Lesson adaptations and accommodations: working with native speakers and english language learners in the same science classroom.

In the late 1980s and 1990s several documents were published that clearly established the goals of science education for the next century, including Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990); Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993); and National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). The most recent of these documents, the National Science Education Standards, is very specific about the primary goal of science education: "All students, regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic background, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science, should have the opportunity to obtain high levels of scientific literacy" (p. 20). The Standards stipulate that to be scientifically literate, students should learn more than rote facts, terms, and definitions.

While science education in the United States has historically provided assistance in the classroom for students who have special needs, it has not been as effective in providing accommodations for speakers of English as a second language. English language learners (hereafter ELLs) now account for more than 10 percent of the U.S. school-age population, an increase of over 32 percent since the 1997-98 school year (Padolsky, 2002). Fewer than 13 percent of teachers have received even minimal ESL training, however, and only about 8-10 percent of teachers have bilingual or ESL certification (August & Hakuta, 1998). Some states have taken significant steps to accommodate this increasingly large group of children. Florida, for example, has implemented requirements for all teachers of language arts or English to gain an endorsement in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Yet, growing demands for accountability, such as that called for in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), will soon make it impossible for school districts and teachers in the United States to ignore their responsibilities to provide appropriate assistance to all students, including ELLs.

Research has shown that students perform well when asked higher level questions (Henze & Lucas, 1993). Yet, Verplaetse (1998) round that teachers often do not pose such higher level questions to ELLs, engaging in a "benevolent conspiracy" that is intended to save ELLs from embarrassment, but consequently deprives them of learning opportunities. As a result of the accountability movement, however, ELLs must be held to the same high standards as all students in the classroom. The challenge, then, is to provide equitable opportunities for all children to learn science in a manner consistent with the goals outlined in the National Science Education Standards. Instruction for ELLs cannot be "watered down" science curriculum that limits them to learning "rote" terms or vocabulary. Too often, however, these children received instruction that simply calls for lower order thinking. Educators in general education classrooms must distinguish between simplifying concepts and making them simple. The key is not using a different strategy for each student, but rather manipulating a single strategy in such a way that it addresses different students' needs.

One could easily find classroom strategies to use with ELLs as well as science strategies to use with native English speakers (NESs). Many are innovative and clever. However, in a search for strategies that are effective for both ELLs and NESs, it is difficult to find the right integration of theory and classroom. Yet, this is the challenge faced by thousands of science teachers each day.

While teachers appreciate that ELLs bring an invaluable diversity to their classrooms, many find it difficult and frustrating to adapt lessons that meet their needs and are appropriate for NESs. According to Heath (1983), children are expected to learn certain language skills at home and bring them into the classroom. These skills include using language to describe and label, recount and retell, follow directions from a variety of sources, sustain and maintain appropriate social interactions, obtain information from non-intimates outside of their immediate social and familial circle, and account for one's own unique experiences. Often, however, ELLs coming into our schools are neither linguistically nor culturally fluent in these different types of tasks.

Many good teachers are baffled when faced with a child who obviously brings skills to the classroom but has difficulty demonstrating them due to language differences. In fact, most teachers across the United States are not adequately trained to meet the needs of ELLs in their mainstream classes (Gruber, Wiley, Broughman, Strizek, & Burian-Fitzgerald, 2002). Often, teachers fall back on what they consider to be "good teaching," assuming that it will be effective with all students in all learning environments.

All general education teachers must understand that language learning (both first and second) is a process that is sequential, systematic, and cognitive. Children do not learn language through imitation, but rather through authentic interaction and scaffolded learning opportunities. Learning English does not only constitute learning new vocabulary and translating from one language to another. As children move through various stages of interlanguage (Selinker & Lamendella, 1981), they experiment with and develop a new form of language just a bit closer to fluency. Teachers must realize that interaction tends to help this process along; the more meaningful interaction a teacher can provide, the more opportunities the ELL has to progress.

This article brings theory into practice and demonstrates clearly how to apply commonly accepted language acquisition theories to science lesson plans designed for native speakers of English. In the first section of the article, readers will learn not only how to apply theory to science lessons, but also, and more important, why to apply certain theories to certain types of lessons, moving beyond the limitations of just plain "good teaching." Then, using an everyday science lesson utilizing demonstration and hands-on activity strategies designed for upper elementary students, the authors describe how to adapt objectives for ELLs and how to analyze lessons in order to modify the language demands of the lesson based on the theories. Key points in this process involve increasing interaction and comprehensibility, and prioritizing learning. The procedure includes the adaptation of content objectives, analysis of the linguistic and cultural demands of the lesson, the creation of language objectives, and the modification of assessment procedures.

