Abstract
With the release of the consensus report English Learners in STEM Subjects: Transforming Classrooms, Schools, and Lives, we highlight foundational constructs and perspectives associated with STEM subjects and language with English learners (ELs) that frame the report. The purpose here is to elevate these constructs and perspectives for discussion among the broader education research community. First, we provide an overview of the unique contributions of the report to move the ELs and STEM fields forward. Second, we describe ELs in terms of their heterogeneity and the inconsistency of educational policies that affect their learning opportunities in STEM subjects. Third, we describe contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with ELs that indicate that instructional shifts across STEM subjects and language are mutually supportive. Fourth, we describe promising instructional strategies to promote STEM learning and language development with ELs. Lastly, we close the article by reimagining STEM education with ELs and offer potential next steps. These foundational constructs and perspectives on STEM subjects and language with ELs are critical because they provide the conceptual grounding for the design of the education system for ELs. The report could contribute to building a knowledge base for ELs in STEM subjects and language as education research, policy, and practice converge to reimagine what is possible to both support and challenge ELs to learn academically rigorous content standards that are expected of all students.
Keywords
English learners (ELs) make up the fastest growing subset of the U.S. student population. This sizable population needs to become proficient in English while also becoming proficient in the content defined by academically rigorous content standards, such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for science and engineering (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Moreover, computer science or computational thinking is becoming increasingly essential for all students to become professionals or participants in our information society (National Science Technology Council, 2018; STEM Education Act, 2015).
Conducting a review of the research literature on ELs in each of the STEM subjects is a demanding task and has been done for mathematics education (de Araujo et al., 2018) and for science education (Lee, 2005). Conducting a review of literature on ELs across STEM subjects is a more demanding task because it requires a cross-disciplinary approach that transcends the traditional disciplinary siloes. Reimagining what is possible for ELs in STEM subjects is even more demanding because it requires a new vision beyond existing literature. Now consider the enormity of the task to reimagine what it takes to transform the education system to promote learning across STEM subjects as well as language for ELs. This was the charge for the consensus study that led to the 2018 report, English Learners in STEM Subjects: Transforming Classrooms, Schools, and Lives (hereafter, the EL STEM report) by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
In this article, we draw attention to the foundational constructs and perspectives associated with STEM subjects and language with ELs that frame the EL STEM report: (a) the unique contributions of the report to push these multiple fields forward, (b) the heterogeneity of ELs and the inconsistency of educational policies with ELs, (c) the contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with ELs, (d) the promising instructional strategies to promote STEM learning and language development with ELs, and (e) the reimagining of STEM education with ELs and potential next steps. The purpose of the article is to bring these foundational constructs and perspectives out for discussion among the broader education research community.
Although foundational constructs and perspectives in the EL STEM report provide the conceptual grounding to design the education system, this article does not address specific components of the education system described in the EL STEM report, including school-family-community collaboration, teacher preparation, assessments, and educational policies with ELs. In addition, although this article highlights particular topics and issues to illuminate foundational constructs and perspectives, it does not present the wealth of explanations and examples described within the EL STEM report. For readers who want more details, the article makes reference to relevant sections and page numbers in the EL STEM report.
Contributions of the Report on English Learners in STEM Subjects
The National Academies have released consensus reports on ELs since 1997. The first report, Improving Schooling for Language Minority Children: A Research Agenda (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council [NRC], 1997), sparked a significant shift in both the amount and type of research focused on ELs. The 2017 report, Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures (NASEM, 2017), reviewed the research literature on the development of dual language learners/ELs birth to age 21 to promote their educational outcomes broadly (for more details on the various NRC/NASEM reports, see Box 1-2, NASEM, 2018, p. 16).
Building on and expanding the previous consensus reports, the current EL STEM report delves into specific issues surrounding STEM learning. Experts across science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and second language education with ELs were convened to serve on the study committee. In addition to consulting with outside experts, the committee conducted a comprehensive review of the literature, including the work of the Center for Mathematics Education of Latinos/as; Engineering Is Elementary; English Learning Through Math, Science, & Action Research; and Science and Integrated Language.
