National Standards for the Natural Sciences in Germany:

Focus on “Communication” (Helmut Vollmer)[1]

After the first PISA shock in 2001 the Education authorities of the 16 German Länder started to develop National Educational Standards for a number of subjects including Biology, Chemistry and Physics; these standards would be binding for science education in all schools across the whole country. The definition of performance standards to be reached by the end of compulsory education (grade 9/10) are based on an overall model of subject competence, which was sub-divided into four competence areas, namely:

Subject-Specific Knowledge and Use (Fachwissen+Anwendung)	Basic facts, concepts insights and principles. They vary according to subject; they include notions like system, structure, function, elements, dynamics/development
Procedural competence Constructing Meaning (Erkenntnisgewinnung)	The formulations of mental (+ physical) procedures vary per subject, e.g. in Biology they are defined as follows: Observe, Compare, Experiment, Using models and Applying other working techniques
Communication (Kommunikation)	To obtain/infer information in relevant subject-specific ways and exchange about it
Evaluation (Bewertung)	Identify/Recognise biological/chemical/physical facts/issues in diverse contexts and evaluate them

As we can see, Communication is considered to be one out of four basic competence areas in science education. It is defined identically on an abstract level (see above) in all three subjects of the natural sciences, namely biology, chemistry and physics. Each document also includes a passage which points to an integrated concept of scientific literacy (Naturwissenschaftliche Grundbildung, cf. KMK 2005a, b, c). On a more concrete level, however, the competence area of communication is spelled out in somewhat different ways, so that the formulation of the actual communication standards varies in number and quality between the three science subjects. Finally, the tasks added to each of the curricular documents, illustrating the competence area(s) in question, indicate slightly different understandings of what is actually meant by subject-specific communication.

Nevertheless, it is quite remarkable or even a break-through that competence areas other than basic knowledge were considered at all and that the language dimension was explicitly included as an integral part of scientific literacy. By no means should this be underestimated, since it will have a long-range effect on how the sciences will be taught and what science education will bring about. But the fact that the language dimension is called “communication” and not, for example, “language requirements” for teaching and learning science(s), is quite indicative – it shows a particular (and limited) understanding on the part of the authors of what language is good for and when it comes into play within science education. Let us look more closely at Chemistry and at Biology, whereas physics education will probably be dealt with in more detail later by Tanja Tajmel (see below).

1. Chemistry Education

For chemistry education, the main line of argument is as follows: In their environment pupils are confronted with phenomena which they can explain to themselves and to others with the help of chemical knowledge, largely using subject-specific language. In the attempt to analyse and come to terms with these pieces of knowledge, they discover relationships, search for more information and evaluate it. In order to do this, it is necessary to understand the subject-specific language of chemistry at a basic level and apply it correctly. Study results that pupils come up with or respectively, partial solutions to a problem will be shared with others. This exchange of information with different partners requires a permanent translation from everyday language into subject-specific expressions and vice versa. In doing so the pupils check at the same time in how far the statements made are valid and chemically correct. They can present their positions in subject-specific terms and reflect on them, they find arguments or revise their interpretations/views/opinions if necessary in the light of counter-arguments or objections made.

Therefore, communication is a necessary tool for the learners in order to develop explanations for observed phenomena, to present these in an appropriate form (verbal, symbolic, mathematical) and to share them with others. Thus communication is a medium as much as an object of learning.

Another aspect, which is also stressed very much, is the essential condition for successful work as a team. “Criteria for team competence are, among other things, a structured, coordinated planning of work, a reflection of the work processes as well as a critical evaluation and a presentation of the findings/results obtained”. (KMK 2005b, 9-10).

