| |
| writing:dual_language_exploring [2017/05/15 23:54] – created oemb1905 | writing:dual_language_exploring [2017/05/16 00:00] (current) – removed oemb1905 |
|---|
| <div style="text-align: center;"><b>Abstract</b></div> | |
| There has been a lot of discussion about brain research and dual language instruction in the educational community. The field of brain research and how that pertains to language acquisition, writing, reading, and general intelligence is still in its infancy and debated amongst neuroscientists. This exposition will briefly analyze three foundational studies on brain research over the last thirty years and attempt to ascertain the commonalities. To the extent possible, practices that support the research in the advanced mathematics classroom will be explicated, and these practices will likewise be supported by current periodicals. It is important to consider one caveat, however, namely that when researches encounter contradictory results, the informed educator is bound to dig deeper and exercise caution for the short term. For this reason, the study will also seek to identify where it is necessary to await further research and the latest conclusions and where educators can rely on measured best practices without hesitation. | |
| |
| <a href="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/261434/261434_original.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Myth" src="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/261434/261434_original.jpg" title="Myth" width="550" /></a> | |
| |
| <div style="text-align: center;"><b>Neurological Potential</b></div> | |
| Brain research then and now. In the early nineteen eighties, brain research was just developing. The concept of the day was hemispheric division, namely, that one hemisphere was responsible for a certain type of learning, and the other hemisphere responsible for another. The hemispheres, it should be noted, referred to hemispheres of the cerebral cortex, or the large upper part of the brain. As Sinatra (1983) notes, in young children “each hemisphere of the brain reacts to and sorts out the world with equal success until about the formal age of schooling.” Sinatra further argues that the right hemisphere is responsible for “visual/spatial processing” and that the left hemisphere is responsible for “language expression” (Sinatra 1983). The idea presented in this study is that certain types of instruction should be emphasized at early stages of learning that differ from later stages. As a preface to making this point, Sinatra paraphrases Piaget’s theory of development stating children “learn by doing, by interacting with their environment, and constructing mental schema of how the world operates” (Sinatra 1983). Later, Sinatra ties the two notions together, stating “the early push for letter, number, and written word knowledge may actually be detrimental to youngsters” (Sinatra 1983). The idea in the early part of the nineteen eighties was thus that there were stages of development in youngsters, that neuroscience supported and reinforced these psychologically based theories, and that educators should thereby tailor instructional theory to this progression. This would amount to less critical numeracy and literacy skills in primary grades under the research opinion that ‘less is more.’ In short, by waiting to address higher order skills and cognitive skills later in a child’s development, instructional efficacy is maximized. Sinatra argues as follows, “Once maturation of the corpus callosum has begun, children can use speech to describe experiences recorded by the nonverbal right brain” and therefore it is “especially important to allow young children to explore the environment … and kinesthetic experiences” at primary levels but as the “commissures continue to myelinate” the pedagogy should switch to more “concrete” forms. The notion is that by tailoring instructional theory to brain research, i.e., hemispheric integration, the student’s will learn more efficaciously. Sinatra (1983) concludes that, “educational horizons should be broadened to readmit the non verbal mode of thought that is an essential part of youngsters’ lives.” | |
| |
| <a href="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/260691/260691_original.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Brain Art" src="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/260691/260691_original.jpg" title="Brain Art" width="550" /></a> | |
| |
| <div style="text-align: center;"><b>Neurological Disagreements?</b></div> | |
| Then and now; enter modern research. Tokuhama-Espinosa (2012) has recently compiled research about the brain and how children learn to read and write into a comprehensive article called What Neuroscience Says About Personalized Learning. In this study, she cautions educators with the advise, “Designing educational experiences without an understanding of the brain is like designing a glove without an understanding of the human hand” (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2012). Tokuhama-Espinosa (2012) thereby urges educators to “use advances in neuroscience to design better educational experiences.” Nevertheless, educators must exercise caution in utilizing research because there have “been many advances in scientific understandings of how the brain operates” since the nineteen eighties (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2012). Even worse, Tokuhama-Espinosa (2012) refers to much of the educational work done in the nineteen eighties as “half-truths” and the so-called “brain-based learning,” she argues, is a term generally avoided by scientists because it is “more commercial than scientific.” The point of this article is not to entirely debunk neuroscience and its relation to educational theory but the opposite. Tokuhama-Espinosa (2012) is urging for caution and a measured approach to utilizing brain research in the field of education. Nevertheless, the issue with brain research is that it is in its infancy and what might seem like a fact today will be tomorrow proven to be a flash in the pan. It is for this reason that Tokuhama-Espinosa (2012) devoted an entire section of her work to a term she coined, “Neuromyths.” She goes on to mention