El presidente Lyndon B. Johnson (1965)
From a socio-cognitive theory’s point of view, everyone possesses an inherent ability to learn. So, I can safely conclude that there is initially nothing wrong with our students. So, why the achievement gap? What can be done to bridge it?
For the statistically inclined, 1.2 million students do not graduate from high school each year. A report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2018) situated the U.S.’ secondary graduation rates at 83% ─below the current average graduating rate of OECD’s countries,─ and reaching the same graduating rate that the U.S.’s had in 1969, as reported by Darling-Hammond (2010, p. 14). Research has shown that students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds and students from low socioeconomic status (SES), often one and the same, form the bulk of those pupils who do not graduate with their respective cohorts or drop-out of school altogether (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ravitch, 2013; Schmidt & McKnight, 2012). These historically underserved student population has systematically fallen through the cracks of well-intended, yet ineffective, educational policies.
It can be
argued, however, that one important factor being overlooked when comparing
achievement results from international assessments such as the OECD’s PISA is
the U.S.’ rapid increase in CLD students
and its higher than average student population who is eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch. When comparing the
students’ achievement in Finland, Korea, or New Zealand, for example, with the U.S., one should account for the percentage of CLD students and students with low SES
background. Doing it otherwise will render such comparison moot; irrelevant and invalid. Contrary to popular belief, the overall achievement of low SES students in the US surpasses the international average. However, there is a correlation between the increase of a given school´s poverty levels and the decrease of students´ achievement scores (Ravitch,2013).
"It takes a village to rise a child" is much more than a bumper sticker. Among the most important factors influencing the academic and emotional development of
at-risk students are (a) high
levels of poverty and low level of social support, (b) unequal allocation of
schools resources, (c) shortage of qualified teachers to work with at-risk
students, and (d) a succession of allegedly dysfunctional educational policies. Bearing this in mind,
bridging the academic gap requires bridging the
opportunity (to a comparatively equal and high quality education) gap. For the purpose of this paper, I will discuss
hereto how a foreign language teacher can nurture an educational environment
conducive to bridging the opportunity gap.
The challenges that a
foreign language teacher encounters in the classroom are not unlike those
encountered by their mainstream colleagues.
These challenges pertain to both curriculum and instruction and academic
policy: from a reductionist curriculum often driven by a strict focus on
high-stakes testing (Schmidt & McKnight, 2012), to inadequate opportunities
for classroom interactions and lack of recognition or suppositions about
at-risk students’ prior knowledge and ability and-or willingness to learn
(Gorskyi, 2013). Herrera and Murry
(2005) saw the need for educators to become reflective teachers who analyze
their approach to lesson planning.
At-risk students will benefit from motivating instructional materials which
are “culturally, academically, cognitively, and linguistically rich” (Herrera
& Murry, 2005, p. 54). At-risk
students, particularly pre- and adolescent students, arrive to the foreign
language classroom with an underlying desire to fit in, to be recognized and
valued. Offering them a safe environment
conducive to inclusion and educational attainment requires the foreign language
teacher to adapt the instruction to reflect the group’s diversity. This can be attain by, for example, (a)
integrating group activities characterized by their heterogeneity, (b)
implement activities that foster peer interaction, and (c) being mindful of the
classroom diversity when planning the lessons and activities.
In this sense, some
practices that can help attaining a nurturing foreign language classroom
culture are:
-
Making at-risk students active
participants in generating ideas for the foreign language curriculum and
helping to develop some instructional activities.
-
Encouraging at-risk students to do their
best and showing them that you care about both their emotional and academic
progress.
-
Ensuring that the teacher addresses each
student approach to learning and diverse needs.
-
Providing frequent meaningful feedback and
multiple opportunities for at-risk students to show what they can do with the
L2.
-
Including families and members of the
student’s cultural background (if different to the dominant culture) in
classroom activities and in the foreign language curriculum.
