Language of Instruction and Science Education in the

0 downloads 0 Views 246KB Size Report
INTRODUCTION. Science education in Arabic speaking countries is conducted in a complex ..... processes, and noun phrases become very complex (Halliday, 1993a). The overall .... Qatar, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. While in ...
LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE ARAB REGION: TOWARD A SITUATED RESEARCH AGENDA1

Tamer G. Amin

INTRODUCTION

Science education in Arabic speaking countries is conducted in a complex multilingual environment (Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004; Suleiman, 1999), a kind of complexity which is more the norm than the exception around the world (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Cummins, 2000). The complexity in the Arab region derives in part from the diglossic nature of the Arabic language – where distinct national dialects are used for informal purposes alongside Modern Standard Arabic, the pan-Arab language of literacy – and from the widespread use of international languages such as English and French, reflecting the region’s colonial history and the growing dominance of such languages, especially English, in the domains of science and technology (Ammon, 2001). Such a context raises many questions for educational policy and practice in general and for science education in particular. Some particularly important questions include:  What language-in-education policies should be adopted?  What role should international languages play in education in the Arab region?  What role should local dialects play in the educational process?  Should science be taught in Arabic or in an international language? Or both?  If the goal is for children to ultimately learn science in an international language, what should the initial language of instruction be?  If instruction is begun in Arabic, at what point should the transition to the international language be made?  If science is taught in an international language, what special instructional support would students require?  If science is taught in Arabic, what are the implications of the diglossic nature of Arabic for how to approach instruction?

1

Amin, T. G. (2009). Language of instruction and science education in the Arab region: Toward a situated research agenda. Chapter 4 in S. BouJaoude and Z. Dagher (Eds.), The world of science education: Arab states, (pp. 61-82). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

CHAPTER 4

Discussions addressing questions such as these, especially those dealing with the role of a foreign language and local dialects in education, have a long history in the Arab region (Suleiman, 1999, 2003). Indeed, we can trace discussion of the specific issue of the language of instruction of science back to the nineteenth century (Suleiman, 2003). Discussions of the role of a foreign language have invariably revolved around the tension between the importance of the foreign language in gaining access to modern ideas and technological innovations, and the importance of the use of Arabic as a basis for, and symbol of, national and regional identities. Discussions of the role of local dialects in education and as languages of literacy have revolved around tensions between specific national and pan-Arab regional identities, and between the desire for meaningful self-expression and the need to maintain a connection with the rich pan-Arab cultural heritage. These diverse objectives have usually been discussed as if they conflict with one another. BouJaoude and Sayah (2000) have characterized the discussion of the question of whether science should be taught in Arabic or in an international language as reflecting the tension between the “realism” of acknowledging the need for access to science in an international language and the “dream” of an Arabized science education, reinforcing a thriving Arab scientific community carrying out research in Arabic. They review research on the teaching of science in native and non-native languages outside of the context of the Arab region, and conclude that most of the research supports the view that from a pedagogical point of view teaching in the native language is preferable. They resist, however, the implication that science education should be conducted in Arabic in the Arab region, urging caution in generalizing existing research results to the region and noting that there is an absence of locally conducted research that tackles this question. They emphasize that such a situation has to be remedied if the ideological polemic between “realism” and “the dream” can be overcome. In the absence of a relevant body of research, it is very important to begin to consider exactly what kind of research is needed to begin to address questions such as those listed above. Moreover, it is important to consider how to use existing research conducted elsewhere as a basis for the formulation of studies of regional relevance. However, I assume here that we can “have our cake and eat it” with regard to the Arabic-versus-an-international-language question. Bilingualism, even multilingualism, is a reality in many societies and systems of education, and a wide range of successful models exist where students learn their native language with great competence, use a foreign language as medium of instruction, and in some cases use a local dialect in the context of formal schooling (see e.g. Cenoz & Genesee, 1998). The objective here is to consider the above questions, with particular reference to science education, with the assumption that the ability to access and engage with science in both Arabic and an international language is a desired outcome of educational systems in the region. Thus, the goal of this chapter is to outline an agenda for research into issues of language in science education in the Arab region taking bilingualism as an assumed objective. To this end, the chapter is organized as follows. First, the chapter begins by summarizing research-based principles that have been proposed as a basis for guiding multilingual education policy and practice. These principles have been developed based on research conducted predominantly in Canada and the USA and with attention to the general academic achievement of students in bilingual settings. However, recognizing that such principles may not extend un-

2

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

problematically to the domain of science and the needs of learners in the Arab region in particular, two sections follow that describe the linguistic context of science teaching and learning and the multilinguistic contexts of the region. With these first three shorter sections as background, the fourth and main section of the chapter, proposes research questions that could form the starting point for a situated research agenda on language in science education in the Arab region. The research questions are organized in terms of three themes: language allocation in science teaching; teaching and learning science in an international language; and teaching science in Arabic. In each case, the proposed research questions are motivated by a discussion of existing literature conducted outside the Arab region in light of the linguistic demands of learning science and the specific linguistic situation of the region. RESEARCH-BASED PRINCIPLES FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION

The formulation of locally relevant research questions need not simply derive from a consideration of practical concerns. A large body of educational research addressing the challenges of multilingualism exists as a basis from which to launch research into local concerns. Cummins’ (1999) discussion of the relationship between research, theory and policy in bilingual education is relevant here. He argues for the important role of theory in mediating between empirical research and policy. It is empirically supported theoretical understanding that allows for specific research findings to be seen as relevant to policy beyond the specific contexts in which this research was originally conducted. Among the particularly important theoretical principles that have been proposed to guide decision-making in bilingual settings have been the threshold hypothesis, the linguistic interdependence hypothesis, and the distinction between ‘basic interpersonal communicative skills’ (BICS) and ‘cognitive/academic language proficiency’ (CALP). The threshold hypothesis was proposed as an explanation for apparently contradictory findings indicating both negative and positive cognitive and academic consequences of bilingualism (Cummins, 1976). The hypothesis resolves this contradiction by positing the existence of two distinct thresholds of competence in two languages. The lower threshold designates the minimum competence in both languages below which negative cognitive consequences are found. The higher threshold designates the level of competence in both languages above which bilinguals demonstrate cognitive advantages when compared to monolinguals. In between these two thresholds, a bilingual with one dominant language and a weak second language demonstrates neither negative nor positive cognitive effects. The threshold hypothesis has served as a basis for justifying the maintenance of children’s first language alongside the development of a second language of instruction and has even supported viewing bilingual education programs that strongly support development of two languages as “enriched” academic environments when compared to monolingual programs (Cummins, 1976, 1979a, 2000). The linguistic interdependence hypothesis posits that there is an interaction between the development of a child’s literacy skills in a first and second language (Cummins, 1979a, 2000). There are two aspects to this interaction. On the one hand, it has been found that children whose first language is well-developed