STEPS IN ADAPTING LESSONS

Analyzing Language Demands

A common step in lesson plan adaptation that many teachers tend to rush through is analyzing the language demands of their lessons. In other words, given the accommodated objectives, what does my ELL student need to be able to do with language in order to accomplish it? Does he or she possess the necessary vocabulary to understand the lesson? This distinction is outlined by Snow, Met, and Genesee (1992) in their references to "content obligatory" and "content compatible" language. Content compatible language is that which adds to the lesson but is hOt essential. For example, a science teacher can teach the concept of scientific methods without the students needing to memorize the term "hypothesis." However, content obligatory language is that which must be understood in order to understand the concept. A child cannot understand the concept of rain without first knowing the word for "water" and understanding it. Hence, teachers must decide what concepts are content compatible and which are content obligatory.

Once such decisions about language complexity have been finalized, teachers next must decide how to embed concepts. Concepts that are "context-reduced" (Cummins, 2000) are not well-supported by visuals, graphs, or other methods of transmission. On the other hand, concepts that are "context-embedded" are scaffolded and well-supported by other methods of information transmission, such as pictures, demonstrations, and other concrete activities. The use of visuals in the science classroom has become so commonplace that many teachers take for granted the critical knowledge contained therein. The use of visuals and demon strations in science lessons is not supplemental to ELLs--it is often their primary source of information. Consequently, teachers must carefully analyze any visual materials for concrete congruency with their lesson objectives.

As they finalize their decisions, teachers also must decide if the objectives are cognitively demanding or cognitively undemanding. Objectives that are cognitively demanding definitely should be context--embedded. Objectives that are cognitively undemanding--perhaps related to material with which the student is already familiar--can be opportunities to use language that is context-reduced. However, ELL students should never be faced with material or objectives that are cognitively demanding and context-reduced. Figure 1 describes the relationship between context embedding and difficulty of material. Ideally, students would be working primarily in quadrant B. ELLs should spend little instructional rime in quadrants A and D.

Matching Objectives With Students' Language Proficiency 

As with any lesson plan, the teacher must begin with objectives. Exactly what is it that students will take away from this lesson or unit? While many different types of objectives are possible, we prefer to use outcome-based objectives against which students can readily measure their own progress. Not only do these types of objectives make it easier for all students to self-assess, they also clearly outline how learning has been prioritized for ELLs and delineate their own expectations.

In an ideal world, the same objective would be appropriate for all students; when working with ELLs, however, that scenario rarely occurs. However, ELLs will vary in their facility with "social" English and "academic" English. ELL students with different levels of English acquisition will demand different types of objectives. Therefore, general education science objectives must be adjusted, taking each ELL's level of English acquisition into account. Students who are at a beginning level will need objectives that are more concrete and that allow for nonverbal demonstrations, roleplays, and sentence completion. In addition, these students often have native language literacy gaps that become apparent when they try to learn English. While interaction is a key element for any ELL, those at the beginning levels should be given the opportunity to participate in very small groups and pairs so that they do not feel overwhelmed by the input. ELLs at intermediate levels who have developed social English can work with objectives that are more abstract, while using concrete referents. These students also can make good use of cooperative learning activities and small-group discussions. Finally, students at the high intermediate level who are beginning to work well with academic English can work with NES objectives that include detailed scaffolding and contextual support. At this level, the key to continued linguistic development is the sustained development of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 2000).

Analysis of the Objectives and Language Associated With the Lesson Plan on Levers

An examination of the Lesson Plan on Levers (see Figure 2) highlights a number of these issues. For example, objectives two and three require students to describe events and relationships. Most of the terminology associated with successful completion of these objectives would be considered content compatible, because there are a variety of ways to express these events and relationships. However, successful attainment of the first objective requires students to understand specific terminology at both a scientific/academic and social level (see Table 1). More specifically, a teacher may create a Word Wall at the initial demonstration phase of the lever lesson that includes mostly social English. The teacher can then help students generate a list of related scientific terms. This word generation experience is the perfect opportunity to access those higher order thinking skills that can benefit both NESs and ELLs.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

It is important that the teacher realize and explicitly discuss the multiple meanings of many of the words the students have listed. For example, the word "force" would be used appropriately in the following sentences.

You can't force someone to be nice to you.

The force of gravity makes objects fall to the ground.

You can't force all your books into your desk.

"May the 'force' be with you."

Magnetic forces.