The EL STEM report makes significant contributions to the field in several aspects. First, unlike other reports that have looked at ELs in STEM subjects, the EL STEM report places ELs at the center and starts with who ELs are—describing the EL student population, their performance in STEM subjects, and educational policies that affect them (Chapter 2). Then, the EL STEM report describes contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with ELs and how children, especially ELs, learn each of these subjects (Chapter 3). Based on these core ideas about STEM subjects and language with ELs, the EL STEM report presents promising instructional strategies (Chapter 4). These foundational constructs and perspectives offer guidance on how to design the education system for school-family-community collaboration (Chapter 5), teacher preparation (Chapter 6), assessments (Chapter 7), and educational policies (Chapter 8).
Second, and most importantly, this is the first report that integrates STEM subjects and language with ELs from preK through 12th grade. A more common approach would have been to address ELs in each subject, such as a chapter on ELs in mathematics education and a chapter on ELs in science education. Instead, the EL STEM report addresses STEM subjects and language collectively as they relate to ELs. This approach is consistent with growing attention to multidisciplinary convergence for addressing broad, complex issues of national importance, for example, the National Science Foundation’s “10 Big Ideas” (https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/). Throughout the EL STEM report, readers with specialization in specific subjects may be surprised that although distinctions exist largely because of historical siloes, there are a number of similarities across the STEM subjects and language.
Third, the EL STEM report presents contemporary views on each of the STEM subjects and language and how children, especially ELs, learn each of these subjects. Based on these contemporary views, the EL STEM report describes how STEM subjects and language can be integrated in mutually supportive ways for ELs. By presenting contemporary views, the EL STEM report highlights instructional shifts to promote both STEM learning and language development for ELs.
Finally, the EL STEM report represents a shift taking place in education by promoting an asset-oriented view of ELs. This asset-oriented approach is a crucial shift given that a deficit view of ELs and their capabilities has long dominated EL education and STEM education more broadly. The EL STEM report highlights that ELs bring to STEM classrooms a wealth of cultural and linguistic resources that are rooted in their families, communities, and home countries. Because these resources contribute to ELs’ multicompetence, they not only promote ELs’ STEM learning but can also be leveraged to benefit their peers’ STEM learning. Whereas the dominant narrative regarding ELs in STEM subjects continues to be that ELs require support, the EL STEM report takes the view that ELs should be challenged to learn the academically rigorous content standards that are expected of all students (de Araujo, Smith, & Sakow, 2016; NASEM, 2018, p. 192).
Heterogeneity of English Learners and Inconsistency of Educational Policies
In describing the EL student population, the EL STEM report highlights two key themes: (a) heterogeneity of ELs and (b) inconsistency of educational policies with ELs. In this section, we describe what is commonly known about ELs as well as what is not commonly known, and the latter may surprise many educators, especially those with limited knowledge of ELs.
Heterogeneity of English Learners
The heterogeneity of ELs in terms of their demographics is commonly known; however, the specific details of this heterogeneity are more nuanced and require some unpacking. For the 2015–2016 school year, ELs constituted 9.5% of public school students, or an estimated 4.8 million students (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018). Not surprisingly, ELs vary in many ways—in their home countries and languages, their proficiency in their home language, the age at which they enter school and their prior schooling in other contexts, and their prior knowledge about STEM subjects (NASEM, 2018, pp. 27–33).
The EL STEM report then highlights what is not commonly known about ELs: “Against common intuition, the majority of ELs in the country are U.S. born (Zong & Batalova, 2015)” (NASEM, 2018, p. 30). Generally, ELs are students whose native language is a language other than English and whose English proficiency may have consequences for success in classrooms in which the language of instruction is English (NASEM, 2018, p. 1). Long-term ELs are those ELs who have been receiving English language development (ELD) and/or English as a second language (ESL) services in U.S. schools for at least 6 years and have not yet met reclassification criteria for their state. In contrast, newcomers are foreign-born ELs who have recently arrived in the United States. The EL STEM report highlights that all ELs, even newcomers, with sufficient support(s), can interact with children who speak English and participate and contribute in authentic STEM learning contexts. That is, all ELs regardless of their English language proficiency should have the same opportunities in STEM subjects as their non-EL counterparts.
