9 thoughts on “I See What You Mean: Crossing Language Barriers”
Thanks for the challenge you are providing us, Jana.
Teaching math intervention has been highly informative about my failings when I was a grade level middle school math teacher. I learned what tiny moves could throw off the understanding of my students. Sometimes, what I said was misleading but more often, it was what I omitted that left kids wondering how to proceed.
If I accepted an answer without an explanation, I taught my students that the answer really is the most important goal. I also failed my students who did not get the “right” answer. They need to hear explanations so that they make corrections to their thinking and practice being critical thinkers. At the same time, they forced their class mates to provide mathematical arguments and communicate with more precision.
I also learned to rarely tell students if they were right or wrong. I’d mask my own response (sometimes to very strange answers) and ask for evidence. The students could present various approaches to a problem and figure out for themselves which strategies were productive. They were the ones who needed practice, not me.
I was always a visual learner and teacher, but my skills were honed when I had to find ways to make sense of math for our more challenged students. I had to push my creative brain to find models that they hadn’t seen a million times before. Visual representations are huge for communicating within and across languages!
I became much more aware of vocabulary and the speed at which teachers talk when trying to get through lessons. Clarity requires time for making connections to other words or concepts they already know.
I learned that listening was much more important than talking. If I’d taught a concept and students still were not successful, I needed to dig back and ask questions until I could find where the student’s misunderstanding began, then build them back up. Moving them forward from their understanding was much more efficient and effective than trying to get students to use the method that I thought was best.
“Less is better” became my personal mantra as I sought depth of understanding for my students.
All of the above skills were even further highlighted when I became a math coach and got to watch other teachers excel in these areas or make the same mistakes I’d made. I understand the challenge of meeting the needs of many minds thinking many ways. I also love that challenge. I find that it is quicker to see results with students than adults. 🙂
Lisa O
I totally agree with what you have stated here. I work with at-risk students and I have to remind myself to simplify the directions, ask the students to explain to me what they know, and then work from there. Keeping it simply and referring to what they already know makes their learning easier.
Anytime a student does not understand right away, my practice improves because I feel I MUST get that student to learn. Writing them off as incapable or unmotivated is not an option. Therefore, when I became a math coach with an intense focus on low-income students and language learners, I needed to really up my own game, so that I was able to assist my colleagues.
I realized that all EL strategies also helped those who were poor readers and listeners in native English. Your comment about procedural explanations being language intensive has me thinking deeply, as does your comment on teachers not being aware of how language, not math, is getting in the way of student understanding. This was a very rich post.
Jana,
Thanks for taking the time to write down all those thoughts and examples of what you’re seeing. I’m going to address your question of “When has a change in job description or people you served made you more effective in your work?”….sort of, since I’m no longer “working”! Yet I am exposed to issues around learning and language on a daily basis as I myself explore new opportunities and learning for myself. I find myself intrigued by my own reactions to not understanding and my own difficulties with what seems like such simple language in different fields. I can’t stop myself from thinking about our students’ experiences.
Examples: I’ve been volunteering with Bloodworks Northwest, helping to register donors. Registering people on the computer, I need to type in BWNW (for Bloodworks northwest, obviously I think). For some reason though, I have Northwest Bloodworks in my head, so every single time, I have to talk to myself and say the words as I type the letters correctly. How long, I wonder, will it take to “undo” my “wrong learning?” At one point, I need to press the F2 key to update the screen. I struggle to not just push “2”. Why do I have such trouble distinguishing between 2 and F2? And it’s really an important distinction. During my training, they kept referring to the SOP. I had no idea what an SOP is. And so I think about our students…. How often do we give them acronyms and expect them to just remember them quickly? How often do we get frustrated when they don’t notice a – sign, or don’t see the important difference between 3 and 3x? And all that vocabulary we just toss around….. I’ve also been learning a lot about financial investments and income without a monthly paycheck. I used the phrase “asset classes” in conversation with my husband the other day and we both giggled because it was new vocabulary for us and I think we both actually understood what I meant. Other times, I toss around phrased like qualified and non-qualified dividends and he just looks at me “whatever, he says”. I’ve explained the difference (as well as I understand it) to him several times and it just doesn’t stick. Why? Perhaps because I’m the one doing the reading, thinking, struggling with understanding in this case, and he is the one just being “told”. And of course, if I don’t think about all this for a few weeks or a month, I feel like I have to pretty much start over again and review relevant language before I can jump back in. I’ve also been volunteering with the Native Plant Salvage group. I went on a winter plant identification walk. The buds are an important feature. They talk about naked buds, scaly buds, pointy buds, pointed curving buds, fuzzy buds, shaggy buds….. about halfway through I found myself losing interest…. I really could not tell the difference. And then there are the “smaller” buds. Smaller compared to what? When looking at the naked buds, I said they looked like any other bud that was just beginning to bloom. Good point, the instructor said. You have to consider other clues….like time of year. In a day of separating and potting plants that they have salvaged from sites, I have the opportunity to see the process modeled and discussed and then try it several times myself. When I get home and go to separate my own plants, I find myself confused and wishing I could remember better.
