A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Instruction

The Goal of Instruction. The goal of teaching in this view is not to impart information. Rather, it is to stimulate students’ internal motivation and develop it into a lifelong drive to learn. The immediate objective is to guide students into sustained engagement in serious academic pursuits, in which they learn how to think and how to learn by searching for, analyzing, evaluating, and communicating information to solve real-world problems.⁵³ In this context, "teaching for understanding"⁵⁴ becomes the primary pedagogical goal.

The Roles of Teachers and Students. Rather than regarding teachers as workers and students as their products, implicit in reform efforts is a view of students as workers.⁵⁵ The teacher’s role is that of coach or facilitator, an experienced and knowledgeable resource for students pursuing knowledge, rather than the only source of that knowledge. The teacher becomes an orchestrator of opportunities designed to help students become independent learners. While teachers are to be given greater authority and responsibility for curriculum, the reforms envision a shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered pedagogy. The focus is on students and their learning rather than on the delivery system.⁵⁶

Student Grouping. Murphy (1991) notes, "Cooperative approaches to learning in which students work together in teams are stressed by almost everyone connected with restructuring teaching and learning." ⁵⁷ Reform advocates for "at-risk" students also recommend grouping students heterogeneously by ability or age, in contrast to the prevailing practice of homogeneous grouping within classes or ability tracking on a school-wide basis.⁵⁸ Underlying these recommendations are the beliefs that, given enriched conditions, all students are capable of challenging academic work, that the collaborative process supports the construction of knowledge, that students benefit cognitively and socially from interacting with others of varying abilities and viewpoints, and that working in teams prepares them for the realities of occupational life.

Curricular Approach. A common body of knowledge, skills, and understandings for all students--a core curriculum--can be presented to students in a variety of ways. For example, in order to teach the additive and subtractive relationships among integers, a teacher might use a traditional blackboard demonstration of math facts followed by student practice of computation problems from a textbook or worksheet. Another teacher might have students use Cuisenaire rods or count pebbles to reach the same curricular objective. Still another approach might entail a construction project that required students to add and subtract as they measured and cut boards. Another approach might be to integrate math instruction with a South American history lesson by making and using the colored and knotted Incan quipu strings to count, add, and subtract.

Education reform documents have favored active, hands-on approaches to the curriculum that emphasize doing rather than learning about, and that present material in an interdisciplinary and meaningful context that engages students and aids them in applying knowledge to real-world pursuits.⁵⁹ For example, the study of nutrition could incorporate mathematics instruction by having students weigh foods, calculate calories, and compare costs.

Varying Pedagogy by Individual and Group. Reform advocates have recognized that instruction may be most effective when it is individualized to take into account the interests, strengths, and learning styles of individual students. In addition to differences among individuals, groups also differ along dimensions--gender, locality, language, culture, etc.--that may impact instructional effectiveness. The hallmark of good teaching has always been the ability to connect with students where they are and motivate them to progress toward the teacher’s objectives. Reform documents advocate letting a variety of pedagogical flowers bloom in the pursuit of core curricular goals. Tailoring curricular approaches and instructional strategies to engage the interest of different groups and capitalize on their learning styles may enable a broader range of students to meet common high curricular standards.

As an obvious example, it may be most effective to instruct LEP students using their native language, depending on their proficiency in English. As another example, girls may be more motivated and successful in mathematics and science classes if biographies of female scientists are included along with those of males or if instruction is made more congruent with female styles of interaction. Students may find local history more compelling than the study of remote times and places. Contemporary American students may be more engaged if material is presented in video instead of print form. Developing the most effective means of helping different groups of students reach the same curricular objectives requires that teachers have some understanding of the concept of culture and the potential impact of cultural differences on ways of acting, thinking, and learning.

The Impact of Culture on Schooling. Because the majority of teachers and administrators come from European American backgrounds and are monolingual in English, educating LEP and other language minority students challenges them to cross boundaries of culture as well as language. In addition to differences among individual students, teachers encounter differences among cultures that are relevant to education--for example, the ways in which parents teach children at home, the ways in which parents expect children to behave, and the ways in which children and adults converse and interact. When teachers do not share their students’ cultural background, the teaching-learning process may be impeded by misunderstanding and frustration. The challenge of cultural differences is compounded for teacher and students alike in classes comprised of students from several different cultural backgrounds.