Inconsistency of Educational Policies With English Learners
Compounding the heterogeneity of ELs, educational policies that address ELs are often inconsistent across states. These inconsistencies include the definition of ELs and approaches to classify and reclassify them as well as the variety of program models and variability in the quality of instruction under all program models.
Some educational policies that are fundamental to EL education are not commonly known. First, when examining policies articulating how to define ELs, there is no common definition of ELs across states. Section 8101(20) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides a definition of ELs. However, “because states have different criteria to implement legislation regarding the definition of ELs, whether a student is regarded or not as being an EL depends, at least to some extent, on the state in which a given student lives” (NASEM, 2018, p. 212). Only recently was there an effort to develop processes, recommendations, and tools to build a common definition of ELs across states (Linquanti et al., 2016).
Second, there is no common approach to classification and reclassification of ELs. The classification to enter EL status and reclassification to exit EL status “var[y] considerably across states, and even across districts within states” (NASEM, 2018, p. 39). Across all states, English language proficiency (ELP) assessment—as specified by the state—is a major criterion for classification and reclassification of EL status. However, some states with large EL student populations require additional criteria. These criteria may include proficiency in content area achievement as measured by standardized test scores and/or grades in English language arts and/or mathematics. Such variability in classification and reclassification policies contributes to variations in STEM learning opportunities for ELs (NASEM, 2018, pp. 39–40, 252–256).
Third, the ways in which ELs are accounted for in the accountability system have led to overestimation of achievement gaps in STEM subjects between ELs and non-ELs. The EL subgroup is unlike other accountability subgroups under Title I in that the EL designation is dynamic—a student’s classification as EL changes as the student becomes proficient in English (NASEM, 2018, p. 41). As ELs become proficient in English, they are reclassified and counted as non-ELs. Exclusion of recently English-proficient ELs from the EL accountability group leads to overestimation of achievement gaps in STEM subjects between ELs and non-ELs and underestimation of ELs’ STEM proficiency (NASEM, 2018, pp. 41–44, 212, 219, 253–254). To address this issue, researchers have suggested using “an ever-EL framework by allowing states to count former ELs in their calculations of EL outcomes” (Umansky, Thompson, & Diaz, 2017, p. 78; also see Thompson, 2017). Kieffer and Thompson (2018) reported that including potentially English-proficient ELs in the EL accountability group showed a reduction in the mathematics achievement gap (NASEM, 2018, p. 42).
Lastly, although the broad categorization of language instruction program models is commonly known, the degree to which these program models emphasize and measure academic achievement in STEM subjects is less understood. The various program models are predominantly categorized into (a) primary language instruction for newcomers, (b) bilingual instruction, or (c) English-only instruction (NASEM, 2018, pp. 34–39 and Table 2-1). For all program models, the emphasis is on English language development as required by law, and they are “often not organized in a way that enables ELs to maintain and develop age-appropriate knowledge of STEM subjects” (NASEM, 2018, p. 38). Moreover, given the requirement by law to measure English language development, there is less emphasis on measuring STEM-related outcomes (NASEM, 2018, p. 39).
Contemporary Views on STEM Subjects and Language With English Learners
Contemporary views on content standards and ELP standards from policy perspectives, on the one hand, and contemporary views on content and language learning from theoretical perspectives, on the other hand, mutually reinforce integration of STEM learning and language development with ELs. These contemporary views on policy and theory may surprise many STEM and language educators.
