Multilingual Approach to Mathematics Education
Multilingual approach to pedagogical practices in mathematics has the potential to target high level mathematical competence and abstraction. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an innovative educational approach to learning, a dynamic and motivating force with holistic features. Not only does it image a shift towards curricular and cultural integration but also helps greatly to focus on deeper conceptual understanding in Mathematics. CLIL’s basic principle of integration of the content and languages if accepted in a broader sense as ‘Content connected to regional language and a new language, culture, nature, real-life’ might solve various problems associated with the teaching-learning of mathematics, and thus ensures to support ‘learning for real life’. This paper establishes the need for ‘Multilingualism’ through a comprehensive literature research. It highlights multilingualism as a trigger for active approach to the quality of Mathematics education, mainly in Indian scenario. The importance of teaching mathematics as a language and specific strategies for teaching mathematics vocabulary are discussed. The illustrations provided for such approaches are entirely based on author’s teaching experiences.
Shailaja Bairy, Madhava Kripa School, Manipal, Karnataka-576104, India; Department of European Studies, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka-576104, India
Adler, J. (1996). Secondary School Teacher’s’ Knowledge of the Dynamics of Teaching and Learning Mathematics in Multilingual Classrooms. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand.
Adler, J. (1998). A Language of Teaching Dilemmas: Unlocking the Complex Multilingual Secondary Mathematics Classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 24-33.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Hornberger, Nancy, H., & Baker, C. (Eds), 3rd edition. Retrieved from http://www.multilingual-matters.com
Benson, C. (2004). The Importance of mother tongue based schooling for educational quality. Columbia University. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146632
Benson, C. (2016). Addressing language of instruction issues in education: Recommendations for documenting progress. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245575
Brantlinger, A. (2014). Critical mathematics discourse in a high school classroom: Examining patterns of student engagement and resistance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9506-2
Brune, I.H. (1953). Language in Mathematics, In: The Learning of Mathematics: Its Theory and Practice. Washington, NTCM.
Chandler-Olcott, K., Doerr, H.M., Hinchman, K.A., & Masingila, J.O. (2015). Bypass, Augment, or Integrate: How Secondary Mathematics Teachers Address the Literacy Demands of Standards-Based Curriculum Materials. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(4) 439– 472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16632040
Cooke, B.D., & Buchholz, D. (2005). Mathematical Communication in the Classroom: A Teacher Makes a Difference. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 365-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0007-5
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249-278. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v19i2.249-277
De Craen, P.V., Surmont, J., Knell, G., Stroughmayer, M., & Struys, E. (2017). CLIL, languages of schooling and the role of implicit learning with special reference to the learning of mathematics. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0027
DiCerbo, P.A., Anstrom, K.A., Baker, L.L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A Review of the Literature on Teaching Academic English to English Language Learners. Review of educational research, 84(3), 446-482. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314532695
Gardella, F.J., & Tong, V. (2002). Linguistic considerations in the acquisition and teaching of mathematics. Word, 53(2), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2002.11432527
Glasersfeld, E.V. (1995). A constructivist approaches to teaching. In: Steffe L.P. & Gale J (eds). Constructivism in education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale: 3–15. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/172
Hejny, M. (2012). Exploring the Cognitive Dimension of Teaching Mathematics through Scheme-oriented Approach to Education. Orbis Scholae, 6(2), 41−55. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.39
Henry, D.L., Nistor, N., & Baltes, B. (2014). Examining the Relationship Between Math Scores and English Language Proficiency. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 4(1), 11–29.
Hofmannova, M., Novotna, J. & Moschkovich, J., (2004). Working with theories from outside mathematics education. In: 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. 229-235.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development-A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.
Lee, C. (2006). Language for Learning Mathematics–Assessment for Learning in practice, Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education (England).
Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)-A Development Trajectory. University of Córdoba. Retrieved from www.uco.es/publicaciones
Marsh, D., & Martín, M.J.F. (2012). Introduction: Content and Language Integrated Learning. University of Jyvaskyla, Finland, & Valencian International University, Spain.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL Counterweights: Recognizing and Decreasing Disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 93-119.
Ministry of Human Resource Development (2019). National Education Policy, (479 pages). Retrieved from https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf
Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What We Educators Get Wrong About 21st-Century Learning: Results of a Survey. Journal of Digital learning in Teacher education, 33(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242392
Moe, E. (2017). The language of schooling: A challenge to subject learning. Bergen language and Linguistics Studies, 7, 234–259. https://doi.org/10.15845/bells.v7i0
Molina, C., & Wackwitz, J. (2012). The Problem with Math Is English: A Language- Focused Approach to Helping All Students Develop a Deeper Understanding of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/ms108.html.
Molina, C.“Como”, (2014). Teaching Mathematics Conceptually. SEDL Insights, 1(4), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/insights/1-4/teaching_mathematics_conceptually.pdf.
Moschkovich, J. (2005). Using Two Languages When Learning Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9005-1
Nacamulli, M. (2017). The benefits of a bilingual brain. TED Talk. Dec 11, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/mia_nacamulli_the_benefits_of_a_bilingual_brain?language=en
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2018). English Learners in STEM Subjects: Transforming Classrooms, Schools, and Lives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25182
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (2013). What Does Research Say the Benefits of Discussion in mathematics Class Are?, 1-6.
Novotna, J. & Hofmannova, M. (2002). CLIL and mathematics education. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228491266_CLIL_and_mathematics_education
Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and Curriculum Design: Toward a Synergic Vision. Tesol Quarterly, 47(3), 600-614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110
Piccardo, E. (2017). Plurilingualism as a Catalyst for Creativity in Super diverse Societies: A Systemic Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02169
Pimm, D., & Keynes, Milton. (1994). Mathematics classroom language: Form, Function and Force. In: Didactics of Mathematics as a scientific discipline.
Riccomini, P.J., Smith, G.W., Hughes, E.M., & Fries, K.M. (2015). The Language of Mathematics: The Importance of Teaching and Learning Mathematical Vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995
Sarama, J., Lange, A.A., Clements, D.H., & Wolfe, C.B. (2011). The impacts of an early mathematics curriculum on oral language and literacy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2012), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.002
Setati, M. (1998). Code-switching in a Senior Primary Class of Second-language Mathematics Learners. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 34-40.
Star, J.R., & Stylianides, G.J. (2012). Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge: Exploring the Gap Between Knowledge Type and Knowledge Quality. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 13(2), 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.784828
The National Research Council of the national academies (2012). Education for life and work – Guide for Practitioners. (pp.18-21). Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/resource/13398/dbasse_084153.pdf
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cole, M., Steiner, V.J., Scribner, S., Souberman, E. (Eds). Harvard University Press
Wade-Leeuwen, B., & Vovers, J., & Silk, M. (2018). Education: Explainer: What’s the difference between STEM and STEAM. npj Science of Learning Community. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/explainer-whats-the-difference-between-stemand-steam-95713
Weiler, N. (2016). Crosstalk between left and right brain is the key to language development. The official journal of the university of California, San Francisco. (2016 issue). Retrieved from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-05-crosstalk-left-brain-key-language.html
Zazkis, R. (2000). Using Code-Switching as a Tool for Learning Mathematical Language, For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(3), 38-43.