3

CHAPTER 4

(which is often the case when the child’s out of school environment is linguistically rich) are more successful at acquiring literacy in a second language. On the other, when out of school environments are not rich in first language exposure, intensive instruction in a second language has a negative effect on first language development which in turn slows down second language development. The importance of first language development for the development of the second is explained in terms of a common underlying proficiency. A rich vocabulary/conceptual base, metalinguistic knowledge that print symbols are meaningful and written language is different from speech, and skill in making sense of decontextualized language developed in one language is hypothesized to become available to another. This interdependence hypothesis helps makes sense of differential outcomes observed among majority and minority language children attending immersion schools in a second language (Cummins, 1979a). The rich linguistic exposure of majority language children to their first language seems to support their successful acquisition of the second language with no harm to their first language. In contrast, poor first language development due to impoverished exposure among minority language children delays their second language development and can lead to loss of the first language. Such findings and their interpretation in terms of the linguistic interdependence hypothesis again justify promotion of minority children’s first language in bilingual educational contexts. A third theoretical insight from the bilingual education literature is the distinction between ‘basic interpersonal communicative skills’ (BICS) and ‘cognitive/academic language proficiency’ (CALP) (Cummins, 1979b, 2000). This distinction refers to two broadly distinct varieties of language use: the first, BICS, is richly embedded in context where comprehension of language is supported by cues from the situation of use such as non-verbal gestures and feedback from the interlocutor; the second, CALP, is “disembedded” from contextual support, and is often used for purposes that are cognitively more demanding. This distinction has provided the basis for understanding why minority language children often lag behind in academic performance despite apparent linguistic fluency (see Cummins, 2000). The interpretation for such findings is that the early fluency demonstrated is often of the BICS variety, with minority language children requiring a much longer time (five-seven years is often cited in the literature) for their CALP to catch up with majority children. These considerations have justified suggestions to delay the transition of minority language children from first language to second language instruction in transitional bilingual education programs. Following Cummins’ (1999) suggestion, as research-based theoretical principles, these hypotheses constitute a very good starting point for addressing questions regarding language allocation in diverse educational settings, including the language of instruction of science in the Arab region. These principles suggest that: much of children’s education in the early years is best conducted in their native language; native language instruction should probably extend up until the end of the elementary years; if they learn a second language as a language in parallel with native language instruction in most school subjects much of what they learn may transfer to their second language competence. However, there are reasons to be cautious about the immediate application of these principles for addressing local educational concerns regarding language of instruction of science. There are reasons to expect that the generality of these principles may need to be

4

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

qualified when their application in the context of teaching science and in the multilinguistic context of education in the Arab region are considered. I describe specific linguistic features of each of these two types of contexts in the next two sections as a basis for outlining a situated agenda of research on language in science education. THE LINGUISTIC CONTEXT OF SCIENCE TEACHING AND LEARNING The relationship between language and science learning is best framed in terms of linguistically informed sociocultural theories of thinking and learning. Vygotksy’s (1978, 1986) sociocultural theory of development and learning placed language at center stage as a tool for self-reflection and regulation of thought. More recently, elaborations of his theory have extended his account by linking styles of language use and forms of literacy with modes of thought (Bruner, 1986; Cole, 1996; Gee, 1990; Scribner, 1979; Wertsch, 1991). This line of thinking reflects increasing interest in functional and social perspectives on language among developmental and learning theorists (see Budwig, Wertsch, and Uzgiris, 2000 for discussion). Linking ways of using language with different ways of thinking has made findings that language is used differently depending on context and purpose very interesting to such theorists. A number of researchers have drawn on characterizations of the specific characteristics of scientific discourse to provide an account of how students learn to think scientifically that embraces the view that thought and language are intimately intertwined (Gee, 2005; Lemke, 1990; Michaels & Sohmer, 2000; Mortimer & Wertsch, 2003; Roth, 2005; Sutton, 1992; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery and Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001; Wells, 1999). From this perspective, coming to think scientifically involves the appropriation of the ways that scientists use language. For example, scientific language differs from everyday language use in the distinctive clustering of certain linguistic features, a phenomenon captured by the label of ‘grammatical metaphor.’ Among these features we find that physical processes are reified and expressed via abstract nouns, verbs are reserved for expressing causal and logical relations between processes, and noun phrases become very complex (Halliday, 1993a). The overall effect of this phenomenon is a static construal of the otherwise dynamic flow of our experience of the physical world. In addition, we find that scientific communication consists of a variety of genres, each consisting of distinct patterns of linguistic features, arranged such that certain aspects of scientific knowledge and reasoning can be communicated efficiently (see Halliday & Martin, 1993 and Martin & Veel, 1998 for extensive illustration and discussion). The experimental report is a typical example; explanations, classification and decomposition reports are others. These are examples of some of the distinctive features involved in communicating scientific knowledge. These are what are often seen as the problematic aspects of scientific discourse that make it formal and abstract and, thereby, challenging for learners (see e.g. Gee, 2005; Halliday & Martin, 1993). There is more to scientific language, however. In addition to communicating the knowledge that is the product of their investigations, scientists also think and use language in distinctive ways when they are exploring new ideas (see Dunbar, 2002; Lynch & Woolgar, 1988; Sutton, 1992). This thought and language is interpretive,

5

CHAPTER 4

involving metaphor, analogies and used in conjunction with the exploration of internal mental images and external diagramatic representations. There have been various attempts to understand the teaching and learning of science based on an awareness of the distinct nature of scientific discourse. Most of this work has emphasized the differences between scientific language and everyday language (Gee, 2005; Lemke, 1990; Mortimer & Wertsch, 2003; Roth, 2005; Wells, 1999). For example, Gee (2005) and Wells (1999) emphasize the learning challenge posed by the differences between students’ everyday (or primary) discourses in which narratives predominate, and academic discourses such as science, with the preponderance of grammatical metaphor. Similarly, Lemke (1990) highlights these differences and describes how students need support unearthing connections between concepts implicit in scientific language that are very different from those already made by students. He argues for the importance of making these relationships explicit in teaching. This perspective has been useful in conceptualizing differential achievement among students with different backgrounds. Often the point has been made that students who are exposed to a home discourse that more closely resembles that of science are more successful in school. This sociocultural, discourse perspective has also clarified that in addition to the challenge of acquiring a new way of thinking, appropriating scientific discourse also involves the adoption of a different identity. Recognizing that learning science can also involve a transformation in identity has helped clarify why differential student achievement can be to linked to sociocultural contexts where attitudes to science and scientific ways of speaking vary significantly (Gee, 1990, 2005). In contrast, others have criticized the emphasis on the discontinuity between everyday and scientific discourses (e.g. Michaels & Sohmer, 2000; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery and Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001). These researchers point out that broadening our perspective on scientific discourse allows for recognition of the continuity between scientific and everyday discourse. In particular, they note that the need to relate linguistically formulated abstractions to everyday experience (Michaels & Sohmer, 2000) and making careful conceptual distinctions and engaging in interpretive, imaginative language use (Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery and Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001) are elements of everyday sense-making and discourse that scientists use and value. These points of contact are seen as useful entry points for instruction for they allow students to participate in scientific discourse practices in terms that are meaningful to them. In sum, from a linguistically informed sociocultural view of science learning we find both continuity and discontinuity between everyday and scientific discourse. We will see later in this chapter that this perspective on science learning has helped address challenges for teaching science in bilingual contexts but it also raises important questions that need to be answered when considering science teaching and learning in the context of the Arab region with its distinctive language situation. THE MULTILINGUISTIC CONTEXTS OF EDUCATION IN THE ARAB REGION