Contemporary Views on Content Standards and ELP Standards From Policy Perspectives
From policy perspectives, federal legislation has mandated alignment between content standards and ELP standards since No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001, as cited in NASEM, 2018, pp. 10, 34, 210–211, 255, 270–271). Then, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility of 2012 slightly revised the original NCLB legislation for alignment (U.S. Department of Education, 2012, p. 1). Currently, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 mandates that “the State has adopted English language proficiency standards that . . . are aligned with the challenging State academic standards” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015, p. 24). The direction of this relationship that “language proficiency standards align to content standards and not the other way around” suggests that “the language to be learned needs to focus on the important STEM content and what is known about how children learn STEM content” (NASEM, 2018, p. 10). Moreover, federal legislation makes clear that “language proficiency is not a prerequisite for content instruction, but an outcome of effective content instruction” (NASEM, 2018, p. 10), which is repeated throughout the EL STEM report (and described in more detail in the following).
Content standards across STEM subjects have been evolving for almost three decades (Chapter 3). The mathematics education community presents a contemporary view of mathematics instruction to promote mathematical proficiency, practices, and discourse. These three aspects of mathematics instruction are evident in reforms initiated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in the 1990s, Adding It Up (NRC, 2001), and the CCSS for mathematics. Likewise, the science education community presents a contemporary view of science instruction to promote three-dimensional science learning by blending science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. These three dimensions of science instruction are evident in reforms initiated by Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) by Project 2061, National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), and the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Engineering education is a relatively recent addition to K–12 education, and A Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS articulated a new vision for three-dimensional engineering learning. Technology education is interpreted in a variety of ways, and currently, there is no coherent conception of technology education, including computer science or computational thinking.
Given that content standards are continuously evolving, ELP standards must also change and evolve so that ELP standards are aligned with content standards (NASEM, 2018, p. 10). Whereas mathematics and science standards have been evolving for almost three decades, ELP standards have a primary shortcoming—there has been a lack of a consensus on what language is and does and how language is learned in EL education (Lee, 2018; Valdés, Kibler, & Walqui, 2014). In the absence of an agreed-on framework for ELP standards, there are multiple sets of ELP standards, each with its own theoretical orientation toward what counts as language and how ELs learn (English) language. This lack of agreement in EL education presents challenges to establishing alignment between STEM content standards and ELP standards, although this alignment has been required by federal legislation since NCLB and has intensified with rigorous academic content standards in recent years.
Contemporary Views on STEM Subjects and Language From Theoretical Perspectives
From theoretical perspectives, there have been parallel shifts in STEM subjects and second-language acquisition. In STEM subjects, contemporary views emphasize that students make sense of phenomena and problems in the classroom community (knowledge-in-use), whereas traditional views have focused on learners’ mastery of discrete elements of content. In second-language acquisition, contemporary views emphasize that language is a set of dynamic meaning-making resources learned through participation in social contexts (language-in-use), whereas traditional views have focused on discrete elements of vocabulary (lexicon) and grammar (syntax) to be internalized by learners. Recognizing these instructional shifts as mutually supportive can promote rigorous STEM learning and rich language use with ELs (NASEM, 2018, pp. 63–66).
As ELs engage in STEM disciplinary practices (e.g., developing models, arguing from evidence, constructing explanations), they use language for the purpose of making meaning of STEM subjects through social interactions with peers and the teacher in the classroom community. The focus is on “what language does” (i.e., functional use of language for a purpose) more than “what language is” (i.e., structural elements of language, including vocabulary and grammar; Grapin et al., 2019). While communicating ideas with peers and the teacher, students use multiple modalities, including both the linguistic modalities (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, writing) and other semiotic modalities (e.g., embodiments, gestures, tables, graphs, diagrammatic or computational models). They draw on a variety of registers, ranging from everyday to specialized language. In addition, students participate in a range of different types of interactions (e.g., one-to-one, one-to-small group, one-to-many, small group-to-many). To communicate the growing sophistication of their ideas over the course of instruction, ELs use multiple modalities more strategically and increasingly more specialized registers to meet the communicative demands of interactions in pair, small-group, and whole-class settings (for an example in a science classroom, see NASEM, 2018, Box 3-1, pp. 64–65).