1.1. Communication Standards in Chemistry Education

Based on this general description of what communication is or does and what it is needed for in chemistry education, the following communication standards (C1-C10) were singled out in a can-do fashion (italics added by HJV): The pupils can

C1       search/make searches on a chemical issue consulting diverse sources

C2       choose topic-related and relevant/convincing pieces of information

C3       examine presentations in the media in terms of their subject-specific correctness

C4       describe, illustrate and explain chemical facts using subject-specific language
            and/or models or other non-verbal forms of representation

C5       relate chemical facts to everyday phenomena and translate consciously between
subject-specific and everyday language and vice versa

C6       record the process and the results of experiments and of discussions in appropriate forms

C7       document and present the process and the results of their own work according to situation and addressees

C8       argue correctly and logically in subject-specific terms

C9       support/defend their positions/viewpoints relating to chemical issues/facts and reflect objections self-critically

C10     plan, structure, reflect and present their work as a team. (cf. KMK 2005b, 12-13)

These descriptors are surprisingly relevant and central for scientific learning and teaching, yet they are highly selective in their phrasing and their implications. Note that the verbs chosen relate strongly to what we called earlier “language or discourse functions”: they identify the necessary mental activities which will lead to the respective forms of talk or writing.

Obviously, there is no identifiable system behind the wording, yet they are better and more helpful than anything else for curriculum planning that has existed before, at least in Germany for Science Education. Meanwhile there are attempts to cluster the communication competences into three distinct areas to make them operational and testable:

1. Processing information

2. Transforming information or passing it on

3. Arguing.

These sub-areas of communication skills are now in the process of being materialised through appropriate reference tasks which allow a student to acquire and to demonstrate these aspects of communicative behaviour related to science education.

1.2 Typical text types or genres in Chemistry Education

In addition, the National Standards have also tried to identify which types of text (or genres) are to be mastered productively by students of chemistry in Germany (by the end of grade 9/10). Accordingly, the following list came up: again it is highly selective, but at least it demonstrates that is it not individual utterances or small pieces of writing which count and which make a science learner literate, but the command over connected thoughts and their adequate verbalisation in discoursal form; explicitly mentioned are:

Descriptions, Explanations, Protocols, Reports, Presentations, and Argumentations.

All of these include subject-specific language use, the transformation of everyday concepts/language into scientific notions/language, the mastery of graphs, numbers and other symbolic means of representation and also the ability to work individually as well as in groups in order to arrive at certain results and to be able to present and justify them.

As said before, the development of these communication competences as part of science education are “revolutionary” in a way, but they are not operational enough nor far-reaching enough, they do not cover the full range of language requirements in science teaching and learning, in the development of scientific literacy, as I defined it earlier (in terms of the six separate, yet closely linked dimensions or aspects of subject literacy). (See Vollmer “Subject literacy and knowledge building”, a powerpoint presentation from earlier this morning). Let us now look at biology quickly.

2. Biology Education.

“Communication means to construct information in a focused, subject-related way and to exchange about it with others”. Communicative competence is seen as the basis for human interaction and togetherness, in private as much as in work life: “Communication enables us to interact with reality of life and thus to understand and mediate biological facts and conditions. Forms of communication are, just like in Chemistry, seen a direct learning object and as a tool (or medium) in the learning process. Acquiring knowledge and gaining language power constitute one another” (KMK 2005a, 11). Through this the students reach a discourse competence about topics of biology including those which are of specific relevance (and importance) to them, for society and for everyday life.

For communicating in biology, different texts and “images/non-verbal signs” are used as informational sources (codes), like diagrams, tables, subject-based symbols, formulas, equations and graphs. Learners understand and interpret these codes, relate them to one another and process them. These abilities are a basic, fundamental part of reading comprehension in the larger sense. The ability to present something verbally in a concise and structured way is of particular importance for writing and speaking productively. …

The learners use the practical methods and procedures of epistemology (Erkenntnisgewinnung) as sources of information plus media like books, journals, film, (the) internet and data processing programmes, animation, simulation, and games as well as questionnaires for experts. If students use these sources of information in a goal-oriented way, they have a structured and distinct competence in communication at their disposal. …”Therefore, the communicative competence acquired in school is also a basis for communication outside school” (KMK 2005a, 11-12).

