourse conventions that students must
learn in order to participate in the community of science. Bakhtin (1981) describes
the patterns of difference in language use among communities as different social
languages.
Assessing Scientific Genres 207
In science education today, scientific discourse conventions are exemplified

in the framework that underlies the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
(National Research Council, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). Effective science
genre production is rooted in the successful coordination of the three NGSS strands
of disciplinary core ideas (i.e., content knowledge), science practices, and crosscut-
ting concepts. Evidence of students’ knowledge and practice for participating in the
discourse of science may be examined in the language that students use when they
create written and spoken performances including explanations, arguments, and
predictions (Quinn, Lee, & Valdés, 2012).
In this chapter we use a learning progression assessment approach to examine
connections among the scientific genres of explanation, argument, and prediction and
differences in the ways that individuals from different discourse communities engage
in them. These connections and differences can be used to develop assessments that
describe and measure levels of sophistication in students’ performances of these gen-
res. We provide examples of student genre performances as an illustration of genre
assessment. Genre assessment, in turn, can provide a foundation for teaching that is
both responsive and rigorous: responsive to the types of discourse-based knowledge
and practice that students bring to school, and rigorous in helping students construct
explanations, arguments, and predictions that follow the conventions of scientific dis-
course communities to access deeper insights into how the world works.
Assessing students’ genre performances and helping students develop the capac-
ity to create more sophisticated performances involves added implications for
EL students, who are also learning a new national language. In this chapter, we
address these implications through discussing challenges EL students encounter as
they learn to speak and write in the social language of science. In addition, several
strategies for supporting EL students in learning to participate in scientific dis-
course and genre production in the classroom are described.

While we work in the field of science education, our research has led us to investi-
gate issues of language and literacy. Our goal during this time has been to support
students in developing science literacy, which we define as the capacity to partici-
pate in evidence-based discussions about socio-scientific issues and to make deci-
sions about those issues that are informed by science (Covitt, Dauer, & Anderson,
2017; Yore & Treagust, 2006). Through examining learners’ school science perfor-
mances, we seek to understand where students start and how they may be sup-
ported in building the capacity to create specialized scientific genres required for
science literacy, including explanation, argument, and prediction.
Science as a Social Language: Discourses and Genres

In explaining the challenges that students face in mastering scientific genres, we
often find ourselves using the metaphor of second language learning: Science
education involves helping students who are “monolingual”—proficient only in
vernacular uses of language—become “bilingual”—capable of switching between
208 Beth Covitt and Charles W. Anderson
vernacular and scientific uses as the occasion demands. In this respect, we follow
Bakhtin (1981;Wertsch, 1991) in distinguishing between national languages (English,
Spanish, Japanese, etc.) and social languages, which Bakhtin (1981) associates with
“social dialects, characteristic group behavior, professional jargons . . . languages that
serve the specific sociopolitical purposes of the day” (p. 262).
Gee’s (1991) definition of a discourse resembles Bakhtin’s definition of a social
language:
[A] socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and
of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaning-
ful group or “social network.” . . . Think of discourse as an “identity kit” which
comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act
and talk so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize.
(p. 3)
Gee (1991) describes the challenges that we face in science education by dis-
tinguishing between primary discourses that we acquire in our homes and secondary
discourses that we learn in other social settings:
All humans . . . get one form of discourse free, so to speak. . . . This is our
socio-culturally determined way of using our native language in face-to-face
communication with intimates. . . . Beyond the primary discourse, however,
there are other discourses which crucially involve institutions beyond the
family. . . . Let us refer to these institutions as secondary institutions (such as
schools, workplaces, stores, government offices, businesses, or churches) . . . .
Thus we will refer to them as “secondary discourses.”
(pp. 7–8)
Within the broad patterns of language and practice defined by discourses or social
languages, a genre is a type of communication that is characterized by a set of expectations,
vocabularies and styles embedded in the discourse community that uses that genre (Fang,
Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014;Wertsch, 1991, 1994).The genres we focus on—explana-
tion, argument, and prediction—are common in many different discourse communi-
ties and are associated with different expectations, vocabularies, and styles depending on
context and community. When a participant in the scientific community encounters an
example of one of these genres in a scientific context, there are expectations for what
vocabularies and styles are used and which rules or principles need to be followed.
Explanations, arguments, and predictions are all genres that students are familiar
with before they start studying science in school. Scholars have investigated how
people engage in these genres in nonscientific contexts. In our research, we have
seen that learners carry their nonscientific ways of thinking, talking, and writing
into school science contexts. Primary (i.e., home community) discourse is appro-
priate in many situations and makes it possible for people to act efficiently. How-
ever, there are contexts in which primary discourse genres lack the power and
precision of related scientific genres. Below we review some of the research we
have found to be relevant as we have sought to characterize nonscientific genre
performance approaches that students bring to school science contexts.
Learning Progressions in Science

A core part of our work as science educators involves analyzing the complex processes
by which students can become proficient in scientific genres.We organize these analy-
ses around discourse-based learning progressions. “Learning progressions are descriptions
of the successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about a topic that can follow
one another as children learn about and investigate a topic over a broad span of time”
(National Research Council, 2007, p. 214). In a discourse-based approach, students’
developing knowledge and practice are defined as being situated within communities
of practice. In our learning progressions, we identify lower level (vernacular or infor-
mal) and upper level (scientific) types of social discourse. Note that informal discourse
is lower level with respect to developing science literacy but may be perfectly appro-
priate in other discourse community contexts.
In-between levels of learning progressions reflect mixtures of informal and scien-
tific discourses or, alternatively, may reflect school science discourse, in which ways
of thinking, talking, and acting differ from both home and science discourses. One
example of school science discourse is procedural display, which involves teach-
ers and students carrying out habitual performances (e.g., make a graph) without
an explicit science learning purpose (Bloom, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989; Jiménez-
Aleixandre & Rodríguez, 2000). From a discourse perspective, a central challenge
for science education concerns how the discourse of school science can serve not as
an end in itself but rather as a bridge between one’s home language and the capacity
to participate in science as a social language (Yore & Treagust, 2006, p. 296).
We continue to develop better approaches to describing learning progressions.
For example, earlier standards for science education such as the National Science
Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) tended to depict science
proficiency in compartmentalized ways—as a combination of different types of
knowledge (e.g., life science, physical science, etc.) and process skills associated with
inquiry. Current trends focus on integration rather than compartmentalization.
Congruent with this trend, our analyses of explanations, arguments, and predictions
assess performances in integrated ways. This approach reflects how the Next Gen-
eration Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013) interweave discipli-
nary core ideas, science practices, and crosscutting concepts into three-dimensional
science learning and assessment. Explanations, arguments, and predictions are
defined by NGSS as science practices, but they are practices that require knowl-
edge to enact in sophisticated, scientific ways. Thus, assessments of explanations,
arguments, and predictions can be designed to require successful performances that
coordinate disciplinary knowledge, science practices, and crosscutting concepts.
Explanations
Three research-based ideas that we have found useful for interpreting students’
intuitive explanations include force-dynamic reasoning (Pinker, 2007;Talmy, 1988),
embodied experience (Warren & Roseberry, 2008), and covering laws (Braaten &
Windschitl, 2011).
Force-dynamic reasoning
Describes how people commonly think about, talk about, and make sense of the
world in their everyday lives and home communities (Pinker, 2007; Talmy, 1988).
When people use force-dynamic reasoning to explain phenomena, they are view-
ing the world as a place where actors seek to achieve innate purposes and confront
antagonists that can hinder their ability to achieve those purposes. Force-dynamic
reasoning is shaped and constrained by the grammatical structure of language used in
everyday contexts. While force-dynamic discourse works well in everyday contexts
(e.g., to explain people’s actions and motivations), it is inconsistent with explaining
scientific phenomena such as trees growing or relationships among trophic levels in
ecosystems.
Embodied Experience
Warren and Rosebery (2008, p. 44) suggest that, “[w]hen faced with a physical or
biological phenomenon that needs to be explained, children regularly compare
aspects of it to their own lived experiences, experiences they most likely have
not analyzed before for academic purposes.” From a genre assessment perspective,
explanations based on embodied experience provide a window into how students
are making sense of a phenomenon.
Covering law explanations

Identify patterns and connections in phenomena without identifying underly-
ing mechanisms that separate causes from effects (Braaten & Windschitl, 2011).
In covering law explanations, patterns involving things “just going together” are
recognized as valuable and important knowledge even if they are not associated
with mechanistic explanations (e.g., falling barometer goes with stormy weather
approaching).
Arguments From Evidence

Research concerning intuitive approaches to inquiry and argument has informed
our understanding of how students construct and evaluate arguments. Scientists’
purposes for inquiry and argumentation are generally different from purposes that
seem compelling in other circumstances. Similarly, scientists’ uses of evidence to
answer questions and support arguments are not always similar to uses of evidence
nonscientists find to be persuasive.
Folk Theories of Inquiry and Cause and Effect Arguments

In a study of lay conceptions or “folk theories” of scientific investigation, Wind-
schitl (2004) identified intuitive ways preservice teachers approached, conducted,
and made sense of investigations. He found that preservice teachers often devel-
oped investigation questions without invoking any theory or scientific model (e.g.,
investigating which type of fertilizer causes plants to grow best, but not why). Simi-
larly, in an examination of argumentation practices of high school and college stu-
dents, Jin, Mehl, and Lan (2015) found that as students constructed arguments, they
struggled with using scientific mechanisms. Their arguments often consisted only
of “a simple cause-and-effect chain” ( Jin et al., 2015, p. 1156). In these approaches
to inquiry and argument, evidence and claims are used to inform what happens
without needing to address why.
Engineering Mode
Rath and Brown (1996) found that elementary students engaging in science inquiry
often adopt an “engineering mode,” in which the objective is to make something
happen. In engineering mode, actions, manipulation of variables, and evidence from
activities serve the purpose of accomplishing some physical outcome (e.g., using
a magnifying glass to burn paper) rather than developing model-based reasoning.
Schauble, Klopfer, and Raghavan (1991) describe a similar approach, which they
call an engineering model of experimentation. In contrast, learning experiences aimed
at developing model-based reasoning must serve the purpose of building students’
capacity to use scientific models to explain and predict how and why phenomena
in the material world occur (Braaten & Windschitl, 2011).
Substituting an Easier Question

Kahneman’s (2011) work on heuristic approaches to answering questions suggests
that when an answer to a challenging question doesn’t immediately present itself,
humans sometimes take the shortcut of substituting a quicker or easier question to
answer. An example of substituting an easier question would be reinterpreting the
question, “Where does the mass of a plant come from?” to instead consider, “What
does a plant need to grow?” Engineering mode can be thought of as a type of
substituting an easier question (e.g., how can I get this to work, rather than why).
Predictions
Scholarship addressing heuristics has also informed understanding of how nonsci-
entists make predictions. Humans have two separate systems for perceiving, think-
ing, and deciding. One system is fast and intuitive while the other is slow and
analytical (Kahneman, 2011). Humans mostly rely on our fast thinking system, but
science involves making use of the slower and more analytical system. For example,
when they make predictions, scientists have careful and systematic ways, including
statistical methods, to deal with uncertainty and stochasticity, validate patterns in
evidence, and use scientific models to make qualified projections about the future.
In contrast, people often use intuitive nonscientific ways of making predictions
such as coming to immediate conclusions that feel certain, fitting evidence into
pattern stories that make sense but may not account for all data, and relying on
information and sources that agree with their personal narratives (e.g., Haidt, 2001;
Kahneman, 2011; Silver, 2012).
The learning progression frameworks we present in this chapter have evolved

from a combination of attention to previous research such as that described
earlier and analysis of empirical evidence we have collected from thousands of
students. The frameworks suggest that mastering scientific genres is much like
learning a second language. Developing facility with scientific genres is a slow
process. Students with little scientific experience rely heavily on informal, intui-
tive genres like those people use in everyday life, even in situations where those
genres are not particularly powerful. Students at middle levels speak and write in
a kind of code-mixing or hybrid construction that combines elements of infor-
mal and scientific genres (Wertsch, 1991). Sometimes these middle level uses of
language reflect little real progress (e.g., incorporating scientific vocabulary into
genres that have the same basic structure as the informal genres). At other times
they are important intermediate steps as students engage in the difficult work
of mastering new and complex genres. High-level students are bilingual, using
social cues to judge which genres and how much precision are appropriate for
a particular situation.
Challenges for EL Students

We note that mastering different genres in a second discourse or social language
(e.g., a scientific as opposed to a vernacular argument) can be more difficult than
mastering familiar genres in a second national language (e.g., a vernacular argu-
ment in English rather than in Spanish). National language learners are learn-
ing new words for familiar concepts (e.g., “horse” for “caballo”). Social language
learners must learn new words for unfamiliar concepts (e.g., “photosynthesis”),
or perhaps even more difficult, new specialized meanings for familiar words (e.g.,
“energy,” “organic”).
EL students face an added task compared with English-speaking students. EL
science students must contend with learning two new languages simultaneously—
the national language of their new home country and the social language of sci-
ence. There are numerous ways this added challenge of learning two languages at
once manifests for EL science students in the classroom. Vocabulary is one of the
most obvious challenges for EL science students. While English speakers in sci-
ence class are learning Tier 3 words (specialized disciplinary jargon—e.g., glucose
or photosynthesis), EL students are also learning Tier 2 words (frequently used by
mature language speakers—e.g., nutrients or predict) and, depending on their status
as EL students, possibly even Tier 1 words (common, everyday vocabulary—e.g.,
food or grow) (DeLuca, 2010).
Deeper discourse-related challenges requiring more than just learning defini-
tions of words are present for EL students as well (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore,
2014). For instance, an English-speaking student in science class needs to learn
that, in science, an argument should include an empirical claim along with evi-
dence, warrants, and backing (Toulmin, 2003). The English-speaking student also
needs to develop a capacity to decide when a scientific argument is called for and
when a vernacular argument (i.e., a disagreement) is called for. An EL student, by
comparison, must contend with an added layer of complexity (i.e., by learning to

use both vernacular and scientific definitions of argument as well as developing the
capacity to decide which version is called for in a given circumstance). Discourse-
related challenges for EL students become even thornier when learning school
science discourse, which is often different from canonical science discourse but still
required to succeed in science class, is added to the mix.
Best Practices: Assessing Mastery of Scientific Genres

Examining students’ written and oral genre performances highlights that scien-
tific literacy is a complex endeavor that cannot be measured with only multiple
or forced-choice question formats. It is necessary to see how students are talking
or writing to understand what type of discourse (social language) they are using.
In this section, we summarize some key findings from our research developing
learning progressions for the genres of explanation, argument from evidence, and
prediction and suggest some general strategies for assessment and instruction in
science classrooms. We also draw on literature and conversations with teachers to
discuss classroom strategies for helping EL students develop proficiency in scientific
genre performances.
This chapter synthesizes findings from our multiple learning progression research
efforts over the past decade (e.g., Dauer, Doherty, Freed, & Anderson, 2014; Jin &
Anderson, 2012; Mohan, Chen, & Anderson, 2009; Parker, Covitt, Lee, & Ander-
son, 2016). We describe learning progression frameworks and assessments focusing
on the three scientific genres described previously: explanation, argument from
evidence, and prediction. The three learning progression frameworks we discuss all
address the disciplinary area of carbon transforming processes, including combustion,
photosynthesis, cellular respiration, digestion, and biosynthesis.
Developing Frameworks
Each of our learning progressions includes a learning progression framework describ-
ing characteristic performances of students at different levels in the learning pro-
gression and assessments, including written questions and clinical interviews that
provide data for developing frameworks and methods for assessing the progress of
individual students.
Drawing on both the scientific literature and data from middle school
through university level students, K-12 teachers, and scientists, we have articu-
lated frameworks that identify characteristics evident in genre performances at
different levels of sophistication in knowledge and practice. Because our research
is grounded in sociocultural approaches and perspectives, our frameworks for
analysis, while they focus on students’ written and spoken language, are differ-
ent from frameworks adopted in functional linguistic approaches. For example,
our approach aligns with a functional linguistic analysis in aspects such as focus
on meaning (semantics) and voice (Fang, 2004; Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore,
2014). However, our approach diverges in that we do not explicitly analyze
linguistic foci such as syntax (word arrangement) and grammar. Indicators of

knowledge and practice in our analyses take the form of clues concerning which
social language (vernacular, mixed, or scientific) students are using in their per-
formances. For example, an informal or vernacular explanation might invoke
an agent at work (e.g., the sun dried up the rain) while a scientific explanation
would invoke a scientific model (e.g., addition of energy caused water molecules
to change from liquid to gas state).
Designing Assessments, Collecting and Analyzing Data

We collected data using clinical interviews and written assessments. Through con-
tinuing iterations of assessment and analysis, data were used to refine frameworks
and subsequent assessments. For this chapter, we drew on K-12 and university
student data to examine how performances across the three learning progressions
are similar and different and how they reflect more and less sophisticated discourse
characteristics. The example students’ genre performances come from a variety of
contexts including pre- and postinstruction written assessments and interviews. All
names are pseudonyms. Undergraduate student data were collected at a university
in the Midwestern United States. K-12 data were collected at schools in five states
across the United States. Students’ educational levels are provided when available.
Students’ first language statuses are not known.1
Our summary of findings focuses on two issues.
1. Connections among genres: How are scientific explanations, arguments, and pre-
dictions connected to one another in terms of language use, knowledge, and
practice?
2. Describing and measuring students’ progress: How can we describe and measure
learners’ progress as they develop proficiency in creating scientific explana-
tions, arguments, and predictions?
Connections Among Scientific Explanations,

Arguments, and Predictions
Examining how scientific explanations, arguments, and predictions are connected
to one another involves analyzing the upper level of the learning progression
for each of these genres. Members of the scientific community know scientific
performances when they see them, hear them, or read them, but what are those
often unspoken yet understood rules that identify a performance as meeting
the standard of being “scientifically literate?” Table 11.1 shows characteristics
of scientific explanations, arguments, and predictions about carbon transform-
ing processes occurring in systems at various temporal and spatial scales. Each
row identifies a different aspect of successful use of scientific genres—what we
describe as upper level performances. An X in a cell indicates that we have stud-
ied that aspect of the genre.
Next, we provide examples of successful, upper level student performances for
each of the genres designated by the three columns.
TABLE 11.1
Characteristics of Scientific Genre Performances Involving Carbon
Transforming Processes
Characteristics of Upper Level “Scientific” Macro Scale Macro Scale Large Scale
Performances Explanations Arguments Explanations &
Predictions
Construct explanations and predictions X X X

using scientific models and principles
to trace matter and energy through
systems at multiple scales
Connect systems and system models across X X X
spatial scales (from atomic-molecular
to global)
Analyze and interpret data (and use
mathematics). Subpractices include:
Develop model-based interpretations of X X
data
Identify trends in data X X
Deal with uncertainty and noise in data X X
Critique arguments using evidence X
Ask questions and seek information to X X
expand or confirm understanding
A Scientific Explanation of Combustion

In this example, a middle school student was asked about the carbon transform-
ing process of combustion. The question was posed at the macroscopic scale using
wording that we have found makes sense to students with diverse levels of under-
standing about combustion.
Interviewer: So what does a flame need in order to keep burning?

Eric: [A] flame needs a source of fuel, which has the higher energy bonds
like carbon and hydrogen, and it also needs oxygen in order to help
break that apart.
Interviewer: So if you look at the flame, so over time, you know, the wood, part
of the wood, as the wood was burning you know, lost some weight,
right? So where does the lost material go?
Eric: It is similar to when something is eaten. It is converted and recom-
bined with the oxygen to be carbon dioxide and water vapor, which
is released into the atmosphere around it.
Note some ways that Eric’s explanation follows conventions of a scientific

explanation. He traces matter through the process of combustion identifying the
reactants (a source of fuel with high energy bonds and oxygen) and products (car-
bon dioxide and water vapor). He indicates where energy resides at the onset of the
process and, while not explicitly tracing the energy through combustion, he never
implies that energy disappears or is used up. Thus, Eric uses the scientific principle
of conservation of matter and energy to explain what happens when wood burns.
Further, he connects the macroscopic scale phenomenon of burning to the atomic-
molecular scale when describing what happens to molecules and molecular bonds
during the chemical reaction of combustion.
A Scientific Critique of Arguments About

Where Plant Mass Comes From
In the following example, high school student Olivia was asked to critique two
competing claims that fictional students Karen and Mike made concerning where
the mass of a plant comes from. Olivia was also presented with evidence from Karen
and Mike’s experiments (Appendix 11A). Karen claims that, “plants gain most of
their weight from materials that came from the air.” Mike claims that, “plants gain
most of their weight from materials that came from nutrients in the soil.”
Interviewer: Who do you think is right?

Olivia: Karen because a lot of the carbon and stuff, it comes from the air, and
also the plant could get water from the air, too.
Interviewer: How does Karen’s argument support her idea that the plant gains
weight from materials that came from the air?
Olivia: Because the soil only, like, its mass only decreased by 2 grams while
the plant’s mass increased by 49 grams, so 47 of those grams had to
come from some place. Forty-seven of the grams that the plant’s mass
increased had to come from somewhere else besides the soil.
Olivia uses her scientific understanding of conservation of matter and energy

and of plant growth to evaluate Karen and Mike’s competing claims. Because she is
consistent and confident in conserving and tracing matter and energy, Olivia is able
to make sense of the data presented by Karen and use those data to support Karen’s
claim. The plant gained more mass than the soil lost, so Olivia finds that Karen’s
argument is reasonable—it both matches Olivia’s knowledge about plant growth
and conservation of matter and is supported with reasonable quantitative evidence
about the plant’s mass gain and the soil’s mass loss.
A Scientific Prediction About the Trend

in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
In this example, an undergraduate student and interviewer had been discussing the
Keeling Curve (showing concentration of atmospheric CO2 measured at Mauna
Loa over time) including the trend in the graph and the student’s explanation for
the trend. Then, the interviewer asked the student to make two predictions for
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels—a prediction for May 2015 and a prediction for
May 2020. Hans’s predictions are shown in Figure 11.1.
Interviewer: So tell me your reasoning.

