A Collaborative Partnership to Understand and Support Instructional Practice for Multilingual Learners in Elementary Science

• In Event: Translenguando en STEM: Conceptualizing Multilingual STEM Education as a Distinct Ontology

Abstract

Supporting coherent, equitable science teaching for multilingual learners (MLLs) in elementary school (ages 5-12) requires a systems-level approach that acknowledges how infrastructure–messages, materials, and routines (Spillane et al., 2018)–shapes instruction. In this exploratory project, we partner with a district in a northeastern state to address:
How does district infrastructure for science instruction and multilingual learner education shape teachers’ practices?
What do elementary teachers need to effectively support multilingual learners in science?

Phenomena-driven learning (NASEM, 2018) can create a rich context for language development (Author, 2023b). However, teachers who believe that science requires a mastery of technical vocabulary (Bunch & Martin, 2021) may hesitate to adopt multilingual approaches like translanguaging (Garcia et al., 2017; Author, 2020). We take a systems perspective on teacher support, focused at the district level because districts create the infrastructure for teacher learning and science instruction (Penuel, 2019; Spillane et al., 2018).

We use Design-Based Research (DBR) (Cobb et al., 2003) and Design-Based Implementation Research (DBIR) (Penuel & Fishman, 2012) approaches, which emphasize collaboration between researchers and practitioners in design and research. In Fall, 2023, we began a partnership with district-level leaders. In Summer 2024, we formed a co-design group with different stakeholders (e.g., Science Coordinator, Assistant Director of Multilingual Learner Education, teachers, principals, researchers).

In addition to sharing perspectives and developing a joint vision, the group examined the results of a survey administered in June 2024, which asked K-5 teachers (across Sheltered English Immersion, bilingual and general education classrooms) about their experiences teaching science. Thirty-one teachers responded (see See Table 1). Data analysis employed a mixed-methods approach. To capture trends about district infrastructure and teacher needs, we relied on descriptive statistics. We used qualitative thematic analyses to make sense of open-ended survey questions, with a focus on how respondents interpret infrastructure related to science instruction for MLLs. Two findings emerged:
Lack of time–to adapt and differentiate materials, engage in professional learning, and collaborate with colleagues–is an obstacle for all educators.
Teachers believe science is a place where MLLs experience success and excitement, and seek additional support for these students.

In Fall 2024, we will conduct further data collection and analysis to understand how context shapes these findings (e.g., how opportunities to plan for and enact translanguaging practices may differ across grade levels and/or classrooms, how teacher needs may differ according to prior participation in district professional development).

This research will have a direct, practical impact on our partner. The final product will be a vision for how to support MLLs in science, as well as tools to help educators enact that vision. This study contributes to the literature by providing examples of how DBR and DBIR methods can be used to: (1) identify elements of district infrastructure that facilitate and hinder equitable science instruction for MLLs, and (2) help educators to collaboratively address those challenges.

Authors

• Jennifer Altavilla-Giordano, Boston University

• Angel Osorio Pizzarro, Boston University

• Eve Manz, Boston University