Like in many regions of the world, education in the Arab region occurs in complex, multilinguistic contexts (see Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004 & Suleiman, 1999 for surveys). The complexity derives historically from the increased use of

6

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

Arabic with the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula; the influence of European colonization, primarily French; and the continued presence of other languages (e.g. Armenian, Berber, Kurdish, Eastern Aramaic) spoken by various sub-groups. Also, Hebrew is spoken in Israel, and by some in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. Arabic is the dominant language in the Arab region and is considered the official language by the constitutions of all countries that are members of the Arab League. Additional official languages are French (along with Arabic) in Mauritania and Kurdish in part of Iraq. French is named as a semiofficial2 language in the constitutions of Algeria and Lebanon and while not named in the constitutions of Morocco and Tunisia, it is used in many areas of public and private life. A number of Southern Sudanese languages are used in Sudan. The Sudanese constitution allows for these languages to be treated as semiofficial languages if permission is sought from parliament. Formal foreign language instruction in schools as well as instruction of some subjects (usually science and mathematics) in public and private education through the medium of a foreign language must be added to this survey. Choice of a foreign language in educational systems in the Arab region largely reflects the specific colonial history of various countries in the region. Thus, English dominates as the foreign language taught in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Palestine, Oman, Qatar, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. While in Algeria, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia, French is the main foreign language taught. Recently, instruction in English has increased in some countries, sometimes at the expense of French. While colonial history is to a large extent the source of these patterns, Suleiman (1999) comments that the interest in English and French as foreign languages reflects a “eurocentrism” in foreign language education policy in the region. This is partly a matter of the prestige associated with these languages, but also (and this is not independent) to prepare students for a globalized work place and to effect scientific and technological progress, domains dominated by international languages such as English and French (see Ammon, 2001). The linguistic picture of the region becomes more complex when the specific nature of the Arabic language is scrutinized. Arabic is a paradigm case of what has been called diglossia by sociolinguists (Ferguson, 1959, 1991), referring to the situation in which two varieties of a language exist side by side in a community but are used in different domains of life. Arabic exemplifies this situation with the use of a “high” variety, often referred to as Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), the language of literacy, and many “low” varieties, or sub-regional colloquial dialects used for everyday, informal conversational purposes. It is important to note that MSA is no one’s mother tongue but is a form of Arabic that is learned only through formal schooling, used primarily for reading and writing, and used orally only in formal contexts such as lectures, news broadcasts etc. MSA and the dialects differ in all aspects of language - phonology, grammar, and vocabulary – and the dialects themselves vary substantially. Attempts by speakers of different dialects to Suleiman (1999) uses the designation “semi-official language” to refer to a widely used working language that also receives some constitutional support. In the case of Algeria, the post-independence constitution sanctioned the use of French for a limited time. In the case of Lebanon, the 1943 constitution named French as an official language but stated that a special law would be added to specify the allowed domains of use. However, the amendment of the constitution, revoked the status of French as an official language simply indicating that its domains of use will be specified by a law. In Suleiman’s terms, French thus became a semi-official language in Lebanon. 2

7

CHAPTER 4

communicate involve strategies such as avoiding dialect specific features or, when not adapting their speech, relying on common features of the dialects producing “semi-mutual understanding” (see Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004 for discussion). The metalinguistic categories of speakers of Arabic and attitudes to the low and high varieties reinforce the importance of discussing the language situation in the Arab region in terms of these two varieties (Ferguson, 1991). Discussions about language in the region, and indeed pan-Arab and local nationalist movements, have placed the dichotomous distinction between MSA and the dialects at their very center. In particular, discussions regarding the development of literacy, education and national development more generally have often cited the diglossic situation of Arabic, sometimes advocating a “middle language” as a solution to the pedagogical challenge presented by diglossia (see Suleiman, 1999, 2003). In addition, psycholinguistic research has begun to provide evidence for treating knowledge of MSA and any colloquial dialect as a case of bilingualism in an individual (Eviatar & Ibrahim, 2001; Ibrahim & Aharon-Peretz, 2005). On the other hand, speakers of Arabic often treat MSA as the ideal, or simply “the language,” and colloquial dialects as some corruption of it. And indeed within academic sociolinguistics it has been suggested that MSA and the dialect in some nation or sub-region are best seen as two ends of a continuum with many intermediate varieties (Badawi, 1973; Ferguson, 1991; Hary, 1996). Moreover, research on the effect of the mother tongue on the development of Arabic literacy in Morocco has revealed an advantage to speakers of Moroccan Arabic when compared to speakers of Berber (Wagner, 1993). Both the difference between MSA and Arabic dialects and the continuity between them suggest the need for explicit policies regarding language in formal education that addresses diglossia. However, despite an awareness of important aspects of this language situation and the volatile discussions regarding the roles of MSA and the dialects in Arab societies since the 19th century (Suleiman, 2003) there is a complete absence of educational strategies and policy statements addressing the issue (Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004; Suleiman, 1999). Given the focus of this chapter on language in science education in particular, I end this discussion of the linguistic contexts of education in the Arab region by noting the status of MSA as a language for scientific expression (see Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004; Suleiman, 1999). While it is important to recognize that Arabic as a language of scientific expression has a considerable history dating back to at least the eighth century (Abdel-Aziz, 2003; Crozet, 2003; Montgomery, 2000), systematic attempts in the modern era to modernize literary Arabic can be traced to the 19th century when contact with Europe revealed the need to incorporate new terms into Arabic (Stetkevych, 1970). More recently, the Arab League’s establishment of the Bureau of Arabization in Rabat in 1961 has continued to play this role. In addition, dictionaries produced by the Arabic Language Academies of Egypt, Iraq and Syria play an important role in coining new Arabic terms in science and technology. The production of technical bilingual dictionaries also contributes to this effort. Rosenhouse and Goral (2004) note, however, that the proposals from these academies are often not taken up in daily use and the multiple sources of these proposals create problems of standardization.

