When teaching English to English language learners (ELLs), one of the most important distinctions that must be made is between social and academic English language styles. While social English is the type of colloquial language ELLs and native speakers will use for informal conversations and everyday life, academic English is a specific, complex type of English language that is imperative to master in order to facilitate truly successful academic learning outcomes. By comparing the two types of languages, it is possible to identify the contexts in which both are used, as well as the importance of teaching academic language as a specific focus in English language learning courses.
Social English is the type of oral and written communication that happens every day; here, there is less formal expectation on correctness and more of a general expectation to convey what is meant to be communicated. Examples include baser, less specific language to refer to things (like “take away” as opposed to “subtract”), more frequent use of contractions, and son on. ELLs who master social English can easily talk to each other on the bus or playground, or to each other between classes; it is an incredibly useful type of English in social situations outside of the classroom. Social English usually develops within several months of beginning to learn the language; however, it will typically take several years for an ELL to develop a complete grasp of social English (Benesch, 2001).
Academic English, on the other hand, is a very different animal, and is more or less required in order to become literate in the standards-based curriculum required by most classrooms and schools (Gee, 2004). In order to succeed in a school setting, ELLs must learn academic English; while social English can be comparatively easier, it is only through academic English that ELLs can learn to successfully navigate the curriculum being taught to them in class. Academic English is important to ELLs in order to provide them with a more comprehensive education than the simple learning of English; while social English will help them communicate with people in the outside world, academic English will allow them to benefit from math, sciences, social studies and other academic courses by providing them with the tools to understand the standards-based curricula they are being exposed to. Academic English provides them with the academic vocabulary required to facilitate learning in all of their courses – to that end, English language teachers with ELLs should work to make their students proficient in both languages.
There are many different methods by which instructors can teach academic English in addition to social English to their ELL students. It is vital for teachers to identify the level of English proficiency their ELL has, as each student has their own unique challenges (Benesch, 2001). The vast majority of ELLs have a beginning to intermediate understanding of the English language, meaning that they have at least a basic comprehension of simple language and some English words, and have a decent level of understanding of how to participate in a conversation (Benesch, 2001). In order to teach academic English, it is perfectly acceptable to start with social English; this provides ELLs with the basic vocabulary they will need for rudimentary communication. Once social English is mastered, it will become easier to teach academic English to these students, as the social context can be used to introduce ELLs to more and more complicated and academic terms and usages. While academic English has its own particular way of speaking, social English acts as an incredibly accessible gateway to learning it.
One of the most organized systemic ways to teach academic language is the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), which is a method of transitional instruction for elementary and secondary school students who have limited English proficiency into academic English (Chamot & O’Malley, 1987). Learning strategies are provided to ELLs and ESL students through a cognitive approach that helps them retain and comprehend language skills and concepts in a variety of content areas, including math, science and language arts (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). These strategies include metacognitive thinking interventions in which students are encouraged to think about how they learn, as well as cognitive strategies of learning through rehearsal and affective controls (Chamot & O’Mallet, 1994). Through these strategies, a codified way of teaching academic language to ELLs can be used.
Comparing social and academic languages, it is clear that they each have their own unique uses. While social English is useful for most contexts outside of the classroom, it is imperative for ELLs to learn academic English so they can maximize their learning in other content areas as well. Having a comprehensive understanding of social and academic languages is shown to have tremendously positive effects on student learning (Mashburn et al., 2008). To that end, ELLs must be given the chance to not only master the type of English they use in their everyday lives, but the sophisticated terms and concepts required of them to understand the things they are being taught in the classroom.
References
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Egbert, J.L. & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2010). Access to academics: Planning instruction for K-12
classrooms with ELLs. Pearson Education.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2008). Academic language for English language learners and
struggling readers. Heinemann.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., &
Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child development, 79(3), 732-749.