Communication Standards for Biology Education

Based on the above description of communication in subject-specific terms, again 10 different communication standards (not MORE, not LESS) were developed for biology in a consensus-building procedure (with representatives from all the 16 Länder and with the consent of the relevant lobby groups as well as the wider public (italics added by HJV). “Pupils can

C1       communicate and argue in different social forms

C2                   describe and explain originals or authentic representations with the help of drawings and idealised diagrams/pictures

C3                   illustrate data of measurable units (related to system, structure and function as well as to developments) with verbal, mathematical or visual means of representation in appropriate ways

C4                   analyse and evaluate deliberately pieces of information related to biological issues from different sources and process these also with the help of diverse techniques and methods in ways adequate for specific audiences and situations

C5                   present (demonstrate) biological systems (e.g. organisms) appropriate to conceptual/subject base, situation and audience

C6                   present the results and procedures of biological investigation and experimentation and build their arguments on that

C7       relate to socially relevant biological themes/topics and those important in everyday life

C8       explain biological phenomena and relate everyday ideas to them

C9                   describe and explain the meaning of subject-specific as much as everyday texts and pictures in a structured linguistic presentation

C10     apply idealised representations, schemata, diagrams and symbolic language to complex biological issues” (KMK 2005a, 14-15).

The selection of these particular aspects of subject-specific communication (and not of others) and their definition as standards is very welcome, but arbitrary, of course, as are the choices made in chemistry or physics. They indicate some insecurity as to the exact nature of content-based language use and communication in terms of theoretical structure and subject relevance. On the other hand, we encounter a relatively wide understanding of what communication in biology (or chemistry or physics) means, with a clear orientation of relating it to the discourse and to decision-making processes outside school. It looks as if the structuring of this competence area is handed over to research on a larger scale. Accordingly, comprehensive research projects were launched spelling out the four different competence areas in more detail, based on empirical observation and data. Surprisingly, non of the science didacticians has questioned the four-dimensional model, none of them has postulated that language competences are not only needed for exchange and communication, but that they are closely linked to subject-specific knowledge building and to the mental processes of meaning construction themselves. In other words, they accompany the very beginning of conceptualising and processing new information, they form the background of understanding and (re-)structuring knowledge, they are the medium for reflection and of critical assessment.

3. Language competences pervade all areas of science learning and teaching

Language pervades all areas and levels of science learning and teaching. It is therefore not surprising that we also find formulations in other competence areas, especially in that of procedural competence and evaluation competence (see above), which clearly point to communicative activities and which either imply language comprehension or production directly as evidence for a certain (level of) competence. Here are some examples taken from other competence areas in biology: “Learners can

E11     Describe storage and transmission of genetic information…

E10     Analyse interactions with the help of models

B5       Describe and evaluate the effects of human interference into an ecological system

B7       Discuss options of behaviour for participation in an environmental and nature-preserving way in terms of sustainability” (KMK 2005a, 14, 15).

What these examples clearly show is that there are more language requirements involved in science learning, in subject learning in general and also in the assessment of subject competence than is often acknowledged and specified: the language requirements are cutting across all other competence areas, they cannot be narrowed down to “communication”. Our goal, therefore, has to be to make these language dimensions and requirements explicit in subject-specific curricula as well as across subjects.

4. Conclusion and Perspectives

Overall, the German Educational Standards in the three science subjects for the end of compulsory schooling are progressive in that they explicitly acknowledge and identify “Communication” as one out of four indispensable competence areas, equally important as “Subject-Specific Knowledge” or “Epistemological/Procedural Competence”. Based on this almost “revolutionary” perception, communicative aspects of subject-specific learning are beginning to gain more attention in classroom teaching, in assessment and also in teacher training – provided they will be broadly accepted and implemented by the teachers themselves. In the long run, the individual subjects will have to take their responsibility for supporting language learning as part of subject learning and thus to contribute their share in the development of an overall language education across the curriculum for each and every learner. In Germany we speak of BILDUNG as the realisation of all the potentials of an individual and particularly of “general language education across subjects” (Gesamtsprachliche Bildung) as a common goal, enabling all students to live and participate successfully in school, in the workplace and in society, thus contributing to shaping our national and European future.