8

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

TOWARD A SITUATED AGENDA FOR RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE ARAB REGION

In light of the research-based principles that have emerged from the bilingual education literature, the linguistic specificities of science learning and the multilinguistic nature of the language situation in the Arab region, questions about language in science education in the region can be addressed. The goal of this section is to motivate research questions that could form the starting point for a situated research agenda on language in science education in the Arab region. Three themes are addressed in this section. First, with multiple languages, including local dialects, as possible languages of instruction issues of language allocation for science teaching in the region arise. Second, if teaching and learning science is conducted in an international language such as English or French, questions of how to provide learners in the Arab region with the necessary instructional support are also important to consider. Finally, if science is taught in Arabic, the diglossic nature of the language raises questions that are not readily answered by research conducted in different linguistic contexts. Each of these themes are addressed in turn and in each case, rather than attempt to answer questions and make recommendations, research questions are motivated by a discussion of existing literature conducted elsewhere in light of the linguistic demands of learning science and the specific linguistic situation of the Arab region. Language Allocation in the Teaching of Science Some of the pressing practical questions posed at the start of this chapter for which research-based answers are needed relate to the allocation of languages to the teaching of science in the Arab region. Should science be taught in Arabic or in an international language? Or both? If the goal is for children to ultimately learn science in an international language as well as Arabic what should the initial language of instruction be? If instruction is begun in Arabic, at what point should the transition to the international language be made? Should local dialects play a role in formal education? This sub-section addresses the extent to which existing theoretical principles emerging from the bilingual education literature can help answer these questions or at least indicate the kind of research that is needed, keeping in mind that the focus here is on the teaching of science in particular and that it is occurring in the Arab region with its linguistic specificities. The goal is the formulation of research questions that, if investigated, would make a valuable contribution to practical questions regarding the allocation of languages in science education in the region. I begin this discussion with the assumption stated at the start of the chapter that the outcome of mandatory schooling should be the ability to access and engage with scientific information through both Arabic and an international language. This assumption addresses both the widely recognized need to be able to participate in science and technology related fields that are dominated by international languages (mainly English but also French) and the importance of the use of Arabic to reinforce national and regional identity. The use of Arabic also addresses the equally pressing need that general scientific literacy of a society requires the capacity to engage in science related discussions and debates in the native language.

9

CHAPTER 4

I will consider each of the theoretical principles reviewed earlier and discuss the extent to which they help answer questions about language allocation, keeping in mind the focus on learning science in the Arab region. Consider first the BICS/CALP distinction between language use embedded in conversational contexts and decontextualized language use. Recall that the delayed development of the latter among minority children in North America supported the use of a native minority language as the main language of instruction until the later elementary years. This reasoning was applied to the general problem of lagging achievement among minority children in school subjects such as science and mathematics and so is clearly relevant to the issue of language of instruction of science addressed specifically in this chapter. There are challenges to the direct applicability of this line of reasoning to the Arab region, however, which has to do with specifics of the language situation as presented above. In the North American context, minority children’s BICS in their second language has the opportunity to develop outside of the context of formal instruction. This is not the case for the majority of children in Arabic-speaking countries. This implies that the challenge to instruction in a second language is likely to be even greater, suggesting an even greater need for initial instruction in students’ native language for a more extended period of time. That said, Arabic diglossia raises the question as to what is to be treated as the native language through which initial instruction in school subjects is to be conducted. There is no simple answer. On the one hand, it is in the colloquial dialect that children’s rich meaning-making resources reside. On the other, literacy is not developed through the dialects but through MSA, and thus CALP is developed through a language that in important senses is not children’s native language. A number of empirical questions emerge from these considerations. First, how long does it take students learning a second language, when this is not the language of the community at large, to develop the necessary competence in CALP that would enable them to use it as medium of instruction of science and what challenges do they face? Second, given the diglossic nature of Arabic, how long does it take Arabic speaking children to develop CALP in Arabic and how does diglossia impact the development of CALP in Arabic? Answers to these questions are required to understand whether it is indeed an advantage for students to receive most of their initial instruction in Arabic, as a direct application of the reasoning from the bilingual education literature would imply. Next consider the linguistic interdependence hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that a rich vocabulary/conceptual base, metalinguistic knowledge that print symbols are meaningful and written language is different from speech, and skill in making sense of decontextualized language developed when learned in one language transfers to a second language. As mentioned above, this hypothesis justified development of these skills in the first language without the fear that this will delay development of literacy in the second language once instruction in this language begins. Situating a consideration of this issue in relation to the Arabic speaking countries and to science, in particular, raises various questions. First, does the linguistic interdependence hypothesis extend to languages that differ in their orthography as is the case with Arabic, on the one hand, and English or French on the other? Evidence from the influence of first literacy in Arabic on the learning of French in Morocco indicates that it does (Wagner, 1993). However, important

10

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

aspects of negative transfer do need to be considered (Palmer, El-Ashry, Leclere & Chang, 2007). Much research is certainly needed in this area, however. Second, if we assume (as stated above) that students must graduate from mandatory schooling with the capacity to access and engage with science in both Arabic and an international language, addressing the question of the language of instruction requires some understanding of the extent to which specialized subject specific language skills will transfer from one language to another. If one could assume transfer of such skills, teaching science in either language would achieve the desired bilingual competence as long as general literacy is developed strongly in the other language as well. This raises a very important theoretical question that no research to my knowledge has addressed. To what extent does the linguistic interdependence hypothesis apply to the specific registers and genres that constitute scientific discourse? It is interesting to note that Halliday (1993b) was able to show that the same cluster of linguistic characteristics associated with the phenomenon of grammatical metaphor as found in scientific English were also found in scientific Chinese. The psycholinguistic question of transfer of such skills across languages within an individual has not been explored, however. Finally, let us consider the threshold hypothesis that posits two distinct thresholds of competence in two or more languages: a minimal level in two languages beyond which there are no negative consequences of bilingualism; and the level of competence in two or more languages beyond which cognitive and academic advantages can be identified. To my knowledge, no research has examined the lower threshold in the case of instruction of Arabic-speaking children in a foreign language along with their development of Arabic literacy. This seems particularly important given the diglossic nature of Arabic and the widespread, and yet understudied concern, that this impacts the development of literacy (Suleiman, 1999, 2003). In addition, examining the conditions under which the upper threshold is attained and positive cognitive effects accrue, when specifically Arabic (both MSA and dialect) and an international language are involved, would support the design of enriched multilingual programs specific to the Arabic speaking region. For example, the value of ‘translanguaging’ (teaching strategies that involve use of different languages for input and output resulting in deep processing) (Baker, 2000) in developing advanced metalinguistic awareness and reinforcing diverse identities need to be explored. This would be in line with the recent proposals clustered under the heading of a “pedagogy of multiliteracies” to build on diversity - both of the variety of literacies and the personal identities with which they are associated - for a more powerful and socially transformative pedagogy (New London Group, 2000). Moreover, this line of investigation is suggested by the findings of Kearsey and Turner (1999) who demonstrated positive effects of bilingualism in multicultural schools in the UK and a British school in Europe. Bilingual students, when compared to monolingual peers, displayed an enhanced ability to understand scientific language. Existing models of allocation of languages to science instruction in the Arab region all accept, in principle, the goal of bilingualism assumed in this discussion. Common models include: teaching science in Arabic throughout the years of mandatory schooling with an international language taught as a foreign language, not as the medium of instruction of science; teaching science through the medium of an international language either from the first year of formal schooling or after an initial period of instruction in MSA Arabic (in this case, the international

