I totally agree that this is an important question Marcel! and I suspect that the answer to your question is: a bit of both, in a gradation of combinations. And actually the knowledge of the language is important in 2 respects: first there is the ability to understand what one reads, language-wise. with a limited knowledge of the language, scientific concepts may not be well understood, which will be reflected in the scientific quality of the report. on the other hand, proficiency in the language is also important in expressing one's ideas in such a report. Sadly, in the Netherlands, I have noticed that the latter does not even depend only on the level of ability in writing in a foreign language; even the Dutch language used in the occasional (BSc) report tends to become poorer and poorer in quality, affecting the clarity of argument in some cases. As lecturer in biological topics, I try to look through these linguistic problems, but this is easier for the second language problem (expression) than for the former (understanding). at Wageningen University we have explicit scientific writing modules, which may help alleviate the problems, but I am convinced that they do play a role to some degree, despite the efforts to separate linguistic ability from scientific insight when assessing reports...

An important question. Ikave spent considerable time over the last few years advising teachers of this very problem. Firstly the criteria have to be considered. In our criteria, communication forms 1 of about 9 components so we have to be careful to not let poor language skills be a barrier to the other 8 elements. Similarly, we must ensure we aren't awed by excellent communication that contains very little true content, That being said

I once had a student who performed at a distinction level and I was never quite sure that she Understood chemistry as well as she should, Since I couldn't decide I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I advised her to consider Science journalism as a career, and surprisingly she did, In summary, check the criteria and read carefully looking for evidence of understanding.

I agree with Mark. Good writing may mask poor science to some extent, yet poor language skills can hide great understanding of science. For large undergraduate classes where individual students are not known personally by assignment markers, poor use of language by foreign students will very likely reduce the marks they get relative to native speakers, all else being equal. This is unfortunate as the learning curve is certainly steeper where a second or third language is involved. Having said that, as scientists we are increasingly criticised for poor communication skills in general. Maybe the ability to communicate successfully should be a more central component of science programs?

People may communicate efficiently in a local language, and poorly in a foreign language. The problem is that the vast majority of the science literature is in English, which imposes adequate knowledge of English when students wish to become scientists or up-dated science professors.

For students that wish to start a science career at university, I would add Scientific English as a teaching course during the university formation from the first year of the Bachelor formation. This will prepare students to better handle scientific articles during the third year of the Bachelor formation or the first/second year of the Master formation, etc....

I totally agree that this is an important question Marcel! and I suspect that the answer to your question is: a bit of both, in a gradation of combinations. And actually the knowledge of the language is important in 2 respects: first there is the ability to understand what one reads, language-wise. with a limited knowledge of the language, scientific concepts may not be well understood, which will be reflected in the scientific quality of the report. on the other hand, proficiency in the language is also important in expressing one's ideas in such a report. Sadly, in the Netherlands, I have noticed that the latter does not even depend only on the level of ability in writing in a foreign language; even the Dutch language used in the occasional (BSc) report tends to become poorer and poorer in quality, affecting the clarity of argument in some cases. As lecturer in biological topics, I try to look through these linguistic problems, but this is easier for the second language problem (expression) than for the former (understanding). at Wageningen University we have explicit scientific writing modules, which may help alleviate the problems, but I am convinced that they do play a role to some degree, despite the efforts to separate linguistic ability from scientific insight when assessing reports...

My partner taught cultural studies to a profoundly disabled person who needed assistance Communicating. She had a full time assistant whose job it was to judge her Communication intentions and help translate them by Computer. She suffered from extreme cerebral palsy and could not speak nor even control her arms enough to touch appropriate buttons on her keyboard, There has been much discussion about who actually does the communication. My partner swears that the student is actually doing the work and the carer translating, I have seen enough to agree and belieie that the student is intelligent. This is however an extreme & fascinating case of the complication of interpreting others' Communication.

Competence in the subject of course. If knowledge in the subject is not there, what is the use of just communication skills?

Both are important but competence in science is more important. If it is good, then it has be communicated well too.

There are two sides to this and I agree with Peter that the answer is: "a bit of both". The first side is focused on the students: do they understand the science and can they express it? My own feeling is that understanding is largely ascertained through language and if a student cannot express his or her ideas adequately in their first language (i.e. in ordinary, conversational registers), then there is probably a lack of understanding of the subject matter. HOWEVER... the medium of communication is crucial (e.g. second-language students obviously have unique challenges). And this is where the second side comes in.

The second side is teacher/assessor focused. What criteria is the assessor actually using to assess language-mediated understanding? In my experience, assessors often focus on spelling, punctuation and grammar and to some extent, the use of formal, academic language and jargon. There is a huge difference between being able to express understanding in ordinary language and being able to express it in scientific jargon. The first gives an idea of whether the student understands, the second indexes the degree to which the student has been integrated into scientific communities of (discursive) practice. Sometimes assessors don't really have the meta-language or the explicit self-awareness of disciplinary writing practice to make these kinds of distinctions (I find this particularly with "new" markers or student assessors) and they may focus too much on small issues like spelling as a result.

My suggestion is that assessors should take a step back and think about what it is exactly that they are assessing. Is there a focus on the underlying understandings or is there a focus on the discipline-specific "ways" of expressing knowledge, or is there perhaps a too narrow focus on spelling, punctuation, grammatical and stylistic niceties that perhaps gives an unfair advantage to first-language students.

Great question!

Dear Mark,

Great reply!

Mark- absolutely spot on! The way you describe it helps me understand what I have been doing in assessment for years. I always use 2 modes of assessment. Continuous day to day assessment for Conceptual understanding using natural language in contents where application of science is primary, and a second mode where more formal language is required in integrated tasks such as experimental reports for a wide range of skills and cognitive processes such as generalising, analysing etc.