-
Teaching about poverty and class bias (a
powerful cross curricular practice for foreign language teachers)
At-risk students from a
low SES may show health or well-being problems, emotional issues, low attention
span and lack of motivation, and low attendance rates, all of which influence
their academic performance (Ravitch, 2013). In this regard, the foreign language teachers
must be aware of any personal bias that may be influencing the way they
judge/assess at-risk students’ academic performance. Teachers must evaluate the possible root
cause(s) of individual at-risk students’ academic performance beyond blaming
the student’s personal characteristics. Teachers’
expectations can sometimes be based on individual students’ traits and-or
stereotypical belief about their cultural and SES background. Contrastingly, effective foreign language
teachers consider the complex relationships among the linguistic,
socioeconomic, cultural, and academic dimensions of their at-risk
students. In fact, effective teachers,
foreign language or otherwise, turn at-risk students’ intellectual, social, and
cultural factors into assets for further learning. Moreover, teachers need to conscientiously
examine that they are not favoring with their instructional practice a group of
students over another. In addition, due
to the lack of home resources that can reinforce the academic learning, such as
a rich assortment of reading materials, reliable access to Internet, and parental
support (mono-parental households, or overworked parents/tutors do not enjoy
the same amount of share-time with their children as families of higher SES background),
at-risk students will benefit from rich and authentic literacy activities that
focus on important concepts within the content areas and offer them the
opportunity to use technology as much as possible while achieving L2
proficiency.
Overall, insightful
teachers understand that foreign language learning is achieved through highly
communicative, constructivist environments that provides multiple opportunities
for social language interactions. If we
consider the premise at the beginning of this paper to be true, at-risk
students are endowed with an intrinsic ability to learn a foreign language. However, research has repeatedly described
the influences that the external environment can have onto both teachers’
professional practice and at-risk students’ academic performance (for example
in Darling-Hammond, 2010; Gorski, 2013; Herrera & Murray, 2005; Ravitch,
2013). Low SES and CLD background
constitute significant external contexts that have historically framed the
academic future of at-risk students. As
reported by Tomlinson (2010), students living in poverty are more prone than
their nonpoor peers to have “learning disabilities or developmental delays,
twice as likely to repeat grades and to be suspended from school. And 2.2 times
as likely to drop of school” (p. 250). The
foreign language instructors, as briefly summarized throughout this paper, can
help bridge the opportunity gap, and therefore, the achievement gap, by
implementing research-based effective approaches, methods, and strategies in
their daily practice.
One crucial way to attain
this is through differentiated instruction.
Tomlinson (2010) described five contextual indicators of quality
differentiation:
1. A
positive and growth mindset about student potential. The foreign language teacher can adapt this
indicator to the foreign language classroom by maintaining high expectations
for all students, included low SES and CLD students and reflect on the
individual student’s root causes of potential low proficiency attainment.
2. Teacher-student
connection to support learning. The
foreign language teacher can adapt this indicator to her or his classroom by
building rapport through the use of L2, creating a low anxiety environment
where at-risk students feel valued and capable of learning through equal
opportunities. Resiliency can be nurtured and building nurturing
power-relationships with at-risk students has proven to be a crucial factor for
overcoming the type of educational challenges being described in this paper.
3. Developing community. The foreign language teacher can adapt this
indicator by integrating in the thematic units and-or foreign language
curriculum at-risk students’ cultural background and making connections with their
native languages, while learning metacognitive strategies for independent
learning.
4. High-Target
curriculum as the target for all students.
The foreign language teacher can adapt this indicator by offering
engaging, context-embedded activities that connect with at-risk students’ life
experiences. In addition, scaffolding
the information and implementing higher thinking skills can benefit this group
of students in particular due to the lack of resources and academic incentive
outside of the school.
5. Assessment
to inform instruction. Foreign language
teachers can adapt this indicator by using information gathered from formal and
informal assessments to gauge at-risk students learning and reflect on his or
her own teaching practice. In doing so,
communication should be the focus of the assessments, avoiding as much as
possible punishing the student for potential error based on language form.
References:
Amos,
J. (Ed.). (2011). Every student counts. Straight
A’s: Public education policy and
Progress,
11(8).
Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org
Darling-Hammond,
L. (2010). The flat world and education:
How America’s commitment to
equity
will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press. Print.
Gorski,
P. (2013). Reaching and teaching students
in poverty: Strategies for erasing the
opportunity
gap. New York: Teacher College. Print.
Herrera,
S. & Murry, K. (2005). Mastering ESL
and bilingual methods: Differentiated
instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse
students. Boston, MA.: Pearson Education, Inc. Print.
OECD.
(2013). At a glance. Retrieved from
Ravitch,
D. (2010). Reign of terror: The hoax of
privatization movement and the danger to
America’s
public schools.
New York: Random House, Inc. Print
Schmidt,
W. & McKnight, C. (2012). Inequality for all: The challenge of unequal
opportunity in
American schools. New York: Teachers
College Press. Print.
Tomlinson,
C. A. (2010). Differentiating instruction in response to academically diverse
student
populations. In R. Marzano (Ed.), On excellence in teaching (pp. 246-268).
Bloomington, IN.: Solution Tree Press.
Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment