In many courses, students struggle to master the technical language of the discipline. The meaning of new terms is usually not obvious or intuitive. Moreover, the words describe concepts and processes that are also unfamiliar ...
In many courses, students struggle to master the technical language of the discipline. The meaning of new terms is usually not obvious or intuitive. Moreover, the words describe concepts and processes that are also unfamiliar to students. Not surprisingly, the jargon of the discipline can get in the way of learning, especially for students who do not have large vocabularies or a love of language.
This problem motivated researchers to examine whether there might be a better way to introduce students to new content. They shared their findings in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education; however, the implications are relevant for most every discipline. I’ve summarized the key points here and encourage you to read the article in its entirety if you think the authors’ approach might benefit your students.
McDonnell, L., Barker, M. K., & Wieman, C. (2016). Concepts first, jargon second improves student articulation of understanding. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20922 [Open access]
There’s research documenting that the number of new terms in some science textbooks outnumbers words learned in an introductory foreign language course. The work is also theoretically aligned with cognitive load theories, which posit that the brain has a discrete amount of cognitive processing power. If a student is using their mental resources to figure out pronunciations and meanings, they’ll have fewer resources available to focus on understanding the concept or process. This can be exacerbated when an instructor moves quickly through unfamiliar disciplinary language.
A first-year introductory cell biology course taught in two lecture sections with a cohort of 42 students in each section participated in the study.
Students in the experimental group completed a reading assignment before class in which everyday language replaced disciplinary jargon. The control group read the same material without the technical language being replaced. The 42-student cohorts, one for the control group, the other for the experimental treatment, were selected because they indicated that they’d read all the assigned pre-reading material. At the beginning of class, students in the experimental group were introduced to the jargon terms. Afterward, the same instructor lectured on content covered in the reading in both sections. Student performance was measured on an in-class post-test that included both multiple-choice and free-response questions.
The researchers did not measure student familiarity with the jargon used during the study. It may be that some students already knew the terms, having taken biology courses in high school. Such prior knowledge could have influenced their test question answers.
This research underscores the validity of small changes: “We did not increase class time, reduce course material, or increase student workload” (p. 18). The results, furthermore, should encourage those teaching introductory courses to consider these questions: Is there too much technical language in courses for nonmajors? Is learning the language of a discipline more or less important than understanding what the field studies and how knowledge in the field advances? Finally, the results should motivate faculty to consider describing important concepts and processes in common, everyday language. The findings do not excuse students from learning technical language. Rather, they explore what happens to learning when students are encouraged to understand first and attach a label after they know what it names.