Using specialized language to understand environmental information and act on it
Introduction
At least 1.5 billion people use English in conversation daily. However, there is the possibility of the number soaring because of the increase in institutions teaching the language. The same development is likely to manifest online among users of social media platforms who explore problems and solutions in a globalized environment using English. The situation explains why a significant number of tutors concerned with environmental initiatives are teaching non-English speakers the language to ease coordination with the rest of the English speaking community to solve environmental pollution. The tutors seek to inculcate linguistic competence that eases the exploitation of geography and environmental science knowledge in conservation activities. Despite the commitment of the tutors, a significant number of adults struggle to learn the language. Linguists attribute the outcome to a myriad of factors, with the most profound cause being the ineffectiveness of the teaching techniques. The proponents of the use of specialized teaching methods claim that students are learning English as a second language struggle to understand environmental issues and geographic concepts in English because of the ineffectiveness of the standardized approach. Due to the challenge, it is advisable exploring ways of teaching non-English speakers as Saudi Arabians, Japanese, Italians, and Koreans, among many other non-native speakers English. The paper proposes teaching non-English speakers using a specialized technique that will facilitate comprehension of environmental and geographic concepts leading to collaboration with English speakers in the formulation of a globalized solution to environmental problems.
Argument Evidence
I
The first reason for supporting the idea to teach English using specialized language arises from the fact that native speaker students of geography and environmental science in English speaking countries as the UK, United States, and New Zealand understand English differently. The level of comprehension among those pursuing geography differs from the one pursuing environmental sciences. Likewise, the perception of the non-native speakers pursuing a profession in geography varies from the view of the non-native studying environmental sciences. According to Quinn, Lee, & Valdés (2012, p. 40), the variation is attributable to demographic factors and cultural influences. Subsequently, the socialization habits of people differ; thus, making it hard to contextualize language use from a common prism. Quinn, Lee, & Valdés (2012) validated the claim in his works “Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners” that explored the future application of language in classrooms. The findings proved that a teacher who is instructing non-native ways for initiating a response must consider the student’s specialization and the cultural differences when teaching such a person language. This is because a person’s culture and profession refine the individual’s approach to comprehending new vocabularies that outline a solution to environmental challenges. Hence, teaching the same person a new language using a standardized template is wrong. There is a variation in the applicability of the language in describing environmental problems despite the contention that English is standard and has universal interpretation.it is worth noting that the non-native speakers studying environmental sciences have spent years contextualizing new concepts in line with the basics of the subject. The persons likely comprehend the use of English from the perspective of an environmental scientist and not the view of a native English speaker. The contrary is possible for a native who tends to comprehend terminology using environmental studies concepts. Teaching such individuals a new language in the quest for a solution to an environmental problem is easier if the tutor considers the influence of specialization in environmental studies on language mastery.
II
Consequently, the observation of the trends around the globe indicates that the natives learning the language tend to familiarize themselves with concepts associated with the field of choice faster compare to the standardization of the language. The socialization of an individual with language principles shapes attitudes that later influence mastery of the basics of the language. According to Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti (2020), an adult-oriented to environmental science using a standardized approach tends to contextualize ideas from the point of expertise. As a result, teaching the person solution to environmental issues demands familiarization with terminology known. However, teaching the same native new concepts for resolving a concern as pollution is difficult. The desire to interpret the same idea using a standardized approach inhibits the proper formulation of a solution. As noted by Lee, Llosa, Grapin, Haas, & Goggins (2019,p. 318), the use of specialized language is recommendable because little evidence highlights cases of learners’ progression in comprehending solution to environmental challenges if the language used is unrelated to the profession. Lee et al. (2019) cite the developments in K‐12 science education for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as an affirmation that the standardization of the language hinders the comprehension of the solution for technical assignments. On the contrary, the statistics of the number of those mastering the solution expressed in the specialized language improves with the adoption of strategies that encourages customization of diction. As such, teaching non-English speaker environmental solutions using phrases familiar to the discipline is helpful. The learners taught using the specialized language would master concepts faster.
