Essay on Building Academic Language in Content Classrooms

Academic language refers to the auditory, written, and oral proficiency in the language that is needed to learn in schools and other academic programs (Ranney, 2012). In light of the new standards, the need for students to embrace academic language in institutions has become urgent. The students are required to apply the language in the evaluation of evidence, their arguments, analysis of texts, and in their discussions. As the learners progress from primary levels to higher levels of education, their success is dependent on how they use the language in critical thinking and intellectual processes. On the other hand, teachers are required to make the learning environment conducive to build the language in their students. It is their role to use their diverse knowledge to promote academic language while delivering their content. According to Haneda (2014), they can enhance this skill by engaging the students in productive discussions and participation in class activities. However, teachers are required to use different strategies to enhance fruitful discussions in class. The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model also puts an emphasis on active class interactions between the students and the instructors for effective learning. This paper will identify the relevance of building academic language, important guiding principles, and how teachers can develop skills in learners through appropriate class interactions. Most of the information is drawn from the research studies and information given by Jeff Zwiers (2008) in his book.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Typically, students start with language foundation from childhood which represents the thoughts, values, and the culture of their respective families. As they mature and attend school, they acquire higher levels of language that include literacy and critical thinking. These variations become more complex as they learn History, Physical and Social Sciences, and Mathematics. Later on, depending on their capabilities, they pick one of the subjects which eventually become their area of study and working in future. Therefore, it is paramount that each category of the students builds an academic language. According to Cumming (2013), academic language helps the students to explain complex concepts and ideas taught in school. Since the complexity of ideas increases as they go to upper levels of education and job world, appropriate language enables them to solve various problems. Additionally, the language helps to describe cognitive skills in acquiring knowledge, comprehending, and analyzing it. Also, it is useful in developing abstract thinking in various situations. In this case, according to Zwiers (2008), whether an idea is abstract depends on ones familiarity with the concept. For instance, what a doctor may view as concrete may be abstract to a person without basic knowledge about medicine. Therefore, instructors should keep in mind that what they consider concrete may require abstraction from the students.

Features of Content Instruction Recommended by ZwiersIn his book, Zwiers (2008) outlines several features that characterize abstraction, complexity and cognitive thinking in academic language. For instance, figurative expressions such as idioms, analogies, and metaphors use concrete ideas in the description of abstraction. These techniques are commonly seen in literature works in addition to letters, everyday conversations, and speeches. Some of these metaphors appear concrete to instructors, but students require a teaching on how to use them appropriately as they need to think abstractedly. Some words in English may have concrete, abstract, and academic meanings. The student should, therefore, be mentally flexible, open, and able to connect background ideas to realize different meanings (Zwiers, 2008).

In academic language, those who receive the message are considered a distant audience and require more explanation from time to time. For this reason, students should learn how to use and understand explicit language (Zwiers, 2008). However, it becomes a little complicated if the audience is made of other students. According to findings from a study, for instance, senior students are more likely to use explicit language when communicating with an outside audience that they have not shared a class (Ranney, 2012). Therefore, students should be encouraged to practice by writing letters, recommendations to external boards, and other community members so as to understand and apply clear communication. Explicit messages in classrooms avoid the use of vague statements and enable the students to understand the intended meaning. Therefore, according to Cumming (2013), students should be taught to understand their audience whenever they write or talk to avoid being vague.

Another characteristic of content instruction recommended by Zwiers (2008) is the detachment of the writers from the message. Those who write or give academic messages do not express opinions or personal feelings but emphasize on evidence and logic (Haneda, 2014). However, it becomes hard to detach from the central message in upper elementary classes because of transition of the students from speaking and writing tasks that are personalized to more complex ideas backed by evidence and less personalization. Therefore, such messages should be accompanied by supporting evidence that includes statistics and data to back the assertions. Students should thus be taught how best to support their claims with information from most trusted sources.

