The Learning to Read, Reading to Learn articles focused on several different literacy issues in contemporary science. Each author dealt with different aspects of improving scientific literacy skills, but an over lying theme tied them altogether. The development of scientific communication and comprehension proficiencies supports a higher overall achievement in learning.
Several points were made in the article that I found interesting. The first subject that caught my attention was the discussion of teaching ELL students in their native tongues was more effective than instructing them in socio-economic benefitting languages. I would have thought that science would stress a standardization in language, as it does in other conventions. I can see though where this would be beneficial to learn in your native tongue. It makes me wonder, is there a standard language for science?
In Snow’s piece on Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading and Learning About Science, I very much agreed with the author’s recognition about missing the meaning of scientific text despite understanding the words. I have personally found that this is a challenge for me. I need to break down technical language and have it make sense to me. Due to this, I tend to think of scientific concepts as metaphors.
This method of learning though could inhibit my teaching however. The very issue of balancing abstract and technical is discussed when text books are examined in Paul van den Broek’s article. He mentions how there are times, such as when learning gene types, that textbooks need to shy away from being generalizing. It is important to link material to learner experience, but occasionally it can go too far and detract from the development of academic language.
The article titled Supporting Students in Developing Literacy Science, the authors stress the importance of transforming broad explanations tied to student experiences into refined efficient scientific discourse. I feel like this progression would be a difficult one for teachers. At a high school level, would it be employed on single concepts or would the lessons as a whole transition across the year? If it were the former, I could see time constraints being an issue.
Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other addressed my concern more realistically. It talked about designing lessons to incorporate literacy rather than having one or two literacy lessons a year. The multimodal approach to learning seemed especially useful and reminded me of the learning cycle. Each step however was designed to sharpen an aspect of scientific language and practice.
Lastly, the article on learning to argue for Science made me think back to some lab reports my host teacher recently shared with me. While students won’t win a Nobel Prize for identifying their solution as salt or sugar based, they should still learn that science is about arguing a conclusion based on results. Many of the reports I saw just showed data, or conclusions. Few if any linked the two in a concise academic convention.
As a whole, I liked the emphasis on scientific language in the articles. It highlighted personal issues I know I will encounter as an instructor. I feel that as of now my personal fluency in academic writing could use some improvement. It takes me 10 descriptive words to say something that in technical writing should take 2. I worry that if I do improve my language I may confuse students. While analogies to bed spread hogging electrons may make sense to me, I would be surprised to see such a thing published in a scientific journal.