Hans: Well, we kind of have a pattern you can extrapolate the data from
before, and it is going up pretty constantly just a little bit on a yearly
FIGURE 11.1 Hans’s Prediction of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration

Notes: Upper line to May 2015 shows Hans’s second, refined prediction attempt for 2015 date range.
Dot at top of line marking May 2020 shows Hans’s prediction for that date.
basis. So I did for the 2015, just a little bit higher than 2014. And then
you kind of take that data out a little bit further and for another five
years, and I think we go up quite a bit from the current time.
Interviewer: Are you making any assumptions when you make those predictions?
Hans: Yeah, that it continues at the same rate, or that we don’t do anything
to curb our carbon dioxide use.
Interviewer: Right. Do you think that that’s exactly the amount that it’s going to
have, or that it’s going to fall in a range or how are you thinking about
that?
Hans: I think it probably is going to fall into some sort of range. I think the
2015 number can be more accurately predicted than the 2020 number
because you’re going to be doing more extrapolation.
While Hans’s performance has a few problems, his response demonstrates several
characteristics of a scientific prediction. For example, Hans connects his predic-
tion to a scientific model when he states he is assuming “we don’t do anything to
curb our carbon dioxide use.” It is problematic that Hans suggests we “use” carbon
dioxide rather than fuel, which is converted to carbon dioxide and water during
combustion. However, Hans is clearly connecting the data and his prediction to
events, processes, and actions in the world rather than viewing the graph in a purely
numerical light. Hans also recognizes that the data form an annual pattern, so he
can make his prediction specifically for the month of May. Further, Hans’s refer-
ences to extrapolation suggest he is familiar with identifying trends and recognizing
uncertainty in data (i.e., recognizing that there is more uncertainty the further one
extends into the future, in part because it is increasingly uncertain what emissions
levels will be the further we move into the future).
Summary
By applying an integrated assessment approach, we find that scientific genre perfor-
mances may be characterized as connected, canonical, and context-specific.They are connected
in the sense that they require overlapping sets of knowledge and practice. For example,
all of the performances rely on conservation of matter and energy as fundamental
principles that constrain what is possible.They are canonical in that the scientific genre
performances require access to model-based scientific explanations of carbon trans-
forming processes and a commitment to tracing matter and energy through systems.
Finally, they are context-specific in that successful performances require specific knowl-
edge about the systems and processes being explained or investigated (e.g., growing
plants, burning wood, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere).
Thus, Eric’s explanation of combustion required that he develop a canonically
aligned explanation connecting the tracing of matter and energy across macro-
scopic and atomic-molecular scales. Olivia’s argument critique required that she
could analyze and interpret data and align those data with her scientific model in
a principled critique of how the presented claims were or were not supported by
evidence. Finally, Hans’s prediction performance required the capacity to identify
trends in data, deal with uncertainty in data, and coordinate data and evidence with
a relevant scientific model and explanation.
Describing and Measuring Students’ Progress

Examples are provided to identify similarities and differences in students’ informal
and intermediate level explanations, arguments, and predictions. Studying inter-
mediate and lower level genre performances can help us answer questions such as:
• If students are not tracing and conserving matter and energy, what are they
doing with matter and energy in their explanations, arguments, and predictions?
• When students have limited access to scientific models or limited capacity to
make sense of data and evidence, how do they critique arguments they encounter?
• What are alternative ways that students use data and models to make predictions?
Explanation
Table 11.2 summarizes contrasting characteristics of macroscopic scale explanations
reflecting lower (informal), intermediate, and higher (scientific) levels of discourse.
Intermediate Level Explanations of Carbon

Transforming Processes
In this first example, Felicia explains where the mass of a plant comes from.
Felicia: The weight [of the plant] comes mostly from H2O it receives, which it
uses in its light reactions to eventually produce glucose to provide itself
with energy.
TABLE 11.2 Learning Progression for Explanations of Macroscopic Scale Phenomena
Mode of Explanation Systems & Scales
Scientific Invoke scientific models Connect systems at multiple

Discourse and principles scales
Intermediate Trace matter and energy with errors; Demonstrate awareness of
Discourse provide a cause without a mechanism, scales, but with limited ability
or a wrong cause with a mechanism to connect across scales
Informal Rely on covering laws or Focus on macroscopic
Discourse force-dynamic discourse scale only
Felicia’s performance shows she is trying to trace matter and energy but that she
has not yet mastered this practice. For example, when she says the plant uses water
in light reactions to produce glucose to provide itself with energy, is Felicia tracing
energy from “light reactions” or from the plant itself? Her language is not clear on
this point. Felicia also accesses a less sophisticated model of plant growth, suggesting
that the mass of the plant comes mostly from water.
In the following example, high school student Richard explains what happens
to energy when fuel is burned.
Richard: The gasoline is burned while it’s in the engine, and all the bonds in it
are broken and rearranged. And then it goes out the exhaust into the
atmosphere as carbon dioxide. . . .
Interviewer: So where does the energy initially in the gasoline go?
Richard: It runs through the engine and then is converted to carbon dioxide.
Like Felicia, Richard is also working on tracing matter and energy but has not
yet achieved expertise in this practice. Richard recognizes that changes are occur-
ring in molecular bonds during burning, but he converts energy to matter in com-
bustion rather than tracing chemical energy from molecular bonds in gasoline to
other forms of energy.
Lower Level Explanations of Carbon Transforming Processes

Reaganne provides a lower level explanation concerning the origin of plant mass.
Reaganne: I think their [the plants’] weight comes from the soil and fertilizer
because as it grows it increases in weight and fertilizer and soil are the
things that make a plant grow.
Reaganne’s performance is different from that of the intermediate level example

students’ explanations in that her account is about something other than tracing
matter and energy. Rather than trying to trace matter and energy, Reaganne pro-
vides a force-dynamic explanation about an actor with a purpose that it needs to
fulfill. In Reaganne’s account, what is important is that a plant needs to grow and
that the plant is enabled or helped to grow by fertilizer and soil. Tracing matter is
not particularly relevant to Reaganne’s way of thinking and talking about plant
growth.
Next, Jenna provides a lower level explanation of wood burning.
Jenna: The wood burns into ash and it loses weight because it is losing mass.
Jenna’s explanation is similar to Reaganne’s in that her performance is a story

about what happens to wood rather than being about tracing matter. In force-
dynamic stories, tracing matter is not important, and it is possible for lost weight
to be gone or disappear. The disappearance of mass also suggests that Jenna’s story
focuses on what happens to the wood only and that she is not thinking about the
wood as existing within a system; other parts of a system (e.g., the air around the
wood) are not included.
Argument
Table 11.3 summarizes characteristics of macroscopic scale argumentation reflect-
ing increasingly sophisticated levels of discourse.
Note that there is a hierarchical component to the genres of explanation, argu-
ment, and prediction. Thus, the characteristics of levels of explanation in Table 11.2
are also relevant for argument (Table 11.3). Similarly, characteristics of levels of
explanations and arguments are also relevant for understanding approaches to pre-
diction (summarized in Table 11.4).
TABLE 11.3
Learning Progression for Critiquing Arguments About Macroscopic Scale
Phenomena
Use of Data Critique of Arguments Asking Questions
Scientific Identify appropriate Consider evidence Questions target

Discourse patterns in data for in light of accurate limitations in data
addressing claim scientific principles and are constrained
with quantitative by principles
precision
Intermediate Identify patterns Consider evidence in Questions partially
Discourse in ways that light of inaccurate address limitations
may neglect key principles in data and may not
quantitative details be constrained by
principles
Informal Use data to tell one’s Use folk inquiry Questions address
Discourse own story approaches or what students are
substitute an easier curious about
question independent of
the argument and
evidence
TABLE 11.4 Learning Progression for Predictions at Large Scales
Identifying Trends Dealing With Predict (Future CO2

Uncertainty & Noise Levels)
Scientific Identify reasonable Identify and deal Accurate extension

Discourse trends in noisy data with sources of of pattern, address
mathematical uncertainty and
uncertainty such as model-based
variation assumptions
Intermediate Identify reasonable Encounter difficulty Extension of data (of
Discourse trends in non-noisy distinguishing trends varying precision)
data from variability in without invoking
noisy data model
Informal Identify inappropriate Do not perceive Extend trends
Discourse trends or focus uncertainty and may using qualitative
on individual data view variation as a approaches such as
points trend eyeballing, do not
attend to a model
An Intermediate Level Critique of Arguments

About Where Plants’ Mass Comes From
The examples of intermediate and lower level argument critiques here come from
high school students responding to the interview task of evaluating Karen and
Mike’s claims about where the mass of a plant comes from (Appendix 11A).
Interviewer: Who do you think is right [Karen or Mike]?

Spencer: I think maybe soil because I don’t know that the stuff from the air
would give it much mass. But then I also know that it takes the carbon
dioxide from the air to make glucose. . . . Probably Karen because I’m
not really sure what nutrients they would use from the soil.
Interviewer: How does Mike’s argument support his idea that the plant gains
weight from materials that came from the soil?
Spencer: The most of the weight comes from the nutrients in the soil, because
when he had less nutrients in the soil the plant was smaller and then
when he added nutrients to the soil the plant got bigger.
Spencer has learned (likely in school science) that carbon dioxide from the air
is used by plants to make glucose, but he still retains the conflicting idea that most
of plant mass must come from soil. Spencer’s conflicting statements (e.g., that he
doesn’t “know that the stuff from the air would give it much mass”) show how dif-
ficult it can be for students to accommodate scientific ideas that conflict with their
own embodied experience concerning how the world works.
With regard to interpreting and analyzing data, Spencer does not attend to the
key quantitative comparison between the mass that the plant gained and the mass
that the soil lost. He focuses instead on a qualitative causal connection; adding
nutrients to the soil helps the plant gain weight. So rather than quantitatively trac-
ing matter he qualitatively traces cause and effect. In critiquing Karen and Mike’s
arguments, Spencer retains dual competing explanations about the system and does
not commit to one of the claims in his argument critique. He has pieces of the
scientific model in mind but is not committed to the scientific model. He traces
matter qualitatively (e.g., understands the weight needs to come from somewhere)
but does not see the need to trace matter using the quantitative data.
A Lower Level Critique of Arguments About Where

Plants’ Mass Comes From
Erika provides a lower level argument critique.
Interviewer: Who do you think is right [Karen or Mike]?

Erika: I think that Karen is right because without the air the plant wouldn’t be
able to make food, energy for itself to grow. . . . Mike is kind of right too,
he says that the materials, I mean the nutrients in the soil help it grow.
I don’t know if there is anything special in the soil that makes it grow.
Interviewer: How does Karen’s argument support her idea that the plant gains
weight from materials that came from the air?
Erika: That the plant got bigger . . . and the soil amount got smaller. If there
wasn’t any air then the plant wouldn’t have gotten as big as it did.
Interviewer: Are there some weaknesses in Karen’s argument?
Erika: Because of [sic] the soil amount went down it’s possible that the plant
could have used it to grow too.
Erika provides a force-dynamic explanation that focuses on what the plant

needs to make energy and grow and how the nutrients in the soil help the plant
grow. Force-dynamic stories focus on needs and purposes, so tracing and conserv-
ing matter are not important practices for Erika. She uses the data to support her
story about what plants need and how things like air and soil enable the plant to
fulfill its needs. Thus, the pattern of masses going up and down is important, but
the quantitative details of those patterns that would involve conserving mass are not
viewed as necessary. Erika, like Spencer, does not see a need to choose one claim
and reject the other; both Karen and Mike tell a reasonable story about what plants
need and what helps plants obtain what they need.
Prediction
Table 11.4 summarizes additional (beyond those shown in Table 11.2 and 11.3)
characteristics of discourse levels for large-scale predictions.
An Intermediate Level Prediction About Arctic Sea Ice Extent

In the following examples, undergraduate students were asked to predict the extent
of Arctic Sea ice one and five years in the future. In each case, the interviewer had
already asked the student to identify and explain the trend in the graph. Note that
while there is some variability (noise) in these data, the trend (signal) of decreasing
ice extent is relatively clear.
Interviewer: So go ahead and use a ruler or whatever and decide where you think
those would be.
Alice: [Marks Figure 11.2.] I would say this is roughly 10.
Interviewer: And 10.25 in 2014. In 2019 it’s 10? And how did you decide on those
two points?
Alice: I just followed the trend. I’m not too sure since it fluctuates a lot,
so. . . .
Interviewer: So you mentioned it fluctuating; so are these values, like, set in stone,
or is there a range?
Alice: No.
Interviewer: What do you think the range would be for these guys [predictions of
10.25 and 10]?
Alice: It could be anywhere from like 9.5 to 11. Probably not to 11, probably
to like 10.75. And then for 2019 it could go like anywhere from like
9 to 10.5. No, there’s a range.
Interviewer: How did you decide on those ranges?
Alice: I just guessed. Like looking like off this data too. Those are hypothesis,
I guess.
Interviewer: So how did you use these data to—the previous data to make your
hypothesis?
Alice: It’s like looked at the trend, like that’s where I saw the range like it
could either go up or down, like, so I figured that in. And like how far
it goes up or how far it goes down.
FIGURE 11.2 Alice’s Prediction for Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Alice’s performance (see also graph in Figure 11.2) reveals a mixture of less and
more sophisticated knowledge and practice. Several practices that Alice performs
quite well include identifying a data trend line for Arctic Sea ice and extend-
ing that trend line to make a prediction for the future. Alice also recognizes vari-
ability in the graph and how that variability lessens the ability to make a precise
prediction—leading Alice to acknowledge that there is a range within which the
extent of ice is likely to fall. Somewhat less sophisticated practices evident in Alice’s
performance include that she only refers to the graph itself to inform her predic-
tion and does not consider factors in the real-world system that the graph reflects
(e.g., global temperature trends and variabilities). Also, Alice does not have a sophis-
ticated way to talk about dealing with uncertainty. Her approaches include “guess-
ing” and looking at “how far it goes up or how far it goes down.”
A Lower Level Prediction About Arctic Sea Ice Extent

In this final example, we consider Analise’s predictions for Arctic Sea ice (Figure 11.3).
Interviewer: And tell me your thinking about that.You went up a little bit for 2015
and then down and back up again.
Analise: Yes. The reason I think I did that is because I think there was a peak.
And then it decreases and then it goes up like I think I just looked at
this part. Here it goes up and then down.
Interviewer: And do you think that that’s exactly where it will be, or can you pic-
ture a range of possible answers?
Analise: I think there could be a range of possible answers because like here
with this time frame these years it kind of all, like, was the same and
then it just dropped. So for this part it could just drop or it could just
go up.
FIGURE 11.3 Analise’s Prediction for Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Like Alice, Analise does not perceive this to be a question that requires a scien-
tific explanation. She focuses on the shape of the graph to the exclusion of the real-
world system that the graph represents. Analise also has trouble dealing with noise
in the graph and may be conflating variation or noise in the graph with a pattern,
making the incorrect inference that there is a pattern in which the ice extent goes
up and then down each successive year. Making this inappropriate inference leads
Analise to make a prediction that is more specific than the data and model suggest
is reasonable, following an “up then down” pattern of variation.
Summary
Examining students’ intermediate and lower level genre performances illuminates
the knowledge and practices that these students bring with them to engaging in
science. Examples of lower level genre performances highlight that many students
apply force-dynamic reasoning, folk inquiry, and heuristic approaches to explain-
ing, arguing, and predicting. Similarly, examples of intermediate level genre perfor-
mances show that, as students learn the language of science, they may struggle with
practices such as invoking scientific models to develop explanations and aligning
those scientific models with quantitative data and evidence to critique arguments
or make predictions.
Best Practices: Classroom Strategies

for Science Assessment and Learning
In the previous section we used learning progression frameworks to describe and
analyze students’ explanations, arguments, and predictions of carbon transform-
ing processes. Teachers can use related strategies in their classrooms, with or with-
out content-specific learning progression frameworks. In this section, we suggest
two kinds of research-based best practices for supporting EL students in learning
the social language of science while also learning a new national language. These
come from both the literature and from discussions with teachers with whom
we have worked on our learning progression projects. These two approaches are
far from exhaustive; a robust literature concerning teaching science with EL stu-
dents exists (e.g., DeLuca, 2010; Goldenberg, 2013; Hakuta, 2013; Lee and Bux-
ton, 2013; Quinn, Lee, & Valdés, 2012; Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014). Note
too that although these are approaches for supporting EL students, many of these
approaches can benefit all students, including English-speaking students, in learning
the social language of science.
Connective Vocabulary Building

Terminology is an important aspect of science, but learning vocabulary in isola-
tion can actually hinder students’ success in science learning (Bruna, Vann, &
Escudero, 2007). Teaching science vocabulary needs to serve the higher purpose
of building capacity for sophisticated discourse participation and genre pro-
duction. In our assessment of genre performances, we are less concerned with
which words students use and more with how they use them. For example, an
assessment response that refers to “sugar” in cellular respiration without making
a matter-to-energy conversion would be coded at a higher discourse level than
a response that uses the scientific term “glucose” but then indicates that glucose
can be converted into energy.
Classification activities provide one example of how to connect meaning in
vocabulary work with EL students (DeLuca, 2010). For example, we have found
categorizing examples of organic versus inorganic materials to be very challenging
for students. Organic in science class means something quite different from organic
at the grocery store. Sorting and discussing classifications in both vernacular and
science language discourses can help students master important distinctions and
build multilingual discourse proficiency.
In general, vocabulary teaching and assessment with EL students should focus
on making meaningful connections. School science has the potential to serve as a
bridge rather than a dead end between home and science discourses if it helps stu-
dents connect as well as differentiate meanings across vocabulary from their home
languages and Tier 1, 2, and 3 words in English (DeLuca, 2010). Strategies includ-
ing using English to home language vocabulary cognates and connecting meanings
across vocabulary Tiers 1, 2, and 3 can support EL students in learning to participate
in the social language of science (DeLuca, 2010; Goldenberg, 2013).
Visualizations, Realia, Diagramming, Gesturing, and

Firsthand Experiences
Visualizations, diagramming, and realia (concrete objects) can also help EL students
cross language barriers. One teacher we spoke with discussed how terms like “ear
of corn” pose unique challenges for EL students. Graphics, pictures, diagrams, and
firsthand experiences with phenomena are not constrained by national languages.
Viewing a flame is the same experience whether one speaks Mandarin or Arabic.
Multiple modes of representation and hands-on activities in the science classroom
can also provide anchoring experiences upon which students, including EL stu-
dents can be encouraged to build language-based discourse through subsequently
engaging in talk and writing to explain, argue, predict, etc. (Lee & Buxton, 2013).
Similarly, integrating diagrams and graphics (or even providing realia) during assess-
ments of genre performances can support EL students in more effectively dem-
onstrating their science knowledge and practice while they are still working on
English language proficiency.

