Who Decides What English Learners Can Do? Challenging Reductivist Notions of English Learners' Potential

• In Event: Ecological/Sociocultural Approaches to Educative Curriculum Design and Assessment

Abstract

How can students who are perceived as quiet, non-talkative, and not very promising by many educators be supported to build their potential and over time become thoughtful, critical contributors to engaging and rigorous dialog?

This paper builds on data gathered over two implementations: a semester during the academic year, and 3 diverse eight grade classes which met during an intensive summer academy course for 4 hours a day for three weeks in the summer. The curriculum used was specifically developed to counter views that English Learners needed to be pre-taught vocabulary, read texts adapted to their reading level, and “master” formal aspects of the language. Instead, students were offered a high challenge, high support pedagogy that assumed students had to be treated as if they already possessed the abilities that were being developed (Vygotsky,1978); that not all students needed to understand everything at all times; and in fact, they needed to develop a tolerance for ambiguity as long as they understood key ideas (Walqui & Bunch, 2019). Furthermore, the curriculum was designed to invite students to take up carefully structured invitations to work collaboratively and engage in meaningful interactions.

Sociocultural and ecological theories guided the design and implementation of the materials. Key components included a well-developed conceptualization of scaffolding (Walqui & Schmida, forthcoming; Walqui & van Lier, 2010); the offering of affordances (van Lier, 2004), that is, invitations offered learners to perceive and use or not in their development, explaining the role of variability as being ever present in group learning -as opposed to the lockstep model of development proposed by most curricula and testing; and the application of fully operationalized notions of academic rigor and quality interactions. Most importantly, robust, and generative themes constituted the unitary concept for each unit, with lessons iteratively developing students’ conceptual understandings, analytic, and language practices.

During implementation a research team member guided students through the activities and lessons of the curricular materials. The teacher, a co-cooperating teacher, and an observer documented student responses, videos were recorded and reactions with materials and partners transcribed. Analysis of these rich data is discussed in the paper.

As working collaboratively from a sociocultural approach to learning was new for most students, they were uncomfortable and resistant to engaging in dialog initially. However, over time and with support, students began to take up invitations to work together more readily. The same occurred as students engaged with content. While students found the work to be challenging, they were interested in the overarching themes of the units and participated more deeply, taking risks even when they were unsure, as the course progressed.
The paper offers an example of how students when invited to engage in meaningful, deep, and worthwhile work take up those invitations and become increasingly more engaged with content and one another. The refinement of materials also provides educators with examples of how to design lessons that ensure these types of interactions take place.

Authors

• Lee Hartman, WestEd
  Presenting Author

• Shirley Feldman, WestEd
  Presenting Author