Session Information
31 SES 03 A, Teacher impact on multilingual and diverse learners
Paper Session
Contribution
An increasing number of learners worldwide follows (part of their) secondary education in a second language (Mohan, Leung & Slater 2010; Briggs, Dearden & Macaro, 2018). The types of secondary education that offer education in a second language assume an important role for subject teachers to offer language support (Tyner & Kabourek, 2020; Duarte, 2019). Within these settings, the concept of scaffolding is used to conceptualize the support that allows learners to engage with content in a language they only partially know (Lyster, 2019).
The extent to which subject teachers utilize language scaffolds in bilingual education contexts is relatively unknown and an investigation into the ‘what, why and how of scaffolding’ (Pea, 2004, p. 430) therefore seems warranted. Although several studies have highlighted that a focus on language is not always an integral part of subject teachers’ teaching in different bilingual environments (Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013; Oattes, Oostdam, De Graaff, Fukkink & Wilschut, 2018), very few studies have focused on the kinds of support that are provided.
This presentation consists of an overview of the preliminary results of an investigation of the types of language scaffolds used by social studies and geography teachers teaching in Dutch secondary bilingual education and their reasons for employing these language scaffolds. Interviews, lesson observations and stimulated recall interviews were conducted to investigate the reported practices, actual practices and reasons teachers have for using particular language scaffolds.
The central research question of the investigation is: ‘which types of language scaffolds do social studies and geography teachers teaching in Dutch secondary bilingual education use in their practice and which reasons do they have to employ these practices?’.
This question is addressed through the lenses of Fenstermacher’s formal and practical knowledge (Fenstermacher, 1994). The former describes the type of knowledge that is known and created by researchers for teachers, whereas the latter is the knowledge that is known and created by teachers – knowledge of teachers.
The observation tool and interview scheme build on the concept of whole class scaffolding developed by Smit, Van Eerde and Bakker (2013). It also incorporates the language levels used in the research of Lo, Lui and Wong (2019) and linguistic demands as used by Lo and Fung (2020). Finally, Van de Pol et al.’s (2010) distinction between scaffolding goals and means is used to provide further insight in the ways the scaffolding of language takes place and the motivations teachers have to engage in it.
Across European and OECD countries, the number of multilingual students is rising (Forghani-Arani, Cerna, and Bannon 2019, European Commission, EACEA, and Eurydice 2019). This research offers researchers a tool to investigate scaffolding practices in various educational contexts across the globe, as well as insights into the different scaffolds used by teachers, and the reasons they have for employing them in the classroom. Given the fact that the number of multilingual students is ever increasing, it is imperative for teachers to reflect on their teaching approaches in order to meet their students’ needs (Duarte & Kirsch 2020). This research provides practitioners around the worldwith a resource to broaden their language scaffolding horizon. Since schools where a significant part of the students do not speak the language(s) of instruction at home are now a frequent occurrence (OECD 2018), and since school leadership is ‘an important concept internationally in addressing increasing migration led diversity’ (Faas, Smith & Darmody 2018; 459) this investigation also provides school leaders and policy makers with directions for further (professional) development of staff by showing not only what teachers are doing, but more importantly, what they can be doing to address their students’ needs.