11

CHAPTER 4

language is used as the medium of instruction of science and mathematics, and Arabic is used for other subjects); or as is the case with schools following an international curriculum, all subjects (including science) are taught through an international language, with Arabic taught only as an additional language. In light of the above discussion, we can note that implicit in these models are assumptions with respect to the theoretical questions raised earlier: it is assumed that subjectspecific registers and genres transfer across languages; the diglossic nature of Arabic is assumed to be irrelevant to language allocation policy; and no opportunities for an enriched bilingual pedagogy exist. Research is needed to establish whether these assumptions are warranted. Moreover, existing models elsewhere indicate that alternatives may be worth exploring (see Piketh, 2008 and Ytsma, 2001 for typologies of bilingual and trilingual education). With regard to the issue of diglossia, there is a similar language situation in the Grand Dutchy of Luxembourg where, Luxembourgish, a local dialect that is considered a form of low German coexists alongside German the main language of literacy and French, a second language of literacy (Newton, 1987). The common language-in-education model in Luxembourg involves use of the dialect as a medium of instruction in pre-school and early elementary teaching, with German beginning to be taught as a language intensively in the first year of elementary school. German is taught as a language for a few years and then is increasingly used as a medium of instruction for other subjects. In secondary school (beginning age 12) French is increasingly used (Hoffman, 1998; Lebrun & Baetens Beardsmore, 1993). With regard to the issue of transfer of specialized language skills other language allocation models exist that do not assume transfer of such skills. The dominant model of language allocation used in the Arab region is by school subject. Other approaches include separation of languages in terms of time, person, location in the school etc and language mixing within lessons has been adopted, and considered particularly valuable for enriched bilingual programs for advanced students (Jacobson, 1990). In sum, in considering issues of language allocation for science teaching in the Arab region we need to develop our understanding in a number of areas. We need to develop an understanding of the time it takes students to develop CALP in a foreign language and in Arabic, in this particular linguistic context. It is important to understand how the fact that the foreign language is not the language of the community and that students’ native language is a local dialect impact the development of CALP in the languages of instruction. Answering these questions provides a basis for more informed positions with regard to the roles of a foreign international language, MSA and the local dialect in instruction in the early years. In addition, given the assumed goal of bilingual competence in science, understanding the extent to which science specific features of language use transfer between Arabic and a foreign language helps clarify the extent to which science instruction can be carried out in one of students’ two languages of literacy. Moreover, the multilinguistic context of education in the Arab region, including diglossia, suggests the need to clarify the conditions for achievement of the threshold of dual language competence beyond which there are no negative cognitive consequences. More ambitiously, conditions of positive effects of multilingualism need to be understood for the design of more enriched science teaching environments. However, once language allocation decisions have been made about teaching science in either a foreign international language or Arabic,

12

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

further questions regarding how to support learning in either of the two languages remain. The next two sub-sections address these themes. Teaching and Learning Science in a Foreign International Language Many students around the world find themselves having to learn a variety of subjects in an international language such as English and French when it is not their native language. This can be either due to immigration or due to the dominance of such languages around the world. As noted earlier in the discussion of the bilingual education literature, non-native speakers often lag behind native speakers in achievement, a lag often attributed to delay in the development of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). Research in science education dealing with students learning science through the medium of a second language has produced a more specific understanding of this achievement gap and ways to address it. Reviews of this research in science education have been conducted spanning a wide range of areas including curriculum, learning, teaching and assessment (see Lee, 2005; Rollnick, 2000). I focus here on learning and teaching in particular. Achievement of non-native speakers of the language of instruction in the case of science in particular has been evaluated in a number of studies documenting a variety of learning challenges faced by such students. For example, proficiency in language of instruction has been shown to be related to content knowledge (Torres & Zeidler, 2002); students whose home language was other than the language of instruction deomstrated less proficiency in expressing ideas (Curtis & Millar, 1988); also difficulties in applying acquired scientific knowledge to everyday life have been documented when students are taught in English, when it is not their native language (Bunyi, 1999). (See Lee, 2005 and Rollnick, 2000 for a discussion of other examples, especially the latter for a focus on the challenges of reading and writing in a second language). In this section, however, I focus the discussion more specifically on research programs that have collectively begun to provide a coherent theoretical understanding of the learning challenge and how it can be met through instruction. This work has drawn on analyses of diversity in styles of communicative interactions and the similarities and differences between everyday and scientific discourse to understand learning and teaching science. The theoretical depth of this work provides a solid basis upon which to formulate empirical investigations that would provide valuable knowledge of great relevance to the design of science education in the Arab region. The program of research conducted by Fradd, Lee and colleagues under the title of Science for All focuses on supporting the language needs of English language learners as they learn science based on an awareness of the culturally specific interaction patterns that could hinder science learning (Fradd, Lee, Sutman & Saxton, 2001; Lee & Avalos, 2002; Lee & Fradd, 1996, 1998). Their work grounds science learning and teaching in scientific inquiry (Fradd, Lee, Sutman & Saxton, 2001). Hands-on inquiry in which multiple representational media are utilized (e.g. drawings, graphs, tables, charts) is viewed as reducing the linguistic demands on students while participating in science learning activities. Moreover, students are provided with varying degrees of scaffolding during different components of the inquiry process such as questioning, planning, implementing, concluding, and reporting. In addition, the researchers recognize that all aspects of the inquiry