Adopting a discourse-focused approach to assessing students’ science practices has
informed the development of learning progression frameworks consistent with the
goals of the NGSS. Our learning progression frameworks depict a pathway from
being “unilingual”—limited to vernacular discourse genres—to “bilingual” in the
capacity to use both vernacular and scientific discourse genres. As they learn, stu-
dents retain the capacity to construct force-dynamic or covering law explanations,
arguments, and predictions and they continue to use those genres in appropriate
situations. But they also master scientific genres and learn when and how these
genres can be powerful and effective. EL students face the added challenge of learn-
ing two new languages in science class (a new national language and the new social
language or discourse of science). Like English-speaking students, EL students also
need to learn to decide when the social language of science, as opposed to a ver-
nacular language, is called for.
Learning progression-based curricula with associated formative assessment
resources can provide resources for leveraging student learning. Learning progres-
sion frameworks distinguish discourses across levels of achievement. Formative
assessment resources associated with these frameworks can help teachers identify
how their students are making sense of the world and what next instructional steps
are appropriate to help students develop more sophisticated knowledge and prac-
tice. Learning progression-based formative assessments are designed to be accessible
to students and to facilitate categorization of student responses within the levels
of a learning progression framework. These assessments can help teachers identify
where their students are along learning progression levels of discourse, and associ-
ated curricular materials can help teachers respond to the levels of discourse that
their students bring to science class.
Our own learning progression research concerning carbon transforming
processes has informed a curricular program called Carbon: Transformations in
Matter and Energy (Carbon TIME). The Carbon TIME program includes teach-
ing units, an online assessment system, teacher professional development, and
local teacher networks. The teaching units and assessment system are publicly
available at carbontime.bscs.org. The units, designed for middle and high school
science classes, focus on processes that transform matter and energy in organ-
isms, ecosystems, and global systems including combustion, photosynthesis, cel-
lular respiration, digestion, and biosynthesis. Several teachers of EL students have
adapted the Carbon TIME curriculum to integrate strategies such as use of realia
and firsthand experiences to help students connect language with real-world
phenomena; use of individual student white boards for diagramming, sharing,
and discussing; and provision of textual and graphical supports for writing tasks
and assessments.
Carbon TIME and other programs like it illustrate the power of attending to
language and discourse in science education assessment and instruction. Science
is a subculture with an associated language and a defined notion of literacy. Thus,
science teachers of both English-speaking and EL students may be thought of as
language teachers tasked with helping students develop the capacity to create and
critically evaluate scientific genres such as explanation, argument, and prediction
both in the classroom and, importantly, beyond.
Note
1 While we consider implications for EL students, the research was not conducted with
an a priori focus on EL students, and thus first language status was not collected with the
reported data.
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. (Ed., M. Holquist;Trans. C. Emer-
son & M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bloom, D., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroom lessons. Cur-
riculum Inquiry, 19(3), 265–291.
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011).Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scien-
tific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.
Bruna, K. R.,Vann, R., & Escudero, M. P. (2007). What’s language got to do with it? A case
study of academic language instruction in a high school “English Learner Science” class.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 36–54.
Covitt, B., Dauer, J., & Anderson, C.W. (2017).The role of practices in scientific literacy. In C.
Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next
generation science and engineering practices (pp. 59–83). Arlington,VA: NSTA Press.
Dauer, J. M., Doherty, J. H., Freed, A. L., & Anderson, C. W. (2014). Connections between
student explanations and arguments from evidence about plant growth. CBE-Life Sciences
Education, 13(3), 397–409.
DeLuca, E. (2010). Unlocking academic vocabulary lessons from an ESOL teacher. The Sci-
ence Teacher, 77(3), 27–32.
Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Educa-
tion, 89(2), 335–347.
Fang, Z., Scheppegrell, M. J., & Moore, J. (2014). The linguistic challenge of learning across
academic disciplines. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.),
Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 302–322). New
Gee, J. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture
and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–11). Westport, CT: Bergin & Gavin.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and
don’t yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–11, 38.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to
moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
Hakuta, K., Santos, M., & Fang, Z. (2013). Challenges and opportunities for language learn-
ing in the context of the CCSS and the NGSS. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(6),
451–454.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson”
or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological
systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149–1180.
Jin, H., Mehl, C. E., & Lan, D. H. (2015). Developing an analytical framework for argu-
mentation on energy consumption issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(8),
1132–1162.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Integrating science and English proficiency for English
language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 36–42.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progres-
sion for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
46(6), 675–698.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in
grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Parker, J., Covitt, B., Lee, M., & Anderson, C. (2016). A learning progression for students’
interpretation of earth systems data. Conference of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York:
Viking.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to
Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need
to know. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State
Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 32–43.
Rath, A., & Brown, D. E. (1996). Modes of engagement in science inquiry: A microanalysis of
elementary students’ orientations toward phenomena at a summer science camp. Journal
Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineer-
ing model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
28(9), 859–882.
Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise:Why so many predictions fail-but some don’t. New York:
Penguin Books.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. (2008). Using everyday experience to teach science. In A. Rose-
bery & B.Warren (Eds.), Teaching Science to English language learners (pp. 39–50). Arlington,
VA: NSTA Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture,
and Activity, 1(4), 202–208.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the
discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and
science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of
Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.
APPENDIX
Karen Seed Planting One Year Later
Most of the mass of

the plant comes
from the air
Seed = 1g Plant = 50g

Soil = 80g Soil = 78g
Mike Plant Grown Without Plant Grown With

Added Nutrients Added Nutrients
Most of the mass

of the plant comes
from soil nutrients
Plant = 50g Plant = 65g

Added nutrients = 3g
APPENDIX 11A Karen’s and Mike’s Arguments

12
FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENTS IN SCIENCE AND
LITERACY INTEGRATED CURRICULA
A Suggested Alternative Approach
Mark Wilson and Yukie Toyama
Focus Points
• A strong developmental theory of learning in a particular domain or a learning
progression is largely missing in existing programs that integrate science and
language/literacy.
• The lack of a learning progression leads to lack of coherence among curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, resulting in assessments not fulfilling their full poten-
tial in generating feedback to teachers, students, and decision makers about the
state of student learning as well as ways to improve teaching and learning.
• We describe one particular approach to the construction and empirical vali-
dation of a learning progression. This approach is built on four core princi-
ples: (a) a developmental perspective on student learning, (b) a match between
instruction and assessment, (c) management by teachers; and (d) assessments
that uphold high-quality standards of reliability and validity.
• The learning system developed using our approach will achieve tight align-
ment among curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Assessment results will
inform teachers and students about English learner (EL) students’ progress
against multiple curricular goals in both science and language/literacy domains.
• Additionally, the results will reveal necessary changes in the curriculum,
instruction, and underlying developmental theories, which will better support
EL students’ engagement and learning in science while simultaneously facili-
tating their language development. Further, our approach can support investi-
gation of which complex relationships among science and language learning
targets may be unique to and among EL students.
Chapter Purpose
In this chapter, we argue that the critical feature of a learning progression—a strong
developmental theory of learning in a particular domain—is largely missing in
232 Mark Wilson and Yukie Toyama
existing programs that integrate science and language/literacy instruction. Con-

sequently, accompanying assessments—both formative and summative—cannot
reach their full potential in supporting the curriculum and instruction, especially
in generating formative feedback to teachers, students, and curriculum designers to
improve instructional processes. Based on this observation, we propose an approach
in which a learning progression serves as a linchpin of the necessary alignment
among curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In addition, we argue that this
approach helps to capitalize on complementary and synergistic roles of formative
and summative assessment in a science-literacy integrated curriculum, to facilitate
student learning in both domains.
The key ingredients in our approach are (1) a common road map or learning
progression that ties together various instructional goals that the curriculum aims
to achieve; (2) goals expressed and communicated in a rich and educationally effec-
tive way; (3) both summative and formative forms of assessment developed on the
common learning progression that underlies the curriculum; (4) assessments built
to provide teachers and school administrators with useful information regarding
students’ placement along the learning progression(s); and (5) all of (1)–(4) are sub-
ject to empirical investigation and checked for validity. Note that, just as a road map
will often provide multiple paths to a destination, a learning progression will often
have alternative paths to success.
First, we define each of the two types of assessment—formative and summa-
tive. We then present issues we found in the assessments used in our review of
six science language/literacy-integration programs, using the familiar curriculum-
instruction-assessment triangle of learning (National Research Council [NRC],
2001). This provides a context in which to reflect on the following: How can forma-
tive and summative assessments in integrated science-literacy programs be used in a mutually
supportive way to improve curriculum and instruction? While we readily acknowledge
that learning progressions are a generic idea with many possible manifestations, we
will propose one particular approach to the construction of a learning progression,
using the BEAR (Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment Research) Assessment Sys-
tem (Wilson, 2005). We describe the logic behind our assessment system and give
examples of its use for constructing more coherent and informative assessments for
science language/literacy-integrated programs.
The chapter is intended to inform teachers, administrators, and curriculum
developers about the critical role that a learning progression plays in designing
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. To support students, especially EL stu-
dents, in both the science and language/literacy domains, multiple learning pro-
gressions may be necessary (for an example, see Chapter 8, this volume), and their
relationships need to be empirically investigated. While we see the development
of learning progressions as requiring more time than a regular classroom teacher
working alone can afford to give, we think it is important that teachers know about
the potentials of learning progressions so that teachers can (a) insist that curricu-
lum be developed embracing those potentials and (b) contribute to the develop-
ment of learning progressions as part of curriculum-assessment development teams
(NRC, 2001).
Assessment in Science and Literacy Curricula 233
Review of Research & Theory
Formative and Summative Assessment

A test or assessment in itself is not formative or summative. What distinguishes the
two is how results are interpreted and used. An assessment activity is formative when
resulting information is “used as feedback, by teachers and students, in assessing
themselves and each other, to modify the teaching and learning activities in which
they are engaged” (Black, Wilson, & Yao, 2011, p. 74). To provide effective feedback
to students, the teacher has to be able to first solicit rich student responses via
discussion questions or activities and, second, interpret the responses, often spon-
taneously, to come up with the next actions that move the learning forward. To do
this skillfully and productively, the teacher must have an idea of how the learning
typically progresses from a low level to a higher level within a particular domain
of knowledge or practice over the course of instruction. Such a learning progression
(Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009, also see Chapters 8 and 11, this volume) or road
map will guide the teacher’s decisions about how to treat students’ contributions
during an activity, whether to correct apparent misconceptions, summarize their
emerging understandings, or extend them. Although the term is broadly defined,
a learning progression refers to something that goes beyond a set of learning goals,
curriculum pieces, or instructional events, with a longitudinal understanding of
how learning unfolds (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, 2007). As a road map, it
helps the teacher determine what to do next in the instructional sequence. As this
description shows, formative assessment is one of the fundamental core activities
in the work of teachers. However, it often receives less attention than summa-
tive assessment in the accountability systems as well as in curriculum intervention
programs.
An assessment activity is summative insofar as it is being used to provide a sum-
mary of what a student knows, understands, or can do (Black et al., 2011). Summa-
tive assessments serve multiple purposes. For students, they can be used to examine
general improvement, providing guidance, recognition, or motivation in terms of
what has been achieved. They can also be used to determine further levels of study
or actions. For teachers, they can provide a global and external evaluation of their
efforts, and for a school or school district (or state), summative assessments can be
used to establish evidence for the accountability of the teacher, school, or state. The
assessments can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention program.
It is a common assumption that large-scale summative assessments produced by
testing companies are subject to more principled and well-established validation
processes than formative assessments carried out in the classroom (e.g., Brookhart,
2003). However, despite substantial progress in test design, standard administrations
of norm- or criterion-referenced tests given at the end of a year or unit provide
little guidance for classroom instruction for individual students. Thus, when faced
with instructional and policy decisions, only one of two unsatisfactory choices are
typically available for decision makers at the state, district, and school level: use
standardized assessments that are trusted by the public but provide little additional
information (over grades) for making decisions about individual student progress or
use classroom assessments for which little evidence about validity or reliability exists
yet which are potentially more informative for making instructional decisions.
Even though classroom and large-scale assessments need not be mutually exclu-
sive tools, it is extremely rare to find valid and reliable tests that can be linked
directly to classroom practices and instructional activities. We will discuss our
approach to develop a coordinated assessment system with robust validity and relia-
bility evidence, which enables the linkage between formative and summative assess-
ments. First, we turn to major programs that integrate science and literacy/language
instruction to facilitate learning in both domains as fertile contexts to reflect on
relationships among curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Assessments in Science-Literacy Integration Programs

Integrating literacy instruction with science instruction is not a new idea (e.g.,
Wellman, 1978), although the realm of simultaneously supporting EL students’ sci-
ence learning and language development is relatively new (Lee, 2005; Stoddart,
Pinal, Latzke, & Canaday, 2002). Proponents of integration stress synergies that exist
between English language and literacy development, on the one hand, and science
inquiry on the other. For one thing, hands-on science activities spark situation-
based interest and motivation for reading to understand the wonders of the natu-
ral world (Guthrie et al., 2004). Additionally, science inquiry provides meaningful
contexts, along with rich visual cues and concrete objects, to learn the structure
and functions of English language for authentic purposes (Lee, Quinn, & Valdes,
2013), to practice reading comprehension strategies and thinking skills (Guthrie et
al., 2004; Romance & Vitale, 1992), and to engage in science practices—describing,
hypothesizing, explaining, justifying, summarizing, and argumentation, which share
common meaning-making strategies required for comprehension (Cervetti, Barber,
Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, 2012).
Moreover, as discussed in earlier chapters of this volume, these science practices
demand and afford rich discursive practices (Chapters 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, this volume;
Lee et al., 2013). Naturally, advanced language and literacy skills are likely to enable
deeper engagement with science content and practices. Beyond these synergies,
equity concerns also propel some proponents to underscore the importance of
simultaneously supporting EL students’ science learning and their English language
development: EL students’ access to rigorous subject-matter instruction as well as
to academic language development would be substantially limited in a traditional
approach that sees the full development of English proficiency as a prerequisite
for a subject-matter instruction and separates the instruction in the two domains
(Stoddart et al., 2002). Further, others have advocated for the need to establish
congruency between language and cultural experiences that EL students bring to
the classroom, on the one hand, and science instruction, on the other (Lee & Fradd,
1998, see also Chapter 3, this volume).
Of many the integration programs available in the literature, we reviewed six
programs,1 all of which have gone through multiple rounds of development, imple-
mentation, and research. Unfortunately, we did not find any models that we con-
sidered excellent examples of the assessments that fully support the goals of the
curriculum and instruction.Thus, we provide a high-level summary and critique of
the types of assessments found in these integration programs2 (see Appendix 12A
for the full list of the assessment issues found in the review). Our purpose here
is to show that while these integration programs provide engaging instructional
approaches, curriculum materials, and/or teacher professional development oppor-
tunities, their assessments, for either formative or summative purposes, are rather
weak, in terms of (a) their alignment with the curriculum and instruction and (b)
their capacity to be the basis for valid inferences about students’ current levels of
understanding and identifying appropriate next steps.
The most common assessment tools we found in the studies of the six pro-
grams are state standardized tests or commercially available norm reference tests
(e.g., Greenleaf, Hanson, & Schneider, 2011, Llosa et al., 2016, Romance & Vitale,
1992). These assessments are considered to be “distal” from what students have
been learning with the enacted curriculum (Ruiz-Primo, Shavelson, Hamilton, &
Klein, 2002; Sussman, 2016).While they may be useful to get a general sense of stu-
dent achievement, they seldom provide meaningful formative feedback to students,
teachers, and program designers. For example, an earlier efficacy study of Reading
Apprenticeship Improving Secondary Education (Greenleaf et al., 2011), a pro-
gram integrating disciplinary reading into content area instruction, used three state
standardized tests from the California Standardized Tests program. The researchers
found statistically significant treatment effects in the respective three areas tested
(i.e., English language arts, reading comprehension, and biology), although they
admitted that these tests were not well aligned with their program: The reading
comprehension items were largely about literature rather than science, and biology
items focused mostly on factual recall, which involved very little reading. Clearly,
these assessments generate little diagnostic information that guides teachers and
students toward productive pathways for specific learning goals that the program
emphasizes, although it is possible that they provided evidence of a program’s effi-
cacy in increasing student achievement in a distal learning area.
Another popular assessment type is researcher-developed measures. Some of
these assessments are put together using publicly available items. For example, in
the efficacy studies of Promoting Science Among English Learners (Llosa et al.,
2016; Lee, Deaktor, Hart, Cuevas, & Enders, 2005), science tests were developed
using public release items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
Similarly, science unit tests were put together using released items from the state
tests as well as the textbook publisher’s item bank in Quality English and Science
Teaching (August et al., 2014; August, Branum-Martin, Cardenas-Hagan, & Francis,
2009), a program that provides supplementary materials and professional develop-
ment for science curriculum to specifically address EL students’ language develop-
ment needs.
The majority of these publicly released items are multiple-choice items, which
are unlikely to capture complex cognitive processes and language functions involved
in the science practices that the integration programs typically target. Nor were
these items developed with specific consideration for EL students’ developmental
learning trajectories. Further, very few details are available about the development
process as well as the technical qualities of these researcher-developed assessments.
We conjecture that the alignment between these assessments, on the one hand, and
the curriculum and instruction, on the other, is achieved only at a broad topic level,
which is not sufficient to generate informative feedback to move learning forward.
Some researchers developed their own assessments from scratch, aiming to
achieve tighter alignment among the assessments, curriculum, and instruction. For
example, in Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI; www.cori.umd.edu/;
Guthrie, Anderson, Alao, & Rinehart, 1999; Guthrie et al., 2004), a program that
promotes reading engagement through hands-on science activities for elementary
and middle school students, Guthrie and his colleagues developed assessments that
are closely aligned with CORI’s instructional framework as well as with its under-
lying learning and motivational theories. CORI’s most prominent assessment is
a weeklong performance assessment, which involves reading of multiple texts on
a science topic, such as how crabs and turtles live and grow. For this assessment,
students activate their prior knowledge through writing and drawing, write down
questions they may have for the topic, take notes on a reading log as they read, and,
finally, represent what they have learned from the texts by drawing and writing.
These assessment tasks are so tightly aligned with CORI’s instructional activities
that students would not distinguish the former from the latter. Additionally, because
student motivation is seen as a key element for improving student reading achieve-
ment, a student survey tool was developed to measure this construct (Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997).
While CORI’s performance assessment tasks appear seamless with instruction
and curriculum and its student survey captures student motivation (the key con-
struct in the program’s theory of change) CORI’s performance assessment and
the student questionnaire are offered only as summative tools for teachers, and no
matching tools seem to be available for formative assessment, apart from a casual
suggestion that students create portfolios of their work and teachers use infor-
mal assessment practices such as oral and written reports, student observations,
and discussions (Swan, 2003). However, the description of these practices is short
and generic, with no specific information about what student’s emerging ideas or
misconceptions might look like in a particular unit and what the teacher should do
to help student learning in both reading and science. Equally absent is a common
framework that provides developmental coherence between the summative assess-
ments and suggested formative practices.
Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading (Seeds/Roots, Cervetti et al., 2012) is
another science/literacy integrated program, which offers a comprehensive set
of researcher-developed assessment tools for formative and summative purposes.
Designed for grades 2–5, Seeds/Roots provides 12 science units in which students
learn about important science concepts as well as science practices through first-
hand inquiry, content-rich informational texts, and scientific discourses with peers
and through writing.
Seeds/Roots’s formative assessments take various forms, including the teacher’s
informal actions during learning activities, such as “quick checks for understand-
ing” (e.g., attending to students’ use of target academic words during a group work).
Additionally, the program offers more formal formative assessments called “embed-
ded assessments” that require students to produce oral or written work as part of
learning activities, and their work products are then evaluated with rubrics pro-
vided in the curriculum. As for summative purposes, Seeds/Roots offer pre-post
measures in four broad areas: (a) science (concepts, inquiry, and nature of practices);
(b) integrated science/literacy (science vocabulary and writing); (c) literacy (read-
ing comprehension); and (d) attitudes toward science.Teachers can select a subset of
these assessments from a booklet to meet their curricular goals and needs.
While the Seeds/Roots assessment system’s coverage is impressive, we neverthe-
less see the need for learning progressions to be elaborated for the curriculum’s
multiple learning goals and to serve as anchors connecting various assessments. We
do see an emerging articulation of learning progressions in the form of the rubrics
offered in the Seeds/Roots assessment system. However, these rubrics are cur-
rently used rather peripherally, only with the open-ended items in the summative
assessments and the embedded assessments. Other forms of student responses, such
as those given to multiple-choice questions or those informally elicited through
teachers’ questioning during a lesson, are not subject to the analysis with the rubrics.
Therefore, these rubrics have not assumed a central role, as learning progressions
would do in driving instruction and assessment, enabling the identification of a
student’s current level of proficiency in relation to what the student has achieved
as well as what s/he can should strive for next. This is seen as critical, especially in
supporting a teacher’s formative assessment practices.
Indeed, based on a qualitative study of the Seeds/Roots curriculum implemen-
tation involving six Norwegian teachers, Haug and Ødegaard (2015) argue “the
teaching material, including the embedded assessment, is necessary but not suf-
ficient” (p. 650) for teachers to make meaningful use of student responses from the
variety of Seeds/Roots assessments. A fully developed learning progression, which
we will discuss in the next section, would be the core tool to design the professional
development and to guide teachers’ daily practices to fill this gap.
The second potential area for improvement is the item format. The vast major-
ity of Seeds/Roots summative assessment items and those of the other integration
programs that use publicly available items (e.g., Greenleaf et al., 2011; Lee et al.,
2005; Llosa et al., 2016) follow the multiple-choice format with a single correct
answer choice. This item format has long been criticized for its narrow focus on
factual recall, limiting student responses, and potential mismatch with and nega-
tive impacts on instruction (e.g., Shavelson, Baxter, Pine,Yure, Goldman, & Smith,
1991; Cizek, 2005). In reading comprehension assessments, research has shown that
multiple-choice items tap into students’ test-taking strategies rather than compre-
hension processes (Farr, Pritchard, & Smitten, 1990; Rupp, Ferne, & Choi, 2006).
This design-choice casts doubt on whether the assessments can capture the sense-
making processes or scientific discourse practices that the curriculum emphasizes.
This is not to say that the summative assessment items were developed without
attending to any design principles—quite the contrary. Seeds/Roots’s multiple-
choice items were designed into a certain type, such as interrelatedness vocabulary
items or literal-recall comprehension questions. However, the scoring procedures
(i.e., simply summing up item level scores at the test level) do not allow one to
make inferences about students’ ability at the item-group level or at the item level.
We will discuss how our alternative approach provides a better framework for
interpreting scores in the next section.
To summarize, we overlay our observations of the six integration programs’
assessments on the traditional curriculum-instruction-assessment triangle (see
Figure 12.1A). Typically, these programs provide rich descriptions of synergies that
exist between science inquiry and language/literacy development for attaining
learning goals in both areas and of specific instructional activities that facilitate the
synergistic learning toward the goals. In this sense, there is a strong tie between the
curriculum (i.e., what needs to be learned) and the instruction (i.e., how to achieve
the goals). This is represented as the arrow between curriculum and instruction in
Figure 12.1A. Additionally, there is the traditional role for the assessments in these
programs which are used to assess how well the students have learned from the
instruction (arrow from instruction to assessment) and hence how much they have
learned of the curriculum (arrow from assessment to curriculum).
However, these two linkages, one between curriculum and assessment and the
other between assessment and instruction, tend to be weak in the integration pro-
grams we reviewed. As we noted, many of the programs use readily available stand-
ardized tests in their published studies.These tests are not very well aligned with the
particular curriculum goals and the related instructional activities. Some programs
developed their own assessments, often with the publicly released items, the major-
ity of which are multiple-choice items. While these researcher-developed assess-
ments may achieve alignment with the curriculum at a broad topical level, they
are unlikely to capture higher order thinking skills, complex knowledge, and/or
language functions unique to science practices, which the curricula emphasize. In
fact, responses for multiple-choice items typically indicate a dichotomy between got
it right and got it wrong, with little capacity to generate information about what may
lie in between the two extremes and how an intermediate understanding can be
turned into more complete understanding. Further, the total scores or composite
scores typically generated from either form of the assessments lack an interpretive
framework that provides useful evidence of, and feedback for, student learning.
Lastly, the existing integration programs lack a strong developmental theory of
learning, as indicated by Figure 12.1A.
Figure 12.1B (Black et al., 2011) represents an alternative approach to the learn-
ing triangle in which a developmental theory of learning drives the design of cur-
riculum, instruction, and assessment. The first step in this approach involves the
FIGURES 12.1A & 12.1B The Learning Triangle Common Among the Integration Pro-
grams (A) and An Alternative Approach to the Learning Tri-
angle (B).
Adapted from “Road Maps for Learning: A Guide to the Navigation of Learning Progressions,” by
Black, Wilson, & Yao, 2011, Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9, pp. 80–81.
curriculum being designed in terms of a developmental theory, grounded in evi-

dence, of the paths through which learning typically proceeds towards the desired
targets. That is to say, the curriculum reflects and provides a strong model of pro-
gression in learning. This learning progression may then be used as a basis for
both instruction and assessments (for both formative and summative purposes).
An empirically calibrated set of assessment tools needs to be developed to exam-
ine landmarks along the learning progression(s) so that these tools will be used to
identify the junctures where failure turns into success. Consequently, a stronger
alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessment will be established, thus
enhancing the validity of the assessment, as it will indicate a student’s position
along the learning progression. While this description may suggest this alterna-
tive approach is theory-driven, we also note that the design of curriculum and
assessment needs to be empirically informed and validated by the observation and
interpretation of student learning through the analysis of student responses to the
assessments.
The second step is to use these learning progressions as guides to instruction
based on the research literature, best professional judgments, and empirical analyses
of qualitative and quantitative data on student learning. An important point here
is the development of useful ways to help teachers and possibly administrators
interpret and use the assessment information from this new type of assessment
system. Such guides should not only help instructional planning, on both macro
and micro scales, but they should also support day-to-day and minute-to-minute
instructional decisions. In this alternative approach to instruction, learning pro-
gressions have a crucially strong influence and can interrelate formative assessment
practices such as learning through discussion and group collaboration and through
the development of metacognition. In particular, we note that a developmental
theory or theories underlying learning progressions must account for the range
of ways that diverse learners, including EL students, learn and demonstrate their
understanding (Sato et al., 2012).
In developing a set of learning practices (e.g., combinations of curriculum,
instructional, and assessment practices) based on the formative learning triangle
shown in Figure 12.1B, numerous studies of those practices have to be conducted,
and teachers have a key role to play in the development and validation of learn-
ing progressions based on their practice-based knowledge about how EL students’
learning unfolds. In such studies, the results of the instruction will be revealed via
the assessment, developed based on the learning progression, which can then be fed
back into the curriculum and instruction. Thus the arrowheads in the formative
triangle point both ways, from instruction to curriculum and back, via assessment,
forming cycles of improvement. Thus Figure 12.B represents a formative approach
to the learning triangle.
For a year-long, middle school science curriculum called Issues, Evidence and
You (IEY), Wilson and Sloane (2000) developed an assessment system that is based
on the formative learning triangle shown in Figure 12.1B. In the section that fol-
lows, we explain the Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research (BEAR) Assess-
ment System, which guided the development of the IEY assessment system. We
note that there is a limitation in the IEY example for the purpose of this chapter:
The IEY was developed for middle school students in general, without specific
focus on EL students and their challenges in learning science while learning the
language. In what follows, we will discuss, to the extent possible, how our approach
can be extended to address EL students’ needs.
Promising Practice: The Berkeley Evaluation and

Assessment Research (BEAR) Assessment System
The BEAR Assessment System offers an integrated approach to developing assess-
ments that provide meaningful interpretations of student responses relative to the
cognitive and developmental goals of a curriculum. The system can also be used
as a method to develop learning progressions (Wilson, 2009). It is grounded in the
following four principles (for details, see Wilson & Sloane, 2000):
1. A developmental perspective on student learning;

2. A match between instruction and assessment;
3. Management by teachers;
4. Assessments that uphold high-quality standards of reliability and validity.
In the BEAR Assessment System, these four principles are concretely expressed
as the four building blocks shown in Figure 12.2. These blocks serve as tools to
construct robust assessments, which can generate both formative and summative
information in varied contexts (for details, see Wilson, 2005). The instrument
development process is iterative, meaning that one is likely to move through
all four building blocks several times in the process of designing an assessment.
Additionally, this process is neither linear nor strictly sequential. The developer
typically moves back and forth among the building blocks, especially among
the first three, as indicated by a dotted inner loop (Berson, Yao, Cho, & Wilson,
2010) in Figure 12.2.
Principle 1: Principle 2:
Developmental Perspective on Learning Match between Instruction & Assessment
Construct Items
Map Design
Measurement Outcome
Model Space
Principle 4: Principle 3:
Evidence of High Quality Management by Teachers
FIGURE 12.2 The Principles and Building Blocks of the BEAR Assessment System
Building Block 1: The Construct Map

The first step is to identify the construct(s) that is to be assessed, such as reading
comprehension of science texts or science argumentation. Constructs are the “big
ideas” or learning goals around which a curriculum may be structured. A construct
map gives a specific form to a construct—it extends from low to high in under-
standing in a particular learning area. As such, it specifies how students are progressing
from less to greater expertise in a particular area. In this sense, the construct map
embodies our first principle—the developmental perspective: Learning is con-
ceptualized not just as an acquisition of more knowledge but also as trajectories
of increasing sophistication within a domain of interest over a certain period of
(instructional) time (NRC, 2001).
To devise a construct map, it is critical to have a clear definition of what stu-
dents are expected to learn and a theoretical framework of how that learning is
expected to unfold as the student progresses through the instructional materials.
Such a developmental theory of learning is derived through examining the extant
literature and curricular goals, as well as drawing on the professional judgments of
teachers and other experts on what constitutes higher and lower levels of perfor-
mance or understanding in a particular domain. We will illustrate an example of
a construct map and how it can be empirically validated and refined through the
BEAR Assessment System, using the IEY example (Wilson & Sloane, 2000).
The IEY is a year-long, issues-oriented science curriculum for middle school
grades. Its goal is not only to increase student science content and procedural
knowledge but also to develop problem-solving and decision-making capabilities
for complex science and societal issues through, for example, being able to weigh
scientific evidence and other community concerns. IEY’s curriculum and assess-
ments relate to the following five constructs: (a) Understanding Concepts (equiva-
lent of the traditional “science content” or “disciplinary core ideas” in the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013); (b) Designing and
Conducting Investigations (a part of the “science inquiry” or “science and engi-
neering practices” in NGSS); (c) Evidence and Trade-offs (relatively unique skills
and knowledge that involve identifying objective evidence as well as evaluating the
pros and cons of possible solutions with available evidence); (d) Communicating
Scientific Information (skills pertaining to organizing and presenting results accu-
rately and effectively, a part of the NGSS’ “science and engineering practices”); and
(e) Group Interaction (skills to work with teammates to complete a task) (Wilson &
Sloane, 2000).
Students are expected to make progress on each of the five constructs, and thus
these are the targets of both instructional and assessment activities. The first three
constructs are primary targets and therefore are assessed more frequently. The forth
construct, Communicating Scientific Information, can be assessed in conjunction
with almost any instructional activity or assessment, depending on the teacher’s
interest in monitoring student progress on this variable. The last construct, Group
Interaction, is based on IEY’s 4–2–1 grouping model: Students first conduct guided
investigations in groups of four, then write reports in pairs, and finally produce
additional written work on their own. Although it is not the focus of IEY, one
could tailor the last two constructs to specifically address necessary language and
literacy skills (e.g., science registers, scientific argumentation), specifically for EL
students to succeed in the curriculum. Further, alternate or multiple pathways may
need to be established to represent EL students’ development of proficiency toward
curricular goals as well as their ways of expressing understanding, as their develop-
ment may be different from that of non-EL students (Sato et al., 2012).
Figure 12.3 shows a construct map for the Using Evidence construct. The map
shows increasing anchor points of sophistication in using evidence as students pro-
gressed through the curriculum. Importantly, the construct map defines a single
continuum, as indicated by an arrow in Figure 12.3, along which students may be
arrayed, from a low point of sophistication through successive qualitatively distinct
ordered points at the top (Wilson, 2005). The construct map also helps to elaborate
observable behaviors associated with each anchor point as well as to design items
that elicit such behaviors.
Typically, a set of construct maps is needed to represent the curriculum. This
would be particularly true for science and language/literacy integrated programs,
which seek to achieve multiple learning goals in the two or more domains. In
Direction of increasing sophistication

in using evidence
Anchor Points Responses to Items
5 Response accomplishes lower level AND goes beyond

in some significant way, such as questioning or
justifying the source, validity, and/or quantity of
evidence.
4 Response provides major objective reasons AND
supports each with relevant and accurate evidence.
3 Response provides some objective reasons AND some
supporting evidence, BUT at least one reason is
missing and/or part of the evidence is incomplete.
2 Response provides only subjective reasons (opinions)
for choice and/or uses inaccurate or irrelevant
evidence from the activity.
1 No response; illegible response; response offers no
reasons AND no evidence to support choice made.
X No opportunity to respond.
Direction of decreasing sophistication

in using evidence
FIGURE 12.3
A Sketch of the Construct Map for the Using Evidence Construct of
the Issues, Evidence, and You (IEY) Curriculum for Middle School Stu-
dents Building Blocks
such context, some considerations should be taken into account. First, a set of
construct maps is not equivalent to a curriculum; it is always less, in the sense that
it serves as a summary of the curriculum. Moreover, it is not a summary of the
content of the curriculum so much as a summary of the intended effects of the
curriculum. These effects must have certain characteristics: They must be impor-
tant enough to warrant assessment on a regular basis (essentially a curriculum or
instructional decision); they must be few enough for a teacher to keep track of
easily; and they must be organized into a particular sort of summary—a devel-
opmental perspective (which can be based on research as well as on professional
judgments; Wilson, 2009).
Building Block 2: The Items Design

Assessment tasks create the match between classroom instruction and the various
types of assessment. The critical element to ensure this in the BEAR Assessment
System is the items design, which guides the development of assessment tasks to elicit
student responses that can be mapped to the ideal anchoring points of one or more
construct maps. Explicitly aligning the instruction and the assessment addresses a
basic tenet of content validity of the assessment system, as outlined in the Standards
for Psychological and Educational Testing (American Educational Research Asso-
ciation [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council
on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014).Traditional testing practices—both
in standardized tests as well as in teacher- and researcher-made assessments—have
long been criticized for oversampling items that tap into only easily accessible basic
knowledge, ignoring more complex levels of understanding. This will lead to con-
struct underrepresentation. Matching items with the construct map (especially the
upper ideal points) ensures that one will assess what is important to assess, not just
what is easy to assess. It also ensures the match between instruction and assessment,
which is the second principle in the BEAR Assessment System.
This principle makes it clear that the framework for the assessments and the
framework for instruction/curriculum must be one and the same, based on the
common developmental theory of learning, posed initially as hypotheses and then
empirically validated through student responses to the assessments. This does not
mean that the needs of assessment must drive the instruction and the curricu-
lum, nor that the curriculum should entirely determine the assessment (it cannot).
Rather, our argument is that the assessment and instruction must be in alignment,
especially at the planning stage: Both must be designed to help teachers and stu-
dents to accomplish the same learning goals.
One practical strategy to achieve this is to develop both the curriculum materials
and the assessment tasks at the same time—designing instructional and assessment
tasks based on the common construct maps, which will elicit informative student
responses—hence to use evidence from these responses to improve instructional
and assessment activities. Indeed, both IEY’s instructional materials and assessments
were built around the same five constructs described earlier, and each instruc-
tional activity and assessment task was explicitly linked to one or more constructs.
Further, a variety of IEY assessment tasks were developed to match the range of
instructional activities in terms of content and cognitive processes. Thus the assess-
ment does not fall into a trap of targeting what is easy to assess through multiple-
choice questions. Indeed, all IEY assessment tasks for the embedded assessments are
open ended, requiring students to fully explain their responses.
Figure 12.4 shows an example of an IEY assessment prompt, which is related to
the Evidence and Trade-offs construct. The prompt is taken from Activity 12: “The
Peru Story.” It is a typical assessment task in that it requires students to integrate
information from readings they did in previous lessons and provide reasoning. In
addition to these embedded assessments, the IES assessment system offers “Link
Tests,” which are given at major transition points to provide snapshots of student
learning. They can be used both summatively and formatively. An item is linked to
at least one IEY construct, but the link-test item is not curriculum-embedded, like
the Peru story assessment task. To increase efficiency in scoring, some multiple-
choice items are used for the Link Tests as long as they were mapped to one of the
five IEY constructs to ensure coherence in the assessment system. This mapping
helps generate useful information from students’ responses about where students
may be on the construct map.
You are a public health official who works in the Water Department.Your supervisor
has asked you to respond to the public’s concern about water chlorination at the next
City Council meeting. Prepare a written response explaining the issues raised in the
newspaper articles. Be sure to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of chlorinating
drinking water in your response, and then explain your recommendation about
whether the water should be chlorinated.
FIGURE 12.4
An Assessment Task Embedded in the Issues, Evidence, and You (IEY)
Curriculum for Middle School Students
Building Block 3: The Outcome Space

For the information from assessments to be useful to teachers, test results need to
be directly interpretable with respect to the instructional goals as represented by
the highest ideal points of construct maps. Moreover, the processing of student
responses to assessments must be efficient.The outcome space in the BEAR Assess-
ment System is a conceptual tool that facilitates this process by categorizing quali-
tatively different kinds of student responses and valuing these categories in terms of
the anchoring points of a construct map. In practice, scoring guides are developed
for each item, along with exemplars of student performance that provide concrete
examples of each anchoring points. Figure 12.5 shows the Using Evidence to Make
Trade-Offs Scoring Guide and an exemplar for a level-3 response on Activity 12,
“The Peru Story.”
As can be seen in the figure, the scoring guide helps the teacher locate particular
student responses onto the anchoring points of the construct map, with concrete
examples of what is expected of students at varying levels of development along
each construct map.
Score 3 Exemplar Response by a Middle School Student
As an edjucated employee of the Grizzelyville water company,
I am well aware of the controversy surrounding the topic of
the chlorination of our drinking water. I have read the two
Score Using Evidence to Make Tradeoffs articals regarding the pro’s and cons of chlorinated water. I have
made an informed decision based on the evidence presented
4 Response accomplishes Level 3 AND goes beyond in some the articals entitled “The Peru Story” and “700 Extra People
significant way, such as suggesting additional evidence beyond May bet Cancer in the US.” It is my recommendation that
the activity that would further influence choices in specific our towns water be chlorin treated.The risks of infecting
ways, OR questioning the source, validity, and/or quantity of our citizens with a bacterial diseease such as cholera would
evidence and explaining how it influences choice. be inevitable if we drink nontreated water. Our town should
learn from the country of Peru.The artical “The Peru Story”
3 Response discusses at least two perspectives of issue AND reads thousands of innocent people die of cholera epidemic.
provides objective reasons, supported by relevant and accurate In just months 3,500 people were killed and more infected
evidence, for each perspective. with the diease. On the other hand if we do in fact chlorine
2 Response states at least one perspective of issue AND provides treat our drinking water a risk is posed. An increase in bladder
some objective reasons using some relevant evidence, BUT and rectal cancer is directly related to drinking chlorinated
reasons are incomplete and/or part of the evidence is missing; water. Specifically 700 more people in the US may get cancer.
OR only one complete and accurate perspective has been However, the cholera risk far outweighs the cancer risk for 2
provided. very important reasons. Many more people will be effected
by cholera where as the chance of one of our citizens getting
1 Response states at least one perspective of issue BUT only cancer due to the water would be very minimal. Also cholera
provides subjective reasons and/or uses inaccurate or irrelevant is a spreading diease where as cancer is not. If our town was
evidence. infected with cholera we could pass it on to millions of others.
And so, after careful consideration it is my opion that the
0 No response; illegible, response lacks reasons AND offers no citizens of Grizzelyville drink chlorine treated water.
evidence to support decision made.
Comment: Both sides of the chlorinating issue have been
X No opportunity to respond. presented and supported.The choice to chlorinate was made.
FIGURE 12.5 Scoring Guide for the Evidence and Trade-Offs Construct and Exemplary Response for Score 3 by a Middle School Student.
Adapted from “From Principles to Practice: An Embedded Assessment System,” by Wilson and Sloane, 2000, Applied Measurement in Education, 193, pp. 193–194.
The principle underlying this third building block is that the assessment system
must be managed by teachers. Two broad issues are involved in this principle. First,
it is teachers who will use the assessment information to inform and guide the
teaching and learning process. To do this fully, teachers must be involved in collect-
ing student work and be able to score and use the results immediately, rather than
waiting for scores generated by a third party. Teachers also must be able to interpret
the results in instructional terms and offer necessary accommodations for EL stu-
dents during the assessments.
Second, issues of teacher professionalism and teacher accountability demand teach-
ers to play a more central and active role in collecting and interpreting evidence of
student progress and performance (Tucker, 1991). If they are to be held accountable for
their students’ performance, teachers need a good understanding of what students are
expected to learn and of what counts as adequate evidence of student learning. They
are then in a more central position for presenting, explaining, and defending their
students’ performances and the “outcomes” of their instruction.
In the BEAR Assessment system, we organize moderation sessions where teachers
discuss with one another how they score individual student work, which often leads
to improved consistency between teacher-scorers and to helping teachers become
more consistent in their own scoring. This process also helps teachers internal-
ize the developmental goals of the curriculum as they focus attention on student
performance in light of the construct map and discuss with other teachers the
implications of the assessment for their instruction. Indeed, many teachers we have
worked with told us that participating in the moderation sessions was the best pro-
fessional development they have participated in, as these offered them opportunities
to closely examine their own student responses in relation to the construct levels
and compare them to the responses from other students, and thus they more deeply
understood how to tailor their instruction to each student’s need. Undoubtedly, the
moderation sessions were one of the critical components in the IEY program that
contributed to the creation of a teacher professional learning community, which
in turn brought desired changes in classroom practices in line with IEY’s learning
goals (Roberts & Wilson, 1998).
The idea of scoring guides is not new. “Rubrics” are often used to score essays
in both large-scale and teacher-generated assessments. However, these “rubrics” are
often written as item-specific, without any grounding in a more general underly-
ing structure that is tied to a theory of student learning. We believe that the BEAR
scoring guides not only increased coherence between the theorized ideas of the
construct and the interpretation of actual student responses but also increased effi-
ciency in scoring, as the scorers do not have to learn a completely new set of cri-
teria for each task.
Scoring guides can be useful even for multiple-choice items, when develop-
ing both the item itself and the answer choices. For example, one can develop the
answer choices that represent various anchoring points on the construct map and
appeal to students whose understanding is at a particular point. Indeed, ordered
multiple choice items (Briggs, Alonzo, Schwab, & Wilson, 2006) capitalize on
this idea, generating useful information about student understanding even from
“wrong” answer choices, when properly designed.
Building Block 4: The Measurement Model

The measurement model, the fourth building block in the BEAR Assessment Sys-
tem, helps us understand and evaluate the scored student responses in light of the
construct map, and guides the use of the results for formative and/or summative
purposes.
There are many models available to make this possible, such as the “true score”
model of classical test theory, item response models, latent class models (sometimes
known as diagnostic classification models), or factor analysis. Our approach is to
use item response models (from item response theory or IRT). In particular, we use
a polytomous extension of the Rasch model (Rasch, 1960, 1980), which provides
a strong criterion-referenced interpretation of student proficiency and graphical
interpretive tools (Wilson, 2005). The outputs from the measurement model are
based on empirical analyses of student responses to assessment tasks and can be
used as quality control information to address the issues of reliability and validity.
The outputs can also be used to determine where individual students fall along the
continuum, as explicated in a construct map. For the IEY program, we developed
a variety of progress maps that are empirically based, graphical representations of a
construct map (see Figure 12.6).
Figure 12.6 shows one example of such an empirical map, which shows pro-
gress of one student (Anne Jackson) on the Designing and Conducting Inves-
tigation construct at five time points. By placing students’ performances on the
empirically derived continuum (represented vertically in the figure), teachers can
compare student’s progress with respect to the goals and expectations of the cur-
riculum. Specifically, five performance zones labeled on the right of the figure (i.e.,
beyond, correct, incomplete, incorrect, and off target) provide a way to interpret
student performance that is directly tied to the score levels on the scoring guides.
In this example, Anne initially started at the “incomplete” level, but her perfor-
mance improved to the “correct” level before the second Link test. A map can
also be created to show performance of a group of students, showing not only the
class average but also the whole distribution (for an example, see Wilson & Draney,
2004). With the detailed information gained from such maps at hand, the teacher
can determine the concepts and skills that need to be readdressed for a particular
set of students.
The principle underlying Building Block 4 is that assessments must meet stand-
ards of validity, reliability, and fairness (such as consistency and lack of bias). How-
ever, the technical quality of assessment instruments has been investigated primarily
in high-stakes, summative testing situations. Rarely addressed are the comparability
and validity of classroom-based assessments.
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, &
NCME, 2014) describe different sources of validity evidence that need to be inte-
grated to form a coherent validity argument. These include evidence based on (a)
test content, (b) response processes, (c) internal structure, (d) relations to other vari-
ables, (e) testing consequences, and (f) fairness. In any assessment, be it classroom or
large-scale, a necessary element of content validity is identifying what the student
progression looks like within a curriculum or a subject area and how that learn-
ing is expected to unfold. In the BEAR Assessment System, the first four types of
Performance Map for Jackson, Anne

