Another learning inhibitor that is part of classroom reality, and is originated in student’s background, is language deficiency.
In many parts of the state,
and the country, (including the school district where I work) deficiency in the
language is a key problem. A large group of students who are defined as English
Learners is only part of the problem. A source of a bigger crisis is a population
who communicates in English but doesn't master the language beyond its everyday
conversation’s vocabulary. The trouble is not even mastering the English
language to its deeper layers, but rather mastering any language to a level
that connects to abstract nouns and terms. This obstacle is not necessarily rooted
in immigration status, but rather in socioeconomic status.
The language deficiency has an
absolute effect on learners of literature, social studies and humanities in
general. It has no less effect on subjects like science and mathematics. If a
student had never heard terms that are used in these subjects he/she will have
hard time connecting with them. When words like ‘acceleration’ or ‘friction’,
for example – are new to a student, in English or in foreign language, he/she
will have hard time creating a mental picture of their meaning, and thus will
have difficulties understanding, assimilating and applying the concept.
A subject that all math
teachers have trouble teaching is geometry. This field requires language
connection to the terms, as well as mental ability to picture it. If ‘diameter’
or ‘perimeter’ is not already part of student’s vocabulary, he/she will have
hard time grasping the idea. Skills that are expected from middle, or even
elementary school students, are not mastered by so many high schoolers; they struggle
with basic computation, but, worse, with their concept. Terms that are meaningless
for them are memorized the same way an odd cell’s name in biology is stored; for
a short time, to be immediately forgotten after the test.
It is possible, then, that in
order to address this problem, a new theory that is now widely used, was
conceived. The new idea consists on presenting young students with advanced concept,
so that later on, at high school, concepts will be familiar and thus easy to
recall and ready to build on and expand with new knowledge.
This theory might have justly
earned its merit being well researched and well accepted by educators, but in
my experience does not serve its purpose. I feel that instead of advancing knowledge,
we limit learning by teaching the same material over and over, skipping other important
topics. I notice it when I, periodically, cover social studies classes, but I can,
for sure, testify for its harm in math classes.
In mathematics, the progress
of the curriculum is almost comic. I had my doubts before, teaching high school
students and being dismayed by their poor knowledge of arithmetic, and fractions.
But it was not until I taught middle school grades 5th 6th 7th and 8th math, that I
realized how poor the program really is. I was obligated to teach exactly the
same material, though using different, grade appropriate, books, to each of my
four different grade levels… No kitting… I didn't even have to change the
titles on the board from one grade class to another...
When students start their
“official” algebra course, they had already been exposed to algebra concepts
for years. They had seen equations and already know how to plug a value instead
of a variable. No wonder, then, that they conclude they know it all, and
listening is a waste of time… The problems start when equations get more complicated
and they need to learn new, correct, methods to deal with them. Now a strong resistance
starts to build: “but we already know it!”, “that’s not the way our teacher had
taught us”, “you are just complication things”. Not only that I waste time
defending my competence, but students’ adjustment is much harder.
Algebraic equations are only
one example. The sad fact is that while teachers at elementary and middle
schools are forced by the education planers to teach algebra concepts – they
don’t have enough time to focus on what middle school learners must know before
advancing to algebra. They don’t have time to strengthen basic arithmetic
concepts, and fractions and decimals are completely neglected. I can’t even
count the times that I had to explain the difference between 1 over 2 and 2
over 1 to algebra, geometry and even algebra 2 students.
The harm in introducing high
school material too early is twofold. Lower grade teachers don’t have time to
concentrate on basic math skills to create a sound base. But even worse - early
introduction of a concept that is beyond students’ mental readiness can be
either too confusing thus creating math-phobia, or can form bad habits that
will be hard to change later. High school teachers are juggling their limited
time between those two challenges; closing gaps and uprooting bad habits.
The solution for the language
disconnect is not to introduce complicated concepts before their time, to
students who are not yet ready, but to intensify and enforce language skills in
the lower grades, presenting the terms in their everyday usage, as well as investing
massive resources in reading comprehension; enriching vocabulary and developing
reading skills will prepare students for higher math, not premature algebra.