13

CHAPTER 4

process require language skills, thus inquiry is taken as an opportunity to incorporate explicit development of a variety of science-related literacy skills. These researchers expand their scope to a consideration of the cultural diversity existing among the broad category of English language learners (Lee & Fradd, 1996, 1998). Having documented distinct interactional patterns among teacherstudent dyads with different cultural backgrounds they claimed that “cultural congruence” between teacher and student provides a more productive context for learning. However, they illustrate how distinct interactional patterns are congruent to varying degrees with the discourse of science. They coin the phrase “instructional congruence” to refer to the case where cultural patterns of interaction are congruent with the discourse of an academic discipline like science, noting that when this congruence is absent, explicit reference to this is a useful pedagogical strategy. A program of research that shares the emphasis on grounding English language learners’ learning of science in inquiry with sensitivity to issues of linguistic and cultural diversity is work on the Chèche Konnen Project conducted by Ballenger, Roseberry, Warren and colleagues (Ballenger, 1997, 2000; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery and Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001; Warren, Rosebery and Conant, 1994). In this work, it is suggested that students’ learning of science in English which is not their native language, involves becoming bilingual in two senses (Ballenger, 2000): they are learning a second language, English, along with their native language (Haitian Creole or Spanish); and they are learning to talk the language of science which is quite different from everyday language. So like the Science for All project, it is recognized that students require support in learning English and the language of science. The Chèche Konnen Project differs, however, in how broadly the language of science is conceived. Alongside the abstract, formal, precise language use reflected in the registers and genres through which scientific knowledge is communicated, it is recognized that scientists also engage in exploratory, interpretive, figurative language use while engaging in the process of knowledge construction. The latter provides the basis for recognizing a degree of continuity between the language of science and everyday language use. In turn this provides an entry point for instruction. Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery and Hudicourt-Barnes (2001) present two case-studies illustrating this continuity by demonstrating (1) how a sixth-grade Haitian student uses the resources of Haitian Creole to make subtle conceptual distinctions as he explores the notions of change and development in the context of learning about metamorphosis; and (2) how a fifth grade Latino student engages in hypothetical imaginings and uses them as a basis for a careful evaluation of a knowledge claim about the preference of ants for darkness. Warren et al. view these cases as illustrations of how everyday thinking and talk contain resources for scientific thinking and language use. The importance of recognizing these resources is seen through the theoretical lens of sociocultural learning theory informed by expanded views of language use and literacy embedded in value-laden discourses (Bakhtin, 1981; Gee, 1990; Wertsch, 1991). The main challenge of learning from this perspective is how the appropriation of a new discourse, that includes an integrated cluster of novel intentions, beliefs, values and patterns of language use, is possible. The key according to Warren, Rosebery and Conant (1994) is to embed learning in authentic scientific practices, which, as noted, overlap with everyday sense-making and language use, and thus provides students

14

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

with the opportunity to draw on existing resources of sense-making as they appropriate scientific discourse. It is important to emphasize here that this approach to teaching science requires that students be given the opportunity to use their native language. So although the ultimate objective is for students to develop the ability to participate in scientific discourse in English, use of the native language is seen as necessary so that students can draw on their rich sense-making resources. In such bilingual settings the complexities that arise due to switching between languages are considerable. The documented research on the Chèche Konnen Project has not addressed this issue. A small body of research has considered this issue of code-switching in relation to the learning and teaching science. Setati, Adler, Reed and Bapoo (2002) have integrated their consideration of code-switching within a broader perspective on the appropriation of scientific discourse in English. The authors recognize the importance of a learning trajectory beginning with use of everyday sense-making in the vernacular to the use of scientific discourse in English. Code-switching was seen as a valuable learning and teaching tool mid-way along this trajectory. However, use of the vernacular was often resisted by teachers concerned about the need to develop students’ English language skills. Other work has documented a variety of uses of code-switching as support for learners making the transition to learning science in English after teaching was conducted for a number of years in the vernacular (Martin, 1999). Code-switching is a complex phenomenon, sometimes occurring explicitly for reasons of improving communication but often implicitly indexing the status of interlocutors and the knowledge being communicated (see Adendorff, 1993, 1996; Rollnick and Rutherford, 1996). The three areas of research just mentioned provide a number of lessons for the teaching of science in a foreign language in the Arab region. First, embedding science teaching in inquiry that attempts to reduce demands on language use is seen as a useful instructional entry point. Second, the language support provided for the student learning science through a non-native language is more specific than support for the generic CALP discussed in the bilingual education literature (see Gibbons, 1998 for an example of this generic approach), specifying support for particular language skills pertaining to different aspects of scientific inquiry. Third, science learners from diverse linguistic/cultural backgrounds bring to the context of learning communicative interactional patterns that vary in the extent to which they are congruent with ways of thinking and talking in science. These need to be explicitly addressed in instruction. Finally, much research recognizes the value of using the vernacular which allows students to draw on useful sensemaking resources. This can be in large portions of instructional time or through free and strategic code-switching. In all these cases, it is likely that particularities will arise when strategies are applied in classrooms in the Arab region. Indeed, it is expected that there would be a vast heterogeneity within this region that may impact the effectiveness of these instructional strategies that attempt to support the learning of science through a foreign language. So investigation of the application of these strategies in local contexts seems warranted. However, it is particularly important to highlight the last two strategies listed in particular for it is here that diversity is built into the framework of understanding that grounds the strategies. That is, the following questions arise: what are the interactional patterns typical of children and their teachers in this region and how do these support, or hinder, appropriating scientific

15

CHAPTER 4

discourse? What aspects of everyday sense-making can be seen as useful resources that can support initial participation in scientific discourse? These questions clearly indicate that the challenge of learning science through a foreign language overlaps with the challenge of learning science in the native language. The latter issue is taken up more directly and systematically in the next section. Teaching Science in Arabic It is often assumed that learning science in the native language is easier for students than using a foreign language. Indeed constructivist learning principles seem to immediately suggest that this would be the case and a number of studies have demonstrated empirically the benefits of native versus foreign language instruction in science (see Rollnick, 2000 for review). Moreover, an often quoted passage from a UNSECO (1953) report stated that preference for the native language as the language of instruction is “axiomatic.” However, the case of Arabic introduces potential complications to this assumption. The diglossic nature of Arabic where the language of literacy is no one’s native language and the wide spread use of a foreign language in some communities (especially French) means that this assumption may not hold without qualification (see Fasold, 1992 for discussion of various factors that lead to questioning this assumption in some contexts). This is a moot point in the context of this chapter, however. It was stated at the start of this chapter that it will be assumed that students should be expected to engage in scientific thinking and communication through the medium of Arabic as well as an international language. Thus, the rest of this section assumes this objective and explores the questions that need to be considered with regard to the teaching and learning of science in Arabic. First, it is important to recall that the Arabic language has had a long history of use as a language of scientific expression with recent systematic efforts at modernization (Abdel-Aziz, 2003; Crozet, 2003; Montgomery, 2000; Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004; Stetkevych, 1970; Suleiman, 1999). So, although some issues of standardization of terminology need addressing, current MSA is a modern language, a resource capable of supporting the needs of scientific communication. Indeed the use of Arabic as a medium of instruction of science in many countries in the region indicates the feasibility of teaching science in Arabic at all levels of education (Suleiman, 1999). What are not well understood, due to the absence of research, are the challenges of teaching and learning science in Arabic. A useful starting point to begin to conceptualize a research agenda is the existing theorizing and empirical research that has conceptualized science learning in terms of the appropriation of a specialized discourse reviewed earlier. This work is particularly relevant for it shows how learning an academic subject relates to the use of language in general and so allows for language specific research questions to be formulated. As we saw, an academic discipline such as science can be viewed as a specialized form of discourse and learning science as appropriation of that discourse (or discourses). This process of appropriation can be hindered or assisted depending on the primary discourses students bring with them to contexts of formal instruction. Linguistically informed research on the effect of students’ primary discourses on appropriation of scientific discourse during formal schooling is a very useful starting point for investigating the challenges of learning and

