In order to be proficient and productive students, English-language learners (ELLs) need manyopportunities to interact in social and academic situations. Effective teachers encourage their students'participation in classroom discussions, welcome their contributions, and motivate them bysuch practices (Cazden, 2001; Stipek, 2002). However, many educators often allow their less proficientstudents to remain silent or to participate less than their English-fluent peers (Laosa, 1977;Penfield, 1987; Schinke-Llano, 1983; Wilhelm, Contreras, & Mohr, 2004). I (Mohr, first author) recentlyparticipated in a study focusing on how mainstream classroom teachers helped Spanish-speakingimmigrant students become successful at school. During the observations, I noticed that theteachers missed many opportunities to help ELLs communicate in class, allowing them to be less involvedin oral interactions.
A byproduct of that study was the analysis presented in this article. We considered what classroomteachers could do to more fully engage ELLs in teacher-student interactions, especially duringteacher-led question-and-answer sequences. Essentially, teachers can elicit more from the lessproficient or reticent students if they consider various response options and then enlarge their responserepertoires in order to encourage students' participation and help develop their language proficiencies.
Interactions 2 Reading Teacher Book
There are several reasons why ELLs may struggle to respond appropriately to teachers' promptsand questions. Certainly, not all teacher questions are clearly understood by students, and, if such is thecase, teachers should rephrase or clarify queries in order to facilitate student comprehension. Teachersmay also not wait long enough for students to consider a question and formulate a response (Nystrand,Gamoran, Kachure, & Prendergast, 1997; Rowe, 1974). In addition, while first-language learning islargely motivated by a child's intrinsic desire to socialize, second-language learning often needs moreextrinsic influence (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983). Wong Fillmore's (1991) model of second-languagelearning identified three motivational components that contribute to student progress: interest from thelearners, proficient speakers who support and interact with the learners, and an environment that supportsrelationships between learners and proficient speakers. Students may not wish to participate if theteacher expects them simply to recite low-level knowledge or if the teacher sets low expectations forthe students. Clarity, wait time, higher order thinking, and higher expectations are factors that influencethe quality of teacher interactions with all students, but some factors pertain more specificallyto the participation of ELLs.
While classroom discourse events vary, research has indicated that teacher talk dominatesclassroom communication. Edwards and Mercer (1987) documented that teachers perform 76% ofclassroom talk. Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, and Merino (1986) categorized teacher talk as consisting of explanations,questions, commands, modeling, and feedback. Other studies of teacher discourse in primarygrades indicated that teacher talk is often managerial rather than conversational in nature (e.g.,Cummins, 1994). Forestal (1990) noted that 60% of teacher talk involved asking questions, primarilydisplay questions, which expect students to recall information taught previously by the teacher. In onestudy of effective primary teachers of literacy, Mohr (1998) tallied the number of questions asked by theteachers in the study at almost 100 per hour. Therefore, the preponderance of teacher talk and theteacher's use of questions continue as factors in how much classroom talk time is shared with students;both the quantity and quality of such interactions deserve scrutiny. For example, there are differencesbetween direct and indirect instruction; the nature of large-group discussion requires more guidancefrom the teacher than do small-group interactions (Johnston, 2004), and English-language learnersmay need different support in their communication efforts than do fluent English speakers. Thus, aspectsof teacher-led discussions and discourse patterns warrant our continued attention.
In academic settings, both question-answer and conversational formats entail the use of academic language. Even students who are conversationallyproficient need exposure to and practicewith academic language in order to function successfullyat school (Díaz-Rico, 2004; Weber &Longhi-Chirlin, 2001). This important aspect ofschool success is also known as cognitive academiclanguage proficiency (CALP). Academic languageor CALP in English-speaking classrooms ischaracterized by Latinate vocabulary; subordinategrammatical constructions (e.g., participial phrases,dependent clauses); less reliance on temporalcurrency (discussing generalizations, rather thanspecific events); and rhetorical and cohesive devices,such as conjunctions and figurative language(Wong Fillmore, 2002). These linguistic competenciescan be greatly enhanced by wide readingbut are generally not learned apart from schoolingprocesses. It is the teacher's responsibility, then, tomodel and support students' use of both conversationaland academic language structures becausethese are not parallel processes.