Thank you.

Tried as some teachers of science have, their students’ reports have always mirrored science competence at the expense of language competence. The first cause is the failure of these teachers to indicate the minimum number of words that students should write for each essay topic assigned the students. This is because it is this indication that helps the teacher to prepare a marking scheme which compensates the student who writes the minimum numbers of words and punishes those who fail to fulfill this requirement.

A number of science marking schemes observed, spelt out two areas in the marking namely, content and language. But a closer look at these marking schemes showed that these teachers considered only ‘spelling mistakes’ and omission of words’’ as the only language errors which helped them to give their students impression marks for language. At the end of the day, these students’ reports do not reflect their performance in the language they used as a medium to communicate their ideas in science.

To evaluate meaningfully language as an aspect of a science essay type question, the following could be observed. The teacher should:

• indicate the total mark for each question e.g. Question 1 (20 marks)

• specify how the total mark will be allotted to content and language in their marking schemes (e.g. Content = 12 marks and Language = 8 marks)

• indicate the number of points you want the students to raise and explain (e.g. 6 points)

• indicate the mark that each point and explanation would attract (e.g. 2 marks for each point raised and explained). Evidence shows that teachers of science do this well.

• break the total marks of 8 allotted to language into three sections, namely, structure, length of essay and grammar (e.g. structure = 2 marks; length of the essay = 3 marks and grammar = 3 marks)

• specify what you are looking for in Structure (e.g. Introduction = ½ mark; Body = 1 mark (i.e. for the presence of at least two paragraphs) and Conclusion of the essay = ½ mark). Where these are not present, the student loses the marks. Evaluating the structure of the essay is important because it unfolds the coherence and logical presentation of the student’s ideas.

• itemize what you consider as grammar errors (e.g. wrong use of lexical words, wrong orthography, wrong subject- verb agreement, omission/ wrong use of punctuation marks, wrong use of preposition and wrong use of tense)

• indicate how many marks each error attracts and the minimum numbers of errors that a student makes to score Zero (0) for grammar (e.g. each grammar error attracts a deduction of ½ mark. A student who makes 6 mistakes scores zero (0) mark for grammar.

• Indicate the minimum number of words that you want the students to write on an essay (e.g. 100 words). Those who write 100 words do not lose any mark for this point. Those who write more that the 100 words should not suffer for grammar errors in the excess words written. Those who write less than 51 words will not have their grammar marked over 6. Those who write just 50 words would have their grammar marked over 3 (i.e. one-half of the grammar mark). Use pro rata chart to mark the length of students’ essays will fall below 50 words.

Pro rata chart

Below 50 words Deduction from the Grammar mark of 3 (i.e. below 50 words)

49-48 ¼

47-46 ½

45-44 ¾

43-42 1

41-40 1¼

39-35 1½

34-30 1¾

29-25 2¼

24-20 2½

19-15 2¾

14-00 3

This is just a guide that could help in accessing the components of language and science in essay type questions in examinations in science. This guide could also introduce a level of objectivity in the evaluation of language as an integral part of science. I must say that evaluation of students’ examination is one of the things which make teaching very difficult. But since we have chosen this profession, let us do it to the best of our abilities. Kudos to all teachers!

Dennis, I can't help wondering whether the scheme you outline doesn't have it's pitfalls. Generally, there is a tendency to focus very much on structural issues (quantified largely mechanically) with less attention being paid to meaning and the actual expression of a student's understanding.

Dear Mark, I infer from your answer that you have not rejected the idea of evaluating language as part of science tests or examinations. The bone of contention here is the method of evaluating language. I stated that what I posted was a guide. As a guide it can always be modified. But again, l am of the opinion that if it is modified to include something like, ‘‘correct expression’’, it will undermine the objectivity of the scoring of the marks that we want to ensure while marking language. I think the term ‘‘correct expression’’ may differ from one teacher to another. It will give room to individual teachers to use their discretion in the marking of students’ scripts. This kind of discretion is what is going to defeat the objectivity we want to ensure in scoring science marks. As far as science is concerned, I am of the opinion that the marking of the scripts (content and language wise) should be as objective as the results obtained from experiments carried out to prove a theory. I stand to be corrected.

On the issue of ‘’understanding’’, I agree with you that it should be considered in evaluating students’ test, examinations etc. But again, are we going to allocate separate marks for ‘‘understanding?’’ You would agree with me that in setting objectives for any lesson, the word ‘‘understand’’ is a word that is not measurable. If this is so, then how possible will it be to locate marks for it? I still think any indication that a student has understood a question is manifested in how well that student has answered the question and the reverse which is equally true is when the student, in answering a question, deviates. If this assumption is accepted, then I want to suppose that ‘‘understanding’’ is embedded in how well or bad a student answers a question. In this regard, therefore, I hold the view that the student’s ‘‘understanding’’ is compensated for in the content mark.

Hi Dennis,

I don't necessarily think that language should be assessed or evaluated in science tests per se i.e. I'm not advocating that a science test should include both a language and a content or method mark.  

However, although language may not be the primary focus, it is important to realize that knowledge is transmitted through the medium of language.  On the one hand, this is done through discipline-specific discourses and which indicate that a student has become part of the disciplinary community (e.g. using correct technical terminology, using appropriate hedges, citing appropriate evidence for knowledge claims, knowing how to argue about data, knowing how to name-drop in ways that position the research etc etc).   On the other hand, language competence (vocabulary size, grammar nitpicks, punctuation and spelling) may also play a role, especially for non-L1 students.   I suspect that when people evaluate language directly in science evaluations, there is a temptation to look at language competence, spelling and grammar rather than at how students actually use language to situate themselves within the discourse.  Being sensitive to these issues is important.

I accept that what you posted was a guide, but my contention is just that it doesn't really address the central concerns around language in a deeper sense.  While indications of word limits, number of points in an answer, mark allocations etc may be generally useful, they don't actually deal with underlying issues of expression of meaning.  Of course, I agree 100% that even attempting to assign marks to such a fuzzy concept would introduce uncertainties and perceived objectivity might suffer.  

So educators have a choice: (a) stick to objective evaluation of problems with clear right/wrong answers which must be expressed numerically or as "objectively" as possible.  There is a lot that can be tested this way but certainly not all of science can be - especially as one proceeds to higher levels  (b) Accept that at times, even science may include "fuzzy" issues which need to be expressed in language.  For example, what makes a theory or a solution elegant?  What constitutes an ethical grey area?  How does one argue for a proposition or an interpretation of theory? (especially if it runs counter to a more popular alternative or if the position is underdetermined by data?) How does one formulate research hypotheses? How does one write an abstract for a paper or a conference?  How does one frame a position in a funding application?  How does one evaluate a blinded paper as a reviewer and how does one make the judgement call on whether it is good enough to be accepted into a journal.  What constitutes science and what is pseudoscience (witness debates around intelligent design, Lysenkoism, social darwinism etc)  These are all judgement calls of one type or another and all require language.  All of these can be done in multiple ways where there is arguably not a clear right/wrong answer.  However, part of being a scientist requires that these non-objective issues be mastered too.  

About understanding... you caught me there!  *grin*  I agree it is not directly measurable and I'd be very hesitant to quantiatively allocate marks to something as qualitative as "understanding".  And I agree that the content mark ought to attempt to be a measure of student understanding (as expressed through measurable behaviours, of course).  (I am reminded of the Turing test and Searle's Chinese Room test which make the point that intelligence (or understanding) are in some sense objectively determinable).  All I'm saying is that how one arrives at the content mark in the first place, always includes an evaluation of how the student expresses that content through language and that we need to be sensitive to this fact.

[sorry, long post got chopped off]

... All of these can be done in multiple ways where there is arguably not a clear right/wrong answer.  However, part of being a scientist requires that these issues be mastered too.  

About understanding... you caught me there!  *grin*  I agree it is not directly measurable and I'd be very hesitant to quantiatively allocate marks to something as qualitative as "understanding".  And I agree that the content mark ought to attempt to be a measure of student understanding (as expressed through measurable behaviours, of course). (I am reminded here of Turing's test and Searle's Chinese room tests which argue that understanding/intelligence are in some sense objectively determinable)  All I'm saying is that how one arrives at the content mark in the first place, always includes an evaluation of how the student expresses that content through language and that we need to be sensitive to this fact.

Mark, I am actually quite surprised at how few people get this fact (or perhaps I shouldn't be). In our assessment processes we have tried hard to minimise the impact of language skills on content assessment by explicitly valuing as many modes of expression, including physical, so long as they were indicative of understanding. This works for me because at the age of my students, the level of understanding is capable of being demonstrated through other modes other than academic writing. The higher the level of understanding being demonstrated, the greater the language skills, particulary written, need to be.

This question also reminds me of a 16 year old chemistry student whose facility with written language was so great that I was never quite sure of her actual understanding.  She always seemed to be in the top 10% but when spoken to outside of formal assessment situations did not appear to understand as much. In the end I decided that the benefit of the doubt was the best approach and suggested that she consider science communications as a course major at university, which apparently she did, and was successful.

Dear Marcel

It is an important question, no doubt. Like other people, academics are also humans, and have weaknesses. We do get distracted to some extent by the laguage proficiency, though it should not be so. This is especially so if other students are not able to match those who demonstrate good language proficiency. .

So the probelm does exist to some extent. Ideally, the academics must repress this tendency to put primacy on the language rather than the strength of the arguments.

Student reports, is a scientific document. As such the language should be appropriate fro a scientific document. Similarly for a scientific paper. Referees want a acceptable language. When I ask for a report I use to give to students a guide of it should be written. 

I would assign a 30% language and structure of the document and 70% of science contend.

In below reply, "realizing" can be seen as part of science (given context) and "naming" as language.

As per Greek philosophy:- “without sound definitions, rational knowledge is not possible..” (Greek  philosophy)

A. Process of Knowing the known:- T hrough definition (of the thing which is known). Naming -> Knowing -> Realizing/Experiencing Definiendum 's understand ing involves the need for denoting definiendum by a word, i.e. definiens. As per Greek logic, involves,  Understand definiendum → Need for denoting definiendum by a word =  definiens

B. Process of Knowing the unknown:-  Realizing/Experiencing -> Knowing -> Naming -> Syllogism . It  involves,  Apprehension (Definition) →  Combination/Division(Proposition) → Reasoning (Syllogism)      

As per Indian philosophy:-   When we endeavor to know a named concept i.e. पदार्थ padarthā (पद pad =  definiens/ Name + arthā= definiendum)  

अर्थम् बुद्धवा शब्द रचना | (गोविंदाचार्य,तर्कसंग्रह,२०१३,पृष्ठ-११८) (old English trns att.)

अर्थ को ह्रदय में धारण करके शब्दों का प्रयोग। (सभी व्यवहार अर्थज्ञान पूर्व ही होते हैं)

Experiencing the definiendum in heart before "naming" leads to conversion of that knowledge of named concept to behaviour.  

Conclusion:- In either case, if the learning is for self, then naming (Language) & syllogism (Reasoning part of science) are not that important. Hence experiential part of science becomes important. However, if the learning is to be shared in Case B., then naming(language) becomes extremely important. But again in Case B, language has to be preceded by experiencing definiendum in heart, which is an outcome of science.

Dear @Marcel, I think that it is based on conjuction of both science AND language competence! Of course, exceptions always exists!