III
Historical advances in teaching geography and environmental sciences also affirm the significance of the methodology adopted on students’ comprehension. According to Murphy (2014), adult scholars taught using the standardized approach struggle to integrate the language concepts in the field of expertise. The difficulty in the long-term interferes with the competence of the solution to life challenges using the language. Such constraints influence the claim that teaching using a specialized language is advisable. If a person is a medic interested in participating in environmental problem solving, the professional will easily integrate the ideas of the language in the profession different from a context where the instructors express ideas using a standardized language. The implication in the long-term is the progression in the mastery of the ideas proposed in English (Quinn, Lee, & Valdés, 2012). Moreover, the experience of adult learners mastering the language in a context where tutors considered the variation in specialization is an affirmation that teaching using specialized language is helpful. The group of students pursuing geography who learned the language using the basics of the discipline gained an in-depth understanding of the language faster. The nature of human diction indicates that people associate language with components of familiarity. The same applies to an academic context. As opposed to generalizing teaching, the instructors targeting non-native speakers should consider embracing the use of a specialized language in teaching solution in English. The likely outcome from the advances will be the improvement in the mastery of the language as well as the proposed solution.
IV
Another reason for proposing the use of specialized language arises from the fact that specialized language acknowledges variation in people’s understanding of the diction of language. The interpretation then defines the contextualization of an environmental solution. According to Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti (2020,p. 3), the tutor will no longer assume the needs of a person instructed on an environmental solution but customize the program in line with the expectation of the group. The history of the application of the technique indicates that the pioneers of the approach considered the variation in learners’ comprehension in the introduction programs that encouraged the use of a common language in evaluating the levels of understanding of people pursing studies in different disciplines. Lee et al. (2019) claim that science teaches to use the model globally, and the rate of success is promising. An example of a setting where such a strategy yields a positive outcome is a region where people speak more than one language. The familiarization with concepts on environmental science outcomes, therefore, demands the consideration of the use of the specialized technique in teaching the solution to non-native bilingual speakers. The behaviors of the students learning a language as French and English indicates that the learners attain much benefit from pursuing sciences if teachers consider introducing the basis using specialized techniques associated with the scientific concept. The same should apply in the case of English for geographical assignments because the diction of geographical terms is a derivative of the dictions of the same in another language (Lee et al., 2019). The teachers teaching the same should, therefore, consider adopting a tactic that encourages exploitation of the tested ideas. The strategies align with the principles governing the use of language in teaching geographical concepts in an international setting.
Counterargument and Rebuttal
A&B
Although consensus exists on the need to customize the teaching tactics when formulating a solution to an environmental problem, scholars like Melissourgou & Frantzi (2017) oppose the use of specialized language in teaching. The critics of the methodology suggest that teaching people specialized skills in any language is ineffective. The same applies to instructional guidelines for students speaking more than one language. Melissourgou & Frantzi (2017) cites a lack of evidence in claims that specialized language eases familiarization with the environmental solution in a scientific context. The scholars believe that teaching using a standardized approach is advisable because the comprehension of a solution depends on the learner’s interpretation of a language. Moreover, native speakers in environmental studies have coordinated with non-natives in resolving societal challenges using English as the instructional language (McDonough & McDonough, 2014). The ideas hold to some extent. However, the exploration of the developments in K‐12 classes in the US indicates that the specialized approach eases comprehension of technical concepts (lee et al. 2019). The idea that an environmentalist speaking more than one language coordinate effectively with non-speaker if a specialized language is used counters Melissourgou & Frantzi (2017) claims that the standardized language is beneficial. The reports of the number of those mastering the language and using the knowledge to resolve an environmental issue when taught using the specialized methods indicate that more people master the ideas compared to the use of the standardized techniques. Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti (2020), proved the claim in their investigation on analytical practices in classrooms. The researcher conducted a qualitative study that inferred to the works of educators teaching ELLs in evaluating the validity of the assertion. The findings from the study that integrated other researcher’s opinion led to the conclusion that teaching using specialized language eases the comprehension of instructional solutions in English (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2020). The outcome, therefore, implies that the use of specialized language is advisable in teaching solutions to environmental challenges, albeit the challenges.