how prior thinkers, of which Sinatra would be included, have speculated about “right-brain” and “left-brain” theories and describes such theories as “overgeneralizations about the brain that are based on little or no research” (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2012). It is important to note that just as Sinatra was writing on reporting on the latest research, so too is Tokuhama-Espinosa. Nevertheless, Tokuhama-Espinosa attacks the Piaget-influenced concept Sinatra presents about teaching certain pedagogies at certain developmental phases. Thus, research in one time period might be entirely different from research in a later period. For example, Tokuhama-Espinosa (2012) describes the Sinatra theory in unflattering terms, “Other neuromyths include the concept that there are critical periods in life when certain subjects must be taught and learned (or they can't ever be learned) and the concept that humans use only 10 percent of their brains.” In short, the entire theory that Sinatra proposed is in the mind of this modern thinker, a neuromyth, and not substantiated with hard science. One might ask what Tokuhama-Espinosa’s proposal is? Well, the conclusion is harsh and pointed, and Tokuhama-Espinosa (2012) suggests that “teachers and doctors should share the same first rule: Do no harm. When you go to the doctor, at a minimum you expect that he or she won't make your health worse. Similarly, when parents send their children to school, they hope their children won't return with less motivation to learn or with false ideas about their brain's limited capacity.” This is sound advice to the educational community about how to not be tempted by nascent research and how to avoid instituting findings that have not stood the longitudinal and empirical research criteria. In short, it takes time to prove difficult concepts, and along the way the concepts change. If educators want to be responsible, they must ensure that the practices that they engage in practically are embedded in sound theory, but that required educators to ensure that what they ascribe to “have been judged reputable by scientists and not by the popular press” (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2012). | |
| |
| <a href="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/262042/262042_original.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Largeversionofthelobesofthebrain" src="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/262042/262042_original.jpg" title="Largeversionofthelobesofthebrain" width="550" /></a> | |
| |
| <div style="text-align: center;"><b>How does one possibly choose?</b></div> | |
| Which practices and theories are valid? One may wonder where two contradictory studies such as the two presented above lead the argument? The answer to that is that they suggest that educators must exercise the utmost caution. Conversely and paradoxically, however, this paradigmatic conflict will never resolve itself, and thus educators are always faced with a contradiction between practice and theory. Many educators are known to colloquially refer to educational theory as a pendulum, and express genuine disinterest at the latest theory and even go so far as to mention, if they have been in the field long enough, that the current theory is similar to an older theory, or is essentially old wine in new casks. At this point the necessary question is whether brain research is in such a state of infancy that educators cannot rely on any best practices or whether there are some practices that are generally accepted as beneficial. And, in particular, are there some best practices that will assist in the advanced mathematics classroom? In order to determine what best practices to use, educators are forced to choose sides in the paradoxic listed above and pick a research study that is consistent with their own theory of education. This study hones in on Kovelman (2008) as a starting point, for he was able to demonstrate that “dual language processing required high coordination of multiple brain regions” and that dual language students exhibited “data [which] are consistent with the idea that Bilingual mode requires intensive involvement of the bilinguals’ phonological working memory.” Furthermore, Kovelman (2008) concludes, “bilingual language switching ability is a complex phenomenon that most likely relies both on language-specific and cognitive-general mechanisms, which together involve a complex interplay of cortical and subcortical regions.” Naturally, since this is a very specific scientific study, the researchers fall short of making any hasty generalizations such as dual language programs make you smarter, or that code switching, etc., enables pathways in the brain that monolingual students don’t have access to, etc. Nevertheless, one can see why there are authors that have taken this study and others and made exactly that conclusion. But the concerned educator must avoid falling prey to the temptation of making another “neuromyth” like Fukohama-Espinosa so eloquently urges us against. In short, this study is willing to choose sides in the paradoxical arrangement and suggest that most research today is suggesting that dual language utility involves more complex neurological mechanisms, and this suggests that incorporating dual language instruction into the classroom will be efficacious. Naturally, there is the risk that educators and this study will make this choice in error, however, if one is to enter the classroom, they have to lay aside their personal quest for the most accurate theory and operate on a type of informed faith. | |
| |
| <a href="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/261195/261195_original.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Dual Language" src="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/261195/261195_original.jpg" title="Dual Language" width="550" /></a> | |
| |
| <div style="text-align: center;"><b>Don’t forget mathematics!</b></div> | |