At the end of grade 9/10, all the communicative competencies mentioned so far and particularly the specific sub-components developed in subject-specific contexts are expected to be present and accessible in a learner, also for purposes of evaluation or assessment and certification. However, which level of performance (reference level) should be reached by that time for a particular component of language competence are often not addressed in Germany. Considerations like these which would imply some kind of developmental thinking and scaling along the lines of transparent criteria are still missing to a large extent, although they are indispensable for the operation and application of the whole approach. This is indeed the great advantage of the Norwegian Frame of Basic Skills (2012) in that it offers levels and descriptions for different age groups, even if those descriptions are somewhat “common-sense” or experience-based and not deducted from any kind of “applied linguistic theory”. But the hope or expectation that such reference levels can be inferred and described empirically one day, is partly illusionary anyhow - it overlooks the fact that we as teachers or researchers are always guided by our pre-existing theoretical assumptions or implicit criteria by which we assess the acceptability level of a specific communicative performance. Those levels and their interpretation can normally only be defined ex post and pragmatically so – after we have gathered enough data from representative groups of learners which we can then classify into bands of achievers according to their performance.

Nevertheless, what we need in the future are relatively clear and convincing descriptions of levels of competence, based on transparent criteria, for each single communicative competence and competence component, independent from any data. This is at the heart of the ongoing curriculum reform. Only then are new ways of competence-based teaching and of fair assessment, internal as well as external, possible. Only then are we in a position to define a particular level of performance as a standard, either as an ideal standard or as a regular standard or, as it should be, as a minimum standard for all that can be reached by each and everyone including the migrant learners and those underprivileged native learners who are at risk because of their disadvantageous family situation and socio-economic background. Especially for them subject-specific language learning across the curriculum is a way of empowerment, leading to (deeper) understanding and participating in the discourse on the important issues related to a subject and their socio-cultural relevance outside school. To make these learners communicatively strong and “safe” for participation is a huge responsibility and challenge for teachers and the educational system as a whole. In terms of educational policy, therefore, the identification of subject-specific communication as such, as a competence area of its own, in close connection with content, is an important step towards the acknowledgement of the overriding importance of language across the curriculum. We will have to substantiate how exactly communication shapes efficient subject learning, what the communicative dimensions and elements are which have to be learned, how they can be taught in an integrative way within subject-matter teaching and how their development can be supported as well as assessed appropriately.

Given the National Standards for the Natural Sciences in Germany with their relative focus on individual subjects and “communication” as a limited, but explicit competence area, Eike Thürmann will now characterize and illustrate another approach to the one adopted by the German Länder. In contrast to that, one of the Länder, namely North-Rhine Westphalia, has set out to follow a cross-curricular approach by identifying and formulating what learners need to be able to “do” in terms of receptive as well as productive academic language skills at the end of their school career (end of obligatory schooling in grade 9/10, age 16). Such an approach is similar in some ways to the one chosen in Norway, yet it is also different from it, because it does not focus on the communicative activity areas like Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking, as we know it from the “Common European Framework of Languages: Teaching, Learning, Assessment” (Council of Europe 2001). Instead, the NRW-approach is based on a generalized functional description of good academic language use (exemplified in German as the language of instruction and thinking), before looking at how different content areas can or could contribute to developing those language competences so that they link up to an appropriate level of overall literacy within and across subjects, empowering students and enabling them to receive and make use of a quality education as individuals and future citizens.

Both models of curriculum planning and literacy development exist in member states: the one starting from individual subjects up to identifying the core components of academic language competences on the one hand, and the one defining a comprehensive frame of language competences first which is then broken down and applied within the different subjects. It remains to be seen which procedure is more efficient under which condition and which fits better in which educational context.

References

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Languages: Teaching, Learning, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2005a). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Beschluss vom 16.12.2004). Neuwied: Luchterhand.

Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2005b). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Beschluss vom 16.12.2004). Neuwied: Luchterhand.

Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2005b). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Beschluss vom 16.12.2004). Neuwied: Luchterhand.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2012). Framework for Basic Skills.

Tajmel, Tanja & Starl, Karl (eds.) (2009). Science Education Unlimited. Approaches to equal opportunities in learning science. Muenster: Waxmann.

Vollmer, H. J. (ed.) (2007). Language and Communication in the Sciences at the end of compulsory education. Strasbourg : Council of Europe (www.coe.int/lang).

Vollmer, H, J. (2012). Subject Literacies and Knowledge Building. (27.9.12 ppt-presentation).