In their homes and communities, children from different cultures may have been trained to learn and interact with others in ways that conflict with or are not present in American classrooms. In "traditional" classrooms, teachers spend the majority of class time explaining, discussing, and quizzing students on assigned textbook readings.⁶⁰ The emphasis of such traditional instruction on speed, individual work, competition among students, learning by reading, and the authority of the book and the teacher, contrasts sharply with practices and values of other cultures. For example, in Hispanic and native Hawaiian cultures, collaboration, cooperation, and working with peers are common. In some Native American cultures, humility is stressed, individual competition is avoided, and elders teach by holistic demonstration rather than by analytical discussion.⁶¹ Teachers who use a variety of instructional strategies and arrange students into cooperative work groups give LEP and other language minority students the opportunity to learn and interact in ways that may be more comfortable for them.

People from different cultural backgrounds may not only learn and prefer to interact differently but they may also communicate differently. Conversational protocol, non-verbal behavior and gestures, and conventions of personal space and politeness differ greatly among cultures and may influence how students perceive and learn. Among the differences that have been found to affect schooling are narrative style (the way in which stories are told), wait time (the length of time between speakers’ utterances in a conversation), rhythm (the tempo and vocal inflection of speech), and participation structures (the way in which members of the culture typically converse).⁶² When the sociolinguistic patterns of teacher and student do not correspond, students may be unresponsive or may become disruptive. When the patterns of teacher and student match, students feel more comfortable and are able to express their knowledge and interest.⁶³

Children from various cultures come to school with different background knowledge. Immigrant students in particular may not possess the information about American culture and history that teachers and textbooks assume. Teachers can help bridge knowledge gaps by providing background information directly; they can also make learning more meaningful by drawing upon the cultural traditions most relevant to particular groups of students.

The attitude of school personnel and the society at large toward the cultural backgrounds of students affects their self-esteem. Respecting, including, and validating students’ cultural heritages in the classroom and the school sends a message of equality that encourages students to feel proud of themselves and capable of meeting rigorous academic standards.⁶⁴

The Challenge. Although it is reasonable to assume and some research indicates that differences between the culture of the classroom and the culture of the students can hamper learning, it is not yet possible and it may not be desirable to prescribe a particular approach for students from a particular cultural background. Individual and socioeconomic differences may be more crucial than cultural and sociolinguistic differences and, rather than refining separate cultural traditions, education should expand the modes of learning and broaden the knowledge base of all students, minority and majority alike.

The pedagogical challenge for educators of LEP students is to apply the knowledge about cultural differences in a non-stereotypical manner as they develop curricular approaches and instructional strategies that will maximize students’ opportunity to achieve to high standards. Although it may not be possible to develop optimal instructional approaches for every group or every student, schools can experiment by varying elements such as curricular themes, student grouping, mode of instruction, and language of instruction. Offering all students a diverse and multifaceted learning environment in which they can all feel involved is perhaps the most feasible and philosophically desirable pedagogical approach.⁶⁵

School Restructuring

Such changes give schools greater flexibility to design programs that best meet the needs of their particular students. They also give schools a heavy responsibility--actually improving the educational experience of all their students. For example, in theory, devolving authority to individual schools allows them to be more responsive to their particular student population. On the other hand, advocates for poor, minority, and LEP students express the fear that reform efforts will further disadvantage these students because their schools do not have human and financial resources equivalent to those of schools in wealthier neighborhoods. In addition, schools with small populations of LEP students or with faculty inexperienced in language acquisition theory and practice may design programs inadequate to meet the needs of these students. Giving teachers--those closest to the students--more discretion in curriculum and instruction will benefit LEP students only to the extent that such teachers are qualified and knowledgeable about teaching students from a different language and cultural background.

O’Day and Smith assert that equal educational opportunity will be provided to all sectors of society only when common standards are developed not only for outcomes (academic performance standards), but also for human and material resources available to schools (resource standards) and for programs as actually implemented (practice standards).⁶⁷

The Challenge. The challenge for schools with LEP students that are in the process of restructuring is to determine which kinds of changes in school organization, faculty roles and responsibilities, and connections with people and agencies outside the school will best support an improved teaching and learning environment. The overall challenge for education practitioners and researchers is to integrate what is known about second language acquisition, effective instructional strategies for LEP students, and cultural differences relevant to learning into education reform efforts and the framework for school restructuring. The real challenge is to include these students, fully and as they are, in the new vision of education.

Conclusion

⁶⁷1993.
-###-

[Summary Review of Literature]

[Study Aims and Study Questions]