| What then can be done in the mathematics classroom? Perhaps the most intriguing part of this study is to consider how to map the code switching and dual language practices often present in elementary levels onto secondary mathematics lessons. Cummins (2005) describes how “Seventh graders coauthored a dual language book about their experiences immigrating to Canada from Pakistan” and displays charming and articulate student samples in his study. In this study, Cummins spent a great deal of his time arguing against No Child Left Behind and urging for educators to consider what was at that time an out of vogue educational theory. Now that dual language is facing a resurgence, albeit in a limited regard, it is time to consider such practices again. Perhaps often ignored by math educators, in particular, is the fact that there are often bilingual students present in their classes, even in the highest levels of mathematics instruction, such as Calculus AB and BC. This study would like to suggest that one practice that ninth through twelfth grade mathematics instructors should consider is the creation of a dual language book outlining steps for mathematical theories. For instance, have students work in cooperative groups and create a dual language differentiation book, a dual language integration book, a dual language book on Slope Intercept Form, Point Slope Form, Quadratic Factoring, etc. In learning how to write and read and decode advanced mathematics in this fashion, there is a very real possibility that students will achieve at higher rates than in years prior to this type of instruction. Another practice to consider is how to adjust direct instruction to fit the dual language model. Once again, Cummins (2005) shares a qualitative anecdote about how “Sastri [the teacher] enlists students to read a given story out loud in English. She also encourages various students to retell the story afterward in their home language.” This is yet another great example of a strategy that falls within the dual language ‘family’ of best practices. Nevertheless, how often is this practiced in the math environment and what would this look like if it was? Perhaps the math educator should consider dividing students into cooperative learning groups and delegating students mathematical practices that should be taught in languages that the group members are steeped in. For example, a student could provide a direct instruction lesson on Newton’s method or Euler’s method, or even Linearization, and then the same student, or another student in the cooperative group could demonstrate the same lesson in their home language. This could also be conducted with buddies, or in conjunction with the teacher or instructor. The essential part is that both theories be in line with what Wu (2004) suggests, namely that “students acquire a second language most easily when they develop literacy skills and content knowledge in their native language, have opportunities to interact with English-speaking peers, and learn with students of different ability levels. We need to remember that the fastest way is not necessarily the most effective way.” This theory is in line with the paradoxical choice this study has chosen. Moreover, incorporating these two strategies, dual language mathematics direct instruction, and dual language mathematics theory books, into the every quarter of instruction and throughout the year’s scope and sequence is a bold task. Let’s be clear, this study is not intending to limit the math educator to only instituting these interventions, rather it is suggesting that these are two profoundly valid ways in which to incorporate the latest neuroscience and research about dual language instruction into the mathematics classroom immediately. | |
| |
| <a href="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/261852/261852_original.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Practical" src="http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/oemb1905/19468200/261852/261852_original.jpg" title="Practical" width="550" /></a> | |
| |
| <div style="text-align: center;"><b>Conclusion</b></div> | |
| It can be seen that neuroscience is in its infancy and that this nascent component of research has important ramifications for the educational community. First of all, the research changes drastically over time and what was accepted in one decade is debunked in another. Nevertheless, these changes seem to have some type of cyclical component that forces all educators to make a choice and to resolve the paradox between theory and practice. Lastly, the math educator should consider two practices per year that are consistent with the theory they have chosen to institute in the classroom. This study has chosen to side with dual language theory and its application to the math classroom in the form of story books and direct instruction, and bases its choice on the latest brain research that seems to support it, understanding that this choice is made in light of the above mentioned paradox. | |
| |
| <div style="text-align: center;"><b>References</b></div> | |
| • Cummins, J. et al (2005). Affirmining Identity in Multilingual Classrooms. Retrieved from: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/biblio/affirming-identity-multilingual-classrooms | |
| • Cutshall, S. (2004). Why we need the “Year of Languages”. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec04/vol62/num04/Why-We-Need-“The-Year-of-Languages”.aspx | |
| • Dicker, S. (1996). Languages in America: A Pluralist View. Bristol: PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd. | |
| • Kovelman, I., et al (2008). Dual language use in sign-speech bimodal bilinguals: fNIRS brain-imaging evidence. Retrieved from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2749876 | |
| • Nemeth, K. (2012). Many Languages, Building Connections: Supporting Infants and Toddlers who are Dual Language Learners. Lewisville, NC: Gryphon House, Inc. | |
| • Sinatra, R. (1983). Brain Research Sheds Light on Language Learning. New York, NY: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. | |
| • Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2012). What Neuroscience Says About Personalized Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb12/vol69/num05/What-Neuroscience-Says-About-Personalized-Learning.aspx | |
| • Wu, J. (2005). A View from the Classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec04/vol62/num04/A-View-from-the-Classroom.aspx | |