Also, it is depending on the scientific area. If engineering report is in question, I give more points to scence over language, but if we speak about some other field like social science for example, language is predominant to me!

Iit is both.

First of all, good work must have been done.

Secondly, the report should show that good work has been done.

In online Annual Prgoress Report filled by a PhD Student in my university, a student must answer 'Does English language affects your progress?'

Dear Marcel,

This raises an important question that we are facing almost every day.

To answer your question: the assessment and rating are depended on both. However, their weightings are quite different from subject to subject, and from coursework reports to MSc and PhD dissertations.

For engineering subjects dominated by vigorous mathematical modelling and analysis, science competence is weighted much more than language competence, thought the students have to make clear assumptions and arguments.

Taking MSc project assessment for example, written communication mark is only weighted 20% in my Engineering Faculty.

It will be also interesting to hear some voice from students, from their perspective in different field of studies.

Dear Marcel & friends, apologize for coming late to this post.

It is, indeed, as it has been mentioned, a most sensible question dear Marcel.

Please, let me answer from own personal experience.

I teach the only compusolry seminar (content) in English in my school. Several other seminars are taught in English, too, but they are elective.

My seminar is on complex systms. Indeed, the literature is vastly in English. The stidents do not know the subject but have a rather good command of English. Each semester I choose a different topic (simply because I do not like repaeting myself).

Well, as it has been already said, it is a dynamic equilibrium between foreign language and sicnetific language. In my case, I work on the technical aspects of both levels, but (a big BUT!) based upon enthusiasm. I mean, I work on motivating the students, trying even to get them passionate about the subject. Thus, I have experienced, scientific language takes somehow the lead on the command of the foreign language (lingo, technical concepts, metaphors, idioms, etc.).

Grounded on pathos (= enthusiasm) and passion, I have had, so far a good experience. It is always a small seminar with maximum 12 students. Well, every semester I get surpised because many students cannot enter into my seminar as formal or refular students.

As said: passion and enthusiasm serve as leading thread to balance both scientific and foregn languages.

Thank you so much!

The language competence and science competence dichotomy exists when the language of learning, mother tounge and expression - all three are different, else as Shri Puneet pointed out above there can be two different cases. 

Thank you very much for all these constructive and enthusiastic remarks! E-learning for me!

Perhaps it might be helpful/useful to simplify scientific language to reduce the impact of language competence on science competence? Perhaps there is an option to consider English as a science tool for scientific comunication (Puneet, case B) and to teach 'scientific English' in Science domains at university level prior to the Master sections? Is scientific English simpler or more complex than Current/Citizens English? 

Really this is a very valid question ,,

i am wondering if this is a problem with students whose english is their second language compared to native speakers

as a teaching faculty , I think if students followed basic concepts of scientific writing with attention to grammer and spelling would perform great regardless of their language abilities ,,

one advice that i got from a senior faculty was to write the required paragraph in native language (in my case it is arabic) so that you can phrase the scientifc info. the way you want ,, after that we can just tranlsate it to english,, this way i beleive preserves the scientific info from being misinterpreted because it separates the sentence construction from the language ability ,,

also, thanks to editing service websites available nowadays like aje.com , it is much easier to have a good "english" to support your findings ,,

Thank you

To divide between where the effect of competence in a science class comes from (language competence or science competence), let the class fill in a quastionnaire/ ask interviews about both competencies prior to your lessons. Afterwards correlate these results with the results obtained after a learning phase (your actual science test after the lessons) and see if language competence has an effect. If language correlates highly with science competence, the results of the science test are biased by students language competence.

Indeed a valid question. Most , if not all, of the entries in this thread seen to refer to foreign or second language. Let it be understood that the same applies in a first language context.  Between 60 and 70 countries participate in PISA  (the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment). The programme assesses Mathematical, Scientific and Reading literacy of 15-year-olds. It is a relatively simple exercise (using standard readability measures) to evaluate what level of reading competence is required to read with understanding the maths and science questions. It can then be shown that many of the maths and science problems presented require a reading literacy level not attained by many of the participating students resulting in a high correlation between the three subjects.

Scientific english is more complex as most of it use unregular english vocab and combining ellaboration of diagram and symbol. It need more understanding of regular english than advance in scientific english.

unfortunately, some supervisors/lecturers do their assessment depending on language only !!!! i admit that as scientists we have to consider the language level but never consider it only

Dear Yehya,

Science and language are tightly connected, or not? The question then is: Do supervisors/lecturers pay more attention to spelling errors and/or reasoning and/or message reliability (e.g reasoning can be fine, but perhaps inconsistent with existing published knowledge)? 

Dear Marcel,

As an author with experience you should know the answer.

Regarding and comparing weak and mediocre reports (from scientific point of view) the style and the language competence are determining. I stress a scientist with strong professional knowledge and ethical sense is able to recognise the merit of a report and should decide it. Do not forget that language competence is but the surface. However, I must note: a native speaker of English has got an immense advantage getting a favourable judgement.

Hi Marcel M. Lambrechts; In my opinion they should be evaluated and judged on science and for language a liberal attitude may be adopted. as with time and experience they will learn and improve their language also. Unfortunately few teachers go first with language. Thanks

Remark on: a native speaker of English has got an immense advantage getting a favourable judgement.

Are ratings of students reports and ratings of scientific publications as expressed in citation rates determined by the same biology-based language-based appreciation mechanisms? E.g. Science communication skills (e.g. writing style) might in many cases be important independent from science content, especially when judges (Professors, referees) do not fully master the fast evolving science literature?