C&D
The subsequent criticism arises from the observation of the challenges confronted by native learners in schools in English speaking countries. Ganyaupfu (2013, p. 30) claims that science students face difficulties resolving environmental challenges despite the use of a specialized learning approach. Ganyaupfu (2013) alludes that the mastery of the environmental solution language demands on familiarization with the diction (technical vocabulary) and not the approach exploited in teaching the person. The reflection of the experiences of learners seeking to master the language in the English speaking countries indicates the complexity of interpreting concepts in different fields of studies despite learning using a specialized language. Anthony (2018) highlights the case whereby the introduction of English for specific purposes leads to complexity in the contextualization of diverse ideas. Even though some of the claims are valid, the combination of factors contributed to the difficulty of using the language and interpreting solutions communicated in English. A similar challenge is possible among non-native learners taught using a standardized approach. McDonough & McDonough (2014) narrates the cases of bilingual speaker grappling using the same in instructions in the field of expertise. However, the pronunciation affects comprehension of the disseminated contents. The trends, therefore, imply that it is better to teach environmental conservation using a specialized language. Among bilinguals, one might struggle with pronunciation but understand the meaning of the English words and message in the field of expertise. As a result, it is just to claim that the benefits of teaching English using specialized language outweigh the gains of teaching the same using the standardized approach.
Explanation
It is worth noting that language comprehension depends on a myriad of factors; hence, when formulating a teaching curricular for the same, the consideration of the concerns is necessary (Anthony, 2018). If striving to resolve environmental pollution, one has to identify the objective of the process and the differences in people’s understanding of the language. The knowledge of the cultural perception of the use of the language is also necessary. Additionally, consideration of the attitude of the learners as well as the expectation of the learners is necessary before rolling out the program (Murphy, 2014). Afterward, the teacher should consider a specialized language that eases the customization of the needs of the learners. Institutions have benefited in using the technique in teaching natives solutions. The same should apply among non-natives. The basis for the claim is that a specialized approach eases familiarization with the concepts of the discipline for exploration. Despite the contention that teaching environmental science and geography using specialized language is inconsequential, the modality encourages the formulation of a tactic that considers the diverse nature of English, thus improving comprehension of a scientific solution to the environmental problem.
Conclusion
In conclusion, scholarly evidence proposes teaching English using specialized language despite the challenges that characterize the process. The opponents of the tactic cite an individual’s comprehension and variation in language use as the basis for adopting a standardized approach. Nonetheless, the specialized methodology is suitable because it familiarizes peoples with the diction of profession even among natives as observed in English speaking countries. The norm in many places across the globe indicates that a significant number of learners struggle to comprehend the language use in another context if taught using a standardized method. An additional benefit is that the specialized approach recognizes variation in diction, leading to the customization of messages. Research by Anthony on the concern has led to the conclusion that the combination of environmental factors contributes to the development; hence, the specialized approach can overcome the hindrance. The model imparts knowledge in language compressible to the learners thus the reason the paper concludes that teaching using specialized language will help redress environmental problems addressed using English.
References
Anthony, L. (2018). Introducing English for specific purposes. Routledge.
Ganyaupfu, E. M. (2013). Teaching methods and students’ academic performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2(9), 29-35.
Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2020). English language learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Harvard Education Press.
Lee, O., Llosa, L., Grapin, S., Haas, A., & Goggins, M. (2019). Science and language integration with English learners: A conceptual framework guiding instructional materials development. Science Education, 103(2), 317-337.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (2014). Research methods for English language teachers. Routledge.
Melissourgou, M. N., & Frantzi, K. T. (2017). Genre identification based on SFL principles: The representation of text types and genres in English language teaching material. Corpus Pragmatics, 1(4), 373-392.
Murphy, J. M. (2014). Intelligible, comprehensible, non-native models in ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching. System, 42, 258-269.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 32.