Designing & Conducting Investigations (MLE)
PRE 1–12 13–20 21–26 Link1 29–38 39–46 Link2 47–58 Link3 POST
Beyond
Correct
Incomplete
Incorrect
Off Target
FIGURE 12.6
A Progress Map for an Individual Student’s Performance on the IEY
Designing and Conducting Investigation Construct at Five Time Points.
Reprinted from “The BEAR Assessment System: A Brief Summary for the Classroom Context” by C. A.
Kennedy, 2005, p. 8. Copyright 2005 by Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment Research Center. Reprinted
with permission.
validity evidence are accumulated through (a) the careful development and revi-
sion of the first three building blocks, (b) cognitive interviews and think-alouds,
(c) the match between the construct map and the empirically derived map, and (d)
coordination of the empirical student estimates with other variables with which
they have expected relations. For the IEY assessment system, these sources of valid-
ity evidence have been used to develop a validity argument (Wilson & Sloane,
2000) as well as traditional indexes of reliabilities (for details, see Wilson & Sloane,
2000). Further, field-testing data showed that the IEY assessment system, which
was designed to provide prompt feedback to curriculum and instruction through
tightly aligned assessments, was effective in promoting statistically significant learn-
ing gains (Wilson & Sloane, 2000).
Last but not least, the output from a measurement model can be used to
obtain student and school locations on the construct map that can be interpreted
substantively. This is necessary to ensure the assessment is useful for instruction
(instructional or consequential validity). We have gathered evidence for the useful-

ness of this approach by actively working with school districts and teachers (e.g.,
Brown, Furtak, Timms, Nagashima, & Wilson, 2010; Yao, Wilson, Henderson, &
Osborne, 2015). We also created software to facilitate the use of the BEAR Assess-
ment System (Irribarra, Freund, Fisher, & Wilson, 2015; Wilson, Scalise, Galpern, &
Lin, 2009).
The four principles described above and the building blocks supporting them
are not intended to operate in isolation. Each of the principles, particularly the first
principle—the developmental perspective as embodied in a construct map—pro-
vides a unifying “thread” throughout the system, and their relations also make the
system more integrated. When designed according to these principles, then, each
assessment—either formative or summative—will have a designated place in the
instructional flow, reflecting the type of learning that students are expected to dem-
onstrate at that point in time. Hence, scores assigned to student work can be linked
back to the developmental framework and used both to diagnose an individual’s
progress with respect to a given construct and also to summarize student learning
over time. Equally important are qualitative indices described in the scoring guides
that help the teacher notice student contribution and identify its location in a pro-
gress scheme, sometimes on the fly, so that s/he can adapt or modify the next teach-
ing move to meet the needs of the student (Black et al., 2011). Further, adherence
to each of the principles within each phase of the assessment development process
produces a comprehensive and coherent system that can address the complexity of
the classroom context and the desired linkages among curriculum, instruction, and
assessment (Wilson & Sloane, 2000).
Finally, it is important to develop and implement an effective learning system in
science that addresses unique challenges for EL students. Such a system will require a
collaboration among multiple stakeholders, such as science teachers, English as a second
language (ESL) teachers, curriculum designers, and assessment specialists. A construct
map and related tools in our approach provide a necessary anchor for these diverse
stakeholders to share their perspectives and expertise (Fisher & Wilson, 2015). Our tools
also help build a common frame of reference that guides their collective efforts.
Mapping a Learning Progression Using Construct Maps

We now turn to the issue of the conceptual relationship between a construct map
and a learning progression. Up to this point, we used the terms learning progression
and construct map interchangeably. However, a learning progression can be com-
posed of multiple construct maps, an idea that can be more relevant in an inte-
grated science-literacy instruction where multiple learning goals are of interest. As
you will recall, a learning progression is a framework to lay out likely pathways of
student learning from less sophisticated to more sophisticated thinking. It can be
an effective tool to develop high-quality assessments that align with curriculum
and instruction. Construct maps, as described earlier, can serve as a “skeleton” to
map out a learning progression. In the mapping process, one must think deeply
about the likely relationships among the “paths” in the learning progression, that is,
among construct maps. One must also empirically test these relationships, because
it is these relationships that determine the structure of an assessment system. Once
validated empirically, in turn, it can guide the structure and sequence of curriculum
and instruction to best facilitate student learning toward the mastery of the targeted
learning goals.
To illustrate the relationship between a learning progression and construct
maps, we will use a visual metaphor that superimposes images of one or more
construct maps on an image of a learning progression. Figure 12.7 illustrates one
of the most straightforward relationships, in which the ideal anchoring points
of a learning progression are those of a single construct map. In the figure, the
anchoring points of a learning progression are portrayed as the successive lay-
ers of the “thought clouds,” representing the successive levels of sophistication
of the student’s thinking or reasoning. The increase in the cloud’s size as it goes
from lower left to upper right is intended to represent increasing sophistica-
tion in student thinking later in the sequence. The vertical rectangle within the
cloud layers is a much-reduced illustration of a generic construct map. As can be
FIGURE 12.7 A Straightforward Relationship—The Levels of the Learning Progression

Are the Levels of a Single Construct Map.
Reprinted from “Measuring Progressions: Assessment Structures Underlying a Learning Progression,”
by Wilson, 2009, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, p. 725.
Copyright 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
seen, the lines separating the ideal points on the construct map are aligned with
the boundaries of the learning progression clouds. The person in the picture is
someone (e.g., a science or literacy educator or a researcher interested in sci-
ence learning issues for EL students) who is thinking about student progression.
It is important to point out that learning progression resides in the teachers’
thoughts, and that it is a hypothesis about the progression of students’ thoughts
that should be examined empirically.
A learning progression can more appropriately be “mapped out” with more
than one construct map, especially in a context such as a science-literacy integrated
instruction, where multiple learning outcomes and their interrelations are of inter-
est. There are multiple possibilities, and some may be quite complex. Here we
briefly describe two of the possibilities to illustrate how construct maps could serve
as the backbone of a learning progression and the ideal points of a construct map
can be related to those of a learning progression (see Wilson, 2009, 2012 for more
detailed descriptions, as well as examples of other relationships between construct
maps and a learning progression).
Figure 12.8A illustrates one possible relationship, where the ideal points of mul-
tiple construct maps all align, at least conceptually, and they, in turn, constitute
the anchoring points of a learning progression. Figure 12.8B shows a more com-
plex situation where the attainment of a certain level of a requirement construct,
say proficiency in explanation discourse, is a precursor to the attainment of a correct
and complete level of the target construct, say proportional reasoning (note the two
construct examples are drawn from Chapter 8 of this volume, which examined
the relationship between two companion learning progressions in the context of
formative assessment of mathematics and language). We have been exploring ways
to model such linked constructs within a learning progression with a family of
statistical models called “structured construct models” (SCMs; see Wilson, 2009,
2016 for details).
An example of linked constructs within a learning progression can be found
in the molecular theory of matter for the middle school level (Black et al., 2011;
Morell, Collier, Black, & Wilson, 2017). Figure 12.9 shows a hypothesized learning
progression for the structure of matter. In this example, each of the boxes can be
thought of as a construct map, but anchoring points within each construct map
are left unspecified in this diagram. Consistent with all other previous examples,
the progression is assumed to move upwards, with simpler understandings at the
bottom and more sophisticated understandings at the top.While this representation
suggests that dependencies exist among constructs, more subtle relationships could
be specified among certain anchoring points of different construct maps, initially as
hypotheses based on the literature and professional judgments among the multiple
stakeholders.
Further, it is possible that some of these constructs may have cyclical relation-
ships, as many educational ideas, such as “crosscutting themes” in the Next Gen-
eration Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013), are expressed as cycles. Such
conceptualization poses very different and an interesting range of possible ways of
thinking about a learning progression. This topic is worth investigating and will be
the subject of further work (Wilson, 2014).
FIGURES 12.8A & 12.8B
More Complex Possible Relationships between a Learning Progression and Construct Maps.
(A) is one possible relationship where the anchor points of the learning progression are the ideal
points of several construct maps. (B) is another possibility, where a link (or dependency) exists at
certain points across different construct maps. Specifically, in the latter, reaching a higher point on
the target construct T requires reaching a preceding point on both T and a requirement construct
R (as indicated by the arrows).
ATOMIC-MOLECULAR
THEORY OF
MACRO PROPERTIES
6
MACRO
EVIDENCE FOR
PARTICULATE
STRUCTURE
5 CHANGES OF
STATE
4 DENSITY AND
MASS & VOLUME
3
PROPERTIES OF MEASUREMENT AND

OBJECTS DATA HANDLING
1 2
FIGURE 12.9 The Hypothesized Learning Progression for the Structure of Matter

Adapted from Black et al. 2011, pp. 83. Each box represents a construct map, and progression is envi-
sioned as proceeding from the bottom to the top.

In summary, we have argued that a learning progression—a strong developmental
theory of learning in a particular learning domain that is empirically validated
and refined with student assessment data—is missing in the existing programs that
integrate science and language/literacy instruction that we have reviewed. Conse-
quently, accompanying assessments are not reaching their full potential in support-
ing the curriculum and instruction, especially in generating formative feedback
for teachers, students, and curriculum designers to improve instructional processes.
Based on this observation, we have proposed an alternative approach in which a
learning progression serves as a linchpin of the necessary alignment among cur-
riculum, instruction, and assessment. In addition, we have argued that our approach
helps to capitalize on complementary and synergistic roles of formative and sum-
mative assessment in a science-literacy integrated curriculum, to facilitate student
learning in both domains.
The key ingredients to this alignment are an empirically validated road map of
the learning goals of an underlying well-articulated curriculum, along with vali-
dated summative and formative assessments tied to the road map, which inform
educators about students’ placement on the road map.
Implication for Practice and Research

Mapping out students’ intertwined science-related and language capabilities as a
single learning progression or as separate progressions is not an easy task, even
when planned for non-EL students (Mislevy & Durán, 2014). Efforts to sort out
this complexity have just begun (e.g., Bailey & Heritage, 2014; Sato et al., 2012),
and much remains to be done, drawing on different expertise from the multiple
stakeholders. In this chapter, we have offered a framework that we hope will guide
such collaborative efforts.
When our suggested approach is taken to develop and validate a learning progres-
sion for all learners, but with special focus on EL students, teachers and researchers
may encounter three different “degrees of complication” in the way that the learning
progression for EL students relates to the “standard” progression. The possibilities are:
1. EL students are essentially on the same learning progression, but they tend to
be at lower anchoring points on the progression(s) than their non-EL peers;
2. EL students are essentially on the same learning progression; however, some
assessment items or a class of items, which are developed based on the learning
progression, behave differently for EL students compared to non-EL students
who have the matching level of ability being measured by the items (this
phenomenon has the generic label “differential item functioning” or DIF; see
Chapter 10 of this volume); and
3. EL students are on a different learning progression from those of non-EL students.
Clearly, (1) is least complex but might be naïve. It may suggest that EL stu-
dents’ progression along the common learning pathway is a matter of time and
more intensive support. With regard to (2), researchers have investigated differen-
tial item functioning with respect to EL students, in particular whether construct-
irrelevant language factors in items may prevent EL students from demonstrating
what they know and can do, most notably in large-scale summative assessments
in mathematics (e.g., Mahoney, 2008; see also Chapter 10, this volume). Lastly, (3)
is the most complex, but little research exists investigating this possibility. Despite
the lack of clearly established models of how EL students learn, represent their
knowledge, and develop competence, Sato et al. (2012) has noted that emerging
research suggests that EL students may not follow the hypothesized “more com-
mon” pathways toward learning goals, which are based primarily on research and
models for non-EL students. Given individual differences in educational history,
sociocultural background, and literacy and fluency in their native or home lan-
guage, EL students access, interpret, and engage with academic content differently
(e.g., Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). Adding yet another layer of complexity is
that substantial differences exist among EL students in terms of cognitive, cultural,
and linguistic resources they bring to assessment and learning tasks (Abedi, 2004).
The implication of these complexities for practice is that teachers need to take
an active role in adapting assessment tasks (and learning activities) to meet unique
local needs of their students, especially for formative purposes. In particular, for EL
students, teachers should attend to local and cultural variations in how EL students
access, engage, and respond to assessment tasks, which generic learning progressions
may miss (Mislevy & Durán, 2014). Teachers should also consider EL students’ edu-
cational histories, including their experiences in science as well as language domains
(both in their native/home language as well as English). The related implication
for research is that teachers’ practice-based knowledge about variations among
EL students needs to be directly tapped and combined with research specifically aimed
at developing alternative learning progressions for and among EL students.
In closing, it is important to note that the alternative approach we have proposed
in this chapter is both time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring a more
determined effort than has typically been taken in the development of assessments
for curricula. However, we believe it is an invaluable investment because class-
room and summative assessments developed using our approach address a wealth
of important issues, as has been detailed in this chapter. In addition, we believe our
approach could turn the direction of influence of summative standardized assess-
ment on formative assessment (and hence to instruction and learning) around to
the opposite—where instruction and learning, in hand with formative assessment,
give the direction to summative assessments and hence to accountability.
Notes
1 These six programs are: Seeds/Roots, CORI, Reading Apprenticeship, Quality English
and Science Teaching, Promoting Science Among ELL, and Guided Inquiry Supporting
Multiple Literacies.
2 We note that descriptions of the assessments used in the six integration programs were
most readily available in published efficacy studies. The program websites were also
reviewed, although little information on assessment was available.
References
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment
and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.
American Educational Research Association. (AERA), American Psychological Association
(APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards
for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. J. (2009).The impact of an
instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English
language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 345–376.
August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Francis, D. J., Powell, J., Moore, S., &
Haynes, E. F. (2014). Helping ELLs meet the Common Core State Standards for literacy
in science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language.
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 54–82.
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2014). The role of language learning progressions in improved
instruction and assessment of English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3),
480–506.
Berson, E.,Yao, S., Cho, S., & Wilson, M. (2010, April). The qualitative inner-loop of the BEAR
assessment system. Paper presented at the International Objective Measurement Workshop
(IOMW) in Boulder, CO.
Black, P.,Wilson, M., & Yao, S.Y. (2011). Road maps for learning: A guide to the navigation of
learning progressions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9(2–3), 71–123.
Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with
ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33–63.
Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes
and uses. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practices, 22, 5–12.
Brown, N. J., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evi-
dence-based reasoning framework: Assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment,
15(3–4), 123–141.
Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012).The impact
of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal
Cizek, G. J. (2005). High-stakes testing: Contexts, characteristics, critiques, and consequences.
In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 23–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. D. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evi-
dence-based approach to reform (CPRE Report). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.) (2007). Taking Science to school:
Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A Description of what happens when an exami-
nee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Measurement,
27(3), 209–226.
Fisher, W. P., & Wilson, M. (2015). Building a productive trading zone in educational assess-
ment research and practice. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigacion Educacional Lati-
noamericana, 52(2), 55–78.
Greenleaf, C. L., Hanson, T. L., & Schneider, S. A. (2011). Integrating literacy and Science in
Biology: Teaching and learning impacts of Reading Apprenticeship Professional Devel-
opment. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647–717.
Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-oriented
reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary
School Journal, 99(4), 343–366.
Guthrie, J.T.,Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C.,Taboada, A., & Davis, M. H., Scafiddi,
N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through con-
cept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.
Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). Formative assessment and teachers’ sensitivity to student
responses. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 629–654.
Irribarra, D. T., Freund, R., Fisher, W., & Wilson, M. (2015). Metrological traceability in edu-
cation: A practical online system for measuring and managing middle school mathematics
instruction. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 588(1), 012042.
Kennedy, A. C. (2005). The BEAR assessment system: A brief summary for the classroom context.
Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment Research (BEAR) Center Report Series. Retrieved
on August 2, 2017, from http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu
Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research
agenda. Review of Educational Research Winter, 75(4), 491–530.
Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional inter-
vention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically
diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857–887.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language
backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12–21.
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdes, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners
42(4), 223–233.
Llosa, L., Lee, O., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O’Connor, C.,Van Booven, C. D., & Kieffer, M. J. (2016).
Impact of a large-scale Science intervention focused on English language learners. Ameri-
can Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 395–424.
Mahoney, K. (2008). Linguistic influences on differential item functioning for second lan-
guage learners on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. International Journal
of Testing, 8(1), 14–33.
Mislevy, R. J., & Durán, R. P. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on assessing EL students
in the age of Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards. TESOL Quarterly,
48(3), 560–585.
Morell, L., Collier, T., Black, P., & Wilson, M. (2017). A Construct-Modeling approach to
develop a learning progression of how students understand the structure of matter. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 1024-1048. doi:10.1002/tea.21397.
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know:The science and design of edu-
cational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. (Eds. J. Pellegrino, N.
Chudowsky, & R. Glaser). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For
states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests [Reprinted by
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980].
Roberts, L., & Wilson, M. (1998). Evaluating the effects of an integrated assessment system: Chang-
ing teachers’ practices and improving student achievement in science (BEAR Report Series, SA-98–
92). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-
depth elementary science instruction using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a
year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 545–554.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation
of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369–393.
Rupp, A. A, Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with mul-
tiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language
Testing, 23(4), 441–474.
Sato, E., Nagle, K., Cameto, R., Sheinker, A., Lehr, D., Harayama, N., Cook, H. G., & Whet-
stone, P. (2012). Understanding learning progressions and learning maps to inform the develop-
ment of assessment for students in special populations. Symposium 2011 Topic 2 White Paper.
Menlo Park, CA/Lawrence, KS: SRI International and Center for Educational Testing
and Evaluation.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., Pine, J.,Yuré, J., Goldman, S. R., & Smith, B. (1991). Alternative
technologies for large scale Science assessment: Instrument of education reform 1. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 97–114.
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new
research and practice paradigms in the testing of English language learners. Educational
Researcher, 32(2), 3–13.
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.
Sussman, J. (2016). Standardized tests as outcome measures for evaluating instructional interventions
in mathematics and science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Swan, E. A. (2003). Concept-oriented reading instruction: Engaging classrooms, lifelong learners. New
Tucker, M. (1991).Why assessment is now issue number one. In G. Kulm & S. Malcom (Eds.),
Science assessment in the service of reform (pp. 3–16). Washington, DC: American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
Wellman, R. T. (1978). Science: A basic for language and reading development. In M. B.
Rowe (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National
Science Teachers Association.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the
amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning pro-
gression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730.
Wilson, M. (2012). Responding to a challenge that learning progressions pose to measure-

ment practice: hypothesized links between dimensions of the outcome progression. In
A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science (pp. 317–343). Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Wilson, M. (2014). Considerations for measuring learning progressions where the target
learning is represented as a cycle. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista De Investigación Educacional
Latinoamericana, 51(1), 156–174.
Wilson, M. (2016, April). Introduction to the concept of a structured constructs model (SCM). Paper
presented at the NCME annual meeting, Washington, DC.
Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2004). Some links between large-scale and classroom assessments:
The case of the BEAR assessment system. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, 103, 132–154.
Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment sys-
tem. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181–208.
Yao, S-Y., Wilson, M., Henderson, J. B., & Osborne, J. (2015). Investigating the function of
content and argumentation items in a science test: A multidimensional approach. Journal
of Applied Measurement, 16(2), 171–192.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 12.1
Assessment Issues Identified in Science-Literacy Integration Programs
(Organized by the Four Building Blocks)
Issue Instances
Building Block 1. Construct map/developmental perspective
Constructs are rarely defined as • Evident in almost all science and literacy
having qualitatively distinct integrated curricula.
successive levels, constituting a • CORI’s passage comprehension measure draws
developmental continuum (instead, on the novice-expert paradigm rather than the
typically only the content of developmental paradigm: It compares student’s
learning is described, without the coherence score based on ratings on relatedness
pathways that may unfold over the of pairs of keywords from a passage against that
course of instruction). of an expert via the PathFinder algorithm.
• Seeds/Roots provides a unique perspective
for how definitional vocabulary knowledge
develops into a semantic and schematic
conceptual knowledge. However, this idea
did not get explicated enough to guide the
assessment development.
Building Block 2: Items design/match between assessment and instruction
Assessments target easy-to-assess • Seeds/Roots’ summative assessments largely
knowledge and skills with multiple- rely on traditional formats (multiple-choice,
choice or fill-in-the-blank format, fill-in-the-blank).
which do not seem to be well • In contrast, CORI uses an elaborate
aligned with the curriculum goals performance assessment in which students
and instruction. read multiple passages on a related topic,
generate questions, take notes, and explain their
understanding by drawing and writing, which
are all well aligned with the curriculum.
(Continued)
APPENDIX 12.1 (Continued)
Issue Instances
Impact/efficacy studies rely on distal • QuEST2 (August et al., 2014) used a norm
measures, such as state standardized referenced test (GRADE) and two researcher-
tests or researcher-developed developed unit tests with very traditional item
measures with publicly released formats, all of which do not seem to be well
large-scale assessment items aligned with the goals and core characteristics
(e.g., TIMSS, NAEP), without of the curriculum.
establishing a clear alignment • An earlier study of Reading Apprenticeship
among the assessments, curriculum, (Greenleaf et al., 2011) exclusively used
and instruction. standardized tests (we note that Greenleaf et al.
admit limitation of their distal measures).
While the curriculum addresses • P-SELL (Llosa et al., 2016) aimed at
a broad range of learning goals promoting both science inquiry and language
(e.g., science content and science development for EL students, but only science
practices/inquiry, or various literacy outcomes were assessed using a researcher-
outcomes such as speaking, reading, developed measure with public release items
writing, academic vocabulary), from large scale assessment programs (e.g.,
assessments in impact studies NAEP, TIMSS, state standardized tests).
narrowly focus on a handful of • An earlier version of P-SELL (Lee et al., 2005)
outcomes without justification. did include a literacy assessment. However,
among many literacy and language outcome
areas that the program targeted, the assessment
narrowly focused on writing, modeling after
the state’s writing assessment (which does not
seem to be well aligned with the curriculum).
Assessments and curriculum do not • Evident in the majority of science-literacy
seem to be developed based on the integrated curricula.
same theory of learning. Compared
to rich description of curriculum,
little information is offered on
accompanying assessments.
Building Block 3: Outcome space/management by teachers
Item scores are aggregated to a total • Evident in the majority of science and literacy
score, which loses interpretability integrated curricula.
in terms of what students know or • Simple sum is the typical aggregation method,
can do. but CORI used a multiplication of drawing
scores and writing scores from its performance
assessment to construct a composite conceptual
understanding score, as its developers claim it
better reflects the interactive nature of the two
(although this is not well explained).
Building Block 4: Measurement model/evidence of high quality
A measurement model provides • Reading Apprenticeship aims to increase high
student ability estimates that school students’ discipline-specific reading
are misaligned with how the ability in biology, language arts, and U.S. history.
student outcome is defined in the While ETS developed discipline-specific
curriculum. reading tests, general rather than discipline-
specific reading abilities were estimated using
a unidimensional 2PL model, using student
responses to all three discipline-specific tests.
AFTERWORD
Alison L. Bailey, Carolyn A. Maher, and
Louise C. Wilkinson
We conclude this volume with a brief commentary that organizes and highlights
the key ideas to emerge from these chapters regarding language and literacy chal-
lenges in learning STEM disciplines. First, we synthesize what chapter authors
identified as essential about the integration of the STEM disciplines and oral lan-
guage, reading and writing, particularly as these integration efforts may be unique
to English learner (EL) students’ STEM instruction and learning. Second, we char-
acterize the hallmarks of effective mathematics and science teachers working with
EL students suggested by the chapter authors and consider, briefly, the potential for
modifications to teacher education and credentialing that may improve the prepa-
ration of teachers in the STEM disciplines working with EL students. Thirdly, we
critically examine the implications for the assessment of mathematics and science
that take account of students’ development of English language and literacy.
What is Unique to Teaching the STEM