16

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

teaching science in Arabic (Gee, 2005; Lemke, 1990; Michaels & Sohmer, 2000; Mortimer & Wertsch, 2003; Roth, 2005; Sutton, 1992; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery and Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001; Wells, 1999). Questions analogous to those that have been studied elsewhere are relevant: What are features of students’ primary discourses in the Arab region? To what extent does diversity exist in these primary discourses? How do these resemble or differ from scientific discourse? Are some students more prepared than others for learning science given the nature of the primary discourses they have available as meaning-making resources? What issues of identity transformation arise with the appropriation of a scientific discourse during formal schooling? As we saw, these questions guided research from the linguistically informed sociocultural approach to science teaching learning outlined in an earlier section. The nature of these questions reveals that the empirical findings identified elsewhere cannot be assumed to apply to the Arab region. They are inherently specific to the particular sociolinguistic environments in which formal instruction is being investigated. For example, in light of the discussion of the linguistic context of Arab education summarized above, it is clear that certain regional specificities exist and their relevance to science teaching and learning need to be investigated. These specificities relate to the diglossic nature of Arabic. First, formal instruction in science will take place in MSA and students’ home discourses are embedded within a local dialect. This immediately suggests the need to understand how this impacts the process of appropriating scientific discourse. While English speaking students struggle with the appropriation of scientific registers and genres, it might be expected that the transition from use of an informal dialect to the use of MSA may constitute an added burden. Issues of diversity in students’ background are likely to loom large in this regard as well. As mentioned earlier, it has been suggested that a dichotomous representation of the situation of Arabic in terms of a high and low variety may be an oversimplification (Badawi, 1973; Ferguson, 1991; Hary, 1996). There have been various suggestions that intermediate varieties need to be recognized. Indeed it has been suggested that an intermediate form that might be termed Educated Spoken Arabic better captures the nature of a local dialect as spoken by those who have received considerable formal schooling in MSA (see Haeri, 2000 for discussion). Second, issues of value and identity are expected to be relevant as well. Research in the North American context has shown that students whose primary discourses are less valued in the context of primary schooling not only lag behind mainstream students but their appropriation of the valued school discourse constitutes a process of identity transformation that may indeed be part of the explanation of the identified lag in achievement (Gee, 1990). That such a transformation is required makes learning more challenging, and indeed, it may lead to resisting learning. Again, similar issues are likely to arise in the Arab region, however, its particular language situation adds additional complexities. The regional attitudes to MSA and the local dialects mean that issues of value and identity will be very important when learning in the diglossic context of the Arab region. Arabic speakers are starkly aware of even the slightest switch between the language varieties, immediately marking a situation as formal or informal. Indeed the use of MSA immediately implies that the speaker chooses to adopt a formal (one might say distant) stance with respect to an interlocutor. How such issues

17

CHAPTER 4

impact the processes of teaching and learning of science (and indeed any subject) in Arabic needs to be closely examined with detailed classroom research. The issues just raised all reflect the importance of research that would look closely at the characteristics of everyday and school discourse. Such research will require theoretical framing in terms of sociocultural learning theory that is informed by sociolinguistic concepts – framing that has already begun to guide a large body of research in North America and elsewhere. In addition, this will require the adoption of qualitative methods that look closely at the dynamics of communicative interactions both inside and outside the classroom. Unfortunately, very little research of this kind has been conducted. Indeed Haeri (2000) has recently pointed out that essentially no linguistic ethnographies have been carried out with Arabic speakers. Such research will be necessary if we are to improve our understanding of how the nature of the Arabic language and its use interacts with pedagogy in the Arab region. CONCLUSION

Despite a complex multilinguistic environment, science education is carried out in the Arab region in the absence of research-based policies and recommended practices. This chapter has made an initial attempt to motivate empirical investigations that, if carried out, would begin to inform policy and guide teaching practice. The goal was to motivate these investigations by discussing relevant empirical studies in light of research-based theoretical principles emerging from research conducted elsewhere and the nature of the multilinguistic contexts of the Arab region. It is hoped that this discussion will motivate researchers interested in the region to carry out such investigations for it is only when a substantial body of literature accumulates that the problem of the language of instruction in science education in the region can be productively tackled. Following Cummins (1999), it is important to point out that the results of empirical investigations will only be useful to inform practice beyond the particular contexts in which the studies are carried out if they are first guided by theoretical concerns and theory is central to the interpretation of the body of empirical findings that emerge. For this reason, the discussion in this chapter was framed as an attempt to evaluate the generalizability of research-based theoretical principles emerging from the bilingual educational literature. Moreover, the reviews of literature conducted emphasized research programs the outcomes of which are theoretical frameworks of understanding with broad significance. It is a frustrating state of affairs when despite a massive body of literature accumulating in some area of investigation no theoretical framework of understanding can be said to have been constructed. Given the diglossic nature of Arabic and the increasing use of a foreign international language in science education in the Arab region, the absence of an organized knowledge base to inform decisions regarding language in science education in the region will mean that quality science education will remain illusive. With this at stake, a sustained effort at producing a coherent, theoretical and empirically-based understanding of the relevant learning principles is urgently needed.

