Multilingual students often face multiple challenges in school. There is often a gap in learning outcomes between students with a migrant background and those without it (OECD, 2019). Previous research has shown that the literacy skills are significantly lower among students who study Finnish as a second language (F2) compared to their Finnish as a first language (F1) peers (Ukkola & Metsämuuronen, 2023). Deficits in literacy skills are associated with both poor academic performance and with low sense of belonging and equality both in school and in society.

In the Finnish elementary school, special support is aimed at strengthening the literacy skills of F2 curriculum students. Still, this support often fails to provide the student the tools needed for adequate academic progress (Ståhlberg et al., 2023). One of the key challenges for teachers is to distinguish problems related to poor language skills and problems related to specific subject. Failing to address this question adequately has multiple negative consequences: it obscures the teacher’s ability to make objective assessment of learning, which can lead to both under- and overestimating the student’s skills. In addition, it might prevent the teacher from offering needs-based support for the F2-student.

Language awareness is a key concept in developing new pedagogic tools, which support multilingual students and their literacy skills. An important part of language awareness, multiliteracy, states that the teacher is aware of the students' language skills, the literacy of the subject being taught, the activities used to build meanings, and also a systematic approach to teaching the discipline literacy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). In practice, integrating language and content is challenging for a teacher who is not really specialized in teaching language.

Previous research has shown that it is difficult for subject teachers to perceive themselves as instructors of reading and writing, especially beyond vocabulary (Aalto & Tarnanen, 2015). Assessment is an important tool for teaching. Especially, studies have shown that well-targeted formative assessment (FA) promotes learning efficiently (Andrade et al., 2019; Black et al., 2004; Kingston & Nash, 2011; Kingston & Nash, 2015). The key principles in feedback as a part of FA are to identify what the learning goals are, where the student is in relation to these goals, and how the student can reach the goal (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

To date, research on FA in teaching disciplinary literacy has been rare (Alderson et al., 2014; Gillis & Van Wig, 2015). On the other hand, literacy research has shown that feedback aimed at understanding text during reading is an effective tool for teaching (Swart et al., 2022). This paper aims to combine both theoretical and empirical research in developing a new model of feedback for teachers of environmental subjects. The new model aims to make it easier for the teacher to focus on students’ literacy skills as an integral part of content teaching. The model will be first applied to the teaching of F2 students in primary school, but the broader aim is that it is also suitable for guiding the literacy skills of F1 students. The model combines knowledge on both multiliteracy and FA. This study is based on the developmental research paradigm, which seeks theoretical insights and develops practical solutions (McKenney & Reeves, 2019). 

The participants of this study are Finnish primary school teachers (N=8), who have volunteered to take part in the project. The participants teach F2 students on 4.-6. grades, who have lived in Finland less than six years. This study is divided in two phases. In the first phase, we use a scoping literature review for defining the most important factors on the literacy processes used in studying environmental disciplinary in elementary school. Next, these processes are integrated within the feedback provided as an integral part of formative assessment. As a result, we construct a draft of a structured model for teaching disciplinary literacy. This model is called LUFO (name derived from Finnish words “LUkutaidon FOrmatiivinen arviointi”). Together with the recruited teachers, LUFO will be developed further by means of group interviews. The interviews are recorded and transcribed. In my presentation, I will discuss the results from the scoping review, teachers’ feedback and the resulting LUFO model. Later, in phase two, the effects of LUFO model will be evaluated with both quantitative and qualitative means. In the quantitative part of the study, summative learning results for children who have received teaching according to LUFO model will be compared to those from a comparison group matched by age, gender, ethnic background and living environment. In the qualitative part of study, the students who have received LUFO-based assessment will be interviewed to get their insights and impressions on the model. The phase two data acquisition will take place in 2025.

LUFO model aims to provide class teachers a low threshold, easy to adopt work tool for increasing the awareness of language during the teaching of a subject content. As the actual study phase takes place later in the spring 2024, all results presented now are preliminary. My presentation will focus on the chosen background theories, the different steps taken during the developmental research process, and finally the applicability of the final LUFO model from the participating teachers’ perspectives. From my current perspective, it is highly probable that LUFO model will combine the literacy processes of experience of text, conceptualization, analysis, and application of information, as well as knowledge and utilization of text genres and learners’ metacognitive skills concerning the literacy processes useful in tasks. Developmental research process will concentrate on pedagogical means to both assess the students’ competence and guide students to their aims. Based on my pilot work, it is possible to combine feedback and literacy in a meaningful way. In our previous research we showed that the core concepts of FA are quite well known among Finnish F2 teachers, but these concepts are seldom considered advantageous (Saari & Hildén, 2023). Thus, in practice, FA is not applied following the established guidelines. More research is needed especially on the role and possibilities of FA in F2 context. This study aims to address this gap of knowledge by developing a new structured tool LUFO. Further studies, which assess both the model’s effectiveness and applicability will be conducted later.

Aalto, E., & Tarnanen, M. (2015). Kielitietoinen aineenopetus opettajankoulutuksessa. In J. M.-M. Kalliokoski, K.; Nikula, T. (Ed.), Kieli koulutuksen resurssina: vieraalla ja toisella kielellä oppimisen näkökulmia (Vol. 8, pp. 72-90). Alderson, J. C., Haapakangas, E.-L., Huhta, A., Nieminen, L., & Ullakonoja, R. (2014). The Diagnosis of Reading in a Second or Foreign Language. Andrade, H., Bennett, R., & Cizek, G. (2019). Handbook of Formative Assessment in the Disciplines. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195. Gillis, V., & Van Wig, A. (2015). Disciplinary Literacy Assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 455-460. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative Assessment: A Meta-Analysis and a Call for Research. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 30(4), 28-37. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2015). Erratum. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 34(2), 55-55. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting Educational Design Research (2nd edition). OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Saari, E., & Hildén, R. (2023). S2-opettajien käsityksiä formatiivisesta arvioinnista oppimisen tukena. In T. Mäkipää, R. Hildén, & A. Huhta (Eds.), Kielenoppimista tukeva arviointi. AFinLA-teema. Nro 15 (pp. 142–161). Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Does It Matter? Top Lang Disorders Vol. 32, No. 1, 7–18. Ståhlberg, L., Lotta, U., & Hotulainen, R. (2023). Lukutaidon yhteys suomi toisena kielenä ja kirjallisuus (S2) -oppimäärän valitsemiseen toisella ja seitsemännellä luokalla. NMI-bulletin, 2023(1), 54–72. Swart, E. K., Nielen, T. M. J., & Sikkema‐De Jong, M. T. (2022). Does feedback targeting text comprehension trigger the use of reading strategies or changes in readers' attitudes? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 45(2), 171-188. Ukkola, A., & Metsämuuronen, J. (2023). Matematiikan ja äidinkielen taidot alkuopetuksen aikana – perusopetuksen oppimistulosten pitkittäisarviointi 2018–2020. Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus. Julkaisut 1:2023.