Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa // 1998 // Volumen 4 //
Número 1_3
ISSN 1134-4032 //
D.L. SE-1138-94
SCAFFOLDED INSTRUCTION:
PROMOTING BILITERACY FOR SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS WITH LANGUAGE/LEARNING
DISABILITIES
por
Lorri M. Johnson-Perrodin
lorrie@U.Arizona.EDU
Todd V. Fletcher, Ph.D.
Candace S. Bos, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
ABSTRACT
For
culturally and linguistically diverse learners, scaffolded instruction is
important for not only content learning but for second language learning. In
this case study of two bilingual education teachers and their third grade
students, we expand the traditional concept of scaffolded instruction (e.g.,
experts, tools, routines) to include Krashen's notion of comprehensible input
(1982) as a scaffold for acquiring a second language yielding an effective
transfer of first language (L1) academic language development to second
language (L2) academic language development. A variety of scaffolds were used
as multiple support systems that facilitated the biliteracy learning process
for the students. Peer interactions, expert/ novice groupings, and literacy
tools and routines were some of the scaffolds used to facilitate biliteracy instruction.
Key to transfer from L1 to L2 was the teaching the tools and routines in the
students' L1 prior to biliteracy instruction. Considerations for students with
language/learning disabilities (LLD) were included in this case study. Results
suggest that by scaffolding for L2 development using previously acquired
knowledge from first language (L1) instruction, students including those with
LLD efficiently transferred cognitive academic skills from L1 to L2.
Educational implications are discussed.
RESUMEN
Para
alumnos cultural y linguisticamente diversos, la instrucción basada en el
andamiaje es importante no unicamente para el contenido del aprendizaje sino
para el aprendizaje de un segundo idioma. En este estudio de caso de dos
profesores bilingües y sus alumnos de tercer curso, ampliamos el tradicional
concepto de instrucción mediante andamiaje (e.g.,expertos, herramientas,
rutinas) incluyendo la noción de Krashen de entrada comprensiba (1982) como un
apoyo para adquirir un segundo lenguaje produciendo un transfer efectivo del
primer idioma desarrollado academicamente (L1) al segundo (L2). Una gran
variedad de andamiajes fueron usados como sistemas de apoyo múltiple que
facilitan el proceso de aprendizaje bilingüe en los alumnos. Interacciones con
los compañeros, agrupamientos experto/novato, herramientas de lectoescritura y
rutinas fueron algunos de las ayudas empleadas para facilitar la enseñanza
bilingüe. La clave para transferir de L1 a L2 fue la enseñanza de herramientas
y rutinas a los estudiantes en L1 previas a la enseñanza bilingüe. Támbien se
ha incluido en este caso de estudio consideraciones para alumnos con
dificultades de aprendizaje y en el lenguaje. Los resultados indican que
apoyando el desarrollo de L2 usando el conocimiento previo adquirido del primer
idioma (L1), los estudiantes, incluidos aquellos con dificultades de
aprendizaje y en el lenguaje, transfieren eficientemente las habilidades
cognitivas académicas de L1 a L2. Las implicaciones educativas son también
tratadas.
1.
USING SCAFFOLDED INSTRUCTION TO PROMOTE BILITERACY FOR SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS
WITH LANGUAGE/LEARNING DISABILITIES
Educators,
like scaffolds used in the process of constructing a building, are crucial,
albeit temporary supports that assist students as they develop knowledge,
strategies, and skills. With both construction and educational scaffolds,
levels of support move from outwardly visible or external to abstract or
internal. That is, the support that is originally provided by external supports
are replaced by the internal structural supports of the building. In
educational settings, teachers as external scaffolds enable students to
accomplish tasks with assistance which they eventually will do independently.
After students have sufficiently internalized the knowledge and strategies,
these become part of students' schemas and accessible to use in future
learning. In other words, scaffolds are temporary supports, provided by more
capable individuals that permit learners to participate in complex processes
before they are able to do so unassisted (Peregoy & Boyle, 1997).
Scaffolded
instruction is associated with Vygotsky's sociocultural or sociohistorical
theory of development (Vygotsky, 1978). Using this theory, instruction is
typically characterized by social interactions between learners/novices and
experts (e.g., parents, teachers, more capable peers) that precede students'
internalization of new understandings and skills (Winn, 1994). Scaffold
instruction takes place within students' zones of proximal development (ZPD)
(Vygotsky, 1978). To teach in the ZPD is to be responsive to the learners'
current goals and stages of development and to provide guidance and assistance
that enables students to achieve those goals and at the same time, to increase
their potential for future participation (Wells, 1998). Teachers create the ZPD
by engaging the students in learning activities that require them to make
challenging stretches in their development. Scaffolding the instruction by
providing temporary supports is one of the primary means teachers use to ensure
students are learning within the ZPD. As part of scaffolded instruction
teachers build on the students' life history, that is the culture and
experiences that students bring to the learning activities. For learners who
are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) in comparison to the school
culture, incorporating cultural history and home experiences into school
learning provides scaffolds that supports learners making connections between the
funds of knowledge that are found in their home culture and that of the school
(Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).
For
CLD students as well as for students with language/learning disabilities the
routines that develop through scaffolded instruction are important for transfer
of learning. For example, the completion of story frames to promote
comprehension of a story can transfer to the routine of completing expository
text frames (e.g., descriptive, cause/effect, sequential) when the students are
well acquainted and comfortable with the use of story frames. Although the
notion of routines can be generalized to all learners, predictable routines
serve a unique function for second language learners in that using routines
allow second language learners to more easily focus on learning a second
language by lowering their anxiety levels associated with using unfamiliar
routines and educational experiences. Routines, however, provide effective
learning scaffolds only to the extent that they are sufficiently familiar and
appropriate to students prior cultural experiences (Peregoy & Boyle, 1997).
As
related to bilingual education and instruction for CLD learners, the concept of
scaffolding has most commonly been associated with home culture, home language,
and literacy development. Based on a longitudinal study of effective
instruction in bilingual classroom settings, Moll (1992), in his discussion of
teaching second language students, emphasized the importance of "utilizing
available resources, including the children's or parents' language and
knowledge, in creating new, advanced instructional circumstances for the
student's academic development" (p. 23). These sociocultural
recommendations tie teaching methods and strategies to the learners' cultures.
These kinds of educational provisions can unequivocally be met through
scaffolding within a culturally appropriate environment when scaffolding is
ongoing and perceived as an essential primary aspect of instruction. Not unlike
the recommendations drawn from Moll's work, the Kamehamea Elementary Education
Program (KEEP) research project infused students' cultures into reading lessons
and made use of scaffolds that entailed modeling, feedback, and questioning
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). These considerations were effective for
promoting student achievement and provided research based insights for
educators who teach CLD learners, especially students that are considered
Limited English Proficient and as a result participate in bilingual education ir
English as a second language programs. Thus, expert/novice scaffolds can play a
important role in bilingual education.
While
the interpersonal expert/novice interactions provide scaffolds to support
student learning, tools can also serve to bridge the gap between students'
actual developmental levels and that required for independent problem solving
(Englert, et al., 1995). When participating in literacy instruction, typical
tools might include story maps, text structure frames, personal dictionaries,
concept diagrams, response journals, writing processes, word processors, and
spelling and grammar checkers. Like experts, these tools function as guides
that enable students to perform at higher levels than they would have without
such supports. For example, having students complete and use a story map as
they read and retell a story can substantially improve the quality of the
students' retellings. Tools also serve an important function in that tools used
in one learning experience can be used in similar learning experiences hence
promoting transfer of learning (Reyes & Bos, 1998). For example, the story
frame used in assisting students to identify the major features of a story
written in the students' L1 (Spanish) can also be used to assist the students
when reading another story in the students' L2 (English).
A
concept that seems compatible with scaffold instruction is Krashen's concept of
comprehensible input (1982). Krashen developed the concept as it relates to
promoting second language acquisition. An abstract concept, comprehensible
input is language used in ways that make it understandable to the learner while
second language proficiency is limited. Comprehensible input makes learning
more meaningful, more purposeful, and at the learner's level. Within a
sociocultural framework, it appears quite logical to view comprehensible input
as receptive sophisticated scaffolds that enable students to more readily
acquire a second language within a well-supported zone of proximal development.
As related to transfer from first language of instruction (L1) to the
acquisition of a second language (L2), comprehensible input as an identifiable
scaffold becomes an important tool for teachers and their CLD students. For
example, if teachers are aware that their third grade students are able to
compose letters in L1 using structured outlines that include a heading,
greeting, body, and closing; those same students will eventually be able to
complete the same process using the same outlines in their L2. In this case the
comprehensible input would be the L2 instruction contextualized by the same
familiar structure outline that was used in L1 instruction. This L2 instruction
can be viewed as comprehensible input because students are able to easily
understand its connection via their background knowledge and previous learning
experiences in L1. This comprehensible input can be identified as second
language instruction of cognitive tasks that have been internalized in a
learner's primary language. L 2 instruction is comprehensible in that it uses
the same teaching routines and tools from prior instruction in L1. Furthermore,
this article introduces a first language organizational framework (L1OF) which
can be explicitly taught to students as text structures within a literacy
scaffold and can promote more meaningful second language learning. A unique
characteristic of learners' use of L1OF is that their scaffolds do not always
come from adults or more competent peers. Additionally, the knowledge and
strategies being developed are based upon the language competence students
already possess in their first language, thus the students provides their own
internal scaffolds. In this manner the teacher becomes a facilitator for the
scaffolding process which is carried out within the sociocultural context of
the classroom.