I'm not sure if competence is divisible in such neat categories .... I can only take the example of business, where, for instance, being able to present a well-drafted Business Plan is instrumental in getting funded by investors: the unspoken but very real attitude being - these guys come to us and say they're the best at their particular business, yet they can't even properly master business English, which however would seem to be less difficult than being world champions in their specialty....So , if their BP is badly written, we simply won't believe they're special and excellent and worthy of funding.

The same applies within a lone language : are you going to respect the advice and plans of the team who in their own language riddles their texts with spelling and other errors, or are you going to respect more the team who presents an impeccable text?

I would tend to think that cutting edge excellence is indivisible - and in academe, as in business, all anyone is ever interested in is excellence

From an Indian Context

“Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations.” -Edward Sapir

Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. Modern English sometimes described as the first global lingua franca is the dominant language or in some instances evens the required International language of communications, science, information technology, business, seafaring, aviation, entertainment, radio and diplomacy. Its spread beyond the British Isles began with the growth of the British Empire and by the late 19th century its reach was truly global. In India, nearly 125,344,736 people know English that is 12% of the total population. Officially English has a status of assistant language, but in fact it is the most important language of India. After Hindi, it is the most commonly spoken language in India and probably the most read and written language in India.

India is a multi lingual country and communication in all these languages is not possible practically. Northern states prefer Hindi and the Southern States prefer a common language which is English. Indians who know English will always try to show that they know English and mingle it with Indian languages in their conversations. English symbolizes in Indian minds, better education, better culture and higher intellect.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=29&ved=0CFQQFjAIOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccsenet.org%2Fjournal%2Findex.php%2Felt%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F14562%2F9927&ei=qpllVNL7A8X4igKDtICIBw&usg=AFQjCNHVxXxBo7THWSL5iPFSnO0dAUDzUw&bvm=bv.79400599,bs.1,d.d2s&cad=rja

For discussion:

Which publication has more impact: An very well written publication with few data or a badly written paper (e.g. with spelling errors) with much data? Is data reliability in this context linked to spelling errors (e.g. language problems) or scientifically-based errors?  

@ Marcel, though both are equally important,  It all depends on the researcher following up the literature. it is my personal view,  that data in a research is more important than the language, it can form PRIMARY DATA for future research..

Dear Marcel,

a very nice and provoking question in your note. Of course scientific content should be independent from spelling errors and stuttering language. But you have to sell your results and you need agreement with your readers. And not all readers are well minded humans. Some will prefer to judge using your bad language competence.

Therefore try to write good texts and to avoid spelling and grammatical errors, look for help, if you don´t feel sure in your language knowledges.

It is a very important and interesting question. Language skills and proficiency are very much necessary to understand the scientific developments and reports. So both of these competencies are really a matter of search in the ability spectrum of students specially for this advanced century.

yes..sir...your question is very important question..language skills are used to understand our science developments and reports...

yes you are correct.there may be a scientific tool needs to analyse your research for the students also

Dear Concha,

Perhaps lectures in architecture rely more on pictures/figures/photos than on written explanations? I think that written texts often cannot describe in sufficient detail what you can see on a nice photo/figure/picture of a construction. Perhaps the need for written language competence differs across research domains, e.g. architecture historyalso dealing with extinct languages?

Perhaps you learn more when you make a drawing of a construction than to read about the same contruction?  

Can a course be given and rated without text and speech, as in some dreams? Any examples?

This problem is a simple example of multi-criteria model. We have a final ranking, which is dependent on two criterions language-competence and science competence. In my opinion, this relationship is not a linear, and what is much more important, it cannot be considered in an objective way. Each rating is a subjective and dependent on an evaluator.

I agree with opinion Marcel. E.g., if a student has inadequate language-competence, his rating is negative. His rating is also negative if  he has inadequate science competence. One criterion has limited ability to compensate for the other one.

Hi Dear

It may be both but it should be on science compliance. Thanks

Dear Concha/All,

I noticed that spelling errors or other wording errors might be introduced after the publication has been accepted and sent to the editorial office during the proofs stage. Why do authors have to take the responsibility of errors introduced during the proof process or during the editorial process?

I also noticed that spelling errors can be introduced because of the automatized correction system of computer software, etc...

Just to stress that a science/education product most often results from team work implicating many people in the chain of the introduction of an idea up to the end product, e.g. a publication or application or educated person. What is the probability of a chain reaction without errors? Is this statistically possible?

Should scientists/science products result from hard selection (e.g. 0% errors) or soft selection (>0% errors, >5% errors, >10% errors...)? Should people with dyslexia/a handicap be excluded from science? How much scientists/countries would currently be excluded from the hard selected process? 

Example for discussion:

If we accept that the best scientists have been selected to conduct science, why are so many manuscripts/research reports refused by referees/commissions?

I think that a lot depends on language competence. Not all countries English is taught at the appropriate level. You can learn any language but you will feel the "soul" the native language. No wonder the great scouts were those people who could absorb a "soul of a foreign language." We believe that the scientific language has only analytical capabilities so it is easy to use and operate. But the man who uses the language was born and raised in their language environment and therefore his inner world and worldview match native environment. We know that the scientists think, analyze their language and many of his discoveries are participating not only knowledge but also his intuition which is directly related to his consciousness. And he speaks and thinks to himself in the native language. No wonder According to many psychologists intuition developed in different nations in different ways. Without intuitions are not born hypotheses and assumptions that lead to the formulation of the problems and their solutions successful! But their knowledge is difficult to transfer to another person does not speak your language. Despite the fact that English - the international language of communication but its many brilliant scientists do not know perfectly. And it is not given to all !! Therefore, they can not be thought to be fully expressed in that same "hits" knowledge transfer !!

Are translators sufficiently competent to (always) capture the scientific message of the scientific text to be translated. The potential problem is that the scientist with language problems will also have difficulties to check the content of the translation. This implies that the translator should be at the same scientific level as the scientist with language problems, or not?

