Teaching English in Multilevel Classrooms

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

19

processes in language teacher cognition could be of considerable value in guiding researchers in conceptualizing language teachers’ cognitions, how they developed and related their cognitions to their classroom practices. As the current study aimed to develop a holistic and in-depth understanding of a Taiwanese junior high school English teacher’s psychological and actual practice of teaching in large multilevel English classes, Borg’s (2006) framework was taken as the conceptual framework that guided the researcher throughout the research process. In the following section, a general introduction is given to multilevel classes and studies concerning teaching English in such classes.

2.3 Teaching English in Multilevel Classrooms

Multilevel classes, also known as mixed-ability or heterogeneous classes (Baurain & Phan, 2010), are defined by Hess (2001) as “the kinds of classes that have been roughly arranged according to ability, or simply classes that have been arranged by age-group with no thought to language ability (p.2).” The issue of teaching English in multilevel classrooms has attracted particular attention because of the many

problems reported by teachers in teaching such classes. The teaching difficulties vary somewhat as the teaching contexts differ, but generally the reported problems include difficulties of managing classroom effectively, of meeting the various needs and enhancing the motivation and interest of students with adequate materials and activities, of paying sufficient individual attention to students, and of assessing students effectively and appropriately (Baurain & Phan, 2010; Chang, 2009; Chen, 2009; Chiang, 2003; Hess, 2001; Liu, 2004; Lu, 2011; Maddalena, 2002;

Mathews-Aydinli & Van Horne, 2006; Teng, 2009; Ur, 1991; Xanthou & Pavlou, 2008).

To address these difficulties, many teachers and researchers have invested

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

20

considerable time and energy to investigate and report effective practices and

approaches, hoping to identify what constituted effective teaching in such classrooms so to transfer such knowledge to other teachers. Two approaches reported to be effective in multilevel classrooms are differentiated instruction and cooperative learning. Differentiated instruction is an approach to proactively organizing teaching and learning that provide students with multiple access to the curriculum in response to student readiness, interest and learning profiles. With a scaffolding system inherent in the differentiated instruction, it is said to be able to meet the individual needs of learners in multilevel classrooms (King-Shaver & Hunter, 2003; Quiocho & Ulanoff, 2009; Rothenberg & Fisher, 2007; Tomlinson, 1999; Tomlinson, 2001). Likewise, cooperative learning is also reported to be conducive to satisfying the diverse needs of individuals through student cooperation (MacDonald & Smith, 2010). In addition to the two approaches, effective practices in addressing difficulties in teaching English to multilevel classes include practices such as conducting needs analysis prior to teaching, using classroom management strategies, using grouping strategies flexibly, asking higher achievers to provide peer tutoring, providing self-access materials, using multilevel tasks and assessment and adopting leveled teaching materials and homework (Chang, 2009; Chen, 2009; Chiang, 2003; Hess, 2001; Liu, 2004; Lu, 2011;

Mathews-Aydinli & Van Horne, 2006; Roberts, 2007; Shank & Terrill, 1995; Teng, 2009; Ur, 1991; Xanthou & Pavlou, 2008).

Despite the substantial coverage, most of the literature on teaching English in multilevel classrooms, however, is not research-based. Of the relevant literature that the researcher reviewed, only eight articles are research-based. Among these,

Freedman et al. (2005) considered the reservation that people had about the practice of untracking; commenced a three-year research study to examine an experienced teacher, Delp’s teaching in an untracked English literacy class in the U.S. to