In
sum, a more holistic definition of scaffolded instruction that applies to all
learners, views scaffolding as sociocultural interactions between the learner
and adults or more capable peers. This definition also includes the tools that
structure learning to enable students to work in their zones of proximal
development, thereby challenging them to reach their next level in development
in an environment where culturally relevant routines have been established
(Peregoy & Boyle, 1997). In that comprehensible input is purposeful
language that enables students to further develop L2, mediated by an
"expert" or "expert knowledge", it can also be considered a
type of scaffold. "Expert knowledge" can be identified as the
language skills a learner has previously internalized and demonstrated fluency
using their primary language of instruction. As a scaffold, this knowledge can
act as a conduit for transfer of target information to a learner's L2. Jimenez
(1996) highlighted the need for language-specific strategies that could more
effectively facilitate L2 acquisition in learners as well as the need for the
transfer of strategies across languages.
Given
this background, the purpose of this article is to expand the traditional
concept of scaffolded instruction (e.g., experts and tools) to include
Krashen's comprehensible input as a scaffold for acquiring a second language
yielding an effective transfer of L1 academic language development to L2 academic
language development. Furthermore, this article describes how two bilingual
teachers enacted these constructs using biliteracy instruction with the goal of
serving all of their children including those with language/learning
disabilities.
In
the classroom example presented in this article, the scaffolds for second
language acquisition for both English and Spanish learners are (a) routine
knowledge of text structures in L1 within a literacy scaffold (L1OF and text
structure scaffold), (b) teacher directed mini-lessons (expert scaffold and
comprehensible input), (c) buddy reading (peer expert scaffold), and (d)
similar language groups (peer expert scaffold and L1OF). In effect, this
article describes a constructivist application of educational research and
theory that encompasses scaffolding language arts through biliteracy
instruction for Latino students and introduces the concept of L1OF.
2.
CLASSROOM EXAMPLE OF BILITERACY SCAFFOLDING
Setting
and Participants
The
teachers in this classroom example were Lena and Marta, two bilingual teachers
in a bilingual elementary school in the southwestern region of the United
States. These teachers' goal was to explore the concept of scaffolded
instruction and L1OF in their third grade bilingual classrooms so as to meet
the needs of their students in what they considered to be a challenging
teaching situation. In this school more than 90% of the 650 students were on
free or reduced lunch programs, and ethnicity at the school was 93% Latino, 2%
Native American and 5% represented by other groups. The community was
transitional as many immigrant families moved into the community long enough to
become financially stable then moved elsewhere in the city.
The
district philosophy encouraged site-based management. With regard to bilingual
education, the site team decided that teachers were responsible for literacy
instruction in a students' primary language for grades one through three. Hence
for language arts instruction students from Lena and Marta's classes were
regrouped based on language proficiency with Marta teaching language arts in
Spanish and Lena in English. Fourth grade was designated as the transition year
into the students' second language. This was in accordance to the district's
late exit transitional model of bilingual education based on Cummins second
language acquisition theory (1981).
As
second year teachers, both Lena and Marta were interested in applying some of
the research and practices they had learned during their teacher preparation to
their diverse student population. In the current teaching situation the
teachers were not satisfied with the school plan to teach language arts in
Spanish to Spanish speakers and in English to English speakers and were
concerned about the abrupt transition made in 4th grade.
The
teachers were drawing from a number of theories and premises associated with
best practices in teaching CLD students. These included the importance of (a)
Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and scaffolded instruction (1978), (b)
Krashen's comprehensible input (1982), (c) the group in comparison to
individualism and competitiveness within the group (Banks & Banks, 1995),
(d) teaching that embraces different learning styles and multiple intelligences
(Gardner, 1989), and interactive teaching (Bos & Anders, 1992) that
incorporated such instructional features as activating prior knowledge, tying
new knowledge to old, predicting relationships, teaching conceptual vocabulary,
cooperative knowledge sharing, and justifying relationships.
The
teachers wanted to give their students opportunities to work on cognitively
demanding tasks in L2 after having previously mastered the same strategies and
routines in L1. They questioned Cummins (1981) and Collier's (1989) assertions
that the development of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) needs to
follow the development of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS),
thereby discouraging the academic transition of second language learners who
were not ready to perform more cognitively demanding academic tasks. The
teachers, relying on Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, thought that when
given the proper support in L1, including the use of comprehensible input
(Krashen, 1982) and consistent instruction across L1 and L2, students would
perform at a cognitively challenging level earlier than the five to seven years
Cummins described or the seven to ten years Collier described (Cummins, 1981;
Collier, 1989). The teachers looked forward to using scaffolded biliteracy
instruction as a means by which CALP was introduced in conjunction with BICS
and as a more effective bilingual method of teaching all of their students.
Both
Lena and Marta had a wide variety of students in their classrooms including
students who were monolingual Spanish speaking, monolingual English speaking,
at various stages of acquiring a second language, gifted/talented, learning
disabled, speech and language delayed, and/or hard of hearing. Students with
special needs either attended resource programs or were fully included with
accommodations depending on individual student needs and teacher sensitivity
and skills for accommodating diverse learners.