I feel like there are so many parallels to student learning in my experiences. I’m pretty sure you can see them, too. What are the answers? Talking with one of the native plant people, I expressed my frustration at feeling like I was only catching the bare minimums of what was being taught, she said “right. But this is how you start to learn, and slowly your brain will see things and sort things out.” And she is all of about 24 years old. And here’s the thing that really gets me: I am relatively confident in myself. Yet I still have to get up the courage to ask a question. And I am so relieved when I am not treated like it is a stupid or simplistic question, or when others around me second or build on my question. When that happens, I feel empowered and capable and the fact that I’m not getting it right away loses its importance as the process of my learning is valued. Hope this adds a little bit to your thinking. Glad you’re having so many opportunities to stretch your own learning!
Jana, it’s just so wonderful to share in this experience with you. This posting brought two thoughts to mind for me.
1. When I first started teaching English learners, a first grade teacher at a Title I school commented that we really need to expand the definition of an “English Language Learner” (ELL was the term used at the time). She expressed that more than half of her class was working to understand academic vocabulary even though they came from native English speaking households. All teachers are teachers of English since all have students that are learning new English terms irregardless of their first language.
2. Stephen Krashen, one of my favorite educational researchers and linguists, introduced the concept of ‘Comprehensible Input.’ “We acquire language when we understand what we hear and read, when we understand what people are saying to us, not how they say it. We do not acquire language by producing it; only by understanding it.”
So by the teacher using their 2nd language to teach in they are automatically providing language at a level that the students are better able to comprehend.
Here’s his website if you’re interested: http://www.sdkrashen.com/
Jana,
It is so interesting to read your thoughtful postings.
I’m struck but this idea of the language density of procedures. I’ve never thought of that. I’m wondering about a couple of things. It seems that procedures (like the long division procedure) also requires that every step is followed in the correct order. Perhaps that element of precision is an aspect of the language density? The procedures rely on memory (and language)- precision without anything else to lean on to guide you through the procedure. Conceptual wrestling that is supported by models like Rekenreks can be sort of circular and messy. A learner can talk about various features of the concept as they come to mind, and eventually pull together a complete conceptual picture with overlapping language and ideas. I just visualize a ball of yarn with lots of opportunity to fill in areas as you wind the yarn around the sphere, as opposed to a strict line of steps that have to be followed in order and with precision.
I also wonder about this level of cognitive engagement that happens when we have a puzzle in mind as opposed to following steps to accomplish a task that we may not be very interested in accomplishing. The visual models, gestures, facial expressions and responsiveness to kids’ questions, moves, expressions… allow for a lot more sensory input that can, in combination, better support the thinking and learning. They collectively provide a lot more context from which to develop both language and mathematical understanding. I’ve been working on my use of annotations, including color, arrows, etc., lately. That feels like another piece of this puzzle.
Jana, are you seeing teachers use annotations robustly in these engaging classrooms?
More head-scratching to do. Thank you for sharing!!
Jana,
I applaud your observations and the need to make the academic language accessible. So many of your insights could also be applied to students with any language difficulty. I worked with tutors for students with dyslexia and the same principle to start concrete, move to pictorial, and finally to the abstract is successful with most students. We have t stop the rush to the abstract.