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

21

understand how to effectively meet the various needs of diverse students in untracked classrooms from the perspectives of both teacher and students. Their review of relevant literature revealed that a number of such studies focused on and emphasized the importance of implementing heterogeneous cooperative learning groups to accommodate student diversity. However, in investigating the cognitive and actual practice of instruction of how Delp taught English literary works to a group of 30 academically and socioculturally diverse students throughout a semester, the

researchers found that instead of using small cooperative learning groups advocated widely by the researchers, Delp mainly employed whole-class multimodal activities combined with individual teacher-student interactions in class. Freedman et al. hence suggested what truly mattered in the success of Delp’s teaching in the untracked classroom might be a set of principles grounded in Vygotskian and Bakhtinian theories rather than the participant structures that she utilized in class. These

principles included “building a long-term curriculum, which promotes the recycling of structures and ideas, with room for ever-deepening levels of complexity;

considering learners to be in control of their learning and building structures that support them in challenging themselves; building a learning community that respects and makes productive use of diverse contributions from varied learners; providing opportunities for diverse ways of learning; providing support to individuals as needed;

challenging all students, and keeping learners actively involved (pp. 118-119)”. In this way, the researchers concluded that the recommendations that seemed more useful were not specific suggestions about participant structures but “general principles, supported by examples that provide a variety of activities for teachers to choose from and that provide stimulus for teachers to invent their own activity systems, with their own participant and activity structures (p. 118)”.

Although Freedman et al. (2005) provided insightful analysis with their holistic

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

22

and in-depth investigation, their study, nonetheless, was conducted in English literacy class whose focus was on teaching English literacy through literature studies, which rendered itself rather hard to shed light on teaching EFL in multilevel classrooms. To have a deepened understanding of the issue, one may need to undertake a review of studies more directly concerning teaching English as a language to multilevel classes.

Out of the recognition of the numerous difficulties in teaching English to

multilevel classes, two studies were also conducted to investigate what practices could work effectively in the context of EFL multilevel classrooms. Xanthou and Pavlou (2008), based on a review of related literature, conducted a mixed-method research design study to examine how 114 EFL teachers of public primary schools in Cyprus dealt with teaching multilevel classes. By consulting a considerable portion of research on how to effectively teach multilevel English classes, Xanthou and Pavlou formulated a questionnaire and hypothesized that flexible grouping methods,

cooperative and communicative activities, word games and various differentiated tasks might properly accommodate the varying English abilities among the students.

To supplement the research findings from the questionnaire data provided by the 114 EFL school teachers, the researchers also conducted six classroom observations of a Level 1 class in an urban public primary school. With the analyses of the

questionnaire and observational data, Xanthou and Pavlou confirmed their hypothesis suggesting that flexible use of grouping strategies, cooperative activities, open-ended and differentiated communicative tasks and games could be capable of

accommodating the various needs of students with diverse English proficiency levels.

To encourage and sustain teachers’ incorporation of these practices into their classes, Xanthou and Pavlou also proposed that more teaching hours should be allowed for teaching in such classrooms. Likewise, Maddalena (2002) affirmed Xanthou and Pavlou’s finding of the value of student collaboration. Maddalena (2002) in teaching

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

23

English to a group of students with diverse proficiency levels in Japan, found that it was hard to take care of the various needs of students with different proficiency levels.

To solve the problems encountered, Maddalena conducted action research to study how the students and the teacher, that is, himself, perceived the use of advanced learners as teaching assistants With data obtained through a questionnaire and classroom discussions, he reported that most students, regardless of their proficiency levels, were in favor of and benefited from this device. Maddalena hence suggested that advanced learners could serve as teaching assistants offering aid to their

lower-level peers in the multilevel class.

Despite of their provision of some understandings of teaching English in multilevel classrooms, the two studies of Xanthou and Pavlou (2008) and Maddalena (2002) offered only a general or incomplete picture of the issues being studied. By employing questionnaire as their main data collection method, Xanthou and Pavlou (2008) provided a general account of the experiences and views of the 114 EFL teachers in Cyprus on how to deal with multilevel English classes. However, they could hardly offer further information about how and why each of those teachers utilized such practices, that is, the cognitive dimension of teaching that underpinned their actual teaching of practice. Similarly, Maddalena (2002), by affording findings mostly from students’ perspectives, also provided few specific details about his cognitions and practices of using advanced learners as teaching assistants in teaching the multilevel class.

With a hope to achieve a more holistic and in-depth understanding of teaching English in multilevel classrooms, in the following section, the researcher elaborates the issues further with relevant studies conducted in Taiwan.