Tools
for Scaffolding Biliteracy Instruction
In
designing their scaffolded instruction to support students as they developed
literacy in their second language, Marta and Lena selected the same tools that
they had been using in L1 literacy instruction to scaffold their L2 literacy
instruction. The teachers chose tools that they felt would enable students to
transfer a complete task from L1 to L2 with relative ease, confidence, and
fluency. Their unified belief was that tools need to be relevant and useful in
learners' L1 to act as vehicles to enable the learners to transfer the
knowledge and strategies to L2. In planning, Marta and Lena selected as their
major tools story maps and frames (Englert et al., 1995; Reyes & Bos,
1998), personal dictionaries, wordless books, and writing process (Graves,
1983).
They
developed story maps and frames that were highly visual, pairing pictures with
text to facilitate second language learning. The assumption was that if
students routinely and competently completed story maps or frames in their L1,
whether as summaries of stories or as prewriting activities, the students would
be ready to transfer that tool to their L2.
Similarly,
the teachers used personal dictionaries which were developed by the students as
a means for recording key vocabulary in L1 and L2. For example, if during L2
"free reading" students encountered an unfamiliar word, the word was
added to their dictionaries. Following reading, the teacher provided time when
students who read in their L2 and as such are novices, interact with students
for whom this language was their L1 and hence served as experts. These experts
supported and assisted the novices in completing new dictionary entries using
both L1 and L2. Hence, personal dictionaries serve as tools to which the
students can refer when transferring concepts from L1 to L2.
Additionally,
wordless books provided a means for students to create a text in either L1 or
L2 using the pictures to derive the storyline. Working with a peer "expert"
in either language further supported a student's literacy development. This
promoted interpersonal relations and the kind of constructivism that has been
associated with success for CLD learners with and without disabilities (Ruiz,
Garcia, & Figueroa, 1996).
Finally,
the writing process (Graves, 1983) was used as an "expert/novice"
interactive tool that when routinely practiced in L1 enabled the students to
write a coherent product in their L2 earlier than predicted by theory (Collier,
1989; Cummins, 1981). In this biliteracy instruction, students working in their
L2 (novices) relied on classmates whose L1 was the novices' L2 for guidance and
support. Thus, these classmates served as experts and the roles were reversed
when these classmates were writing in their L2. In this context, students
functioned as sophisticated language development scaffolds for one another.
Sequence
of Instruction
Lena
and Marta formatted their instruction so that students first learned to use the
literacy tools and routines in the first language and then applied those same
tools and routines to literacy learning in their second language. For two
months students in Marta and Lena's classrooms were regrouped according to
their primary language as determined by a standardized language assessment
given to all students classified as second language learners in the elementary
school. When regrouped, Marta taught language arts in Spanish to Spanish
speakers and Lena in English to English speakers. After the two months,
students were no longer regrouped for language arts instruction. Consequently,
both Lena and Marta's classrooms had a mixture of students who were more
proficient in English or Spanish. In these mixed language classrooms, the
teachers engaged in biliteracy instruction. The students served as experts for
each other as they learned to read and write in their second languages, be it
English or Spanish.
Scaffolded
instruction in L1. For the first two months, Lena and Marta used
scaffolded instruction in the students' L1 to teach the targeted tools and
routines. Their scaffolded instruction incorporated other important strategies
such as the activating prior knowledge, making information more relevant by
tying new knowledge to old, having students predict, confirm, and justify
relationships, teaching vocabulary in relation to content, and using
cooperative knowledge sharing (Bos & Anders, 1992; Reyes & Bos, 1998).
The
scaffolded instruction was arranged around integrated literature based centers
that relied on cooperative groups. The purpose of the centers was to provide an
inclusive integrated language arts program that incorporated key tools and
routines that would eventually be transferred to biliteracy instruction. The
teachers collaborated and co-planned to align their instructional programs so
that students would learn the same tools and routines. As demonstrated in Figure
1, each center was designed with stated objectives, planned activities,
accommodations for gifted/talented students and students with learning/language
disabilities, materials, and a method of evaluation. Both groups of students
were provided with print rich environments that included Spanish text sets for
Marta's classroom and identical or similar English text sets for Lena's
classroom. Hence, students read materials in their L1. The centers were
facilitated by adults in the classroom which, in addition to the teacher, might
include a teaching assistant, a special education teacher, and a parent or
community volunteer.
Literacy Instruction in L1
Language Arts Centers for Third
Grade
|
Lang Arts |
|
|
|
|
|
spelling
Ms.
Moorehead |
Obj:
Students will make rainbow words with spelling words at left in order to
prepare for a spelling test.
|
*LD
|
|
1.
Spelling grade. |
|
reading
Mrs.
Perrodin |
Obj:
As a group, students will complete a reading comprehension activity (see handout)
for the story Bringing the Rain to Kapiti Plain.
|
*Adult
will be integral part of this center for modeling and reading directions.
|
|
1.
Adult will complete checklist of desired behaviors: a)
cooperation
|
|
writing
Mr.
Purecell |
Obj:
Students will be writing descriptive paragraphs about Bringing the Rain to
Kapiti Plain using a paragraph scaffold, on the computer.
|
*Scaffold
was provided.
|
1.
Descriptive Paragraph frame using work from last week's writing center. 2.