Jana, I’m so far behind! I meant to respond quite a while ago to your post introducing us to the work of van den Boer. I sat down to write a quick response to your question about what routines support cultural minority students and language learner but found myself writing for a long time. The result is this paper (linked below) that builds the case that Number Talks are one such routine. Here are just a couple of excerpts from the paper.
“In writing, here, about Number Talks as a routine that helps support underrepresented students and language learners, I first offer some general thoughts about how they can be used to help secure discourse-rich classrooms that work for every learner. Then I go on to describe how they contribute to each specific practice Jana identifies.” (p.2)
“I wish all teachers and students could fully experience what Number Talks have to offer this vision for mathematics education, one where students and teachers, alike, learn to have their own mathematical ideas and engage in meaningful mathematical discourse. While it is by no means the lion’s share of what happens in math classrooms, this 15-minute routine has a lot to offer every teacher, at every level, who is working to cultivate a vibrant, relevant and inclusive mathematics classroom. My hope is that [this paper] will help to set in motion conversations among readers as they reflect together on the potential for Number Talks to help us all move forward, ever closer to our goal of empowering mathematics teaching and learning for every student and every teacher.” (p. 2)
“Number Talks are a quick 15-minute routine that takes up just a fraction of mathematics instructional time. Yet the payoff they bring can be profound when it comes to the practices that Jana describes as “meeting the needs of cultural minority students in discourse-rich classrooms.” Number Talks can be a way to jumpstart these practices since they are all about helping every student find their voice in math class. And the beauty of it is that this routine can fully engage every student and every teacher at every level.” (p. 2)
Here’s a link to the paper. I’d love to hear from anyone who has ideas or questions that could contribute to an ongoing discussion of the ideas. http://www.mec-math.org
Can’t wait to catch up with your other postings. Thank you for pushing my thinking!
Concepts rather than procedures – that says it all! That and the notion of really ‘listening to’ students rather than ‘listening for’. It really struck me in this piece that your ability to observe without the pressure of ‘being the teacher’ offered you wonderful opportunities to develop these powerful insights. I remember when your post inspired Ruth to start her piece on the power of Number Talks in these settings – we at MEC went back and forth reading and reflecting together – it really generated some valuable conversations – so thank you for that!
Thanks for the challenge you are providing us, Jana.
Teaching math intervention has been highly informative about my failings when I was a grade level middle school math teacher. I learned what tiny moves could throw off the understanding of my students. Sometimes, what I said was misleading but more often, it was what I omitted that left kids wondering how to proceed.
If I accepted an answer without an explanation, I taught my students that the answer really is the most important goal. I also failed my students who did not get the “right” answer. They need to hear explanations so that they make corrections to their thinking and practice being critical thinkers. At the same time, they forced their class mates to provide mathematical arguments and communicate with more precision.
I also learned to rarely tell students if they were right or wrong. I’d mask my own response (sometimes to very strange answers) and ask for evidence. The students could present various approaches to a problem and figure out for themselves which strategies were productive. They were the ones who needed practice, not me.
I was always a visual learner and teacher, but my skills were honed when I had to find ways to make sense of math for our more challenged students. I had to push my creative brain to find models that they hadn’t seen a million times before. Visual representations are huge for communicating within and across languages!
I became much more aware of vocabulary and the speed at which teachers talk when trying to get through lessons. Clarity requires time for making connections to other words or concepts they already know.
I learned that listening was much more important than talking. If I’d taught a concept and students still were not successful, I needed to dig back and ask questions until I could find where the student’s misunderstanding began, then build them back up. Moving them forward from their understanding was much more efficient and effective than trying to get students to use the method that I thought was best.
“Less is better” became my personal mantra as I sought depth of understanding for my students.
All of the above skills were even further highlighted when I became a math coach and got to watch other teachers excel in these areas or make the same mistakes I’d made. I understand the challenge of meeting the needs of many minds thinking many ways. I also love that challenge. I find that it is quicker to see results with students than adults. 🙂
Lisa O
I totally agree with what you have stated here. I work with at-risk students and I have to remind myself to simplify the directions, ask the students to explain to me what they know, and then work from there. Keeping it simply and referring to what they already know makes their learning easier.