Creo que lo importante es que el artículo o investigación que estemos desarrollando transmita ciencia, conocimiento científico y aquellas personas que lo lean, les haga pensar en ello y relacionarlo con otro posible proyecto que vá mas allá de lo que lo hemos hecho nosotros y si se puede refutar igualmente. Que este bien escrito, es muy importante porqué así facilitamos las cosas a los demás.  

Eso es Ciencia y así avanzamos. 

Dear Francisco,

I will not try, but if 20 different English translators would have to produce an English text based on your Spanish text, how many different English texts would be the result?

Beginning with the globalization, cross-cultural contact is increasing at a rapid pace. In developing cultural sensitivity and intercultural competence, educational exchange and study abroad programs offer valuable opportunities especially for students and teachers, particularly in higher education. Exchange of academic practices in their fields, developing their language skills and intercultural communication have been the focus of these study visit programs, but there is a lack of research data illustrating their effects on intercultural competence in terms of professionalism in higher education defines professionalism in higher education as the students who work across and beyond boundaries. English, French and German were investigated whether and to what extent the participants support intercultural objectives and are willing to develop the acquisition of intercultural communicative competence in their language learning classrooms.  Though the cultural objectives were prioritized by the participants, intercultural objectives that aim at developing the acquisition of intercultural skills have not been found so important.

http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/ERR/article-full-text/CBECC9F48238

Bon jour Marcel, pour le non anglaisphones, c'est un problème mais il faut essaier avec les étudiants. I speak Spanish and  I am proffesor of Epidmeiological Research and we use critical appraisal. We read articles written in Spanish because, in fact, science is a new language and they would have problems in translation. According with their avances in research they advance too in their language use. Igive grat importance to the written homework and I do the comments acoording to language and research at the same time. And even more, they improve their discourse and becomes more and more accurate. That it is very promising. Congratulations for your idea. Salut.

Yes indeed. Altough most students in my school must speak and read English, (they have to pass TOEFL with 550 points at least) altough writing scientific papers is more difficult even in your own language. Many of them write ordinary English fluently, but not as a scientific language.

Sure Concha, I have some experience on that. I don't know if you're a Spanish native speaker because most of my papers are wiritten in my language if not I can make some translations.

Language precedes Science Learning

Language competence is basic and is required prior to a student getting admission to study science in certain universities.

Example, Prior to applying for admission, students should posses enough English Language Competence - English is the language of instruction and communication at the University. Accordingly, an applicant whose primary language is not English must demonstrate command of English sufficient to pursue graduate studies in the chosen field.

http://www.sfu.ca/students/calendar/2013/summer/biological-sciences/bisc-PhD.html

Dear Concha,

Spanish as the mother language with very good experiences in English: translations from Spanish to English, and then the English checked by someone with English as the mother language?

Dear Marcel,

I believe that  it is very difficult to tease apart the two from one another. I agree with Cummins's view of  cognitive/academic competence. As you have insightfully  mentioned, very often the quality of what is reported depends intrinsically on reporters' awareness of the intended  academic practice.However, the reflection of  cognitive awareness is manifested through the individuals' basic interpersonal communication skills that are merely strengthened through the linguistic knowledge. Thus, it seems that the two complement each other.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Thank you!

Bon jour Marcel. This a very important question. I am professor of critical aprraisal for medical students in Mexico and I had that question too. I think that the improvement is related intially to science competence if they start a course in their original language. I do not use other than Spanish for learning methodology and statistics. So I can be sure these advances are related to the speech introjection of the new terms even in Spanish. Maybe at last in my course we read an English paper without any problem for critical appraisal. So I am sure the advance is derivated of the scientific terms that they have learned in their own language. After that they can read and translate some other papers in English. Most of my students speak English as second language but they do not understand the scientific terms even in Spanish when they start. So first they learn science in his language and after that they can read science in English. I have tought to be a professor in French, so we can see this more closely. Good question.

Hi Marcel and the excellent previous respondents.

There's no doubt that language competence has a huge impact on student performance, not only in the students' understanding of scientific material but in their ability to analyze and engage meaningfully with it. But it gets worse: As those who master the language tend to sound more competent and naturally convey a more nuanced assessment in their reports, there is a danger that the voices of potentially talented scientists and their unique perspectives will be missed. To complicate matters, in our interconnected world, writing reports based on other reports is only the beginning of language competence: More and more scientific understanding and knowledge-sharing is based on the ability to collaborate with people of other cultures, which is a social task as much as a scientific one. It's a skill we need to help our students acquire.

Last thought: In the research group on Management and Language in France which I belong to, we are looking into ways that the competence of multilingual speakers (and their ability to grasp multiple perspectives) can be better recognized. Vaste travail!

Betty, This is a really important point. It leads me to wonder if some students whose (first or second) language skills are less, are actively discouraged from thinking critically by teachers who do not recognize the quality in their thinking. By failing to recognize the quality in their thinking, by conflating language skills and thinking skills, teachers damage student's self efficacy in this domain. In the past, I have had to be very specific and explicit in training teachers to look beyond language skills and recognize the conceptual understandings in student work, and vice versa, to NOT assume that high level of language skills automatically means quality conceptual understanding.

If the most skilled talkers/writers always win (e.g. like in politics), what does it tell us about the competence of those that judge the contents of what has been told/written (e.g. like the citizens voting for politics)?

Do so-called complicated written reports not simply result from a runaway process as described in sexual selection, e.g. increasing complexity for its complexity because complexity 'impresses' the perceivers? 

PS: Teachers have not been trained to be skilled Psychologists (at least 4 years of University training)....