Disciplines, Particularly to EL Students?
De Jong and Harper (2005) have argued that to address effectively EL students’ lan-
guage and content learning needs in the classroom, pedagogy must move beyond
the notion of “just good teaching” (p. 102). EL students may have specific linguistic
and cultural experiences that require teaching strategies and requisite teacher con-
tent knowledge and language awareness that go beyond the instructional acumen
that they need for working with students who are English-only or already profi-
cient in English. In response to this often-heard claim that good teaching addresses
the needs of all students, including EL students, we invited the chapter authors to
address explicitly the following questions:
• When “best practice” is implemented by teachers for all students, what, in

addition, must teachers consider for EL students?
• Is the implementation of “best practice” a matter of degree or of difference in

teaching EL students?
• If there are differences, what are some examples from the work of the authors
of this volume and or relevant work of others.
• By attending to “best practice” for EL students, what might teachers learn that
applies to all students or other populations of students?
For both mathematics and science learning, we found the authors of this volume
concur that there are some best practices for language and literacy that teachers
should consider implementing in their classrooms, so that all students develop their
competence in the language and literacy demands of the STEM disciplines.
For mathematics, the authors have argued persuasively that constructing engag-
ing tasks is essential. Tasks should (a) offer students multiple opportunities to think
through and build conceptual understanding of the mathematical problem; this
includes reasoning and justification; (b) allow students to represent those under-
standings using a single or the multiple semiotic resources that they prefer (to
include oral language and literacy); and (c) encourage students to share those
understandings with their fellow students and teachers in the classroom. Language
and literacy are central to all these endeavors. However, given that mathematics is a
multisemiotic system, elements of this learning process can include visual represen-
tations, objects, and gestures. Authors have provided commentary and examples of
tasks that meet these criteria, for example: “Mathematically Speaking” (Moschko-
vich) and “Language in Mathematics” (Avalos, Medina & Secada). With regard to
EL students, authors referenced specific techniques and ideas gleaned from the lit-
erature and their own research that render the tasks truly accessible for this student
population, which means that learners “feel safe” and have access to talk (Moschko-
vich). For example, Barwell describes the efforts of Curtis and Alex, who are bilin-
gual in Cree and English, in their mathematical dialogues. They drew on multiple
discourses, including mathematical discourses (vocabulary, forms of explanation,
use of symbols); general everyday discourses of explanation (e.g. using the word
“like”); and from multiple voices, including making use of both English and Cree
at different times. Several authors remind us that mixing “everyday English,” L1,
and some elements of the mathematical register are appropriate as students work
through their mathematical discovery.
For the sciences, the authors concurred that science learning in the classroom
must be rooted in discovery, with tasks that support students’ sense making of
scientific phenomena. Authors argued that the science classroom should present
an environment rich with potential scientific discovery and which serves as an
opportunity for language use and language learning.Tasks that require language and
multisemiotic representations of scientific understandings are at the core of success-
ful learning in classrooms. This is true for all students. However, for EL students,
the challenge is how to engage students who may have “less than perfect English”
(Lee, Grapin & Haas) in the process of scientific discovery and with the necessity of
representing the results of their inquiries in ways that communicate effectively with
other students and the teacher. Authors concluded that there may well be differ-
ences in learning for EL students; however, in many cases, there is a lack of research
directly addressing these questions in their areas of expertise.
Afterword 263
How Can All Teachers, Including English-Monolinguals,

Teach Mathematics or Science Effectively to EL Students?
For all students, active engagement in mathematical problem solving is at the core
of learning.This involves students’ talking about mathematics (Moschkovich); using
all semiotic resources such as gestures, objects, drawings, but especially visual repre-
sentations (Avalos, et al.) in their joint work; and creating a culture that values and
privileges writing communication in mathematics (Barwell). What is different for
EL students, perhaps, is the degree to which teachers must support EL students in
this endeavor. Student participation in learning groups is more likely to be achieved
when teachers carefully structure tasks so that all students must talk with each
other, responding to and justifying each member’s contributions (Moschkovich).
Teachers will have to think about composing small groups in their classrooms so
that EL students are included, to ensure that there is balance of all students’ contri-
butions. Perhaps strategies from cooperative learning such as the Jigsaw design can
be implemented effectively. What surely is different for EL students, according to
some of the authors, is the involvement of EL students’ home language or L1. Some
EL students may use “less than perfect English” and not deploy the mathematics
register at all initially. The mathematics register can be modeled by teachers and
encouraged as the process proceeds, such as the revoicing of students’ contributions
to show a more precise way of communicating (Moschkovich). Barwell has argued
that L1 should be deployed by both teachers and students in the classroom, includ-
ing writing in L1. Teachers will have to decide how to reach out to their non-
native English speakers, by investigating the L1 of their students; for high-incidence
languages, at the very least, they should attempt to provide some communications
and resources in students’ L1. Finally, Avalos et al. have argued that it is essential for
teachers to relate mathematics content to students’ lives outside of school, includ-
ing their L1; the culture and informal practices of their community; and what the
students know about mathematics from their prior experiences, which can include
their country of origin if they are immigrants or refugees.
With regard to teaching the sciences, students must be actively engaged in
discovering and pursuing scientific phenomena. This, in turn, provides ample
opportunities for students to talk, read, and write science. There are potentially
optimal practices for EL students that represent amplifying best practices. For
example, Lee et al. have argued that for EL students and native speakers, such
a process supports ongoing language learning, to include development of the
precision of the science register. While students are developing their scientific
inquiry, some EL students and some native English speakers may not have full
command of English. Teachers’ correcting the grammar of students’ language
(oral and written) per se is not a top priority during the process but can fol-
low after students are fully engaged and seek the precision offered by the sci-
ence register. Lee et al.’s example of a science lesson with Whitten, specifically
the engagement of Camilla (an EL student), illustrates this approach. Cervetti
and Pearson have argued that teachers may choose explicitly to teach scientific
vocabulary and the features of scientific texts; also, they may choose to mod-
ify texts, preview texts and employ alternatives to formal science texts such as
“Seeds and Roots.”
Some best practices are uniquely oriented to EL students, according to the

authors of this volume. These include explicitly choosing and teaching scientific
vocabulary by relating the concepts and words to EL students’ L1, to include cog-
nates (Silliman, Wilkinson & Brea-Spahn); employing hybrid language practices
(such as translanguaging, that is what appears to be a mix of or switching between
L1 and English); and using translation from English to L1 (Cervetti & Pearson).
Finally, some authors (including both Lee, et al., and Silliman, et al.) are in agree-
ment with Avalos, et al.’s finding: It is essential for teachers to relate the disciplinary
content to students’ lives outside of school, including their L1; the culture and
informal practices of their community; and what the students know about scien-
tific phenomena from their prior experiences, which can include their country of
origin if they are immigrants or refugees. This work includes students’ selecting
“boundary objects” such as bringing home a science text and bringing to their
science classrooms artifacts from their home culture that relate to the scientific task
under study (Silliman, et al.).
Finally, we argue that the work of the authors in this volume suggests the pos-
sibility of changes to teacher education and credentialing that may be needed to
improve the preparation of teachers in the STEM disciplines working with EL
students. We note that at the elementary level teachers have a multiple-subject
credential that allows them to be the mathematics, science, social science, and Eng-
lish language arts teacher, providing multiple opportunities to integrate language
into these disciplines. Perhaps, at least at the secondary level, STEM single-subject
teachers could develop language awareness to be more effective teachers of EL
students, although, by comparison, one cannot assume that all elementary teachers
are effective EL teachers. We still have a long way to go to improve EL education
at both levels. We recommend that there be a review of the different teacher-cre-
dential examinations currently used nationwide (e.g., PACT, edTPA) to determine
how closely these requirements are aligned with the kinds of language, literacy, and
STEM content integration the authors of this volume are calling for.
How Can Assessment of the STEM Disciplines Be

Improved to Take Account of EL Students’ Learning?
In our final section, we consider implications for the assessment of mathematics
and science that take account of students’ development of English language and
literacy. Learning progressions were presented in several chapters (Wylie, Bauer,
Bailey, & Heritage; Covitt & Anderson; and Wilson & Toyama) as a key advance-
ment in assessment. While they have been used to guide formative assessment of
mathematics and science learning in the past, learning progressions have rarely been
seen in the area of language development and have never been used as a means to
combine these domains. Authors in this volume offered some different approaches
for achieving this: Wylie, et al., working in the areas of mathematics and written
explanations, offered insights gained from a joint application of two independ-
ent progressions used as an interpretive framework based on evidence in order to
move language and mathematics learning forward. Covitt and Anderson described
progressions from informal discourse to more sophisticated, scientific discourse in
Afterword 265
students’ development of scientific explanations, arguments, and predictions.Wilson

and Toyama offered a vision of learning progressions acting as the “linchpin” to
align both formative and summative assessment to science curricula and instruction.
Evaluation of EL students’ STEM performances needs to pay close attention to
language but not treat language as a barrier to evaluating students’ STEM under-
standing and learning. Recommendations for the targets of assessment include a
focus on “sophisticated discourse participation and genre production” in science
(Covitt & Anderson). Daro, Cheuk, and Daro warn us of biased inferences about
EL students’ competencies in summative assessment: Test item developers need to
guard against irrelevant text complexity that can be an obstacle in students’ reading
and comprehension of mathematics items. Bias may be subtle for both test scor-
ers and teachers, who may not realize that they are being negatively influenced by
the nonconventional English language productions of EL students. Whether using
summative or formative assessment, teachers need to look beyond such things as
spelling or spoken accuracies and focus on the mathematics or science content
knowledge being displayed.While several authors warn of the challenge to teachers
from integrated STEM and language assessment in terms of time and coordina-
tion with colleagues across disciplines, the benefits in terms of EL students’ future
learning could be immense. Gotwals and Ezzo describe phenomena-based teaching
that may assist in improving assessment not only because it promotes rich, in-class
discussions that can give students and teachers important feedback on teaching and
learning but also because this pedagogy may introduce a teacher to new ideas in
STEM from EL students’ own wide range of experiences, resulting in what these
authors call “exciting opportunities” in approaching EL student assessment in the
future.
To conclude, several questions emerged from the authors’ work that can help
guide future research on instruction and assessment with EL students: How can
teachers engage students, who may have “less than perfect English,” in complex mathematical
reasoning and the process of scientific discovery? In what ways do EL students share similar
trajectories of STEM and language learning to those of their English-speaking peers? What
kinds of professional development will result in more effective instruction and assessment? And
in what ways will application of learning progressions in STEM and language common across
instruction and assessment improve EL student learning outcomes?
Reference
De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language
learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101–124.
CONTRIBUTORS
Charles W. Anderson—Michigan State University
Mary A. Avalos—University of Miami
Alison L. Bailey—University of California–Los Angeles
Richard Barwell—University of Ottawa
Malcom Bauer—Educational Testing Service
Maria Brea-Spahn—New York University
Gina N. Cervetti—University of Michigan
Tina Cheuk—Stanford University
Beth Covitt—University of Montana
Phil Daro—SERP Institute
Vinci Daro—Stanford University
Dawnmarie Ezzo—Michigan State University
Amelia Wenk Gotwals—Michigan State University
Scott Grapin—New York University

Contributors 267
Alison Haas—New York University
Margaret Heritage—Heritage Consulting
Okhee Lee—New York University
Carolyn A. Maher—Rutgers University
Edwing Medina—University of Miami
Judit Moschkovich—University of California–Santa Cruz
P. David Pearson—University of California–Berkeley
Walter G. Secada—University of Miami
Elaine R. Silliman—University of South Florida
Yukie Toyama—University of California–Berkeley
Louise C. Wilkinson—Syracuse University
Mark Wilson—University of California–Berkeley
Caroline Wylie—Educational Testing Service

INDEX
Page numbers in italic indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the
corresponding page.
2D figures 63 all text for English learners, improving

3D figures 63 comprehension of 86
all texts for all learners, improving
“aboutness” of writing, ideational comprehension of 84 – 85
metafunction 103 – 104 alternatives: to standardized tests to
abstract graphs 62 demonstrate scientific knowledge 134; to
academic language 89, 171 – 172; in textbooks 92 – 94
cognitive writing model example analysis-mapping-writing-sequences 89
124 – 126; disciplinary-general words 126; analyzing summative assessment items
proficiency 118 195, 195
academic literacy in mathematics 14, anchor standards 3
18 – 19; expanding 17 – 18, 30; narrow Anderson, Charles xvi
views of 19 annotations in mathematical writing 111
academic register 117 – 118 Appendix M of NGSS 172
accommodating covariance and invariance applying mathematics learning progression
167 150 – 153, 151, 153, 155
accommodations 201 – 203, 202; item apprenticeship 37
modification 203; supporting access for architecture, of ENPs 126
ELLs to text 191 arguments 206 – 207, 207 – 209; connections
achievement gap 4; Hispanic students 115 among 214 – 217; engineering
activities, student activities that pay mode 211; folk theories of inquiry
attention to oral language 27 – 29, 28 210 – 211; intermediate level critique
“Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn of arguments 221 – 222; macroscopic
Mathematics” 20 scale argumentation 220 – 221; scientific
adoption of NGSS 36 arguments, formulating 89; scientific
adverbial clauses 125 critique of 216; substituting an easier
AERA (American Educational Research question 211; validity arguments
Association) 14, 243 247 – 248; vernacular arguments 212 – 213
affixes 127 assessment 171; BEAR Assessment System
algebra 105 232, 240 – 249; comprehensive assessment
Index 269
system, building 200; curriculum- pedagogically oriented strategies for

instruction-assessment triangle 237 – 239, improving reading comprehension
238; disaggregating by test and home 94 – 95; phenomenon-based instruction
language 5; formative assessment 6, 8, 176 – 180; promoting ELs’ problem
143, 145 – 146; genre assessment 207; solving 70 – 72; for summative assessment
interrelatedness vocabulary items 237; 192 – 194, 193, 194; for writing in the
item format, improving 237; learning science register 129 – 134
progressions 145 – 146; NAEP 7; PISA 1, bias in scoring, minimizing 193
4; researcher-developed measures 235; bilingual 207
SBAC 7; of science language/literacy- Black, Paul 145 – 146
integrated programs 232; in science “bottlenecks” 120
language/literacy-integrated programs boundary objects 132, 264
238; scoring rubrics 152 – 153, 153; brain, executive functions of the 116 – 117
standards-based 144; STEM assessment Brea-Spahn, Maria xvi
with ELLs 6 – 9; summative assessment Bretz, J Harlen 44
6, 8 – 9; see also formative assessment; building: connective vocabulary 225 – 226;
summative assessment oral communication skills 17
assessment developers 187 building blocks of BEAR Assessment
atmospheric carbon dioxide, scientific System 240; construct maps 241 – 243,
prediction about 216 – 217 242; item design 243 – 244; measurement
Avalos, Mary A. x, xvi model 247 – 249, 248; outcome space
244 – 246, 244 – 245
background knowledge 118 “building blocks” of language 40
background on research and theory
build-up strategies 147
informing Dynamic Language Learning
Progressions project 148 – 150
canonical scientific genre performance 218
Bailey, Alison L. xi, xvi, xvii
Carbon TIME program 227
Bakhtin, Mikhail 108 – 109, 206
carbon transformation processes 215,
bar diagrams 62
218 – 220
bar graphs 62
Barwell, Richard x, xvi cascading nature of Hayes and Berninger
Bauer, Malcolm xi, xvi writing model 120
bay odyans 177 causal clause 8
BEAR (Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment cause and effect arguments 48, 210 – 211;
Research) Assessment System 232, learning through DCIs 47
239 – 240, 240 – 249; assessment issues CCCs (crosscutting concepts) 39, 40, 47,
identified in curriculum models 48, 170, 183n2; cause and effect, learning
259 – 260; construct map 241 – 243, 242; 47; final group model, presenting 46 – 47;
item design 243 – 244; measurement group models 45
model 247 – 249, 248; outcome space CCSS (Common Core State Standards)
244 – 246, 244 – 245; scoring guides 246 2, 19 – 20, 83; for mathematics 6;
behaviors in mathematical writing 107 – 108 mathematics assessment 144
being processes 88 CCSSM (Common Core State Standards
best practices xvii, 261 – 262; connective for Mathematics) 18 – 19
vocabulary building 225 – 226; create centrifugal forces 109 – 110
opportunities for sustained cross- centripetal forces 109 – 110
disciplinary collaborative practices CER (claims-evidence-reasoning)
160 – 161; improving ELL reading framework 173
comprehension in science 83 – 94; Cervetti, Gina N. xvi
learning progressions, using as challenges of school science textbooks:
interpretive framework 157 – 158; for complex sentences 82; high density of
mathematical writing 108 – 111; for information 81; implicit relationships
mathematics lesson design 25 – 29; NGSS 82 – 83; technical vocabulary 82
instructional shifts vignette 43 – 48; Channeled Scablands 44
270 Index
characteristics: of narrow views of academic competencies of students, inferences about

language 19; of science register 117 – 118; 201
of teachers successful with ELLs 15 complex adaptive systems xv; language
charts 63; KLEWS chart 179 – 180 as 41
chemistry lab report, application of Hayes complexity, syntactic and textual, teaching
and Berninger writing model 121 – 129 132 – 133
Cheuk, Tina xi, xvi complex relationships between learning
class consensus model 46 – 47 progressions and construct maps 252
classrooms: classroom language 26; complex sentences 128; in science
communication 21; immersion textbooks 82
classrooms xii; IRE patterns 26; NGSS complex strings 58
instructional shifts 43 – 48; oral language, complex view of mathematical language 19
supporting 29; science classroom as components of feedback 182n1
community of practice 37 – 38 comprehension 80 – 81; all text for English
clause packages 126, 128 – 129 learners, improving comprehension
clauses 81; adverbial clauses 125; noun of 86; all texts for all learners 84 – 85;
clauses 125; relative clauses 118, 125 alternatives to textbooks 92 – 94; cohesive
closing the gap 171, 179 – 180 texts, choosing for improved reading
cognate knowledge 118 comprehension 90 – 92; consistent
cognates 130 pedagogical themes for improving
cognitive processes 121 – 123, 122, 123; comprehension 90; exploiting home
evaluating 120; Hayes and Berninger language expertise 95 – 96; externalized
writing model 119 – 120; proposing 119; cognition 119; instruction 83 – 87; nature
transcribing 120; translating 120 of 80 – 81; proven tools for improving
cognitive writing model see Hayes and comprehension 95; science text for all
Berninger writing model students, improving comprehension of
coherence/cohesion 150 85 – 86; science texts for English learners,
cohesive texts, choosing for improved improving comprehension of 87;
reading comprehension 90 – 92, 91 – 92 strategies for ELLs 87; trends in
college and career readiness standards 6; research 97
PARCC 7 concept maps 89
colloquial language 23 conceptual generation in cognitive writing
combustion, scientific explanation of model 121 – 123, 122, 123
215 – 216 conceptual transitions 147
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) conceptual understanding 13, 20;
communication: explanation 149; crosscutting concepts 39; importance
functional linguistics 24; genre 207 – 208; of 21
importance of for learning mathematics conjunctions 192
21; about mathematics 24; mathematics connected scientific genre performance 218
register 22 – 23; modalities 42 – 43, 43; connections among scientific genres 207,
oral communication skills, building 17; 214 – 217
purposeful 40 – 41; registers 2 connective, logical connective 82
communicative resources 33 connective vocabulary building 225 – 226
communities of practice, science classroom consistent pedagogical themes for
as 37 – 38 improving comprehension 90
companion progressions 143, 144; constant additive differences strategy 147
configurations for student performance constructing measures 202
155; superimposing companion language construct-irrelevant language 187, 194,
learning progressions 153 – 157 198 – 199; as cause of test score variance,
comparatives 59 measuring 200; linguistic modification
compartmentalization 209 191; minimizing 192 – 195, 193, 194
competence of language users construct maps 241 – 243, 242; implications
116 – 117 for research and practice 253 – 255;
Index 271
learning progression, mapping with derivations 127 – 128

