BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Paper Summary

Instructional Scaffolding for Latina/o Students: Building Toward Disciplinary Literacy and Academic Rigor

Mon, April 16, 2:15 to 3:45pm, Vancouver Convention Centre, Floor: Second Level, East Room 8&15

Abstract

Objectives
School leaders and teachers at the study site spoke of the need to focus on literacy in all content areas and to support students in reaching academic goals. This paper asks: How did teachers scaffold academic literacy and learning? In what ways, if any, did scaffolding promote higher-level academic learning?

Perspectives
Building on Vygotsky’s (1962) zone of proximal development, instructional scaffolding targets the gap between current performance and levels students may reach without assistance (Wood et al., 1976). Effective scaffolding includes design, tailoring to individual students, monitoring for fit, and assessing degree of continued need. Scaffolding learning for youth in non-dominant communities also benefits from three C’s of support. Culture (and language) enables students to build on prior knowledge by accessing cultural/linguistic resources (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Irvine, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Moll, et al., 1992; Sawyer, 2006). Collaboration enables community building, joint productive activity, and instructional conversations where students co-construct knowledge (Brown & Campione, 1990; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky 1978). Code-breaking involves explicitly teaching academic literacy and learning disciplinary, linguistic, and cultural codes of content learning (Schleppegrell, 2004; Valdés et al., 2005).

Methods
We used quantitative and qualitative methods to review data including videotaped lessons, fieldnotes, student work samples, teacher interviews, and student focus groups. To assess quality of teachers’ social and instructional interactions with students, we used, among other tools, the CLASS instrument (Pianta et al., 2007), a standardized protocol based on research suggesting that interactions between students and adults are the primary mechanism of student learning. Domains and dimensions for this paper include those targeting instructional support (concept development, quality of feedback, and language modeling). Qualitative analyses included initial coding identifying classroom interactions related to 3 Cs of support. Second, we generated pattern codes, using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to create new codes about quality and dimensions of these interactions. Third, we used discourse analysis to examine substantive student engagement in classroom activity (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991).

Results
Scaffolding was evident in classes, but echoing school leaders’ remarks and the focus of instructional leaders’ work, teachers recognized a need for greater attention to promoting higher academic challenge in tasks and classroom interactions. Teachers’ scores on instructional support (for content understanding, analysis and problem-solving, and quality of feedback) were mid-level. Qualitative analyses found the three Cs of support were in evidence but used in a range of ways. Most promising were uses of culture as resource for academic learning and not just rapport-building, collaboration when it supported not just sharing information but co-constructing knowledge, and code-breaking when it moved beyond discrete vocabulary lessons to discipline-specific ways of learning codes of academic literacy. One new teacher, a Latina whose scores for instructional support were highest, provides a critical case, as she illustrates the promise of tailored scaffolds and quality feedback for discipline-specific academic work with Latino/a students.

Significance
This paper highlights the promise and tensions in developing effective instructional scaffolding to align with school-level press for instruction to meet the needs of Latino/a students.

Authors