Adult facilitator. 3.
Additional support materials if necessary. |
1.
Adult will complete checklist of desired behaviors: a)cooperation
|
|
listening,
art, or creative expression center
Ms.
Vasquez |
Obj:
Students will create texts for picture pop-up books that were created in last
week's centers about an animal on the Kapiti Plain.
|
*Adult
available if necessary.
|
|
1.
Presentation to small group checklist: a)
loud voice
|
Figure
1. Plans for literacy instruction in L1.
On
a typical day in either one of these classrooms, students came in, were seated
and immediately turned their attention to the communication boards around the
room. The front board listed the agenda for the day along with criteria for
evaluating each center, the side board outlined a particular center or
mini-lesson, and the back board told students which centers the students would
be attending that day. The teacher then greeted the class and reviewed student
expectations. Students were chosen randomly to read and clarify the information
on the communication boards. To set the stage for the first activity the
teacher focused on the literature selection which was the theme for all of the
centers. If a mini-lesson was needed based upon the previous day's center work,
the teacher presented it in lieu the literature activity. These activities were
designed to illicit students' prior knowledge about the selection before the
students went to their center. During this time the adults in the room prepared
their centers by gathering materials, noting who would be attending their
centers, and planning for students' accommodations accordingly. Centers
generally lasted from forty-five minutes to an hour and were based on
literature that was being explored by the whole class. In the example provided,
the story "Bringing the Rain to Kapiti Plain" was the common
literature piece that tied the centers together. Following a mini-lesson or
literature discussion, students moved to their centers.
Lena
and Marta were fortunate in that they had several adults who acted as
facilitators during language arts. While the reading and writing centers
generally required adult scaffolds, the spelling and listening/art/creative
expression centers were designed so students could support one another. For
example, in the writing center Rob, the special education resource teacher,
guided the students during a two week project in which the students used
paragraph frames to plan and write a descriptive paragraph about the story
"Bringing the Rain to Kapiti Plain" and then word processed and
edited their paragraphs. Throughout the project, Rob scaffolded the instruction
depending on student needs whether it was eliciting rich descriptive language
from the students, guiding students in developing initial drafts by modeling
and assisting as necessary, or the following week modeling an editing strategy
(COPS: capitalization, overall organization, punctuation, and spelling)
(Schumaker, Nolan, & Deshler, 1985). The writing center would not have been
as beneficial to the students without an adult facilitator.
The
same literature was used in the centers for two weeks. This center based format
was used in both classrooms for two months using the same instructional plans.
After two months of instruction in L1, students were expected to use story maps
and paragraph frames to summarize or generate stories, to record new vocabulary
in their personal dictionaries, to provide texts for wordless books, and to
complete written pieces using the steps in the writing process learned during
mini-lessons and practiced in centers. Curriculum-based assessments were given
to determine if students could use these tools effectively with minimal
support. At this point of instruction, students were expected to demonstrate a
solid L1OF that could act as a scaffold from which to develop parallel tools
and routines in L2. Some students with learning/language disabilities needed
additional scaffolding by pairing with a more proficient peer or providing
additional tools such as word processors and spelling/grammar checkers.
But the fundamental understanding of the tools and routines were part of these
students' learning repertoire. At the end of two months of instruction in L1, students
were fluent and appeared to be ready to transfer some of their newly acquired
tools and routines to L2.
Biliteracy
instruction. Biliteracy instruction was taught in mixed language
groups. In these groups the teachers continued to make use of scaffolded
instruction characterized by social interactions between learners/novices and
experts that built upon students' background knowledge, home language, and
culture. In biliteracy instruction English and Spanish speaking students
acquiring L2 were often paired together as supports for one another in the
completion of academic tasks. English as a second language (ESL) and Spanish as
a second language (SSL) components were integrated into the biliteracy
instruction to provide specific opportunities for students to use a peer
language expert to complete a task.
When
working in cooperative groups, using the same scaffolds, tools, and routines
was particularly helpful in assisting students transfer cognitively based
information from L1 to L2. The use of similar tools in L1 and L2 instruction
(i.e., story maps, personal dictionaries, wordless books, writing process)
provided a smooth transition to biliteracy instruction for the students. Both
teachers also used comprehensible input and L1OF as scaffolds. Comprehensible
input in students' L2 functioned as a scaffold in that, as stated above, it
relied directly on the same tools and routines that were used in previous L1
instruction. In this manner, as students transferred concepts previously taught
in L1 to biliteracy instruction, their L1OF functioned as a meaningful scaffold
that supported those concepts. This parallel use of scaffolds as tools and
routines across L1 and L2 instruction to promote language transfer and was the
driving principle used by the teachers to guide their biliteracy instruction.
Other scaffolds for L2 acquisition included, teacher directed mini-lessons,
buddy reading, and similar language groups.
Figure
2 outlines the structure for biliteracy instruction in both classrooms.
