The article investigated the performance gaps in mathematics between native French speakers and migrant students, focusing on linguistic and cultural barriers affecting mathematical learning. The study involved 177 migrant students in French schools and used computer-based tests to assess their mathematical abilities.
Two identical
tests were administered to the students. The first test was given at the
beginning of the school year, allowing students to select the language of the
instructions to avoid any impact from difficulties in French. The second test,
identical to the first but with instructions in French, was given at the end of
the first school year.
By comparing the
results of these two tests, the researchers found that 29% of the students
showed significant regression, 23% maintained about the same score, and 48%
improved their marks between the tests. Additionally, 26 students participated
in interviews and paper-based exercises, providing more in-depth data. The
study found that some mistakes were due to confusion with mathematical
terminology, and it provided examples of such errors.
The results indicated that academic language proficiency is a
significant factor in mathematical achievement. Even after one year of an
intensive French language program, almost one-third of the migrant students
could not solve some exercises when instructions were in French, whereas they
could find solutions when instructions were provided in their native language.
However,
cultural differences, prior educational experiences, and socioeconomic status
also play crucial roles. The study observed that more than half of the students
lacked the mathematical knowledge necessary to understand the new material they
had to learn. This issue extends beyond language, as migrant students with the
required mathematical knowledge in their new context had fewer difficulties
acquiring French terms and progressing quickly in mathematics.
Stops
“Martiniello (2008) highlighted the implications
of non-mathematical language complexity on English language learners’ performance. She observed that the gap between ELLs and fully
English proficient students increases as language complexity increases. However
this phenomenon decreases when non-linguistic schematic representations are
included in the
instructions.” (p4)
“Haag, Heppt, Stanat, Kuhl and Pant (2013)
put emphasis on the importance of the ‘everyday
academic language’ (Ehlich, 1999) which refers to
vocabulary used both in everyday conversation and in school-related contexts
but with a slightly different meaning. Teachers may believe it is not necessary
to ‘explain’ these terms as the
words are not specific to their tasks; native speakers succeed in understanding
them thanks to knowledge of their meaning in everyday language. Students who
barely understand these terms cannot interpret them in a lesson context, so
they represent greater challenges for second language learners.” (p4)
“Specific to Mathematics, Millon-Fauré (2011) showed that acquiring the linguistic skills necessary for
this discipline does not always require mastering the BICS: she observed that
some second-language learners succeed in understanding and producing
mathematical statements before being able to lead a daily conversation.” (P4)）
Reflection
The article
discusses a common issue in teaching students in a secondary language or a
language they are not proficient in for daily communication. The findings are
clear and resonate with many of our learning or teaching experiences.
As someone who
learned STEM courses in English, my secondary language, I experienced similar
challenges in high school. The academic material was not difficult for me
because I excelled in math and science before transitioning to English
instruction. Half of the class content was familiar, so I managed well despite
my poor English skills at the time. However, I struggled with new topics or
when trying to deepen my understanding. The difficulty was not with the
academic content or terminology but with the common daily words used by the
teacher during lectures. It was hard to follow and easy to lose attention when
I could only understand half of the words the teacher used to explain
procedures on the whiteboard. This issue worsened with word problems and science-based
courses that required more storytelling and explanation.
One interesting aspect is the little "disagreement"
between my second and third quotes. The second quote supports the idea that
vocabulary used in both everyday conversation and school-related contexts is
important because it requires life experience that students from different
cultural backgrounds may lack. The third quote suggests that daily
communication words are less important because they differ from academic
communication.
Actually, I wouldn't call
it a disagreement, as both perspectives align with my experience but in
different scenarios. I believe that understanding non-academic vocabulary from
daily life is crucial for comprehensive understanding and interdisciplinary
learning. However, students can still succeed by focusing on academic
vocabulary and leading meaningful discussions after establishing a thorough, but
imperfect, understanding of the subject. This approach may lead to gaps in some
cases. What do you think?
I believe that both everyday vocabulary and content-related vocabulary play a crucial role in students’ learning experiences. It is important to recognize that some subjects rely more heavily on specialized terminology than others. In mathematics, for example, there is often a gap in language development because students typically work on problems individually. This structure does not give them enough opportunities to practice mathematical language with their peers, engage in conversations, or explain their thinking and reasoning. These conversations naturally involve both everyday language and subject-specific terminology. Additionally, the way teachers communicate concepts differs from how students express their understanding. Teachers tend to simplify their instructions and use carefully chosen words, making it easier for students to follow. However, this does not always translate to students feeling comfortable using the same language when speaking about mathematics themselves. To bridge this gap, math classes should create opportunities for students to develop both their everyday and mathematical vocabulary through interactive learning. Group work, inquiry-based discussions, and collaborative projects provide students with meaningful ways to talk about math in a setting that feels less intimidating than speaking in front of the entire class.
ReplyDeleteFrom my own experience learning English, I found that group activities were incredibly beneficial for building my vocabulary. Listening to my peers allowed me to pick up on slang, expand my word bank, and improve my sentence structure. Working in small groups also provided a safer environment for me to practice speaking, as I felt less pressure than I would in front of the whole class. By incorporating more structured group discussions and collaborative tasks, math classrooms can support both language development and mathematical understanding in a way that feels natural and engaging for students.
I agree with Shar that both everyday vocabulary and context-related vocabulary play a role in student learning experiences. I also appreciate you sharing your experience, and acknowledge that I myself am in a position of privilege because I've never had to learn content in a different language before. For new content, I can see how ELL students may not necessarily need to know the everyday vocabulary because they are constructing meaning along with native speakers for new concepts. However, when everyday vocabulary comes into play during explanations, assignments, or assessment, it can lead to some gaps that we may see as an incomplete understanding. Something I've tried to do recently is incorporate more everyday vocabulary into math through storytelling. For example, I recently had my class describe moving from two coordinates on a coordinate grid as a journey which they had to create a story for. I also do a lot of group work in math class and science so students can learn from each other and practice discussions.
ReplyDeleteHi, Lee. Thank you for your thoughtful reflection. I share a similar experience with you. Recently, I’ve been trying to relearn physics by watching videos on YouTube. Since I haven’t studied it for several years, I’ve forgotten many concepts. When I come across a topic I don’t understand, especially something complex like quantum mechanics, I feel confused. However, once I recognize the corresponding Chinese terms, I can follow the explanation much more easily.
ReplyDeleteI agree that both everyday language and academic vocabulary are important for comprehension, and they are not contradictory. As the article mentions, developing these language skills takes time and is not always easy: "He showed that both kinds of language skills were not always developed at the same time: if two or three years could be sufficient to lead a daily conversation, five to seven years would be necessary to fully understand the language used in classrooms" (p.3). In addition, I believe teachers should adopt strategies to support students in developing subject-specific language skills. I agree with Shar’s point that group work can be an effective approach. From my experience, collaborative learning helps improve understanding and makes the learning process more engaging.