Anytime a student does not understand right away, my practice improves because I feel I MUST get that student to learn. Writing them off as incapable or unmotivated is not an option. Therefore, when I became a math coach with an intense focus on low-income students and language learners, I needed to really up my own game, so that I was able to assist my colleagues.
I realized that all EL strategies also helped those who were poor readers and listeners in native English. Your comment about procedural explanations being language intensive has me thinking deeply, as does your comment on teachers not being aware of how language, not math, is getting in the way of student understanding. This was a very rich post.
Jana,
Thanks for taking the time to write down all those thoughts and examples of what you’re seeing. I’m going to address your question of “When has a change in job description or people you served made you more effective in your work?”….sort of, since I’m no longer “working”! Yet I am exposed to issues around learning and language on a daily basis as I myself explore new opportunities and learning for myself. I find myself intrigued by my own reactions to not understanding and my own difficulties with what seems like such simple language in different fields. I can’t stop myself from thinking about our students’ experiences.
Examples: I’ve been volunteering with Bloodworks Northwest, helping to register donors. Registering people on the computer, I need to type in BWNW (for Bloodworks northwest, obviously I think). For some reason though, I have Northwest Bloodworks in my head, so every single time, I have to talk to myself and say the words as I type the letters correctly. How long, I wonder, will it take to “undo” my “wrong learning?” At one point, I need to press the F2 key to update the screen. I struggle to not just push “2”. Why do I have such trouble distinguishing between 2 and F2? And it’s really an important distinction. During my training, they kept referring to the SOP. I had no idea what an SOP is. And so I think about our students…. How often do we give them acronyms and expect them to just remember them quickly? How often do we get frustrated when they don’t notice a – sign, or don’t see the important difference between 3 and 3x? And all that vocabulary we just toss around….. I’ve also been learning a lot about financial investments and income without a monthly paycheck. I used the phrase “asset classes” in conversation with my husband the other day and we both giggled because it was new vocabulary for us and I think we both actually understood what I meant. Other times, I toss around phrased like qualified and non-qualified dividends and he just looks at me “whatever, he says”. I’ve explained the difference (as well as I understand it) to him several times and it just doesn’t stick. Why? Perhaps because I’m the one doing the reading, thinking, struggling with understanding in this case, and he is the one just being “told”. And of course, if I don’t think about all this for a few weeks or a month, I feel like I have to pretty much start over again and review relevant language before I can jump back in. I’ve also been volunteering with the Native Plant Salvage group. I went on a winter plant identification walk. The buds are an important feature. They talk about naked buds, scaly buds, pointy buds, pointed curving buds, fuzzy buds, shaggy buds….. about halfway through I found myself losing interest…. I really could not tell the difference. And then there are the “smaller” buds. Smaller compared to what? When looking at the naked buds, I said they looked like any other bud that was just beginning to bloom. Good point, the instructor said. You have to consider other clues….like time of year. In a day of separating and potting plants that they have salvaged from sites, I have the opportunity to see the process modeled and discussed and then try it several times myself. When I get home and go to separate my own plants, I find myself confused and wishing I could remember better.
I feel like there are so many parallels to student learning in my experiences. I’m pretty sure you can see them, too. What are the answers? Talking with one of the native plant people, I expressed my frustration at feeling like I was only catching the bare minimums of what was being taught, she said “right. But this is how you start to learn, and slowly your brain will see things and sort things out.” And she is all of about 24 years old. And here’s the thing that really gets me: I am relatively confident in myself. Yet I still have to get up the courage to ask a question. And I am so relieved when I am not treated like it is a stupid or simplistic question, or when others around me second or build on my question. When that happens, I feel empowered and capable and the fact that I’m not getting it right away loses its importance as the process of my learning is valued. Hope this adds a little bit to your thinking. Glad you’re having so many opportunities to stretch your own learning!
Jana, it’s just so wonderful to share in this experience with you. This posting brought two thoughts to mind for me.
1. When I first started teaching English learners, a first grade teacher at a Title I school commented that we really need to expand the definition of an “English Language Learner” (ELL was the term used at the time). She expressed that more than half of her class was working to understand academic vocabulary even though they came from native English speaking households. All teachers are teachers of English since all have students that are learning new English terms irregardless of their first language.