Marcel, While it is true that teachers aren't trained to be psychologists, there are some who do have a clear and rigorous understanding for 'the system' to learn from them. Many teachers have a wide knowledge of strategies that do or don't work but do not know why or have not deconstructed them rigorously. I spent several weeks a couple of years ago with a teacher who was particularly successful and who swore that he was successful because he was extremely controlling and 'fierce'. Over those weeks, I observed and talked with him about his classroom behaviours and it transpired that while he was controlling, it was all geared towards improving student efficacy. The students perceived him as being caring. His 'control' was seen as support. So, One of my interests has been to find ways that individual teacher's knowledge can be transmitted rigorously on a wider scale. The rigor is absolutely necessary. In this I have only been infinitesimally successful. 'The system' is not used to listening to teachers and particularly is not used to listening to teachers with an academic ear, to hear what they really mean when they describe what they do.

Sorry got a bit off track. What I really meant to say was that teachers can be taught to look beyond the superficial without being psychologists, but it takes a lot of support of someone who does understand. Maybe all schools need an embedded psychologist.

Dear Mark,

If I remember well, Psychologists would claim that an individual with a personality profile of let say 'A' collaborates better with another individual with a personality profile let say 'A' or 'B', but not with let say 'C' or 'D', etc....

If we would apply this to a class room, a teacher with one personality profile (which can be 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', etc...) has to face a class room will children/students that obviously will reflect a large range of personality profiles...

Dear Marcel,

Personality profiles are not the issue. As professionals, teachers can moderate their own behaviours to maximise student motivation and well being, based on accepted theories. Yes it is complex, but their are underlying principles/theories that make it possible. eg the motivation theory SDT, says that being autonomy supportive behaviours by the teacher will improve student motivation. Teachers can learn how to do this. Some will find it easier than others but all can learn. Similarly teachers can be taught how to look beyond the obvious in evaluating the quality of student work for feedback such as, "Your communication skills are very high quality but you have not clarified the concepts expected in this assignment" or "The concepts you have elucidated show a good understanding of the topic but the sentences need significant proofreading.

Dear Mark,

When you observe one teacher and one class in detail, can you generalize? Does the teacher behave differently in the presence versus absence of an external observer?

What should such an approach work in a class room and not in a company (autonomy supportive behaviours by the 'boss' will improve employee motivation), for instance? 

Dear Marcel, The points are good.

Firstly, yes you can generalise, but not all things and it is not always explcit. Where we have gone wrong in the past is to try to generalise strategies instead of unpacking what psychological and cognitive functions those strategies were performing. eg in the example of the teacher that I gave, his self report was that he was a tough controlling teacher. It was only in long term observation and analysis that the truth of his behaviours became more apparent. By generalising the function of strategies, teachers can use professional judgement combined with self knowledge to find their own way to perform those functions. This can be supported by mentors as well of course. 

Re question 2, yes people tend to behave differently if they believe they are being judged. A key issue is for the 'boss' to have a climate of continuous improvement rsther than judgement to get the best outcomes. Again difficult but doable.

Autonomy support is applicable to companies, and I believe there is some research in the area, though my interest is absolutely in the education realm.

You raise several thought-provoking points, Marcel and Mark. I agree with Mark that one doesn't need to be a trained psychologist to assess what's going on when a student's answers suffer from linguistic deficiencies, and that teachers can learn to separate the substance from the (foreign-influenced) form. We might also expect that teachers will acquire this ability with increasing exposure to the phenomenon. (I would not say the same thing about citizens detecting the rubbish in political speeches, because one person's rubbish is another's changes to gain advantage.)

Let's be realistic, though: Part of the problem is that we try to stuff students of many backgrounds into a one-size-fits-all pedagogical strait-jacket. We're still in the early stages of multicultural classroom practices, and cannot continue to teach as if everyone in the room comes from the same basic educational and language background. And it's a moving target: Just look at how the new generation of Chinese students is less frightened at giving personal opinions and are ready to see the teacher as a coach rather than a god. So it's up to teachers to change the way they assign work to non-native and native speakers, not only to avoid pirated / plagiarized chunks of information more or less cleverly embedded in student papers, but also in order to reflect real world practices. This might mean, for example, tasks that require problem-solving and intercultural team cooperation with interim feedback from professors who assess the results using criteria that highlight each student's involvement, downplaying linguistic perfection. Of course this only works with classes of a reasonable size. I have no solution for guiding huge crowds of native and non-native speakers.

I have seen systems where students are sitting around tables in a class room to stimulate student-student cooperation. One or two teachers are walking from one table to  another table to assist the students when required....

Yes, this in-class cooperation has the advantage of being followed by the teacher(s) who can reinforce the criteria of inclusiveness of all members, rather than brilliant language skills. But the key is making the goal of the cooperation sufficiently challenging to really engage the students. Example: At one of the Ecole des Mines engineering schools in France, I ask students to decide how they would handle the negative impact of an oil refinery on the environment in Ecuador, or Areva's vulnerability to kidnapping by terrorists in Niger, using authentic documents. These questions gave our Brazilian and Congolese students a chance to act as "experts", and internet was available to all. 

Dear Betty,

Interesting approach!

Dear Betty, Good points all. This statement "This might mean, for example, tasks that require problem-solving and intercultural team cooperation with interim feedback from professors who assess the results using criteria that highlight each student's involvement, downplaying linguistic perfection" is really important. but so is "who can reinforce the criteria of inclusiveness of all members, rather than brilliant language skills" and the notion of cooperation because they all bespeak the maintenance of intrinsic motivation in the tasks that help ALL students learn effectively. 

Here again, the personality profiles of the students in a discussion might determine the direction of the discussion/cooperation at a given table? Can students with outstanding language skills take the time to listen to students without outstanding language skills?