While students' command of conversationalfluency is more readily accomplished, proficiencyin academic language appears to take five to sevenyears (Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981). Academiclanguage is certainly more than vocabulary acquisition.Competence in academic English certainlycannot be accomplished without exposure to andpractice with the vocabulary and the structures thatcharacterize the language of school. The teachercan model academic language functions, such asseeking information, comparing, problem solving,and evaluating, and then use classroom interactionsto guide students' use of academic talk. The opportunityto speak academic language before usingit in written work is important for English languagelearners. It should not be assumed that being able to understand academic language as input is equal to being able to produce it. Teachers can provide the support that students need to acquire this more formal register via their own modeling or think-alouds (Gibbons, 2002; Weber & Longhi-Chirlin, 2001) and then foster the use of similar structures via interactive discussions, allowing students to use academic language in context.
For ELLs especially, the teacher serves as a conduitfor sharing information and scaffolding socialand academic language. Low levels of instructionand low-quality interactions often combine to yieldpoor academic achievement among students who arebusy constructing the meaning of the language andthe content of school. Rich language interactions,however, encourage thinking, social relationships,and expanded language use. As Johnston (2004) admonished,we "have to think more carefully aboutthe language we use to offer our students the bestlearning environments we can" (p. 1).
During the aforementioned study, the observersrealized that the teachers were not making use of thevariety of communication options available to them.To maximize instructional interactions, teachersshould consider various response options and enlargetheir repertoires to encourage students' participationin socially constructed learning. Forexample, one aspect of teacher-supported interactionis how to handle students' silence. Languagelearners certainly can understand more than theycan produce, especially at the beginning stages.Therefore, just because students do not speak outdoes not mean that they do not comprehend the discussionor have something to contribute.
Anticipating possible language difficultiesshould lead to appropriate scaffolding, not loweredExtending English-language learners' classroom interactions using the Response Protocol 443expectations for student performance. Therefore,teachers should diligently seek to engage ELLs inclassroom talk. ELLs should be expected to participate,and when they do their responses couldfall into one or more of the following six categories:an appropriate or correct response; apartially correct response; an incorrect or inappropriateresponse; a response in their native language,rather than in English; another question; or no response.What should teachers do in response tothese possibilities? How can they prepare to addressthese opportunities to support students' learning?The following Response Protocol is designedto help teachers better their understanding of students'language development and broaden theirrepertoires for meeting the needs of this specialpopulation. (All names used in the samples arepseudonyms.)
For example, once during a shared readingabout reptiles with a small group of English languagelearners, a boy named Jorge was very interestedin the section on turtles. He excitedlyresponded to the teacher's open-ended question,"What do you know about turtles?"
It can be very frustrating for monolingualEnglish teachers to have students use their first languages,rather than English, to respond in class.Some teachers perceive that students who do so arebeing inconsiderate, but rather teachers can chooseto see this behavior as encouraging (see Table 3). Atleast such a student seems to be interested and transactingwith the lesson. In fact, studies show that students'other-language talk in classrooms is oftenlargely on task (Kasten, 1997; Valdes, 1998). Evenwhen students who share a common first languageare whispering to one another, their language usuallyrevolves around explaining what the teacher istalking about or clarifying the procedures that thestudents are expected to complete. Generally, teachersshould not feel threatened when other languagesare spoken in their classrooms. In fact, some younglearners sometimes don't know which of theirwords and structures are or are not English. Oneexample is when a second-grade English-languagelearner confidently labeled the black-and-white,sometimes smelly animal she saw in a book as "elskunko." This example evidences the language transferenceconfusion that can occur, so teachersshould not be surprised when especially young studentsmix and match their languages. 2ff7e9595c
Comments