249 – 253, 250, 252, 253 describing students’ progress 214
construct-relevant language 187, 194, designing assessments 214
198 – 199 determiners 126
constructs 241 developing frameworks 213 – 214
contemporary views on science learning developmental theory of learning 231 – 232,
36 – 37 238
content knowledge for teaching 162 diagrams 62, 226
content words 81 dialogic approach 112
context: comprehension 80 – 81; CVI 87; of difficulties encountered by ELLs in solving
mathematical writing 105 – 106; of word word problems 56 – 57
problems 59 – 60 digits 196
context-specific scientific genre dimensions of heteroglossia 109
performance 218 disaggregating assessments by test and home
conversational register 117 language 5
CORI (Concept Oriented Reading disciplinary core ideas 170
Instruction) 235 disciplinary-general words 126
covering law explanations 210 “disciplinary literacy” xv
Covitt, Beth xvi discourse 207 – 208
Cree 262 discourse level of language 116 – 117,
CREs (critical reading events) 64, 66 – 67 128 – 129, 171 – 172; in cognitive writing
crosscutting concepts see CCCs model example 123 – 127, 124, 125, 126;
(crosscutting concepts) lexical-syntactic-discourse
cross-language development 96 interface 117
culture: influence on science vocabulary discourse practices 119
acquisition 131 – 132; influence on discursive model 103
summative assessment 188 – 189; discussion: bay odyans 177; ELL
sociocultural influences on summative participation in 41 – 42; explaining
assessments 188 – 189 phenomena 38; group models, presenting
curricula: for ELLs 15; learning 45; student activities that pay attention
progression-based 227 to oral language 27 – 29, 28; teacher talk
curriculum-instruction-assessment triangle moves that support productive
237 – 239, 238 whole-class mathematical discussion
CVI (contextualized vocabulary 25 – 26; unpacking 89; whole-class
instruction) 87 discussions 48
cycles, ESRU 174 doing processes 88
cyclical relationships 251 “doing” science 81
drafting 108
Daro, Phil xi, xvi dual-language development 96
Daro,Vinci xi, xvi Dynamic Language Learning Progressions 144;
data analysis, Language in Math project background on research and theory
66 – 67 informing 148 – 150; evidence, using to
DCIs (disciplinary core ideas) 39, 40, 47; move learning forward 159; features 150;
cause and effect, learning 47; final group phases 168
model, presenting 46 – 47; group
models 45 e-chains 125 – 126
declarative sentence 56 effectiveness of items in supporting ELLs,
deficit perspectives 103 evaluating 192
density of information in science textbooks elaboration 126
81; dense text reading, modeling 88 – 89 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
depth 196 (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015)
derivational meanings 124 148
derivational morphology 116 elements 67
272 Index
eliciting strategies 174; student reasoning, engaging students 92 – 94, 115; in

eliciting in phenomenon-based developing scientific understandings
instruction 178 – 179 129 – 130
ELLs (English Language Learners) x; 2015 engineering: language skills involved in 36;
math and science performances by grade three-dimensional learning 39
and ELL status 3; accommodations 191, engineering mode 211
201 – 203, 202; achievement gap 4; all engineering model of experimentation 211
text for English learners, improving English, improving comprehension of all
comprehension of 86; alternatives text for English learners 86
to standardized tests to demonstrate English learners see ELLs (English Language
scientific knowledge 134; characteristics Learners)
of teachers successful with 15; English proficiency, under ESSA 2
competencies of students, inferences ENL (English as a New Language) teachers
about 201; comprehension strategies 87; 160 – 161
curricula 15; disaggregating assessments ENPs (elaborated noun phrases) 118, 124,
by test and home language 5; ESRU 126, 127 – 128
174; evaluating effectiveness of items EO (English only) students 29;
in supporting 192; exploiting home comprehension strategies 87
language expertise 95 – 96; Framework for EP (English proficient) students 29, 64
English Language Proficiency Development erosion 44, 48
Standards 26 – 27, 26; improving reading ESL (English as a Second Language)
comprehension of science textbooks teachers 160 – 161
83 – 87; instruction for problem solving, ESRU 174
best practices 70 – 72; K-12 xv; lessons ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) 2
for learning mathematics 16; mastering ETS (Educational Testing Service) 144
genres 212 – 213; mathematics instruction, evaluating effectiveness of items in
recommendations for 15 – 17; needs supporting ELLs 192
of in mathematics classrooms 21 – 22; evaluation 120; in cognitive writing model
policy context for learning STEM example 123 – 127, 124 – 126
disciplines in the U.S. 1 – 5; responding everyday language 17, 190; in group
to ideas 175 – 176; science language, discussion 48
learning 173; science texts for English evidence: CER framework 173; IEY
learners, improving comprehension 239 – 240; from learning progressions,
of 87; solutions for improving reading using to move learning forward 159;
comprehension 96; sources of difficulty “moments of contingency” 175 – 176; of
in summative assessments 195; STEM student understanding 173 – 175; validity
assessment 6 – 9; STEM disciplines, evidence 247 – 248
teaching 261 – 262; STEM instruction execution in problem solving 107
5 – 6; student reasoning, eliciting in executive functions of the brain 116 – 117
phenomenon-based instruction expanding academic literacy in
178 – 179; summative assessment mathematics 17 – 18, 30
188 – 189; teaching mathematics to expected tendencies 145 – 146
263 – 264; three-dimensional instruction experiences, repeating with key science
170 – 171; well-elaborated texts, choosing vocabulary 132
for improved reading comprehension experiments: engineering model of
90 – 92; word problems, improving experimentation 211; presenting science
accessibility to 59 concepts as product of 93
ELPD (English Language Proficiency explanations 149, 206 – 207, 207 – 210;
Development) framework 6, 26 – 27, 26, of combustion 215 – 216; connections
31n3 among 214 – 217; intermediate level
embedded causal clause 8 explanations of carbon transforming
embedding chain 125 – 126 processes 218 – 219; lower level
embodied experience 210 explanations of carbon transforming
engagement tasks 262 processes 219 – 220; of phenomena 44;
Index 273
superimposing companion language frameworks: CER 173; developing

learning progressions 153 – 157 213 – 214; English Language Proficiency
explicitness of information, choosing well- Development Framework 6, 26 – 27,
elaborated texts for improved reading 26, 31n3; Framework for K-12 Science
comprehension 90 – 92 Education 83; “A Framework for K-12
exploiting home language expertise 95 – 96 Science Education” 36, 39; functional
expository texts 92 linguistics 24; interpretive framework,
expressions 105 using learning progressions as 157 – 158
expressive understanding 17 functional approach to mathematical
externalized cognition 119 language 190
Ezzo, Dawnmarie xvi functional language analysis 88 – 89
functional linguistics 24
fast thinking 211 functions: of students’ writing in
features, of Dynamic Language Learning mathematics 106; of written language
Progressions 150 106 – 108
feedback 172 – 173, 181, 233; components funding, NCLB 2
of 182n1; in formative assessment 171;
goal of 175; see also formative assessment gaps: achievement gap 4; OTL gaps 6
figures 63 genre 207 – 208; assessing mastery of
final group model, presenting 46 scientific genres 213 – 217; challenges for
fluency: “bottlenecks” 120; procedural ELLs 212 – 213; connections among 214
fluency 20 genre assessment 207
fluency transitions 147 gesture 188
folk theories 210 – 211 global level of language 128 – 129
follow-up questions 175 Gotwals, Amelia Wenk xvi
force-dynamic reasoning 210 grammar 40, 48, 57; of mathematics
formal approach to mathematical language 193 – 194; rules 103
190 grammatical resources 57 – 58
formal language in mathematics 24 grammatical structure of symbols 105
formal mathematical discourse 105 – 106 graphs 62, 105
formal mathematical writing 105 – 106 Grapin, Scott xv
formal model (of language use in group discussion using everyday language
mathematics) 103 in 48
formative assessment 6, 8, 143, 145 – 146, group models 45; final group model,
169, 233; definition of 170; eliciting presenting 46
strategies 174; of ELL students’
understanding 172 – 173; feedback Haas, Alison xv
171, 172 – 173; language demands 170; Hayes and Berninger writing model
learning progressions 146; learning 119 – 120; applying to construction of
targets 172 – 173; naïve understandings chemistry lab report 121 – 129; cognitive
145 – 146; responding to students’ ideas processes 121 – 123, 122, 123; evaluating
175 – 176; see also learning progressions; process 120; proposing process 119;
summative assessment transcribing process 120; translating
format of assessment items, process 120
improving 237 head nouns 126
form-meaning relationships 88 Heritage, Margaret xi, xvi
formulating scientific arguments 89 heteroglossia 108 – 109; three dimensions
foundational literacy 115, 117 of 109
Framework for English Language High Mathematics Proficient students 67
Proficiency Development (ELPD) see high-stakes summative assessments 188 – 189
ELPD (English Language Proficiency Hispanic students, achievement gap 115
Development) framework home language 209
“A Framework for K-12 Science “horizon knowledge” 146
Education” 36, 39 hybrid language practices 264
274 Index
ideational metafunction 103 – 104, 104 interactions 42 – 43, 43, 49; one-to-many
IEY (Issues, Evidence and You) 239 – 240, interactions 49
241 intermediate level critique of arguments
immersion classrooms xii, 173 221 – 222
imperatives 104 intermediate level explanations of carbon
implications for research and practice: of transforming processes 218 – 219
instructional shifts 49 – 51; of learning intermediate level prediction about arctic
progressions 253 – 255; of mathematical sea ice extent 222 – 224
writing 112 – 113; of phenomenon-based interpersonal metafunction 104
instruction 181 – 182 interpreting summative assessment 189
implicit relationships in science textbooks interpretive framework, using learning
82 – 83 progressions as 157 – 158
importance of conceptual interpretive listening 143
understanding 21 interpretive reasoning 117
improving: assessment of the STEM interrelatedness vocabulary items 237
disciplines 264 – 265; item format of investigations, science in the classroom
assessments 237 45 – 46
indicators of knowledge 214 IRE (initiation—response—evaluation)
indigenous languages 113n1 pattern 26
indigenous peoples, marginalization of IRT (item response theory) 247
113n1 Issues, Evidence and You see IEY (Issues,
inferences 196, 197, 198; about student Evidence and You)
competencies 201 Item Response Model 148
informal language 18; in mathematics 24 item-writing practices for summative
informational density 127 – 128 assessment 192 – 193
insight, gaining into student understanding IVI (intensified vocabulary instruction) 87
174
Institute of Educational Sciences 73 journal writing 103
instruction: best practices for mathematics
lesson design 25 – 29; best practices Keeling Curve 216
for writing in the science register keywords 89
129 – 134; consistent pedagogical KLEWS chart 179 – 180
themes for improving comprehension knowledge: background knowledge 118;
90; curriculum-instruction-assessment cognate knowledge 118; conceptual
triangle 237 – 239, 238; CVI 87; eliciting understanding 13; externalized
student reasoning in phenomenon-based cognition 119; “horizon knowledge”
instruction 178 – 179; IVI 87; NGSS 146; indicators of 214; “knowing” of
instructional shifts 35; phenomenon- science ideas 170; mathematical 190;
based 176 – 180; “revoicing” 17; of STEM mathematics knowledge, measuring 199;
with English learners 5 – 6; supporting procedural fluency 13
sense making in phenomenon-based
instruction 179 – 180; talk moves language xii, 128 – 129; academic language
that support productive whole-class 14, 89; background on research and
mathematical discussions 25 – 26; three- theory informing Dynamic Language
dimensional 170 – 171; transmission Learning Progressions project 148 – 150;
model of instruction 72 Bakhtin, Mikhail 108 – 109; “building
instructional shifts: classroom vignette blocks” 40; characteristics of narrow
43 – 48; implications for research and views of academic language 19;
practice 49 – 51; in language 40 – 43, 43, classroom language 26; as complex
47 – 48; in science 38 – 40 adaptive system 41; cross-language
integration programs: assessment in science development 96; “curricularizing” 40;
language/literacy-integrated programs derivation 118; discursive model 103;
234 – 240, 238; curriculum-instruction- dual-language development 96; everyday
assessment triangle 237 – 239, 238 language 17, 48, 190; exploiting home
Index 275
language expertise 95 – 96; formal model 21; mathematics, role of language in

103; functional language analysis 88 – 89; 23 – 24; peripheral participation view
heteroglossia 108 – 109; hybrid language of 42; research in learning math with
practices 264; informal language 18; understanding 30; sociolinguistic nature
instructional shifts 40 – 43, 43 – 48, of learning science 174 – 175; structuralist
43, 47 – 48; linguistic levels 127 – 128; views of language learning 41; talking to
marginalization of indigenous languages learn math with understanding 13 – 14,
113n1; mathematical language 14, 17, 55, 28; three-dimensional 35, 39; three-
57 – 60, 187; mathematics register 22 – 23; dimensional learning 47;Vygotsky’s
as meaning-making tool 37; meanings theory of learning 107; see also language
for academic language 19; mediating learning
role of 41; multiple levels of 116 – 117; learning progression frameworks 213
national languages 208; natural language learning progressions 39 – 40, 161 – 162,
confounds 58; oral language in the 233; applying a mathematics learning
STEM disciplines xv; orthographic level progression 150 – 153, 151, 153, 155;
118; phonological level 118; precision background on research and theory
of 40; productive language functions informing Dynamic Language Learning
27; proficiency 118; for purposeful Progressions project 148 – 150; background
communication 40 – 41; receptive on research and theory informing
language functions 27; role of in learning Proportional Reasoning Learning Progression
mathematics 23 – 24; scaffolding language 146 – 148; configurations for student
27 – 28; science register 117 – 118; performance in companion progressions
scientific language 107, 171 – 172, 173; 155; creating opportunities for sustained
skill involved in “doing” science 36, cross-disciplinary collaborative practices
49; social language 207 – 208; standards 160 – 161; discourse-based 209; evidence,
3; student activities that pay attention using to move learning forward 158 – 160,
to oral language 27 – 29, 28; subword 159; as guides to instruction 239;
level 123; supporting oral language in implications for research and practice
the classroom 29; syntax 128; unitary 162 – 163, 253 – 255; as interpretive
language 109; user competence 116 – 117; framework 157 – 158; language learning
see also language learning; language of progressions 144; for macroscopic scale
mathematics argument critiques 220; mapping with
language demands 149 construct maps 249 – 253, 250, 252, 253;
Language in Math project 64 – 70, 65, 66; mathematics learning progressions 144;
data analysis 66 – 67; participants 64 – 65; for predictions at large scales 220; in
study conclusions 69 – 70; think-aloud science 209; scoring rubrics 152 – 153,
interviews 65 – 66, 65, 66 153; theta 148; value of for formative
language learning 36; structuralist views assessments 146
of 41; through explaining phenomena learning targets 172 – 173, 180; in
47 – 48 phenomena-based teaching 177 – 178
language learning progressions 144, Lee, Okhee xv
161 – 162; implications for research and legislation: ESSA 2; NCLB 2
practice 162 – 163 lessons: for ELLs learning mathematics 16,
language of mathematics 187 – 188, 25; student activities that pay attention to
190 – 192; accommodations 191; formal oral language 27 – 29, 28
view 190; functional view 190 levels of Hayes and Berninger writing
language systems 115, 116 – 117 model 119 – 120
language tensions 101 – 102 levels of language 116 – 117
large-scale summative assessments 233 – 234 lexical resources 57 – 58
learning: communities of practice 37 – 38; lexical-syntactic-discourse interface 117
developmental theory of learning lexical-syntactic level of language 124, 126
231 – 232; expected tendencies lexicon, mathematics register 22 – 23
145 – 146; “horizon knowledge” 146; linear dimensions 196
mathematical writing 108; mathematics linguistic analysis 149, 213
276 Index
linguistic density 81 Progression 146 – 148; best practices for

linguistic/discourse complexity 118 mathematical writing 108 – 111; build-up
linguistic levels 127 – 128 strategies 147; CCSS 6; CCSSM
linguistic modification 191 18 – 19; classroom participation 72 – 73;
linguistic resources 189 communication 24; communication,
linguistics: embedded causal clause 8; importance of for learning 21;
ENPs 118; functional linguistics 24; conceptual understanding 13; functions
registers 42 – 43, 43; SFL 89; systemic of students’ writing in mathematics 106;
functional linguistics xv; see also writing grammar of 193; heteroglossia 108 – 109;
mathematically informal language 24; item-writing
listening 116 – 117; interpretive listening practices for summative assessment
143 192 – 193; knowledge measuring 199;
literacy: academic literacy in mathematics Language in Math project 64 – 70, 65,
14, 18 – 19; “disciplinary literacy” xv; 66; language of 190 – 192; learning
foundational literacy 115, 117; narrow progressions 144, 161 – 162; learning
views of academic literacy 19; PISA with understanding 28; meaning-making
requirements for scientific literacy 4 – 5; systems 56; metafunctions 103 – 104, 104;
science literacy 117 needs of ELLs in mathematics classrooms
liters 195 21 – 22; notation 55; objectification 59;
logical connective, implicit relationships oral responses 190 – 191; problem solving
82 – 83 56; procedural fluency 13; proficiency
long-distance dependency 118 30n2; quantities 196; recommendations
lower level explanations of carbon for instructing ELLs 15 – 17; research
transforming processes 219 – 220 in learning math with understanding
lower level prediction about arctic sea ice 30; role of language in learning 23 – 24;
extent 224 – 225 semiotics 55, 57 – 64, 187 – 188 (see also
Low Mathematics Proficient students 67 semiotics); standards 2; symbols 55;
symbols and notation 60 – 61, 60, 71;
macroscopic scale argumentation 220 – 221 talking to learn with understanding
Maher, Carolyn A. xvii 13 – 14; talk moves that support
main clauses 126 productive whole-class mathematical
marginalization of indigenous peoples discussions 25 – 26; task design 6; teaching
113n1 to ELLs 263 – 264; technical vocabulary
mastering genres 212 – 213; best practices 58; transmission model of instruction 72;
213 – 217 the tulip problem 102; as vocabulary 17;
mathematical explanations 158 – 160 VRs (visual representations) 61 – 63, 62,
“Mathematically Speaking” task 28 – 29 63; word problems 56 – 57; writing 101
mathematical meaning 17, 22 – 24, 55, (see also writing mathematically); see also
60 – 61, 71, 101, 105 language of mathematics
mathematical practices 19 – 20 meaning-making systems 56
mathematical proficiency 20 meanings: for academic language 19;
mathematical register 190 derivational meanings 124 – 126;
mathematical thinking, explaining 143 language as meaning-making tool 37;
mathematical writing see writing mathematical notation 60; mathematics
mathematically register 22 – 23; thematic condensation 61
mathematics: academic literacy in 14; measurement model (BEAR) 247 – 249,
academic literacy in mathematics 18 – 19, 248
30; accommodating covariance and measures, constructing 202
invariance 167; acquisition of knowledge measuring: construct-irrelevant language
72 – 73; applying a mathematics learning impact on test score variance 200;
progression 150 – 153, 151, 153, 155; mathematics knowledge 199
background on research and theory mediating role of language 41
informing Proportional Reasoning Learning Medina, Edwing x, xvi
Index 277
megaflood theory 44 instructional shifts 43 – 48; interactions

memory: mnemonic tools 67 – 69; 42 – 43, 43; language instructional
rehearsal 21 shifts 40 – 43, 43, 47 – 48; learning
metafunctions 103 – 104, 104; ideational progressions 39 – 40; learning targets
metafunction 103 – 104, 104; 172 – 173; modalities 42 – 43, 43; PEs 39;
interpersonal metafunction 104; textual phenomena 121; phenomenon-based
metafunction 104 instruction, implications for research and
minimizing construct-irrelevant language practice 181 – 182; registers 42 – 43, 43;
192 – 194, 193, 194 science instructional shifts 35, 38 – 40;
mnemonic tools 67 – 69 science language 171 – 172, 173; three-
modalities 42 – 43, 43, 49 dimensional learning 39; units
modeling: class consensus model 46 – 47; 171 – 172
dense text reading 88 – 89; final group nominalization, 96, 104 – 105, 150, 154
model, presenting 46; group models 45 nominalized verbs 89
“moments of contingency” 175 – 176 nonschematic drawings 61
morphology 89 nonverbal ideas, translating into verbal
Moschkovich, Judit x, xv units 120
move-on 125 – 126 norm reference tests 235
multi-digit numbers 196 notation 55, 60 – 61, 60, 71
multiple discourses as dimension of note-taking 133
heteroglossia 109 “noticing” 176
multiple languages as dimension of noun clauses 125
heteroglossia 109 noun phrases 81; ENPs 118, 124, 127 – 128;
multiple levels of language 116 – 117 head nouns 126
multiple voices as dimension of NRC (National Research Council) 20;
heteroglossia 109 eight practices in 183n2; “A Framework
multiplication/division learning for K-12 Science Education” 36
progressions 159
objectification 59
NAEP (National Assessment of Educational objects 107; boundary objects 132, 264
Progress) 7; summative assessment 8 – 9 OECD (Organization for Economic
naïve understandings in formative Cooperation and Development) 1
assessments 145 – 146 omnisciente 118
narratives 128 – 129 one-to-many interactions 49
narrow views of academic literacy 17 – 18, one-to-one interactions 42 – 43, 43
19 opportunity-to-learn variables 59
national languages 208, 212 – 213 oral communication skills, building 17
“National Science Education Standards” 39 oral language in the STEM disciplines xv;
natural language 105, 117 development xv; student activities that
natural language confounds 58 pay attention to oral language 27 – 29, 28;
nature of reading 80 – 81 supporting 29; talking to learn math with
navigating reasoning methods 173 understanding 13 – 14
NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act) 2 oral responses to mathematics problems
NCTM (National Council of Teachers of 190 – 191
Mathematics) 18, 19 – 20 organization in problem solving 107
needs of ELLs in mathematics classrooms organization of this book xiv – xv; oral
21 – 22 language in the STEM disciplines xv
NGSS (Next Generation Science orientation 107
Standards, 2013) 2, 115, 169; adoption orthographic level of language 118
of 36; Appendix M 172; best practices orthography 103, 110, 116
for writing in the science register OTL (opportunity to learn) 6
129 – 134; implications of instructional outcome space 244 – 246, 245
shifts for research and practice 49 – 51; outsourcing 97
278 Index
PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of problem solving 56; build-up strategies