Because specialized registers afford the precision necessary to communicate STEM disciplinary meaning, they allow ELs to be more precise as their understanding becomes more sophisticated (Grapin et al., 2019). The mathematical practice of attending to precision is “not principally about formal or technical vocabulary” and “should not be interpreted as using the perfect word” (NASEM, 2018, pp. 77–78). Likewise, “precision goes beyond science vocabulary” (NASEM, 2018, p. 65). In both mathematics and science classrooms, “precision privileges disciplinary meaning by focusing on how students use language to engage in the STEM disciplinary practices” (NASEM, 2018, pp. 77–78) regardless of the linguistic features used. In other words, precision privileges disciplinary meaning while engaging in disciplinary practices beyond the precision of linguistic accuracy (see NASEM, 2018, p. 78, for a mathematics example and pp. 64–65 for a science example). ELs can communicate precise disciplinary meaning using less than perfect English. Again, the EL STEM report emphasizes that in the science (or any STEM) classroom, “language is a product of doing science, not a precursor or prerequisite for doing science and ELs need ample opportunities to do science” (NASEM, 2018, p. 65).
Promising Instructional Strategies
With its charge to reimagine what it takes to transform the education system to promote STEM learning and language development with ELs through an asset-oriented view, the EL STEM report offers promising instructional strategies in STEM subjects and language with ELs. In identifying promising instructional strategies, the EL STEM report describes “less effective instructional strategies [that] are still used” (NASEM, 2018, p. 3), which are discussed in the next section.
Traditional Instructional Approaches
Although the EL STEM report does not provide a specific list of less effective strategies or traditional instructional approaches, it describes prominent ones and contrasts them to contemporary views. First, it is a misconception that disciplinary vocabulary is disciplinary language. Although contemporary views recognize that disciplinary vocabulary is one key feature of disciplinary language when the vocabulary is used in context, STEM subjects and language go far beyond vocabulary. In STEM classrooms, ELs use language to engage in disciplinary practices, learn disciplinary content, and communicate disciplinary meaning. Through this engagement, ELs learn language as a product (NASEM, 2018, pp. 104–105, 117, 183, 298–299).
Second, there are misconceptions that “a certain level of English proficiency is a prerequisite to meaningfully engage in STEM learning” (NASEM, 2018, p. 2), that ELs “must be proficient in English before they can be successful in content area classes” (NASEM, 2018, p. 44), and that “for participation in STEM subjects, ELs first needed to have proficiency in the disciplinary talk—the words, vocabulary, or definitions” (NASEM, 2018, p. 98). These misconceptions have led to preteaching and frontloading of vocabulary (for critique, see NASEM, 2018, Box 6-4, pp. 186–187). Instead, contemporary views highlight a functional use of language in which “language is a product of interaction and learning, not a precursor or prerequisite” (NASEM, 2018, p. 98).
Third, in content-based language teaching, which has been most common until recently, ESL teachers are asked to develop “content objectives” and “language objectives” (for critique, see NASEM, 2018, Box 6-4, pp. 186–187). MacDonald, Miller, and Lord (2017) provided examples of typical language objectives that focus on grammatical forms (past tense) or a particular function out of context (“Compare . . . ”). Then they presented revised language objectives that focus on the science to be learned and the use of language as students develop a model to explain and predict (NASEM, 2018, pp. 96–97). Once again, contemporary views highlight using language while engaging in STEM disciplinary practices and learning language as a product.
Finally, sheltered instruction with ELs often provides “highly simplified content that seldom satisfies grade-level STEM content expectations” (NASEM, 2018, p. 38). This approach fails to meet the goals of content standards that are expected of all students, including ELs. Moreover, simplification of language coupled with simplification of content can have unintended consequences for ELs. For example, as cause and effect is a crosscutting concept across STEM subjects, shortening a sentence by eliminating words that establish a causal relationship (e.g., because, therefore) can actually make it more difficult for ELs to learn disciplinary content (Davison & Kantor, 1982). Contemporary views highlight amplifying language to support and challenge ELs with academically rigorous content.