2. Stephen Krashen, one of my favorite educational researchers and linguists, introduced the concept of ‘Comprehensible Input.’ “We acquire language when we understand what we hear and read, when we understand what people are saying to us, not how they say it. We do not acquire language by producing it; only by understanding it.”
So by the teacher using their 2nd language to teach in they are automatically providing language at a level that the students are better able to comprehend.
Here’s his website if you’re interested: http://www.sdkrashen.com/
Jana,
It is so interesting to read your thoughtful postings.
I’m struck but this idea of the language density of procedures. I’ve never thought of that. I’m wondering about a couple of things. It seems that procedures (like the long division procedure) also requires that every step is followed in the correct order. Perhaps that element of precision is an aspect of the language density? The procedures rely on memory (and language)- precision without anything else to lean on to guide you through the procedure. Conceptual wrestling that is supported by models like Rekenreks can be sort of circular and messy. A learner can talk about various features of the concept as they come to mind, and eventually pull together a complete conceptual picture with overlapping language and ideas. I just visualize a ball of yarn with lots of opportunity to fill in areas as you wind the yarn around the sphere, as opposed to a strict line of steps that have to be followed in order and with precision.
I also wonder about this level of cognitive engagement that happens when we have a puzzle in mind as opposed to following steps to accomplish a task that we may not be very interested in accomplishing. The visual models, gestures, facial expressions and responsiveness to kids’ questions, moves, expressions… allow for a lot more sensory input that can, in combination, better support the thinking and learning. They collectively provide a lot more context from which to develop both language and mathematical understanding. I’ve been working on my use of annotations, including color, arrows, etc., lately. That feels like another piece of this puzzle.
Jana, are you seeing teachers use annotations robustly in these engaging classrooms?
More head-scratching to do. Thank you for sharing!!
Jana,
I applaud your observations and the need to make the academic language accessible. So many of your insights could also be applied to students with any language difficulty. I worked with tutors for students with dyslexia and the same principle to start concrete, move to pictorial, and finally to the abstract is successful with most students. We have t stop the rush to the abstract.
Jana, I’m so far behind! I meant to respond quite a while ago to your post introducing us to the work of van den Boer. I sat down to write a quick response to your question about what routines support cultural minority students and language learner but found myself writing for a long time. The result is this paper (linked below) that builds the case that Number Talks are one such routine. Here are just a couple of excerpts from the paper.
“In writing, here, about Number Talks as a routine that helps support underrepresented students and language learners, I first offer some general thoughts about how they can be used to help secure discourse-rich classrooms that work for every learner. Then I go on to describe how they contribute to each specific practice Jana identifies.” (p.2)
“I wish all teachers and students could fully experience what Number Talks have to offer this vision for mathematics education, one where students and teachers, alike, learn to have their own mathematical ideas and engage in meaningful mathematical discourse. While it is by no means the lion’s share of what happens in math classrooms, this 15-minute routine has a lot to offer every teacher, at every level, who is working to cultivate a vibrant, relevant and inclusive mathematics classroom. My hope is that [this paper] will help to set in motion conversations among readers as they reflect together on the potential for Number Talks to help us all move forward, ever closer to our goal of empowering mathematics teaching and learning for every student and every teacher.” (p. 2)
“Number Talks are a quick 15-minute routine that takes up just a fraction of mathematics instructional time. Yet the payoff they bring can be profound when it comes to the practices that Jana describes as “meeting the needs of cultural minority students in discourse-rich classrooms.” Number Talks can be a way to jumpstart these practices since they are all about helping every student find their voice in math class. And the beauty of it is that this routine can fully engage every student and every teacher at every level.” (p. 2)
Here’s a link to the paper. I’d love to hear from anyone who has ideas or questions that could contribute to an ongoing discussion of the ideas.
http://www.mec-math.org
Can’t wait to catch up with your other postings. Thank you for pushing my thinking!
Concepts rather than procedures – that says it all! That and the notion of really ‘listening to’ students rather than ‘listening for’. It really struck me in this piece that your ability to observe without the pressure of ‘being the teacher’ offered you wonderful opportunities to develop these powerful insights. I remember when your post inspired Ruth to start her piece on the power of Number Talks in these settings – we at MEC went back and forth reading and reflecting together – it really generated some valuable conversations – so thank you for that!