Readiness for College and Careers) 7 147; constant additive differences
participants, Language in Math project 64–65 strategy 147; inferences 196, 197,
participation: communities of practice 198; mathematical language 58; oral
37 – 38; ELs in the classroom 41 – 42; responses 190 – 191; qualitative-intuitive
group models 45; interactions 42 – 43, 43 approach 146 – 148; quantities 198;
Pearson, P. David xvi required explanation in math problems
pedagogically-oriented strategies for 151; situational models 195, 195;
improving reading comprehension stages of 107
94 – 95 procedural display 209
performance: configurations for student procedural fluency 13, 20
performance in companion progressions processes 105
155; scientific genre performance 218 process verbs 82
peripheral participation view of learning 42 productive language functions 27
perspective-taking 150 proficiency: in academic language 118;
PEs (performance expectations) 39 Framework for English Language Proficiency
phases of Dynamic Language Learning Development Standards 26 – 27, 26;
Progressions 168 mathematical proficiency 20, 30n2
phenomena 121, 169; engineering model progressions see learning progressions
of experimentation 211; explaining 38, Promoting Science Among English
44; force-dynamic reasoning 210; as Language Learners 235
opportunity for language learning 47 – 48 properties of words 131
phenomenon-based instruction 176 – 180, proportional reasoning 251
180 – 181; eliciting student reasoning Proportional Reasoning Learning Progression
178 – 179; implications for research 144; background on research and theory
and practice 181 – 182; learning targets informing 146 – 148; item map 168; theta
177 – 178; supporting sense making in 148; transitions 147
179 – 180 proposing process 119
phonological level of language 118 proven tools for improving comprehension
PISA (Program for International Student 95
Assessment) 1; 2015 math and science P-SELL 260
performances by grade and ELL status 0; punctuation 102
requirements for scientific literacy 4 – 5; purposeful communication 40 – 41
science assessment, premise of 4 purposes for writing in mathematics 101
policy: context for EL students learning
STEM disciplines in the U.S. 1 – 5; ESSA qualitative-intuitive approach to problem
2; NCLB 2 solving 146 – 148
postmodifiers 126 Quality English and Science Teaching 235
precision in language 40 quantities 196, 198
predictions 206 – 209, 211 – 212; atmospheric QuEST2 260
carbon dioxide, scientific prediction questioning/elicit(ing) 174
about 216 – 217; connections among
214 – 217; intermediate level prediction Race to the Top initiative 7
about arctic sea ice extent 222 – 224; RAND Reading Study Group 80
lower level prediction about arctic sea ice ratios, constant additive differences strategy
extent 224 – 225 147
prefixes 127 reading 116 – 117; activity factor 80 – 81;
presenting science concepts as product of alternatives to textbooks 92 – 94;
experiments 93 challenges of school science textbooks
pretests 178 81 – 83; cohesive texts, choosing for
primary discourses 208 improved reading comprehension 90 – 92;
principles of BEAR Assessment System 240 comprehension 80 – 81; exploiting home
problem situation 195 – 196, 195 language expertise 95 – 96; improving
Index 279
ELL reading comprehension in science Learning Progression 146 – 148; BEAR

83 – 87; in science 81; in the STEM Assessment System 232; implications
disciplines xvi; trends in comprehension of instructional shifts for research and
research 97 practice 49 – 51; Language in Math
“Reading and Understanding a Math project 64 – 70, 65, 66; in learning
Problem” 31n4 mathematics with understanding 30;
Reading Apprenticeship Improving learning progressions, implications
Secondary Education 235 for research and practice 162 – 163;
reading comprehension, instruction 83 – 87; mathematical writing, implications
see also comprehension for research and practice 112 – 113; of
reading comprehension, nature of 80 – 81; mathematics register 21 – 22; mathematics
see also comprehension word problems 56 – 57; NRC 20;
realia 226 phenomenon-based instruction,
reasoning: CER framework 173; eliciting implications for research and practice
student reasoning in phenomenon-based 181 – 182; in reading comprehension
instruction 178 – 179; force-dynamic 97; recommendations for mathematics
reasoning 210; interpretive reasoning instruction for ELLs 15 – 17
117; proportional reasoning 251; researcher-developed measures 235
Proportional Reasoning Learning resources: centrifugal force 108 – 110;
Progression 144; science-specific centripetal force 108 – 110; everyday
forms of 172 language 16 – 19; linguistic 189 – 190; for
recall 21; mnemonic tools 67 – 69 mathematical writing 108 – 110; other
receptive language functions 27 languages 108; word-internal 89
receptive understanding 17 resources – diagrams 191
recommendations, mathematics instruction responding to students’ ideas 175 – 176
for ELLs 15 – 17 reteaching 175 – 176
redrafting 108 “revoicing” 17, 25 – 26
reform: of science 4; standards-based 3; road maps see learning progressions
uncertainty of educational role of language in learning mathematics
reform 135 23 – 24
reform mathematics classrooms, functions rubrics 152 – 153, 153, 172 – 173
of students’ writing in mathematics rules 103
106 – 107, 106
registers 2, 42 – 43, 43, 49, 58 – 59; SBAC (Smarter Balanced Assessment
academic register 117; mathematics Consortium) 7
register 21 – 22, 57 – 59, 58, 190; scaffolding 27 – 28, 71, 175, 180; improving
objectification 59; science register ELL reading comprehension in science
117 – 118 83 – 85
rehearsal 21; mnemonic tools 67 – 69 schemas 123
relationships between learning progressions schematic drawings 61
and construct maps 249 – 253, 250, 252, science: alternatives to textbooks 92 – 94;
253 arguments, formulating 89; assessing
relative clauses 118, 125 mastery of scientific genres 213 – 217;
reliability of assessments 191, 234, 240, 247 best practices for improving ELL
remedial work 13 comprehension in science 83 – 87;
remembering see memory challenges of school science textbooks
repeating experiences with key science 81 – 83; class consensus model 46 – 47;
vocabulary 132 classroom as community of practice
representation, conceptual understanding 20 37 – 38; contemporary views on
representational knowledge 61 learning 36 – 37; definition of 4;
requirements for writing 116 disciplinary core ideas 170; “doing”
research: background on research and 81; ELL participation in discussions
theory informing Proportional Reasoning 41 – 42; exploiting home language
280 Index
expertise 95 – 96; focus on explaining scientific language 107

phenomena and designing solutions scientific symbolism 133
to problems 38; Framework for K-12 scoring, bias in 193
Science Education 83; “A Framework scoring guides 246
for K-12 Science Education” 36; group scoring rubrics 152 – 153, 153
models 45; IEY 241; instructional Secada, Walter G. x, xvi
shifts 38 – 40, 43 – 48; investigations secondary discourses 208
45 – 46; “knowing” of science ideas 170; secondary schools, Language in Math
language skills involved in 36, 49; as project 64 – 70, 65, 66
learning discipline, reforming 4; learning second language acquisition xv; NGSS
progressions 39 – 40, 209; NGSS 2; NGSS instructional shifts 35; socially oriented
instructional shifts 35; phenomena perspectives in 49
121, 169; phenomena, explaining 44; second language learners xii – xiii
phenomenon-based instruction 176 – 180; Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading 93 – 94,
PISA assessment, premise of 4; PISA 235 – 236
requirements for scientific literacy selecting tasks 28
4 – 5; presenting concepts as product semantic-syntactic level of language
of experiments 93; proven tools for 116 – 117
improving comprehension 95; reading semiotic resources 66, 101, 262 – 263
81; reasoning 172; science text for all semiotics 55, 105, 187 – 188; best practices
students, improving comprehension of 70 – 72; language 57 – 60, 58; Language
85 – 86; science texts for English learners, in Math project 64 – 70, 65, 66; symbols
improving comprehension of 87; Seeds and notation 60 – 61, 60, 71;VRs 61 – 63,
of Science/Roots of Reading 93 – 94; as 62, 63, 71
social language 207 – 209; sociolinguistic sentence sophistication 159
nature of learning 174 – 175; standards SEPs (scientific and engineering practices)
2; teaching explicitly 133 – 134; teaching 39, 40, 47; final group model, presenting
to ELLs 263 – 264; three-dimensional 46 – 47; group models 45; modeling 48
learning 39, 170; traditional approaches SES (socioeconomic status) 4
to 38, 39; see also science register SFL (systemic functional linguistics) 89
science and engineering practices 170 Silliman, Elaine R. xvi
science language 173 situational models 195, 195
science language/literacy-integrated skills involved in “doing” science 36, 49
programs, assessment in 232, 234 – 240, SLA 40
238 social constructivism xv
science proficiency 209 social language 207 – 208, 212 – 213
science register 117 – 118; best practices socially oriented perspectives in second
for instruction in 129 – 134; in cognitive language acquisition 49
writing model example 124 – 126; sociocultural influences on summative
culture, influence on science vocabulary assessments 188 – 189
acquisition 131 – 132; derivation 118; sociocultural theory,Vygotskyian 41
ENPs 118; global level 128 – 129; Hayes sociolinguistic nature of learning science
and Berninger writing model 119 – 120; 174 – 175
linguistic levels 127 – 128; long-distance solutions for improving ELL reading
dependency 118; multiple levels of comprehension 96
language in 118; repeating experiences sophisticated thinking 209
with key science vocabulary 132; science sources of difficulty in summative
vocabulary, teaching 130; syntactic and assessments for ELLs 195
textual, teaching 132 – 133; writing speaking 116 – 117
model 119 – 120 “Speaking Mathematically” 31n5
scientific discovery 262 specialized language 57
scientific genres 206; performance 218 stages of problem solving 107
scientific knowledge 134 stamina 150
Index 281
standardized assessments 144, 235; superimposing companion language

alternatives to demonstrate scientific learning progressions 153 – 157
knowledge 134 supporting: access for ELLs to text 191;
standards 18; anchor standards 3; CCSS oral language 29; sense making in
19 – 20; college and career readiness phenomenon-based instruction 179 – 180
standards 6; ELP 50; Framework for English symbols and notation 55, 60 – 61, 60, 71,
Language Proficiency Development Standards 105; grammatical structure 105
26 – 27, 26; language 3; mathematics 2; synonymous words and phrases 58
“National Science Education Standards” syntactic complexity, teaching 132 – 133
39; NCTM 19 – 20; NGSS 2; PEs syntactic elaboration 91 – 92
39; science 2; state standards-based syntactic level of language 125 – 126
summative assessment, shortcomings of 7 syntactic simplification 91 – 92
Standards for Mathematical Practice 18 – 19 syntactic structures 82
state standards-based summative assessment, syntax 128, 171 – 172, 214; lexical-syntactic-
shortcomings of 7 discourse interface 117; in science
statistical graphs 62 textbooks 82; of word problems 59
STEM disciplines xvi; assessment with systemic functional linguistics xv
ELLs 6 – 9; improving assessment of
264 – 265; instruction with English tables 63
learners 5 – 6; oral language in xv; policy talking: explanatory talk 149; informal
context for EL students learning in the language 18; for learning math with
U.S. 1 – 5; reading in xvi; teaching to understanding 13 – 14, 28; registers
ELLs 261 – 262 42 – 43, 43
structuralist views of language learning 41 talk moves, teacher talk moves that support
students: expected tendencies 145 – 146; productive whole-class mathematical
responding to ideas 175 – 176 discussion 25 – 26
study conclusions, Language in Math task design 5 – 6
project 69 – 70 tasks: “Mathematically Speaking” task
subordinate clauses 125 28 – 29; “Reading and Understanding a
substituting an easier question 211 Math Problem” 31n4; selecting 28
substitution 59 teachers: ENL 160 – 161; ESL 160 – 161;
subword level of language 116 – 117, 123, “revoicing” 25 – 26; talk moves that
127 – 128 support productive whole-class
suffixes 127 mathematical discussions 25 – 26
summative assessments 6, 8 – 9, 233; technical vocabulary 58; in science
accommodations 201 – 203, 202; textbooks 82
best practices 192 – 194, 193, 194; temporal sequence 82
comprehensive assessment system, testing see assessment
building 200; constructing measures 202; text: reading comprehension 80 – 81; in
construct-irrelevant language 192 – 194, science 79 – 80, 94 – 95
193, 194, 198 – 199; construct-relevant textbooks: all text for English learners,
language 198 – 199; for ELLs 188 – 189; improving comprehension of 86;
evaluating effectiveness of items in all texts for all learners, improving
supporting ELLs 192; features adding comprehension of 84 – 85; alternatives
linguistic demand to 194; impact of to 92 – 94; challenges of school
culture on 188 – 189; inferences 196 , 197; science textbooks 81 – 83; cohesive
interpreting 189; item analysis 195, 195; texts, choosing for improved reading
item-writing practices 192 – 193; large- comprehension 90 – 92; comprehension
scale 233 – 234; in other nations 200 – 201; strategies for ELLs 87; expository
outcomes 189; quantities 196; sources texts 92; improving ELL reading
of difficulty 195; variance in test scores, comprehension of science textbooks
testing construct-irrelevant language 83 – 87; science text for all students,
contributing to 200 improving comprehension of 85 – 86;
282 Index
science texts for English learners, units: anchoring 177; NGSS 171 – 172;
improving comprehension of 87; trade science units, grounding in phenomena
books as alternative to 93 178 – 179
text level of language 116 – 117, 126 unpacking 89, 118, 132 – 133
textual complexity, teaching 132 – 133
textual metafunction 104 validity arguments 247 – 248
thematic condensation 61 variables of reading 80 – 81
thematic introduction 126 variance in test scores, testing construct-
theory of learning 107 irrelevant language contributing to 200
theory of the megaflood 44 verb phrases 82; nominalized verbs 89
theta 148, 168 verification of solved problems 107
think-aloud interviews, Language in Math vernacular arguments 212 – 213
project 65 – 66, 65, 66 vernacular language 207 – 208
thought clouds 250 vignettes, NGSS instructional shifts 43 – 48
three-dimensional learning 35, 39, 47, visual display 117
170; evidence of student understanding visual images 105
173 – 175; learning targets 172 – 173; visualizations 226
NGSS instructional shifts vignette vocabulary 171 – 172, 212 – 213; connective
43 – 48; responding to students’ ideas vocabulary building 225 – 226; CVI
175 – 176 87; influence of culture in acquiring
three dimensions of heteroglossia 109 131 – 132; interrelatedness vocabulary
TIMSS (Trends in International items 237; IVI 87; mathematics as 17;
Mathematics and Science Study) 235 morphology 89; repeating experiences
TOMA-2 (Test of Mathematical Abilities with key science vocabulary 132; science
2nd Edition) 64 vocabulary, teaching 130; sophistication
topic shift 126 150; technical vocabulary 58
Toyama,Yukie xvi voices 108 – 109
trade books as alternative to textbooks 93 volume 195 – 196
traditional approaches to science 38, 39 VRs (visual representations) 61–63, 62, 63, 71
transcription 120; in cognitive writing Vygotsky, Lev 41, 107
model example 123 – 127, 124 – 126
transitions 147 well-elaborated texts, choosing for
translation 120; in cognitive writing model improved reading comprehension 90 – 92
example 121 – 123, 122, 123 – 127, whole-class discussions 48
124 – 126; of word problems 59 Wilkinson, Louise C. xvi, xvii
transmission model of instruction 72 Williams, Dylan 145 – 146
“true score” model of classical test theory 247 Wilson, Mark xvi
the tulip problem 102 Word and Phrase Tool 131
word formation 123
uncertainty of educational reform 135 Word Generation 132
understanding: conceptual understanding word-internal resources 89
20; eliciting strategies 174; evidence of word level of language 116 – 117, 127 – 128
171; expressive understanding 17; gaining word/lexical-semantic level of language
insight into 174; naïve understandings in 124 – 126
formative assessments 145 – 146; receptive word problems 56 – 57; complex strings 58;
17; scaffolding 175, 180; scoring rubrics context of problems 59 – 60; declarative
152 – 153, 153; talking to learn math with sentence 56; difficulties encountered
13 – 14, 28 by ELLs in solving 56 – 57; improving
unique solutions for improving ELL accessibility to ELLs 59; lexical- and
reading comprehension 96 sentence-level features of 58; substitution
unitary language 108 – 109, 109 59; syntax 59
Index 283
words: properties 131; science words, of students’ writing in mathematics

teaching 130 – 131 106; heteroglossia 108 – 109;
writing 116 – 117, 134 – 135; and assessment implications for research and practice
113; cognitive processes in 119; linguistic 112 – 113; learning 108; metafunctions
levels 127 – 128; and meta-cognition 103 – 104, 104; objects 107; purposes
239; requirements for 116; in the STEM 101; resources 109 – 110; semiotics 105;
disciplines xvi; see also science register; stages of problem solving 107; the tulip
writing mathematically problem 102; valuing 110
writing mathematically 101, 110, writing model: Hayes and Berninger
111 – 112; annotations 111; behaviors writing model 119 – 120; of science
107 – 108; best practices 108 – 111; register 119 – 120; see also Hayes and
centrifugal force 108 – 110; centripetal Berninger writing model
force 108 – 110; context 105 – 106; writing science 117
discursive model 103; drafting 108; written language 103, 116, 120
formal model 103, 105 – 106; functions Wylie, Caroline xi, xvi

Bailey Al Maher Ca Wilkinson LC Eds Language Literacy and Le

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bailey Al Maher Ca Wilkinson LC Eds Language Literacy and Le

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LANGUAGE, LITERACY, AND

LEARNING IN THE STEM

Alison L. Bailey is Professor of Human Development and Psychology at the

Carolyn A. Maher is Distinguished Professor of Mathematics Education at the

Louise C. Wilkinson is Distinguished Professor of Education, Psychology, and

Edited by Alison L. Bailey,

ISBN: 978-1-138-28428-9 (hbk)

Foreword by M. Kathleen Heid x

1 Introduction: Language, Literacy, and Learning

2 Talking to Learn Mathematics With Understanding:

3 How the NGSS Science Instructional Shifts and Language

4 Reading Mathematics Problems: Exploring How Language

5 Reading and Understanding Science Texts 79

6 Writing in Mathematics Classrooms 101

7 Writing the Science Register and Multiple Levels

8 Formative Assessment of Mathematics and Language:

9 Formative Assessment: Science and Language

10 The Language of Mathematics and Summative Assessment:

11 Assessing Scientific Genres of Explanation,

12 Formative and Summative Assessments in Science and

List of Contributors 266

The challenge of engaging EL students in ways that preserve mathematical integ-

The Organization of this Volume

science; writing in mathematics, writing in science); and (3) assessment (forma-

Part I. Oral Language in STEM Disciplines

Part II: Reading and Writing in STEM Disciplines

Part III: Summative and Formative Assessment

Alison L. Bailey, Carolyn A. Maher, and

• What are the language challenges unique to STEM disciplines?

The Policy Context for EL Students Learning

[OECD], 2015). Implementation of new college- and career-ready standards

Mismatch in Home/Test Match in Home/Test

4th Grade 8th Grade 12th Grade

ELL scale Non-ELL ELL scale Non-ELL ELL scale Non-ELL

The Approach: STEM Instruction and

Language in the STEM

• Teachers of English learners (ELs) need to teach mathematics for student

Talking to learn math with understanding:

• Talk is important when learning mathematics because it supports students’

meaning for math ideas and procedures. Academic literacy in mathematics is

Resources for teachers:

The chapter begins with a review of relevant research, summarizing work on

Review of Research and Theory

• Support EL students’ participation in mathematical discussions as they learn

Students’ use of home or everyday language should not be treated as a failure

What is Academic Literacy in Mathematics?

What Are Mathematical Practices?

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

4. Model with mathematics.

What Is Mathematical Proficiency?

1. Conceptual understanding (comprehension of mathematical concepts, opera-

Why Is Conceptual Understanding Important?

Why Is Communicating Important for Learning Mathematics?

What Are the Needs of EL Students in Mathematics Classrooms?

also need to have opportunities to engage in mathematical communication, because

The Mathematics Register

Current Perspectives on the Role of Language in Learning Mathematics

Teacher Talk Moves That Support Productive

English Language Proficiency Development Framework

A public discussion of different approaches to a problem would provide

Student Activities That Pay Attention to Oral Language

TABLE 2.2 Using a Framework for Academic Literacy in Mathematics to Select or Adapt

Foreword by M. Kathleen Heid x

5 Reading and Understanding Science Texts 79

6 Writing in Mathematics Classrooms 101

List of Contributors 266

TABLE 2.2 Using a Framework for Academic Literacy in Mathematics to Select or Adapt

TABLE 2.3 Planning to Support Student Talk to Learn Mathematics With Understanding

TABLE 4.1 Challenging Lexical- and Sentence-Level Features of Mathematics Word Problems

Technical Vocabulary • Vocabulary words or terms needed to express concepts

TABLE 4.2 Symbols and Notation as Mathematics Semiotics

FIGURE 4.1 Problem 1: The Graph of the Slope of a Ramp at a Skateboard Park