Talking The Talk: How I Plan to Build Scientific Literacy
It’s been ten years since I’ve taught general chemistry. The content hasn’t changed dramatically (although there’s been a huge pedagogical shift towards the atoms-first approach), but a decade-long stint teaching middle school chemistry meant I need to spend the entire summer preparing for classes in August. Thankfully, as a teacher I love two things: preparing and organizing. Okay, I also love gift cards, but I’m not writing about those. One of the less obvious aspects of learning chemistry in which I need to support my students will be building their chemistry vocabulary.
Regardless of level, vocabulary is often a bar to student performance in science. Students aren’t just learning new concepts but both new vocabulary (and new definitions to words they already know). Our kids aren’t just expected to learn these words quickly but also then use them in class with native fluency.
Vocabulary is one of the primary reasons general chemistry is considered a “killer class”. A study conducted in the early 80’s determined that, over a two-semester period, students in general chemistry were exposed to “6,000-6,750 new units of information”. The study didn’t elaborate on what constitutes a “unit of information” but, if we treat each one as a new word with a unique definition, it shows that general chemistry students are expected to expand their vocabulary more than in any college-level, first-year language course.
A natural conclusion, then, is to treat general chemistry (or any higher-level science course) as both a science course and a language course. “The electrons in the anti-bonding orbital of this molecular orbital diagram indicate that He2 cannot exist” is an actual, not-unhinged-at-all sentence that is absolutely normal in a chemistry classroom, but it certainly sounds as foreign as “Qui a coupé le fromage?” to someone who didn’t have at least a passing knowledge of French.
But is that the best way to tackle teaching chemistry? If general chemistry is treated as a language course, should we integrate language assessments into the class? Solving problems and communicating those solutions, both verbally and in writing, are analogous to sentence structure and conjugation, but what about vocabulary? Should students be assessed on vocabulary separately from other skills?
Why do we want students to master chemistry vocabulary, anyway? Most students enrolled in general chemistry are preparing for a career in chemistry, medicine, or education: all three fields require clear, accurate communication. Building communication skills requires practice and the general chemistry classroom provides a space in which students can speak like scientists, act like scientists, and think like scientists. Students cannot become scientists or other professionals if they do not learn and effectively use the vocabulary.
Now that we’ve established a need for vocabulary assessment, just how do we do that? Formal, graded assessments can either be stand-alone, integrated into a quiz or test (for example, a fill-in-the-blank section), or included as a criterion in a rubric for a project-based assessment. Informal assessments such as teacher reinforcement and classroom discussions are generally ungraded but provide a more professionally-authentic environment.
Including proper use of vocabulary as a criterion in a rubric, whether it’s for verbal or written communication, sidesteps the major issue with the other types of graded assessment: siloing. Assessments which separate vocabulary from the rest of the subject matter, even if it’s in the same assessment, separate literacy and problem-solving skills that need to be integrated. Students may show that they know the definitions of the vocabulary on a fill-in-the-blank quiz, but such assessments can’t show if a student knows how to use the vocabulary when discussing their work. For larger summative assessments such as tests, assessing vocabulary use at that point doesn’t provide the quick feedback struggling students need that is provided by summative assessments.
Rubric-graded assessments may be the ideal method to assess chemistry literacy, but it doesn’t provide the timely support provided through informal assessments and consistent reinforcement. When vocabulary is first introduced, it should be in the context of a specific topic or problem to be solved. The teacher can then model using the correct vocabulary in solving the problem.
Don’t most teachers do this already? Yes, but we often miss the intentionality behind it, and that intentionality is served by additional teacher- and peer-mediated supports that can improve vocabulary retention and use. For example, using a “turn-and-talk” method where the teacher provides a problem and asks students to pair up, solve the problem, and explain the solution to each other using the proper vocabulary (which is given to the student) gives students practice at verbal communication. Additionally, including a verbal review of the vocabulary during an end-of-class review emphasizes the importance of mastering it.
My own experience backs up the need for a more intentional, consistent reinforcement of the vocabulary. I used vocabulary kahoots when I first taught middle school and saw slightly improved grades on the vocabulary portion of quizzes and tests. However, that was as far as the improvement went: students still struggled to use the vocabulary correctly in classroom discussions or in other assessments. I moved to STEMscopes during my last year of middle school, and the program builds vocabulary introduction and usage into the curriculum. It’s purely anecdotal, but kids began speaking with a greater scientific fluency as the year progressed. Another anecdotal, but important, experience is preparing kids for their regional science fair. Students were introduced to vocabulary as they performed literature research, and that vocabulary was reinforced in written communication (their paper and poster) and in oral communication (their presentations both to the school and at the fair). The students and I had a clear goal for learning the vocabulary and that authentic need provided the motivation for students to learn and master it.
I’m building the intentionality of mastering scientific literacy into my classes for next year. I’m teaching high school students now, and high-performing ones at that, but they still need intentionality and authentic lessons. I’m adding vocabulary, with definitions, to PowerPoints (more on how I’m building my PowerPoints in another post). I’m using that vocabulary when I model problems and then asking students to solve and explain similar problems as I coach them on proper vocabulary use. It isn’t an earth-shattering, novel approach, but it shouldn’t be. Simple is best because simple usually works.
My previous supervisor asks a piercing question regarding assessments: “What’s the point?” What are your objectives for a lesson, and how does the assessment help students meet those objectives? With the advent of AI, she’s expanded that into a hypothesis: “If an assignment can be done by AI in twenty sections, how good of an assessment is it?” The moment she shared that with me was a “crystallization point” where it all made sense. Students don’t instinctively make the connection between vocabulary and non-vocabulary work. If you make it for them and move on, you’re just wasting time. If our goal is helping students build scientific literacy, we have to show them the point and help them build the skills on their own.
Communication is often classified as a soft skill, but building a professional vocabulary is a hard skill that requires appropriate, effective practice. That practice begins in the classroom, but it should be our goal to prepare students to extend it into their careers. The best way to do that is to integrate it, not separate it, from other hard skills. If we show the students why and the how, they will put in the work and become better science communicators. Science needs that.