Lesson Adaptations and Accommodations: Working With Native Speakers and English Language Learners in the Same Science Classroom

Childhood Education, Spring 2004 by Rice, Diana C, Pappamihiel, N Eleni, Lake, Vickie E

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

STEPS IN ADAPTING LESSONS

Analyzing Language Demands

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

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

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