Reading, writing, listening and speaking were primary components of biliteracy
instruction. Centers were not used as much because of the frequency of
cooperative learning and peer scaffolding involved in each activity. In the
example provided, major activities are broken down by days so that students
concentrated and had sufficient time for peer interaction and collaboration.
Before
regrouping the students and creating fully bilingual classrooms, some key
features had to be present. These included arranging the environment, making
language visible, and setting the context. The use of complimentary language
pairs, similar language groups, whole group instruction and biliteracy to
promote L2 oral language acquisition within an activity (i.e., buddy reading,
peer modeling) resulted in authentic interactive biliteracy learning
experiences for the students. Allowing students to reach their potential by
building their self confidence and esteem within their ZPDs enabled students to
support one another within linguistic and academic expert/novice roles.
Both
classrooms were arranged to facilitate the key features mentioned above
including contexts in which risk-free language learning could take place. As
evident in Figure 2 both languages were used and valued equally without
preference given to one over the other. On a typical day of biliteracy
instruction, students began their day in ESL and SSL independent activities
where scaffolding was provided primarily by students working with language
proficient peers. This allowed teachers to observe students interactions,
circulate, model, and assist accordingly. Next, students selected texts in
their second language from the text sets in both languages that the teachers
had previously selected. These books ranged from pre-primer to grade level.
While reading their selected L2 text, students noted unfamiliar words on sticky
notes to add to their personal dictionaries in the following activity. When
working in their dictionaries, students relied heavily on their second language
peer experts to scaffold their language learning in L2. The teachers encouraged
students to work together and stressed that each one was a language expert and
a resource for their classmates during ESL/SSL instruction. Spanish L1 students
assisted English L1 students with their dictionary entries from Spanish texts,
and vice versa. These pairings often remained in place during the buddy reading
and summary activities that followed the personal dictionary activity each day.
During
buddy reading students read to one another in L2, their peer expert providing
assistance when necessary. Summaries of the selected texts were then written by
students in L1, thereby linking the two languages and demonstrating the level
of L2 comprehension students were able to achieve with peer assistance. Each
day a literature selection was read by the teacher to set the tone for major
activities (see Figure 2). It was read in English or Spanish with discussion,
clarification, and vocabulary development provided in the other language to
ensure comprehensible input for all learners. Demonstrations and pictures were
also used to make learning more comprehensible.
During
these activities, students were given opportunities in the bilingual setting to
work in similar language groupings for support and task clarification,
especially students with learning/language disabilities. Whole group instruction
was given at times when mini-lessons via comprehensible input and L1OF were
necessary for additional academic support.
For
example, the wordless books was an activity that both English and Spanish
speakers had completed several times during previous L1 instruction. Both
groups were aware of the process and were comfortable with the notion of
working in cooperative groups to create text for each page of a wordless book
to later present to the whole group. Students worked in similar language groups
to provide texts for the books. When groups were finished they traded papers
and L1 proficient groups peer edited the texts. When time permitted students
presented their stories to the class in L2.
Transferring
the knowledge of this routine was useful to students needing to complete the
familiar task in L2. In this way the students' L1OF acted as an internalized
scaffold that students used as foundations on which to develop biliteracy
proficiency. Because the task was familiar and known in L1, when the teachers
facilitated the activity using both languages, the input was comprehensible,
understandable, and meaningful for the student. Previous student L1 experiences
then functioned as powerful scaffolds for future biliteracy learning.
Similarly
other major activities incorporated previously scaffolded information that
students had acquired during L1 instruction. ABC books, literature circles
(Short, Harste, with Burke, 1995), buddy interviews, and shared writing (see
Figure 2) involved students working together in a variety of groupings with
familiar tools and scaffolds and with second language experts. During
biliteracy instruction, students appeared to feel safe to explore the new
language and take risks as they acquired their second language (Krashen, 1982).
A "compliments only" classroom policy was established along with
other student-generated guidelines for positive interactions.
The
second week for biliteracy instruction moved the students into the writing
process as the major activity (see Figure 3). This was not new to the students,
as it was yet another tool that they were familiar with from their first
language prior instruction. Teachers as facilitators and other adults
scaffolded as necessary but allowed students to rely on their language
proficient peers for the bulk of their support. If the writing process was not
mastered in the week targeted, it was included in the plans for the following
week. In subsequent weeks the teachers and students generated ideas for the
major activities which included dramas, art projects, poetry studies, self
reflections, and journals. The teachers also incorporated curriculum based
assessments into the plans once a week to provide evidence for student
learning.
Four
key features characterized the biliteracy instruction (a) similar language
groups, (b) whole group instruction for mini-lessons; (c) using a language
activity to facilitate both L1 and L2 development, and (d) building
self-confidence and self-esteem within the ZPD.
- Similar
language groupings. Similar language groupings provided support
for second language learners that were completing a similar task by
enabling less able students to rely on more proficient peers to assist
them in completing a task. For example, literature circles gave students
opportunities to read selections and create story maps for the texts in
L2. This was an activity that relied on specific transfer from L1 to L2.