Method
The investigation is conducted in Dutch secondary bilingual schools. Bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands was established to provide students with the chance to increase their proficiency in English while simultaneously learning subject content (Maljers 2007). Eight teachers teaching social studies and/or geography participated in the study. The teachers taught across four schools and had teaching experience ranging from 2 to 13 years. The age-range of the students involved in the observed classes was 12-17 years old. All teachers conducted their lessons in English. The research question is addressed through the lenses of Fenstermacher’s formal and practical knowledge (Fenstermacher, 1994). In this investigation, the observation tool and interview schemes represent the formal knowledge for teachers that is used to investigate teacher’s practical knowledge of language scaffolding. The study relies on multiple sources of data, namely: (1) pre-observation teacher interviews on reported practices; (2) three lesson observations per teacher; (3) post-observation stimulated recall interviews on the reasons teachers have to engage in language scaffolding. The observation tool and interview scheme build on the concept of whole class scaffolding developed by Smit, Van Eerde and Bakker (2013). It also incorporates the language levels used in the research of Lo, Lui and Wong (2019) and linguistic demands as used by Lo and Fung (2020). Finally, Van de Pol et al.’s (2010) distinction between scaffolding goals and means is used to provide further insight in the ways the scaffolding of language takes place and the motivations teachers have to engage in it. During the first interview, teachers are provided with a stimulus containing the description of language scaffolding used in the research as well as four classroom situations based on the learning cycle. The stimuli assist the participant in describing the language scaffolding practices that they use in different teaching phases. Three lessons of the teacher are filmed. The researcher selects and transcribes a 5-10 minute segment from one of the lessons which functions as a stimulus in the stimulated recall interview which is conducted after the last lesson is filmed. The participant is asked about the reasons for engaging in language scaffolding in the two segments. By combining the reported practices with the lesson observations and the stimulated recall, the investigation paints a picture of the various language scaffolds that are used by the teachers, as well as their reasoning for using these language scaffolds.
Expected Outcomes
The expected outcomes will consist of two parts. On the surface, the results will consist of an overview of the various types of language scaffolds used by the teachers and the reasons teachers have to use them in their classes. First, the interview about self-reported practices will illustrate which types of language scaffolds the teachers say they use and which reasons they say they have for using them. The combination of the observations and the stimulated recall interviews will reveal on the one hand which language scaffolds are used by the teachers and on the other hand will provide insight in the reasons teachers have to use these scaffolds. The observation tool allows us to show whether one specific scaffold is geared towards productive skills, i.e., speaking and writing, or receptive skills, i.e., reading and listening. Furthermore, the tool will also demonstrate whether the focus is on the vocabulary, sentence or text level. The results, however, will not only indicate whether, or to what extent teachers make use of certain types of language scaffolds and the reasons they have for using them. The expected outcomes will also feature descriptions of examples of certain language scaffolds to illustrate what practices looked like in the classroom practice in which they were observed. These examples will provide the kind of texture to the types of scaffolding which will increase the chances that the results will be of use not only to researchers, but also to teachers and teacher educators in search of examples of language scaffolding which they can use to their multilingual students’ ever-increasing needs.
References
Briggs, J. G., Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2018). English medium instruction: Comparing teacher beliefs in secondary and tertiary education. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 673-696. 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.7 Duarte, J. (2019). Translanguaging in mainstream education: a sociocultural approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 150-164 https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231774 Duarte, J., & Kirsch, C. (2020). Introduction: multilingual approaches to teaching and learning. Multilingual approaches for teaching and learning. From acknowledging to capitalising on multilingualism in European mainstream education, 1-12. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. 2019. “Integrating Students from Migrant Backgrounds into Schools in Europe: National Policies and Measures.” Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/ eurydice/sites/eurydice/files/integrating_students_from_migrant_backgrounds_into_schools_ in_europe_national_policies_and_measures.pdf. Faas, D., Smith, A., & Darmody, M. (2018). The role of principals in creating inclusive school environments: insights from community national schools in Ireland. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 457-473. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). Chapter 1: The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of research in education, 20(1), 3-56. Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385 Lo, Y. Y., & Fung, D. (2018). Assessments in CLIL: the interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Lo, Y. Y., Lui, W. M., & Wong, M. (2019). Scaffolding for cognitive and linguistic challenges in CLIL science assessments. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 7(2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18028.lo Lyster, R. (2019). Translanguaging in Immersion: Cognitive Support or Social Prestige?. Canadian Modern Language Review, 75(4), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2019-0038 Maljers, A. 2007. “The Netherlands.” In Windows on CLIL, edited by A. Maljers, D. Marsh, and D. Wolff, 130–138. The Hague: European Platform for Dutch Education Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Slater, T. (2010). Assessing language and content: A functional perspective.In A. Paran & S. Lies (Eds.) Testing the untestable in language education (pp. 217-240). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters OECD. 2018. The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background: Factors That Shape Well- Being. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264292093-en. Smit, J., AA van Eerde, H., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole‐class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817-834. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational psychology review, 22(3), 271-296.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.