Kimberly Feldman

This commentary proposes the metaphor of “languaging-as-practice” in science education as an alternative to “language-as-tool” metaphors. Describing language as a tool implicitly positions language as static and unchanging and assumes that named languages are distinct and bounded entities. In contrast, describing languaging as a practice acknowledges the multiple and advanced ways speakers draw on many aspects of their linguistic repertoires while often crossing purported boundaries between named languages. This approach is grounded in translanguaging theory and offers a dynamic understanding of language in educational settings. It envisions students constructing and expressing scientific knowledge by drawing on their complete linguistic repertoires. By advocating for this approach, we aim to promote practices that acknowledge and leverage the diverse linguistic backgrounds of students, fostering inclusive and effective learning environments. While this approach has gained some traction in language-education circles, we believe it needs more consideration in the science education community. We also critique the limitations of viewing language merely as a tool for reproducing predefined scientific concepts and discourses, proposing that a more expansive approach to language can enhance opportunities for scientific sense-making and knowledge construction. We urge science education researchers and practitioners to shift how we think and talk about language in the science classroom to adopt and act upon a metaphor of “languaging-as-practice.”