Following the completion of their maps, students presented their work to
the whole classroom. Even if the group was working on an assignment in
their second language (English), students may have discussed, clarified or
expressed their disagreements in their first language. In these situations
students were more apt to depend upon their L1OF prior knowledge
connections to make better sense of their learning. Some of the activities
used in same language groupings were wordless texts, literature circles,
and ABC books.
- Whole
group instruction for mini-lessons. Whole group instruction
for mini-lessons with the teacher acting as primary scaffold, was vital in
the classrooms especially for the students who had been identified as
having learning/language disabilities. Mini-lessons provided correct
models, clarification of literacy concepts, and anticipatory sets or
introductions to topics, grammar lesson, mechanics guidelines, or
vocabulary development. Mini-lessons in the classrooms included preview or
review in one language with the main content taught in the second language
(Chamot & O'Malley, 1994). These lessons were sometimes taught
interactively using both languages alternatively, with complete thoughts
flowing from one language to the other. At these times students relied
heavily on comprehensible input and L1OF building upon prior literacy
skill development. These concurrent translated mini-lessons were
interactive because many times student experts were called on to repeat a
thought or to translate an idea (Peregoy & Boyle, 1997). Question
asking and risk-taking by working in one's L2 was strongly encouraged
during whole group activities. Overall, mini-lessons brought the whole
group together and helped students think about where they were in their
biliteracy development.
- Using
a language activity to facilitate both L1 and L2 development.
Buddy reading, buddy interviews, and shared writing were used to give
students opportunities to work on L2 interactively. For example, in buddy
reading students read a selection in their second language and wrote
summaries of the selections in their first language. Scaffolds in this
assignment included a proficient speaker of the student's second language
to assist in the decoding and comprehension of the text and a paragraph
frame in the students first language to complete the summary. Students
also read a selection in L1 and wrote summaries or created a story map or
web in L2. For buddy interviews a new text scaffold for writing a simple
biography was introduced and students were required to ask questions of
one another and then to write reports about their partners, to present to
the class. Relying on mixed language partner work as well, shared writing
in this context had both students writing a collaborative story in either
Spanish, English or both languages, alternating sentences. The story did
not have to be written following the writing process, but needed
illustrations, a beginning, middle and end. The use of more proficient
peers as scaffolds was consistently modeled and encouraged by the adult
facilitators in the classroom. These activities provided a synthesis of
all of the components that depicted a strong literacy development program.
In them students were required to read, write, listen, and speak, within
the realm of second language acquisition and limited scaffolding by
teacher. Story endings in the second language and texts for wordless books
were other activities that developed literacy in both languages
simultaneously.
- Building
self-confidence and self-esteem within the ZPD.
The limited confidence and low self-esteem frequently evident in students
with learning/language disabilities (Smith, 1994) diminished as the
classroom focus shifted from literacy development in L1 to literacy in L2.
The students became interdependent upon one another when completing tasks
in their L2. For example, during biliteracy instruction, English speakers
regardless of abilities or disabilities were sought after as language
experts by Spanish speakers and vice versa.
3.
REFLECTIONS
This
application of scaffolded instructional sought to explore scaffolding as it
applies to second language learners who may or may not have learning
disabilities. The instruction relied heavily on scaffolding as a social
construct, as external tools such as story maps, and as the students' internal
maps on which they build new knowledge. These internal maps served as first
language organization frameworks (L1OF) on which students built second language
acquisition. This instruction considered scaffolding in it's widely accepted
definition as experts providing support for less proficient students. In
addition, the students' learned knowledge in their first language was
considered a scaffold on which to develop second language acquisition.
Observations, teacher interviews, and student work samples suggested that when
students were given the opportunity to develop proficiency with a given task or
routine in their first language using specific tools, the students performed
similar tasks in their second language. Hence, they appeared to transfer the
routines and successfully complete the tasks with similar proficiency (Jimenez,
Garcia, & Pearson, 1994).
From
observations, interviews, and student work samples, there is also evidence that
students benefitted from the experience of working in their second language.
Students learning Spanish as their second language as well as students learning
English as their second language actively participated in this supported
environment and took multiple risks in completing their assignments. Students
with learning/language disabilities performed similarly to other learners
during the second language activities and usual behavior problems were minimal.
The students appeared motivated to speak and read their second language. The
overall self-esteem of students appeared to increase as students began to refer
to themselves as being bilingual. Academic strengths seemed to become more
apparent when instruction returned to first language instructional groups, and
students appeared more focused on their language arts goals knowing that in two
months they would again be working in biliteracy.
It
appears that the affective benefits of biliteracy instruction were substantial.
For example, when a student who was learning disabled and receiving resources
services for three years was suddenly sought after by his second language
learning peers as an expert in their L2, his learning behaviors became more
positive as well as subsequent learning patterns. These manifestations of
positive behavior were often noted by Marta and Lena. Mutual respect was noted
by the adults in the room as students worked in their zones of proximal
development to achieve cognitive tasks in their second languages. Buddy reading
took on a new meaning when students reading in their second language relied on
a peer proficient in their second language to assist with the decoding and
pronunciation of words and vice versa. Integrating time for self-reflection
could have further enhanced learning in that students would have the
opportunity to reflect on how they felt working in their second language.