I hope to try out an idea without distracting from this conversation.  I am curious about your thoughts on where an experience I regularly have fits in the context of the original question. 

The experience:

I teach a course where I interview students daily about their thinking and understanding.  I have observed that they can act as if they have the right idea, making correct predictions, for example.  But, until they reduce their thinking into language, the understanding is fleeting.  They usually revert back to incorrect models they held before the course on the exam question.

Here is a bit about the context of the course:

In this course students develop their own models for motion, and electric circuits from their own observations.  They do this by working through some carefully crafted sequences of activities. 

These sequences are not only designed to help students develop their own models but also to help students directly confront their own misconceptions.  I am not to pass judgement on their thinking in the interviews.  I am supposed to direct them to compare what they observe with their prior thinking, and, if they differ, judge which is likely right.  I invite them to make predictions, and to reconcile the results of several observations.

My experience reminds me of a lone quote from someone I know nothing of; Fromkin Rodman Hyams.  "The primary function of language is not to communicate, but it is to think creatively or analogically."

J. Ryan Nielsen, I recognize the observation from personal and teaching experiences. It makes me wonder if we use language as a social 'test'. That is, we have unformed concepts and use them in the physical world, but we need to use language to test our concepts in the social world. If we can't successfully put our concepts into language then we describe our concepts in the language that we can successfully use. (I am not referring to 1st or 2nd language just general language forms here), We tend to describe the more naive concepts because it is easier. Then because thought and language are reciprocally creative (thought creates language creates thought), we may revert back to the more naive conceptualisation. It would explain why many physicists prefer to talk in mathematical language because it describes the arcane concepts more effectively.

Mark,  I agree.

I really believe in the value of communicating in a social setting we care about.  I like your idea of a social test.  That is, we are in some measure engaging our peers as a resource, if even just by their expressions.  I am going to have to think about that more. 

I wonder if, in addition, the even slight element of social risk which comes with communicating seems to do some "magic,"  because when we are at risk socially, we can afford to invest more of the costly commodity which is our attention.

However, I suspect there is more too.  It is apparently common for businessmen and leaders to write position papers which are never intended for other audiences.  They are simply writing to explore positions, and perhaps develop their own.  This sounds something like daVinci similarly using art- drawing- as a way to study even outdated technology to develop his own thinking.

This is probably a complete distraction from the thread.  But I am wondering if there might be value if, in place of a polished presentation, we might model for students a pattern of verbally editing what we say until we are happy with the meaning.

Dear Marcel, We are actually doing research that addresses this question. I have a project to develop science reading skills using cognitive narrative. As I'm sure you've noticed, educational systems spend a great deal of time and resources (and wisely so!) teaching students to read novels, etc. but actually very little time, if at all, on how to read scientific literature. This problem is confounded by much scientific literature being written in English, a foreign language to most readers. We've conducted some experiments using narrative structure to teach how to read journal articles. The preliminary results have been quite promising. That said, given the replication crisis and how important it is to get this right, i.e. to develop and promote methods that actually work and aren't yet one more gimicky band-aid, we are taking pains to ensure the objective coding of all assessments. We will make the first paper and all materials available once we are finished. 

If you ask 100 students to read 10 sentences in a scientific article, and you ask what it means you probably will get ca. 100 different answers when you go into details? How then to distinguish between language-competence and differences in scientific schools of thinking (e.g. also accepting that the teacher belongs to one school of thinking)?

Thanks!

We actually have asked 100s of students to read the same articles but have not received anywhere near 100s of distinct answers. In fact, the responses to our questions have been quite systematic. As to distinguishing between language competence and different schools of scientific thinking, I'm afraid that in general we've come across a more grievous problem: a lack of general understanding of what science and the scientific method are, including among science students. I look forward to the day when this project can focus on those distinctions. In terms of language competence, it has been an issue in comprehending the literature, and we are currently working on quantifying the effect.

I would also like to add that because of copy rights you can in principle not use exactly the same sentence in different scientific publications, which has two potential consequences: 1) An article becomes 'poetry' linked to writing skills, and 2) you increase the risk of multiple interpretations concerning the same study topic expressed in different publications (?)

A google'd web site stated this: "People can and do fully own their text. You don't even need to state the fact that you wish to prevent copying, as soon as you have written your article or text, you are the creator and you own this piece with or without the © symbol. Fortunately you can state that you would like people to copy or reproduce your text if you are an aspiring blogger if this would be a way to further your success. This is possible because it is up to you what you wish for other people to be able to do with your content."

You can re-use small portions of your own text, Marcel. The law says so, and common sense also says so: if I have invented a formalism that is applicable in plenty of contexts - in my case it could be the formulation of a new mathematical optimization model -, then I should not need to re-write it every time. Further, if another author wishes to continue developing something that I did in that paper, that researcher is entitled to borrow and use my formulation, preferably with a citation to my paper, of course. Without the possibility to clearly refer to previous work we would certainly end up with plenty more re-discoveries of old news.

In my opinion, for education in Russia this issue is not very relevant.

So it happened. The explanation can be set out on several pages.

 And, in order to answer all the questions of the author, it is necessary to conduct appropriate studies. The results and conclusions of such a study may lead to a degree of PhD (pedagogy).

Hello Marcel, I should explain the types of responses our data consists of. The foundation of the assessment paradigm is quite simple: read an article and answer general questions about it. Questions include 'What is the question the article is asking?', etc. Since our interest is in comprehension, we do not specify that direct copying is not allowed, in fact, we say nothing at all on the matter. That said, our preliminary finding show that post treatment, the amount of direct copying reduces substantially, i.e. from most students copying the research question directly from the text, to most attempting some interpretation. This is noteworthy as there is literature showing that direct copying is a sign of low comprehension. This finding may speak broadly to endemic problems with plagiarism.