Language and cognitive interference: How using complex scientific language limits cognitive performance

Abstract

Language is seen as a gatekeeper to science learning for many students. This randomized experimental study explores how learning science through complex language reduces working memory capacity. A sample of 64 students aged 14-17 years was randomly assigned to two conditions. The control group watched an instructional video about the water cycle taught using complex scientific language. The experimental group watched the same video with simple scientific language replacing the more complex alternatives. After instruction, students were asked to complete a Stroop test and a Flanker test measuring cognitive capacity. There were no significant differences across the treatment groups in students' ability to answer questions correctly. However, the results revealed statistically significant differences in the rate of students' responses to complicated items. When students needed to answer questions with increased cognitive difficulty, the experimental group (everyday language condition) answered significantly faster than the control group. These results suggest that complex scientific language is a potential inhibitor of cognitive capacity for students.

Asset‐oriented framing of science and language learning with multilingual learners

“…In addition, MLs draw on a variety of registers , ranging from everyday to specialized language. Specialized registers afford the precision necessary to communicate disciplinary meaning (Brown et al, 2019; Grapin et al, 2019). Precision “goes beyond science vocabulary” (NASEM, 2018, p. 65) and “privileges disciplinary meaning by focusing on how students use language to engage in the STEM disciplinary practices” (NASEM, 2018, pp.…”

“…While communicating ideas about science with peers and the teacher, students use multiple modalities, including both linguistic and nonlinguistic modalities (Grapin, 2019). They also use registers, ranging from everyday to specialized registers (Brown et al, 2019; Grapin et al, 2019). The research agenda could address how three‐dimensional learning provides opportunities for MLs to use multiple modalities (e.g., develop models) and specialized registers to communicate precise disciplinary meaning using less‐than‐perfect English.…”

Preservice secondary science teachers’ understanding of academic language: Moving beyond “just the vocabulary”

“…For these reasons, teachers are advised to plan for message abundancy (Gibbons, ): to provide students numerous ways to access the same content by communicating information through multiple channels (e.g., speech, gestures, visuals, and demonstrations), speaking slowly and clearly, and augmenting rather than simplifying texts. Use of word learning strategies is also encouraged, including supplying definitions, decomposing terms into constituent roots and affixes, and identifying cognates (Nutta, Strebel, Mokhtari, Mihai, & Crevecoeur‐Bryant, ); care must be taken to incorporate such strategies after students have had the opportunity to develop conceptual understandings using more familiar, everyday registers (Brown, Donovan, & Wild, ).…”

Building science through questions in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms

“…Students learning science are required to understand science concepts but also to develop an ability to actively participate in the classroom discourse (Tang, 2020). Nevertheless, understanding and using the language of science is a difficult task per se (Brown et al, 2019). In a CLIL setting, the use of the spoken format is further challenged by the use of a vehicular language and consequent difficulties have been observed to profoundly affect classroom discourse (Wu et al, 2018).…”