Evidence
from this biliteracy instruction suggests that when given scaffolded
instruction that is systematically designed to teach and transfer tools and
routines from L1 to L2, second language learners can complete cognitive tasks
in their second language earlier that would be predicted (Collier, 1989;
Cummins, 1981). This provides encouragement for bilingual educators to broaden the
scope of instruction for facilitating the develop of proficient bilingual
students and points to the importance of research regarding the transferability
of tools and routines learned in L1 to L2 (Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson,
1994). Perhaps students can become proficient in both languages simultaneously.
The
implications for students from diverse backgrounds with learning/language
disabilities were also evident. One student whose first language was Spanish
but was receiving special education services in English, appeared to flourish
when given the opportunity to work in Spanish. While her writing in English was
difficult to decipher, she was able to form coherent complete sentences in
Spanish. Clearly this student needs to be reevaluated in both English and
Spanish. Having the opportunity to work in Spanish and act as a Spanish
speaking expert in the classroom allowed Lena to identify the students'
strengths.
Another
English speaking student with severe learning disabilities marveled at his
ability to assist a Spanish speaker read an English book that he read in the
special education resource room. This event appeared to affect this student's
interest in school and role in the classroom. During biliteracy instruction, he
changed having frequent absences and being a behavior problem to regularly
attending and becoming a classroom helper.
In
reflecting on the scaffolded instruction, it is clear that several aspects made
the instruction more challenging. Both Marta and Lena commented that planning
time was not adequate. They both felt that the parallel scaffolded instruction
prior to the biliteracy instruction was crucial as both Spanish and English
speaking students needed to learn the same tools and routines to effectively
transfer them their second languages. Lena and Marta also found it difficult to
locate the same or similar materials in English and Spanish. The teachers found
that some students struggled when they were regrouped for the biliteracy
instruction. These students took a week or more to adjust to the change in the
classroom composition and procedures.
Scaffolded
instruction holds promise for promoting the biliteracy of second language
learners. Lena and Marta's classroom instruction supports the importance of
external scaffolds such as experts and tools and introduces the possibility of
internal scaffolds that can be developed and used to facilitate second language
acquisition. In addition, their teaching suggests that scaffolding can effect
the time that it may take to acquire cognitive academic language proficiency in
the second language. Finally, Lena and Marta's teaching reflects on the power
that risk-taking and individual teacher contributions have in authentic
educational change.
4.
REFERENCES
Banks,
J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.) (1995). Handbook of research on
multicultural education. New York: Macmillan.
Bos,
C. S. & Anders, P. L. (1992). A theory-driven interactive instructional
model for text comprehension and content learning. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary
intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective
(pp. 81-95). New York: Springer- Verlag.
Chamot,
A. U. & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Collier,
V. P. (1989, April). Academic achievement, attitudes and occupations among
graduates of two-way bilingual classes. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Research Association., San Francisco.
Cummins,
J. (1981). Role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California State Department of
Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework (pp.3-49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment
Center, California State University- Los Angeles.
Englert,
C. S., Garmon, A., Mariage, T., Rozendal, M., Tarrant, M., Urba, J. (1995). The
early literacy project: Connecting across the literacy curriculum. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 18, 253-275.
Gardner,
H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational
implications of the theory of multiple intelligences.Educational Researcher,
18(8), 4-9.
Graves,
D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Jimenez,
R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of
bilingual latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities
and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90-112.
Krashen,
S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Moll,
L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent
trends. Educational Researcher, 21, 20-24.
Moll,
L .C., Amanti, C. A., Neff, D., Gonzalez, N., (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and schools. Theory
Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
Peregoy,
S. F. & Boyle, D. F. (1997). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL.
New York: Longman.
Reyes,
E. I., & Bos, C. S. (1998). Interactive semantic mapping and charting:
Enhancing content area learning for language minority students (pp. 133-150).
In R. M. Gersten & R. T. Jimenez (Eds.), Promoting learning for
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ruiz,
N. T., Garcia, E., Figueroa, R. A. (1996). The Ole curriculum guide:
Creating optimal learning environments for students from diverse backgrounds in
special and general education. Sacramento: California Department of
Education.
Schumaker,
J. D., Nolan, S. M. & Deshler, D. D. (1985). The error monitoring
strategy. Lawrence, KS: Center for Research on Learning, University of
Kansas.
Short,
K. G. & Harste, J. C., with Burke, C. (1995). Creating classrooms for
authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Smith,
C. R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and
setting. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tharp,
R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching learning
and schooling in social context. Cambridge: University Press.
Vygotsky,
L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells,
G. H. (February, 1998). Talk, text, and inquiry: Schooling as a semiotic
apprentiship. Paper presented at the Language Reading and Culture
Colloquium, University of Arizona.
Winn,
J. A. (1994). Promises and challenges of scaffolded instruction.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 89-104.