Using basic verbs in academic writing or speaking, the individual modifies the meaning by attaching axillary or modal verbs (Zwiers, 2008). Examples of these verbs include would, could, can, may or must. Writers or speakers use them to convey differences in intentions, ability, possibility or probability but the learners may misinterpret them and end up getting a weaker or stronger message than intended (Schleppegrell, 2013). Some messages in academic language may also be softened by using qualifiers which enable the author or speaker to identify or agree with the message partially. Examples of these words include fairly, well, perhaps, pretty, kind of, etc. They are used to avoid cases of all or none phenomena in which the writer rules out absoluteness. Other spoken cues such as intonation may also help in emphasizing or deemphasizing certain words or messages in a sentence or a paragraph respectively (Zwiers, 2008). Other prosodic techniques include stressing syllables, loudness and pitch, and dramatic pauses. Incorrect interpretation of these cues may lead to miscommunication. Therefore, learners need to learn the application of intonation in complex sentences and use of prosodic cues in social settings to understand and convey academic language.

Guiding Principles for Building Academic Language

To foster the growth of academic language, instructors need to apply a set of principles to engage students in class interactions. Until recently, language was previously seen as a behavioral change that could be learned through stimulus and response. However, according to Ranney (2012), the brain has the capability to absorb and process language. Additionally, according to Haneda (2014), the second language is also attained by reading or hearing comprehensible pieces just like the mother tongue. However, the concepts taught in school are considered incomprehensible initially and requires the input of the instructor. I identified some guiding principles of primary importance in building academic language and competence in second language teaching as in the following paragraphs.

Instructors should use provocative or controversial statements to ignite discussion among students. According to Zwiers (2008), if the teacher makes a statement that the students disagree with, it ignites thinking and encourages them to use academic language. Supporters of controversial ideas usually stick with them as they provide concepts and facts behind their reasoning. On the other hand, the non-supporters start thinking critically, and as they question facts, they are able to research and come up with correct information (Ranney, 2012). The students can, therefore, talk like experts in their respective disciplines due to the build-up of language skills.

Teachers may also at times be required to repeat the responses given by students so as to emphasize their grammar or vocabulary (Zwiers, 2008). This technique also helps the other language learners to hear the response again and take note of its importance. The teacher may also emphasize this kind of messages by using gestures for augmentation or writing on the wall (Schleppegrell, 2013). However, Haneda (2014) indicates that instructors should be careful and fair to the students whom they repeat their phrases. Also, they should not allow students to solely depend on these repeated phrases for learning as it would make the conversation lose the meaning.

Working with students to co-shape their conversations is also essential in building academic language (Zwiers, 2008). Although it is complicated for teachers, ensuring that their conversations remain academic is important especially for non-mainstream learners who have not been exposed to academic discussions (Cumming, 2013). To achieve this principle, instructors are required to adjust their language to the level of the student but improve on the vocabulary level, syntax, and features of message organization. Haneda (2014) indicates that they should also let the students partially control the direction of the conversation by being patient and supportive. By being part of these conversations, the instructors can evaluate the thinking skills and proficiency in the language of their students.

When students give slightly wrong answers, the instructors may rephrase them to sound correct or to add some information. According to Kareva (2013, this technique enables the students to improve on their academic language and the vocabulary they use. When their words are rephrased with more advanced clauses, the statement becomes more explicit and enables modelling of the students. It starts with a positive response after which the teacher rephrases their idea in a more advanced academic language. However, this principle may leave the learners confused if their language was incorrect, answer incorrect, or both are correct. Cumming (2013) indicates that rephrases are more efficient with metacognition and requests for clarifications. Therefore, teachers should use them with extreme caution as the students may think that their contributions are invaluable.

Related to rephrases, the teacher may assist the students to paraphrase their statements to be able to condense ideas as in academic language (Zwiers, 2008). It enables them to amalgamate many ideas in a paragraph and paraphrase them in a sentence or two. According to Ranney (2012), the students can then formulate ideas for a greater audience and automatically come up with academic answers. Additionally, teachers can use specific comments that enrich classroom discussions. For instance, you are on the right track, continue... Such kind of phrases build up courage in the learners and help them to learn the academic language appropriately (Zwiers, 2008). It is even better when students use them in their own discussions and conversations.

Conduction of Meta-discussions is also another technique that teachers may use in classrooms. These are discussions in class whose focus is to find out strategies that improve learning and communication in class using academic language (Zwiers, 2008)). It helps in the creation of an environment that focuses on learning rather than making the teacher pleased (Schleppegrell, 2013). When the teacher involves the students in coming up with ways to impr...