Contemporary Instructional Approaches
Grounded in contemporary views on STEM subjects and language, ELs learn disciplinary content and communicate disciplinary meaning through engaging in disciplinary practices in the classroom community. As teachers explicitly focus on language in STEM education, they encourage ELs to draw on a full range of linguistic and cultural resources and strategically use multiple modalities and specialized registers to communicate disciplinary meaning across different types of interaction. As opposed to the traditional instructional approaches described previously, the EL STEM report identifies five promising instructional strategies (for details about each strategy, see NASEM, 2018, pp. 99–122):
Engage students in disciplinary practices in STEM subjects.
Engage students in productive discourse and interactions with peers and the teacher using language as meaning-making resources.
Encourage students to use multiple modalities strategically and to increasingly use specialized registers to meet the communicative demands of different types of interactions.
Leverage multiple meaning-making resources, including physical objects, gestures, everyday language, home language, and translanguaging.
Provide some explicit focus on how language functions in the discipline (i.e., metalanguage or language about language).
These instructional strategies highlight two key features of contemporary thinking. First, the strategies begin with STEM subjects and then use language needed to learn STEM subjects. The strategies describe how to support and challenge ELs to engage in STEM disciplinary practices and discourse in interactions with peers and the teacher (the first and second bullets) while supporting them to use multiple modalities, specialized registers, other meaning-making resources, and knowledge of how language works in STEM disciplines (the third, fourth, and fifth bullets). Second, the emphasis on the functional use of language to learn STEM subjects in contemporary instructional approaches differs from the emphasis on vocabulary and grammar as a precursor or prerequisite to learn STEM subjects in traditional instructional approaches.
Reimagining STEM Education for English Learners
The release of the EL STEM report is timely given that three emerging forces shape the changing landscape of K–12 STEM education. First, demographics of the nation’s student population are rapidly changing, including the fast-growing subpopulation of ELs (NCES, 2018). Second, STEM subjects, especially disciplinary practices, are both academically rigorous and language intensive. Third, computer science, including computational thinking, is becoming increasingly important for all students. These three emerging forces require multidisciplinary convergence for broadening participation of diverse student groups in K–12 classrooms. Specifically, the EL STEM report features multidisciplinary convergence with respect to the integration of STEM subjects and language with ELs.
As the EL STEM report places ELs at the center, it points out the need to have a better understanding of ELs and their heterogeneity and to address inconsistencies in educational policies with ELs. In addition, contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with ELs from both policy and theoretical perspectives are supported by promising instructional strategies in the emerging literature. The report could contribute to building a knowledge base for ELs in STEM subjects and language as education research, policy, and practice converge to reimagine what is possible to both support and challenge ELs to learn academically rigorous content.
Aside from the specific recommendations and robust research agenda that can be found in the EL STEM report, we conclude with potential next steps that can further support the academic achievement of ELs. EL education faces two fundamental challenges: (a) a lack of a consensus on what language is and does and how language is learned and (b) an absence of an agreed-on framework for ELP standards. These challenges are further compounded by the federal legislation that ELP standards be aligned with content standards, including STEM standards. As next steps, scholars of EL education need to resolve or bring together multiple theoretical perspectives and come to a consensus on what language is and does and how language is learned. This consensus could allow policymakers to reconcile the current multiple sets of ELP standards and develop a coherent set. Then, practitioners could implement ELP standards based on both theoretical and policy foundations. Throughout these steps, ELP standards must be aligned with content standards, including STEM standards. Because the current iteration of STEM standards is new and academically rigorous, ELP standards must be new and academically rigorous as well. Through such collaboration, EL education and STEM areas ensure that ELs achieve academically rigorous STEM standards.