In fact, the term "force" can be used as both a noun and a verb and can have such divergent meanings as: power (n), compel (v), push (v), influence (v), strength (n), energy (n), might (n), and vigor (n). It is no wonder that ELLs often are confused by the myriad social and academic meanings that a term can carry. Yet, teachers often take it for granted that students understand the correct meaning of the term after only a brief demonstration. or device This confusion can easily take place in the simple demonstration of how a lever operates. It would not be unusual to envision a teacher in a classroom pushing down on one side of a lever while saying the word "force," or drawing a picture of a lever with an arrow pointing down on one end and writing and saying the word "force." Yet, where is the "force" in this demonstration? Is it the actual lever itself that the teacher is touching or to which the teacher is pointing? Is it the fulcrum that is being used? Is it the action that the teacher is doing? The confusion can be avoided by carefully staging the demonstration and asking students to re-create the demonstration and use the words in different situations. For example, asking students to create their own demonstration of force by using the new vocabulary words would give the teacher the opportunity to see if the ELL students in the class really comprehend the social and academic meanings of all new vocabulary.

Adapted objectives for ELLs should include the use of visuals and demonstrations to allow the ELL students to demonstrate mastery of the objectives. As can be seen from Table 1, there are few social equivalents for the academic terms presented in this science lesson. Hence, even though the lesson plan is very visual, ELL students may have difficulty expressing mastery of the concepts, because the critical concepts are abstract in nature. An ELL student may be able to replicate the experiment, but not be able to explain the whys or hows involved. So, teachers must engage in extensive scaffolding and vocabulary development to ensure that ELLs are successful. This is also a good time to review comparison vocabulary such as "easy," "easire," "hard," and "harder."

Examination of the directions in the application stage of the lesson (see Figure 2) also demonstrates a number of strategies that aid ELL students in achieving the lesson objectives. First, note that many terms are repeated. Among these are a number of action verbs, including several process skills (highlighted with italics). Others are "science terms" from the lesson objectives, such as "lever," "resistance force," or "effort distance." These terms have been paired in these directions with other actions or objects that are their equivalent or demonstrate their definitions. As one proceeds down through the steps in the directions, the pairing of terms is reduced, with the more academic terms predominating by the end of the directions. Furthermore, nonessential wording is kept to a minimum. This section of the lesson plan demonstrates the importance of consistence, repetition, and simplicity in the scaffolding process.

At this point, teachers will need to determine exactly to what extent ELL students will accomplish the lesson objectives, based upon their language proficiency, and how they will demonstrate understanding for assessment purposes. Once these criteria have been established, the teacher can decide which procedures will be used to accomplish the lesson objectives and how mastery of these objectives will be assessed. In order to successfully scaffold these concepts, it is critical that teachers constantly reinforce and check for understanding. By asking students to create their own demonstrations of concepts, the teacher can ensure that learning takes place.

Assessment

As with any assessment, teachers look for the process to be valid, reliable, and feasible, and they aim to provide positive feedback to the instructional experience. Of major concern to teachers of ELL students is the high incidence of cultural and linguistic bias in assessment. In addition, teachers should be confident that they are, in fact, assessing the content of their objectives instead of assessing language. For example, one ELL student was given the assignment of writing an essay about an object that could be found in an attic. However, the ELL student did not have sufficient linguistic or cultural knowledge of the term "attic" to complete the assignment and was given an unsatisfactory grade. Even when told that an "attic" was a storage room in the upper level of a house, the student did not understand the cultural significance of an attic and was unable to write the expected essay about an old object from the past. Furthermore, concepts should be demonstrated and separated from major language demands whenever possible. In other words, nonlanguage-dependent assessment should be used whenever it can be. Science is particularly amenable to assessment of learning through such methods.

Many options exist for adequate assessment, but whatever method is chosen should mimic the classroom activities performed to accomplish the objectives. This concept, important for all students, is essential for ELL students, who rely on routine and established procedures, especially in the beginning stages of language acquisition, to be successful in class. In other words, assessments for ELL students, depending on their level of English proficiency, should be performance-based and include questions that were discussed in class. Questions used in class discussions and lab activities can be tapped for assessment purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

With the advent of the No Child Left Behind legislation (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), reading and mathematics have assumed a critical importance to standardized tests. In the wake of the standardized testing movement, science has all but disappeared from the curricula in many elementary schools. Some elementary teachers have been given verbal, undocumented directives by their administrators to omit science and social studies from the curriculum entirely, particularly during the second semester of an academic year, when standardized testing looms. As more states expand their comprehensive testing programs, however, content areas such as science are becoming integral parts of the ever-increasing battery of standardized tests that students take. With this shift, elementary teachers will become more and more accountable for students' science achievement, and every child, including ELLs, will need appropriate instruction.

