Reading through the article by Moschkovich, i feel that there has been a connection made to the term "deficiency" , "of vocablary" and "multiple meanings". This association has a very negative conotation to it as in classifying students entirely incapable due to such gaps in their language. However, i feel we cannot ignore these gaps as they influence theire capability in communicating in a foreign language.Even though it is sad that assessment is based on students' capability of interpreting mathematical concepts in the foreign language, it is only fair to expect that students' be able to convey their understanding to their peers. This would ensure their success as citizens in the foreign country.
Therefore, i cannot completely dismiss the fact that emphasis should be given on vocabulary building and understanding of multiple meanings.
I do however, agree with the article in that too much emphasis on english vocabulary can deter students from advancing further as they would get de-motivated from constant stress. Their success should be celebrated as well, if they are capable of explaining a concept through diagrams,gestures and stories in simple language it is crucial to make account of this and motivate students further to make such associations.
Hi, Lipi,
ReplyDeleteMy take on the Moschkovich article is that she was talking about how people conceive of language. So when she talks about vocabulary, and then registers, and then discourses, she isn't saying that vocabulary isn't important. She is saying that there is much more to mathematical language than vocabulary, and just teaching students words, disconnected from how they are used in mathematical practices like reasoning, proving, being precise, making conjectures, etc, won't work.
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to share my thoughts and experiences regarding the issues of language and mathematics brought by Moschkovich. Recently I was at a professional development session for math and science teachers in my school. One of the main issues brought up was addressing communication ESL/ELL learners in math/science classrooms. Interestingly enough, when asked if they would be open to the idea of getting these students to speak their own language in order to problem solve through tasks, many teachers were opposed. These teachers voiced their oppession mainly by bringing up the argument that much of the literacy demands embedded with mathematics education require students to be able to write academically. If ESL/ELL students cannot demonstrate "proper" use of mathematic terminology in classrooms in written pieces, then is this evidence of learning?
To be honest, I wasn't quite sure what my colleagues meant by "not showing evidence of mathematics learning". As teachers, I think we may unconscious/ deliberately cause students to become "turned off" by math because we don't give many opportunities to let students discover parallels between math registers and discourse with other aspects of everyday living.