18

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

REFERENCES Abdel-Aziz, M. H. (2003). Scientific language during the Abbasid period. Al-Logha, 4, 9-28. [In Arabic] Adendorff, R. D. (1993). Code switching amongst Zulu-speaking teachers and their pupils: its functions and implications for teacher education. Language and Education, 7(3), 141-162. Adendorff, R. D. (1996). The functions of code switching amongst high school teachers and students in KwaZulu and implications for teacher education. In K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: qualitative research in second language education, (pp. 388-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ammon, U. (2001). The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Badawi, E. (1973). Levels of contemporary Arabic in Egypt (Mustawayāt al-carabiyya al-mucasira fī Misr). Cairo: Dar al-Maarif. [In Arabic] Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals: An introduction for professionals. Clevedon: Mutlilingual Matters Ltd Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas. Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, scientific argumentation: Science talk in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11(1), 1-4. Ballenger, C. (2000). Bilingual in two senses. In Z. F. Beykont (Ed.), Lifting every voice: Pedagogy and politics of bilingualism (pp. 95-112). Harvard Educational Publishing Group. BouJaoude, S. & Sayah, F. (2000). Teaching science in Arabic: Attitudes and solutions. In K. Shaaban (Ed.), Language and education, (pp. 145-169). Beirut: Lebanese Association for Educational Studies. [In Arabic] Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Budwig, N., Wertsch, J. V., & Uzgiris, I. Č. (2000). Introduction: Communication, meaning and development: Interdisciplinary perspectives. In N. Budwig, I. Č. Uzgiris, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Communication: An arena of development: Vol. 19. Advances in applied developmental psychology (pp. 1-14). Stamford, CT: Ablex. Bunyi, G. (1999) Rethinking the place of African indigenous languages in African education. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 337-350. Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon: Multlingual Matters. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cope, B & Kalantzis, M. (2000), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge. Crozet, P. (2003) The Arabic language a scientific language: A historical summary to the nineteenth century. Al-Logha, 4, 29-45 [In French, with Arabic translation] Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and an explanatory hypothesis. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 1-43. Cummins, J. (1979a). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251. Cummins, J. (1979b). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-29. Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does theory have a place? Educational Researcher, 28(7), 26-32. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Curtis, S. & Millar, R. (1988). Language and conceptual understanding in science: A comparison of English and Asian language speaking children. Research in Science and Technological Education, 6(1), 61-77. Dunbar, K. N. (2002). Understanding the role of cognition in science: The Science as Category framework. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich and M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science, (pp. 154170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Eviatar, Z. & Ibrahim, R. (2001). Bilingual is as bilingual does: Metalinguistic abilities of Arabicspeaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(4), 451-471. Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-40. Ferguson, C. A. (1991). Epilogue: Diglossia revisited. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10(1), 241-34. Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X. & Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science literacy with English language learners through instructional materials development: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 417-439.

19

CHAPTER 4

Frasold, R. (1992). Vernacular-language education reconsidered. In K. Bolton & H. Kwok (Eds.), Sociolinguistics today: International perspectives, (pp. 281-299). London: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies. New York: Falmer Press. Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of schoolbased literacy. In R. K. Yerrick and W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning, (pp. 19-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gibbons, P. (1998). Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language. Language & Education, 12(2), 99-118. Haeri, N. (2000). Form and ideology: Arabic sociolinguistics and beyond. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 61-87. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993a). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday and J. Martin. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh Press. Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J. (1993).Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hary, B. (1996). The importance of the language continuum in Arabic multiglossia. In A. Elgibali (Ed.), Understanding Arabic: Essays in contemporary Arabic linguistics in honor of El-Said Badawi, (pp. 69-90) Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Hoffman, C. (1998). Luxembourg and the European schools. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon: Multlingual Matters. Ibrahim, R. & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2005). Is literary Arabic a second language for native Arab speakers? Evidence from semantic priming study. Journal of Psycholinguilstic Research, 34(1), 51-70. Jacobson, R. (1990). Allocating two languages as a key feature of bilingual methodology. In R. Jacobson & C. Faltis (Eds.), Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling, (pp. 3-17). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kearsey, J. & Turner, S. (1999). The value of bilingualism in pupils’ understanding of scientific language. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1037-1050. Lebrun, N. & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1993). Trilingual education in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In H. Baetens Beardsmore (Ed.), European models of bilingual education, (pp. 10120). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530. Lee, O. & Avalos, M. A. (2002). Promoting science instruction and assessment for English language learners. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(2) Lee, O. & Fradd, S. H. (1996). Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers: Insight for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Education, 8, 269-297. Lee, O. & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Lynch, M. & Woolgar, S. (1988). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Martin, P. (1999). Close encounters of a bilingual kind: interactional practices in the primary classroom in Brunei. International Journal of Educational Development, 19, 127-140. Martin, J. R. & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London, UK: Routledge. Michaels, S. & Sohmer, R. (2000). Narratives and inscriptions: Cultural tools, power and powerful sense-making. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge. Montgomery, S. L. (2000). Science in translation: Movements of knowledge through cultures and time. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Mortimer, E. F. & Wertsch, J. V. (2003). The architecture and dynamics of intersubjectivity in science classrooms. Mind, Culture and Activity, 10(3), 230 – 244. New London Group (2000). A pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-37). London, UK: Routledge. Newton, G. (1987). The German language in Luxembourg. In C. Russ & C. Volkmar (Eds.), Sprache und Gesellschaft in Deutschsprachigen Ländern, (pp. 153-79) Palmer, B. C., El-Ashry, F., Leclere, J. T. & Chang, S. (2007). Learning from Abdallah: A case study of an Arabic-speaking child in a U.S. school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 8-17. Piketh, A. (2008). Classifying bilingual education. International Schools Journal, 27(2), 54-68. Rollnick, M. (2000). Current issues and perspectives on second language learning of science. Studies in Science Education, 35, 93-122.

20

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

Rollnick, M. & Rutherford, M. (1996). The use of the mother tongue and English in the learning and expression of scientific concepts: A classroom based study. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (1), 91-104. Rosenhouse, J. & Goral, M. (2004). Bilingualism in the Middle East and North Africa: A focus on the Arabic-speaking world. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism, (pp. 835-868). London, UK: Blackwell. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Telling in purposeful activity and the emergence of scientific language. In R. K. Yerrick & W.-M.Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Scribner, S. (1979). Modes of thinking and ways of speaking: culture and logic reconsidered. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Advances in discourse processes: Vol 2. New directions in discourse processing (pp. 223-44). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y. & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switching and other language practices in mathematics, science and English language classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education, 16(2), 128-150. Stetkevych, J. (1970). The modern Arabic literary language: Lexical and stylistic developments. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Suleiman, Y. (1999). Language education policy: Arabic speaking countries. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics, (pp. 106-16). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/Pergamon. Suleiman, Y. (2003). The Arabic language and national identity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Sutton, C. R. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham: Open University Press. Torres, H. N. & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). The effects of English language proficiency and scientific reasoning skills on the acquisition of science content knowledge by Hispanic English language learners and native English language speaking students. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(3), Available at: http://www2.sjsu.edu/elementaryed/ejlts/ UNESCO (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education. Paris: UNESCO. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language, Ed. A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wagner, D. (1993). Literacy, culture & development: Becoming literate in Morocco. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowsky, M., Rosebery, A. S. & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552. Waren, B., Rosebery, A. S. & Conant, F. (1994). Discourse and social practice: Learning science in language minority classrooms. In D. Spener (Ed.) Adult biliteracy in the United States, (pp. 191210). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ytsma, J. (2001). Towards a typology of trilingual primary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(1), 11-22.

21