We offer no new strategies for working with ELLs. Instead, we have attempted to show how important it is to move beyond knowing a strategy to understanding the theory behind the use of the strategy. Simply applying "good teaching" strategies indiscriminately without an understanding of why they work with individual children will not suffice. Many staff development efforts offer inservice training that focuses on presenting strategies that teachers can use immediately in their classrooms when working with ELLs. Yet, all too often teachers return to their classes and implement the strategies with little success, wondering all the while why the strategies are not effective. Or worse, they simply give up on the strategy and/or the student when the strategy does not produce the desired results. Our job as classroom teachers and teacher educators is to move beyond this superficial Band-Aid notion. We know that these strategies constitute good science teaching; now we need to understand how to make them bring forth good science learning for all students.

LEARNING CYCLE LESSON PLAN: HOW LEVERS HELP US DO WORK

Overview: The lesson is designed to help students (grades 5-6) begin to understand how levers can make certain types of work, such as lifting heavy objects, easier. Using a simple lever made from a ruler, the students will discover the relationship between the distance from the fulcrum and the number of pennies required to balance a lever. This relationship will be related to using a lever to do work.

Objectives:

Each student, according to his or her level of proficiency, will be able to define or describe in writing, verbally, and/or by demonstration:

* Effort force, effort distance (arm), resistance force, resistance distance (arm), fulcrum, and lever

* What happens to the effort distance if the effort force is changed (and vice versa) while the resistance force and resistance distance remain unchanged

* How a lever helps make work easier.

Exploration:

To begin the discussion of how levers help us do work in our daily lives, the teacher will demonstrate the difficulty of picking up a heavy object and placing it upon a low table or bench. She will place the object back on the floor and let some of the students try to lift it to see how heavy it is.

The teacher will ask the students if they have ever observed someone use a board or other object (such as a tree limb) to lift up a heavy object (like a rock). Making a lever from a board and block of wood as the fulcrum, the teacher will demonstrate lifting the same heavy object, using the lever. She will let students take turns pushing on the board (lever) to allow them to observe the difference in the amount of force needed to lift the object.

Term Introduction:

Using diagrams similar to the ones above, the teacher will lead a discussion about the fact that the rock has been moved the same distance from the floor, but that it was easier to do so (i.e., it took less effort to move the rock with the lever).

Application:

The following activity allows students to draw a conclusion about the relationship between the effort force and the effort distance, the distance from the fulcrum to the point where the effort force is applied.

Directions:

1. Balance a ruler (lever) across a pencil (fulcrum) to form a "seesaw" and tape the ruler (lever) into place to keep it from slipping.

2. Stack rive pennies about halfway between one end of the ruler (lever) and the pencil (fulcrum), and tape them in place. This pile of five pennies is called the "resistance force"; the distance between the "resistance force" and the fulcrum is the "resistance distance." The "resistance force" is similar to the rock we tried to lift.

3. Stack rive other pennies at a place on the other end of the ruler so that the ruler (lever) is balanced. This pile of rive pennies is called the "effort force" because it is similar to the "force" of the teacher pushing down on the board to lift the rock.

4. Measure the distance in centimeters from the pencil (fulcrum) and to the second pile of rive pennies (effort force). Record that number (distance) in the data table. This number is the "effort distance."

5. Remove one penny of the "effort force." Slide the remaining four pennies to a place so that the lever is again balanced. Measure and record the new "effort distance" from the fulcrum to the "effort force" of four pennies.

6. Remove another penny of the "effort force," and again move the remaining pennies to a place so that the lever is balanced. Measure and record the new "effort distance."

7. Repeat Step 6 until you have no more pennies or until there is no more room on the lever.

Reference

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Education language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gruber, K. J., Wiley, S. D., Broughman, S. P., Strizek, G. A., & Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES Publication No. 2002313.)

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Henze, R. C., & Lucas, T. (1993). Shaping instruction to promote the success of language minority students: An analysis of four high school classes. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(1), 54-81.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Padolsky, D. (2002). How many school-aged English language learners [(ELLs).sup.1] are there in the U.S.? Retrieved from www.ncela.gwu.edu/askncela/olleps.htm

Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J. T. (1981). Updating the interlanguage hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 201-220.

Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1992). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content instruction. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content area teachers (pp. 27-38). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved April 6, 2003, from www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/summary.html.

Verplaetse, L. S. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language learners. TESOL Journal, 7(5), 24-28.

Diana C. Rice is Assistant Professor, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, IV. Eleni Pappamihiel is Assistant Professor, Department of Middle and Secondary Education, and Vickie E, Lake is Assistant Professor, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee.