Approaches to teaching low literacy refugee-background students.

Windle, Joel ; Miller, Jenny

Australian schools have received growing number of students with disrupted schooling arriving from places of conflict and persecution, including Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar, Iraq and Sudan. Australia granted 13,770 humanitarian visas in 2009-10, and in the past decade has hosted or resettled 130,338 refugees (Refugee Council of Australia, 2011). More than half of the world's 42 million refugees have been living in exile in a developing country for five years or longer, which at best involves life in a camp but more often even more difficult situations in urban and rural areas (Refugee Council of Australia, 2011; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2010). Asylum seekers usually have no access to education or other forms of social support. For example, stateless people in Thailand, including Karen refugees, are 75% less likely than Thai citizens to attend primary school (van Waas, 2010). This kind of exclusion has a dramatic impact on young children and adolescents, who make up a majority of the world's refugees (Newman, 2005).

Education authorities in Victoria, the state which settles 27% of humanitarian arrivals (Refugee Council of Australia, 2011), recorded 1600 refugee students in government schools for the year 2007, observing:

Over the past 10 years, the national origin of refugee and humanitarian entrants has changed substantially, resulting in many of the students who are now enrolled having had severely interrupted schooling or little or no experience of school. The lack of literacy in a first or a second language, little or no knowledge or understanding of how school works, and the trauma associated with the refugee experience, means that refugee students are likely to face substantial obstacles to settling, including learning in our schools (DEECD, 2008b, 4).

Subsequent reports observe that 'the number of newly arrived ESL students entering primary and secondary schools on refugee and humanitarian visas with no, little, or severely disrupted schooling continued to increase' (DEECD, 2008a, 5; 2010, 22). While no exact figures have been published, the Victorian Department of Education estimates that 'the overwhelming majority of young people from refugee backgrounds enrolling in Victorian schools will have experienced some disruption to their education prior to arriving in Australia' (DEECD, 2008b, 8).

Typically, this group is not reported on separately by educational bureaucracies and falls under the wider category of ESL and equity (Sidhu & Taylor, 2007). Here we adopt as a working research definition the term 'low literacy refugee-background' (LLRB) students, understanding literacy as the ability to 'take part fluently, effectively and critically, in the various text- and discourse-based events that characterise contemporary semiotic societies and economies' (Freebody & Luke, 2003, 53). We focus on literacy because low or no literacy in students' first languages and in English presents as a distinctive obstacle to accessing all other parts of the curriculum--the textual life-world of the school--including mathematics and science.

The enrolment of low literacy refugee-background (LLRB) students has precipitated an as yet little understood quantitative and qualitative shift in classrooms, particularly in the low socioeconomic fringes of major cities. Like other new ESL arrivals, LLRB students receive up to 12 months of intensive English language instruction in separate schools, following which they enter mainstream schools. Many students entering mainstream classes from language schools in the secondary years have reading and writing levels similar to those of lower primary school students, and previous studies have deemed current time in language centres insufficient (Olliff & Couch, 2005).

In this context, we sought to investigate the approaches used by teachers working with LLRB students in Victorian Secondary Schools. We wanted to know in particular the extent to which teachers of LLRB students were using strategies recommended by popular approaches to building language and literacy. The research, which is now in an ethnographic phase, is undertaken in partnership with the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Education and supported by the Australian Research Council.

The needs of LLRB Students

Unsurprisingly, the welfare needs of this group are dramatic, but also varied (Cassity & Gow, 2005, 2006; Matthews, 2008; Rutter, 2006), including traumatised family backgrounds and political environments which are dangerous and violent, leaving a legacy of post-traumatic stress disorder for some (Joyce, Earnest, De Mori, & Silvagni, 2010; Strekalova & Hoot, 2008). Many young refugees in Australia have had to flee their homes, have been separated from and lost family members, and have gone for long periods without adequate food, shelter or health services (DEECD, 2008b; O'Sullivan, 2006; Victorian Settlement Planning Committee, 2006). On arrival they must navigate financial hardship, difficulties with accommodation, uncertainty about permanency of settlement, changing family circumstances and structures, unfamiliar bureaucratic procedures and limited employment prospects (Burgoyne & Hull, 2007a; Bourgoyne & Hull, 2007b; Cassity & Gow, 2005, 2006; Taylor & Stanovic, 2005). Documentation also exists of poor attendance, school failure, and poor transition to high school after initial intensive English language programs (Cassity & Gow, 2006; Miller & Windle, 2008; Olliff & Couch, 2005), particularly for those who arrive in later in adolescence (O'Sullivan, 2006).

Many LLRB students are unfamiliar with the workings and routines of schools, and have not had the opportunity to develop the social and cultural understandings, metacognitive skills and learning strategies that are assumed of secondary students in addition to prior subject knowledge (Anderson, 2004; Cassity & Gow, 2005; Freebody, Maton, & Martin, 2008). Further, due to interrupted or non-existent prior schooling, many are unable to read and write in their first language(s). As such, much linguistic and conceptual knowledge cannot be transferred into English, but must be developed in other ways. Learning the linguistic attributes of academic genres of writing specific to particular subject areas is challenging for all learners of English (Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 2002; Cummins, 1991; Verplaetse & Migliacci, 2008), and can take from seven to ten years (Collier & Thomas, 2009; Garcia, DiCerbo, & Center, 2000). For refugees, this task is just as pressing but all the more daunting (Rutter, 2006; Woods, 2009). Embarrassment felt about lack of competence in the classroom can result in withdrawal from social interaction, and from classes altogether (Anderson, 2004; Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 2002). Even more seriously, childhood malnutrition can affect behaviour and learning in ways that are yet to be well understood (Grantham-McGregor, 1995).

Mainstream teachers working with second language learners

Research on 'mainstream' secondary teachers' understandings of the broader category of ESL students internationally suggests that they are ill-equipped to cope with such learners (Gitlin, Buendia, Crosland, & Doumbia, 2003; Reeves, 2006) and may not see a role for themselves in teaching language (English, 2009; Pass & Mantero, 2009). A small number of studies have investigated teacher attitudes towards inclusion (Franson, 1999; Youngs & Youngs, 2001), curriculum modification (Reeves, 2004) and professional development (Clair, 1995; Hutchinson & Hadjioannou, 2011). This predominantly US research has offered a generally pessimistic outlook. In Australia, Hammond has recorded predominantly positive teacher views of the impact of student cultural and linguistic diversity on their school, with just 16 per cent regarding it as a negative (Hammond, 2008). However, her study of teaching innovation initiatives found 'little evidence of a systematic focus on language and literacy in the implementation of the frameworks' and a lack of teacher confidence in their 'abilities to incorporate academic language and literacy in their programs' (p. 151).

Most professional development and teacher education in Victoria is guided by approaches to building language and literacy that have not been designed with LLRB students in mind (Miller & Windle, 2010). Current approaches emphasise the explicit teaching of academic language, using students' prior knowledge, and careful sequencing of learning through phases (Cummins, 2000; Feez, 2002; Freebody & Luke, 1990; Gibbons, 2008; Hammond & Gibbons, 2001, 2005; Luke & Freebody, 1999; Martin, 1999). We wanted to know to what extent teachers of LLRB students were aware of and were using the strategies recommended in these approaches. We focus on the following:

Engaging students' prior knowledge

Creating a classroom context in which students' cultural knowledge is expressed, shared and affirmed is motivating, but also helps to make language and concepts more meaningful to students. It is also an important way for teachers to learn more about their students, including language needs (Gibbons, 2006). This has been discussed in terms of accessing/activating students' prior knowledge and 'building the field' (Gibbons, 2009), and as the 'experiential phase' Cummins (2001). It involves stimulating discussion through visuals and multimedia presentations, sharing experiences, and writing activities that focus on prior knowledge (Pass & Mantero, 2009; Schifini, 1994). Activating prior knowledge through first language support (Collier & Thomas, 2009; Cummins, 2000) is a suggested strategy unfortunately not available in most Australian classrooms where a wide range of language groups are represented and access to multicultural aides is limited.

Comprehension and linguistic awareness

A second key step is breaking the code of written texts by supporting students to recognise structural conventions and patterns (Luke & Freebody, 1999; Freebody & Luke, 1990), thereby enabling an initial interpretation of information (Cummins, 2001). The mainstream topic must also be 'unpacked' linguistically by the teacher in advance, so that they can identify the demands made on students that they need to address (Gibbons, 2006). Modifying difficult texts is important in order to achieve comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982); as is, developing vocabulary through meaning and language-focused learning (Nation, 2002, 2009). Bowers, Fitts, Quirk, and Jung (2010) suggest that teachers need more time to practice comprehensible input strategies, and should provide students with more opportunities for practice.

Beyond decoding, comparison with meaning systems in other texts and cultural discourses is recommended for unpacking texts (Luke & Freebody, 1999). In Cummins' model, students relate texts to their own experiences and feelings in a 'personal phase'; then in a 'critical phase', analyse issues and problems arising from a text, draw inferences and explore generalisations (Cummins, 2001). The transformative dimension of Cummins' approach lies in developing skills for understanding how power is exercised through discourse. Similarly, Luke and Freebody look to the social roles which texts play, and argue that this provides the basis for

a formal analysis the way texts are constructed to achieve a given purpose (Luke & Freebody, 1999).

Scaffolding students as text producers

Teacher modelling and deconstructing of relevant text types and joint teacher-student construction are essential precursors to independent writing in Gibbons' teaching and learning cycle (Gibbons, 2009). Ultimately, students develop the ability to independently construct texts and engage in 'intellectual practice'. Students engage with the key ideas and concepts of the discipline in ways that reflect how 'experts:' in the field think and reason (Gibbons, 2009). Students transform what they have learned into a different form for use in a new context or for a different audience. This is in sympathy with the 'creative phase' (Cummins, 2000, 2001), which involves translating understandings into concrete actions, identifying roles that students can play by way of an intervention into an issue or problem. Cummins has highlighted the importance of engaging students' identities in literacy activities through discussion of social and moral issues and through writing (Cummins, 2011).

Scaffolding through discussion

Discussion between teachers and students as the basis for the 'guided co-construction of knowledge' has an important place in theories of language learning (Hardman, Smith, & Wall, 2003; Mercer, 1995; Wells, 1999), and receives particular attention in the work of Gibbons (Gibbons, 2009). Students need opportunities to talk through complex ideas and hold substantive conversations, including about language and learning. Student discussion and involvement is promoted by variation in organisational structures, particularly the inclusion of pair and group work (Gibbons, 2009).

Research in relation to strategies for refugee-background students is thin on the ground, but generally confirms the principles established in this wider literature (Brown, Miller, & Mitchell, 2006; Miller, 2009; Miller, Mitchell, & Brown, 2005). Emphasis is placed on foundational skills, such as handwriting, on opportunities for practice and recycling, on connections to lived experience and immediate needs, and on the importance of rich textual and non-textual supports (Brown, et al., 2006; Burgoyne & Hull, 2007a; Miller, 2009; Miller & Windle, 2010; Naidoo, 2008). In addition, a need for explicit teaching of western conventions of visual literacy (Hood & Kightley, 1991) has been highlighted. One documented successful strategy engaged refugee-background boys in constructing narratives about themselves through documentary film, in a sequence involving careful linguistic scaffolding (Hewson, 2006).

There have been calls for teachers to take additional steps to appreciate LLRB student backgrounds (for example highly oral cultures), circumstances, obligations and experiences (Burgoyne & Hull, 2007a, 2007b; Cassity & Gow, 2006; Victorian Settlement Planning Committee, 2006). In terms of classroom organisation, peer mentoring (Cassity & Gow, 2005) and group rather than individual work (Burgoyne & Hull, 2007a) have also been suggested. At the same time, this work has highlighted the school pressures and stresses under which teachers of LLRB students operate, and the limitations this places on tasks such as planning (Miller, 2011).

The study

A survey based on identifying the popularity of the literacy strategies outlined above was piloted and refined before being distributed by mail to 39 Victorian schools in receipt of funding for refugee-background students. At each school we asked for the participation of two humanities teachers, two mathematics teachers, two science teachers, one ESL teacher, and one teacher of a class specially designed for LLRB students. We received surveys from 12 schools (30%), resulting in a sample of 61 teachers. Participants responded to 124 closed items about their teaching practices with single Year 9 or 10 class. Teachers were provided with definitions where terms might be unclear, for example, for teachers completing the survey, text type was defined as 'the types of writing, reading, viewing, creating, listening and speaking most commonly used in your subject area e.g. number problems, reports, graphs, explanations, arguments, justifications, maps etc'. Open-ended questions were also included regarding how teachers monitor and assess LLRB students, and what additional support would most help them.

Here we present some descriptive analyses of quantitative data, focusing on the proportion of teachers who report 'routinely' engaging in a given strategy, where other available options were 'sometimes', 'rarely', never', 'not relevant' and 'not familiar with this'. In relation to each strategy, teachers were asked 'please indicate how often the following occur in your classroom' and 'when teaching a unit of work to this class, how often do you do the following'. We also report some exploratory testing for relationships between variables using multiple regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Here we include examples of some of the most common obstacles identified by teachers in open-ended responses, selected to illustrate and interpret the survey results. The pattern emerging from survey responses suggest a greater use of teacher-centred strategies relative to student-centred strategies. The size of the sample (61) limits the potential of results to be generalised and as self-reported data, the results must be interpreted with caution (De Vaus, 1995; Polkinghorne, 2005).

Sample profile

The sample consisted of teachers reporting on ESL and transition classes for LLRB students (16); humanities classes (17); and mathematics and science classes (28). There were 16 male and 45 female respondents. Length of teaching experience varied widely, with an average of 13 years in schools (SD = 11.50); 8.4 years teaching ESL students (SD = 8.23) and 3.6 years teaching refugee-background students (SD = 4.6). Fifteen of the teachers held a pre-service ESL qualification. Teachers were evenly spread between Year 9 and Year 10 classes (29 to 31). For the most part, the teachers had fewer than ten LLRB students in their classroom (average = 4; SD = 3.5), with the highest number being 15 such students in a single class. In addition to their LLRB students, teachers were also struggling with other high needs students, including those behavioural difficulties, other ESL students, those with learning difficulties, and those with physical or intellectual disabilities.

A role for mainstream teachers in scaffolding language

More than 9 out of 10 (93%) of teachers believed that it is the role of subject specialists to teach English language or basic literacy skills. Few teachers (11%) considered that, 'as long as I can engage these students with the main concepts, I don't need to worry about their language and literacy skills'. In terms of vocabulary, almost all teachers (93%) agreed that it is important to draw students' attention to the way words are used in their particular subjects. These beliefs are reflected in practice, with most teachers routinely scaffolding language development using at least some of the strategies identified (see Table 1).

Discussion emerges as a key bridging strategy between potentially inaccessible content and students. The most popular strategy overall is accessing students' prior understandings through discussions and questioning, routinely undertaken by 87% of teachers in the sample. Sixty per cent report that they regularly use the information they gain as the starting point for learning activities. Questioning to deepen students' understanding of concepts and ideas was popular (60%), as were informal teacher-initiated chats with individual students (58%), with many teachers also leading discussions on text types (48%) and learning strategies (35%).

While these practices are in line with Gibbons' (2009) advice on making extensive use of discussion in literacy education, of potential concern in teacher-led discussions is the level of student input. Research suggests that limited Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) sequences are the dominant structure in classroom talk (Barnes, 1976; Van Lier, 1996), and that most teacher questions are closed (Wood, 1992).

Just under two-thirds of teachers were engaged in strategies that are in keeping with the literature on providing rich and varied textual and nontextual supports (62%). While only half (53%) provided students with glossaries, 77 % reported identifying and teaching key vocabulary and terminology. Scaffolding at the level of genre or text-type features is also less popular, being routinely undertaken by fewer than half of teachers in the sample. Text-based supports for scaffolding are particularly unpopular, being routinely used by just a quarter of teachers.

Popularity of teacher-focused activities

Teachers were more likely to engage in strategies that demanded an active role of themselves than of students. For example, two thirds sought to recontextualise new material as they presented it, but fewer than half expected students to apply new understandings across contexts (see Table 2). Similarly, just 44% of teachers expected students to develop and present oral texts and just 36% provided opportunities for students to develop multimedia presentations. That is to say, least likely were those practices associated with Gibbons' (Gibbons, 2009) Intellectual Practice and Cummins' (Cummins, 2000) Creative Phase.

The distance between student levels (as perceived by teachers) and the level of the academic content teachers are required to cover may lead to a shortening of the learning sequence to exclude or minimise student production. However the popularity of teacher-focused activities and discussion may also be connected to a lack of resources. Without written resources at an appropriate level for students, there are few alternatives. It is possible that teachers lack confidence in students' ability to work independently and generate written texts. That only a third of teachers attempted to support students to 'think, write and sound like an expert' in their content area lends support to this hypothesis.

Variations amongst teachers

While our sample was too small to allow for a robust analysis of differences amongst groups of teachers, some tentative connections can be drawn. Taking together a number of items connected to linguistic scaffolding as a scale (alpha =.68), we undertook a multiple regression analysis to identify which background characteristics influenced the use of language scaffolding practices (table 3) close to statistical significance at p<.05 (final column of the table). The positive B coefficients show that increases in the use linguistic strategies are positively associated with each of the background variables listed in the first column. Female teachers appeared to be more engaged in linguistic scaffolding, as did those with a pre-service ESL qualification and many LLRB students in their classroom. The level of resourcing available was also positively associated with language linguistic scaffolding.

Reflecting concern about lack of time and resources in the literature (Gitlin, et al., 2003; Hammond, 2008; Reeves, 2006), two thirds of teachers reported lacking time to support LLRB students in the way they would like (68%), and only a third agreed with the statement 'I have access to the resources I need to effectively teach LLRB students'. Common responses to open-ended questions a lack of time to undertake professional development, plan, or prepare resources:

[I need] MORE BLOODY TIME! And some PD--this is available but teachers in this school are way too busy to make use of it. (Science teacher)

Teachers need a time allowance if they are to prepare a comprehensive, diversified and differentiated learning program. (Science teacher)

Teachers cannot rely on standard textbooks--they need time to prepare suitable lesson plans and appropriate worksheets. (Mathematics teacher)

We can't use standard textbooks with these kids. We have to develop diversified curriculum materials which make the material accessible. (Science teacher)

The scale of the challenge can appear overwhelming:

Completing this survey has emphasised to me that although I have put a power of work into improving my teaching for ESL and low lit students, there is still so much to do. Juggling the needs of ESL/low lit students with those with behavioural problems is extremely hard and sometimes I wonder if it is beyond me. (Science teacher)

Conclusion

The survey of teachers working with low literacy refugee-background students elicited quite strong levels of endorsement of many aspects of current popular literacy strategies. Although we anticipate some level of social desirability bias in responses, we could nevertheless identify strategies which are more favoured and those that are relatively neglected. The size of the sample means that the findings must be treated with caution and cannot be generalised.

Our data first point to the popularity of discussion over scaffolding through written resources and to the popularity of teacher-focused activities. We hypothesise that this may be influenced by the limited availability of suitable text-based resources and a lack of time to generate such resources from scratch. A further influence may be the expectation that teachers move quickly through the curriculum, resulting in later stages of learning, in which learner autonomy is developed, being truncated or abandoned.

We suggest that providing teachers with additional time, resources and strategies should be directed at building student autonomy (Bruner & Watson, 1983; Piaget, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978), particularly through greater opportunities for practice. Other work has shown that expert teachers of adult refugee learners prioritise opportunities for repetition and recycling of learned material (Burgoyne & Hull, 2007a). Supports could include check-lists, models, glossaries, visual dictionaries, peer-support practices, classroom routines that students can follow automatically when they are ready to move on or need support. Some teachers are doing this, as one less common response indicates:

In this class ESL students have a booklet containing all the class texts re-written in basic language, supported by diagrams, pictures etc. Timeframe for completion of the tasks negotiated and progress 'ticked off' each lesson. Work corrected and discussed. (Humanities Teacher)

The heavy reliance on discussion by teachers raises concerns about the extent to which it involves all students in active participation Approaches to enriching and varying classroom discussion, such as the 'instructional conversation' techniques advocated by Tharp and Gallimore (1988) and the higher order questioning techniques proposed by Brown and Wragg (1993) are worth exploring in this context. Discussion led by the teacher, particularly when students are taught as a whole class, is particularly challenging in light of the diversity of student levels.

In addition to issues of time and resources, the place of school culture and teacher identity must also be recognised, however it has been beyond the scope of this paper to explore these dimensions. This study points to the need for professional development which focuses on student production and practice of language structures, and a pedagogy where teachers provide more scaffolding involving written practice. Responsibility also falls to schools to provide time allowance and resources that would enable changes to teacher practice. Teacher knowledge of these strategies can only come from ESL-informed professional development, but time to act on this knowledge can only come from the schools and the system.

References

Anderson, A. (2004). Issues of migration. In R. Hamilton & D. Moore (Eds.), Educational interventions for refugee children: Theoretical perspectives and implementing best practice (pp. 64-83). London: Routledge Falmer.

Barnes, D.R. (1976). From communication to curriculum: Penguin Education Harmondsworth.

Bowers, E., Fitts, S., Quirk, M., & Jung, W. (2010). Effective strategies for developing academic English: professional development and teacher practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(1), 95-110.

Brown, G., & Wragg, E.C. (1993). Questioning: Psychology Press.

Brown, J., Miller, J., & Mitchell, J. (2006). Interrupted schooling and the acquisition of literacy: Experiences of Sudanese refugees in Victorian secondary schools. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(2), 150.

Bruner, J.S., & Watson, R. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Burgoyne, U., & Hull, O. (2007a). Classroom management strategies to address the needs of Sudanese refugee learners. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).

Burgoyne, U., & Hull, O. (2007b). Good practice guide: Teaching learners from highly oral cultures. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).

Carrasquillo, A.L., & Rodriguez, V. (2002). Language minority students in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cassity, E., & Gow, G. (2005). Making up for lost time: The experiences of Southern Sudanese young refugees in high schools. Youth Studies Australia, 24(3), 51-55.

Cassity, E., & Gow, G. (2006). Shifting space and cultural place: The transition experiences of African young people in western Sydney high schools. Paper presented at the AARE International Education Research Conference.

Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 189-196.

Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2009). Educating English learners for a transformed world. Albuquerque, NM: Fuente Press.

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. Language processing in bilingual children, 70-89.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2011). Literacy engagement: Fueling academic growth for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 65(2), 142-146.

De Vaus, D.A. (1995). Surveys in social research (4th ed.). St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

DEECD. (2008a). English as a Second Language in Victorian Government Schools 2008.

Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria). DEECD. (2008b). Strengthening Outcomes: Refugee Students in Government Schools.

Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria). DEECD. (2010). ESL Report 2009. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria).

English, B. (2009). Who is responsible for educating English language learners? Discursive construction of roles and responsibilities in an inquiry community. Language and Education, 23(6), 487-507.

Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Franson, C. (1999). Mainstreaming Learners of English as an Additional Language: The Class Teachers. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12(1), 59-71.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). 'Literacies' programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect, 5(7), 7-16.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The 'four roles' model. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 52-65). French Forest, Australia: Prentice-Hall.

Freebody, P., Maton, K., & Martin, J. (2008). Talk, text, and knowledge in cumulative, integrated learning: A response to 'intellectual challenge'. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 188-201.

Garcia, G.N., DiCerbo, P.A., & Center, E.R.I. (2000). Lessons From Research: What Is the Length of Time it Takes Limited English Proficient Students to Acquire English and Succeed in an All-English Classroom? (Vol. 5): National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Washington, DC.

Gibbons, P. (2006). Steps for planning an integrated program for ESL learners in mainstream classes. In P. McKay (Ed.), Planning and teaching creatively within a required curriculum for school-age learners. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL Inc.

Gibbons, P. (2008). 'It was taught good and I learned a lot": Intellectual practices and ESL learners in the middle years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 155.

Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinnemann.

Gitlin, A., Buendia, E., Crosland, K., & Doumbia, F. (2003). The production of margin and center: Welcoming-unwelcoming of immigrant students. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 91-122.

Grantham-McGregor, S. (1995). A review of studies of the effect of severe malnutrition on mental development. Journal of Nutrition, 125, 2211-2217.

Hammond, J. (2008). Intellectual challenge and ESL students: Implications of quality teaching initiatives. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 128-154.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). What is scaffolding? In J. Hammond (Ed.), Scaffolding: Teaching and learning in language and literacy education (pp. 1-14). Newtown, NSW: PETA.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30.

Hardman, F., Smith, F., & Wall, K. (2003). 'Interactive Whole Class Teaching' in the National Literacy Strategy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 197-215.

Hewson, S. (2006). Inside out. Boys' voices: Identity and refugee students in a secondary school. In K. Cadman & K. O'Regan (Eds.), Tales out of school: Identity and English language teaching (pp. 34-48). Flinders Park, SA: Australian Council of TESOL Associations.

Hood, S., & Kightley, S. (1991). Literacy development: A longitudinal study. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant English Service.

Hutchinson, M., & Hadjioannou, X. (2011). Better serving the needs of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the mainstream classroom: Examining the impact of inquiry-based hybrid professional development program. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 91-113.

Joyce, A., Earnest, J., De Mori, G., & Silvagni, G. (2010). The experiences of students from refugee backgrounds at universities in Australia: Reflections on the social, emotional and practical challenges. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(1), 82-97.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8.

Martin, J.R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: 'Genre-based' literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123-155). London & New York: Continuum.

Matthews, J. (2008). Schooling and settlement: Refugee education in Australia. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(1), 31-45.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Miller, J. (2009). Teaching refugee learners with interrupted education in science: Vocabulary, literacy and pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 571-592.

Miller, J. (2011). Teachers' work in culturally and linguistically diverse schools. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 451-466.

Miller, J., Mitchell, J., & Brown, J. (2005). African refugees with interrupted schooling in the high school mainstream: Dilemmas for teachers. Prospect, 20(2), 19-33.

Miller, J., & Windle, J. (2008). ESL Transition Initiatives. Report to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Melbourne: Monash University.

Miller, J., & Windle, J. (2010). Second language literacy: Putting high needs ESL learners in the frame. English in Australia, 45(3), 31-40.

Naidoo, L. (2008). Supporting African refugees in Greater Western Sydney: A critical ethnography of after-school homework tutoring centres. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(3), 139-150.

Nation, P. (2002). Managing vocabulary learning. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Nation, P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York & London: Routledge.

Newman, J. (2005). Protection through participation: Young people affected by forced migration and political crisis, Refugee Study Centre Working Paper No. 20. Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House, Department of International Development. University of Oxford.

O'Sullivan, K. (2006). Late arrivals: The needs of refugee young people who resettle in later adolescence: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues.

Olliff, L., & Couch, J. (2005). Pathways and pitfalls: The journey of refugee young people in and around the education system in greater Dandenong, Victoria. Youth Studies Australia, 24(3), 42-46.

Pass, C., & Mantero, M. (2009). (Un)covering the ideal: Investigating exemplary language arts teachers' beliefs and instruction of English language learners. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 6(4), 269-291.

Piaget, J. (2002). The language and thought of the child: Psychology Press. Polkinghorne, D. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.

Reeves, J.R. (2004). 'Like everybody else': Equalizing educational opportunity for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 43-66.

Reeves, J.R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research,, 99(3), 131-143.

Refugee Council of Australia. (2011). Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program 2011-12: Refugee Council of Australia.

Rutter, J. (2006). Refugee children in the UK. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Schifini, A. (1994). Language, literacy and content instruction: Strategies for teachers. In K. Spangenberg-Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 158-179). Neward, DE: International Reading Association.

Sidhu, R., & Taylor, S. (2007). Educational provision for refugee youth in Australia: Left to chance? Journal of Sociology, 43(3), 283-300.

Strekalova, E., & Hoot, J.L. (2008). What is special about special needs of refugee children? Guidelines for teachers. Multicultural Education, 16(1), 21-24.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor, J., & Stanovic, D. (2005). Refugees and regional settlement. Balancing priorities, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2010). Number of forcibly displaced rises to 43.3 million last year, the highest level since mid-1990s. Retrieved 29 October 2010, from http://www.unhcr.org/4c176c969/html

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity: Longman London.

van Waas, L. (2010). Statelessness Workshop. Paper presented at the Third Asia Pacific Consultation on Refugee Rights.

Verplaetse, L.S., & Migliacci, N.M. (Eds.). (2008). Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners: A handbook of research-informed practices. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Victorian Settlement Planning Committee. (2006). Good practice principles: Guide for working with refugee young people. Melbourne: Department for Victorian Communities.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, C.G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education: Cambridge Univ Pr.

Wood, D. (1992). Teaching talk: How modes of teacher talk affect pupil participation. Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project, 203-214.

Woods, A. (2009). Learning to be literate: Issues of pedagogy for recently arrived refugee youth in Australia. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 6(1/2), 81-101.

Youngs, C.S., & Youngs, G.A.J. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers' attitude toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-120.

Joel Windle & Jenny Miller

Monash University

Joel Windle is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. His research analyses the implications of cultural and linguistic diversity for pedagogical and social relations across institutional settings. He is currently working on projects investigating school choice and transition programs for students with interrupted schooling.

Jenny Miller is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University. She teaches in the postgraduate and preservice TESOL area. Her research concerns language and identity, literacy pedagogy, EAL learners and teachers' work. Her ARC linkage project with Joel Windle looks at content-based language learning for refugee background students.

Table 1: Overview of language and literacy strategies

Practice                                                   'routinely'

Scaffolding learners

Use discussions and questioning to find out what basic         87%
concepts, understandings and skills students possess

Consider students' existing knowledge of English and the       64%
language demands of the new work

Use the understandings students bring to the classroom         61%
as the starting point in learning activities

Use cultural, linguistic and educational backgrounds of        53%
students in planning

Explain how to think, write and sound like an expert in        31%
this content area

Discuss students' language or literacy needs with an ESL       20%
teacher

Plan with an ESL teacher                                       11%

Use pen and paper tests to find out what students              10%
already know'

Attention to comprehensible input/ZPD

Bring relevant artefacts, diagrams, documentaries,             62%
equipment, films, maps, software, wall charts etc into
the classroom as resources for students

Make word lists and glossaries available as references         53%
for students

Vary tasks or resources to support weaker students'            53%
understanding of concepts (e.g. by providing hands-on
materials, similar texts, calculators etc).

Challenge students with work that is slightly ahead of         49%
their ability and support them to successfully attempt
it

Make use of ICT resources on a regular basis                   37%

Provide students with reading materials that are age           31%
appropriate but easy to read

Direct and explicit teaching of language

Identify and teach core vocabulary and terminology             77%

Engage students in discussions about the actual texts          48%
you are using, e.g. the context, the intended audience,
paragraphs, links etc.

Write texts with the class using the board, interactive        40%
whiteboard, OHP etc. and expect students to: contribute
ideas; formulate sentences; negotiate vocabulary choices
and alternative wordings, expand on the ideas of others
etc. (joint construction)

Teach students how to compare and contrast texts by            24%
considering their intended purpose, audience, structure,
language choices and usefulness to the area under
investigation in class

Provide students with a sheet outlining the structure          24%
and key language features of the relevant text type

Focus on metacognitive skills and strategies

Model and reinforce strategies for finding information         53%
explicitly stated in texts

Model and reinforce techniques for scanning, skimming,         44%
reading for gist

Model and reinforce research skills                            39%

Model and reinforce ways to think beyond the information       38%
given in a text and make links with 'unstated' ideas or
information

Discussion focusing on teaching students how to think          35%
about and articulate their learning strategies

Focus on critical and creative skills

Use questioning aimed at deepening students'                   60%
understanding of concepts and increasingly abstract
ideas

Sequence lessons/tasks to move students step-by-step           56%
from concrete to abstract understandings

Teach students to have a critical approach to ideas,           47%
concepts and assertions, e.g. draw inferences, identify
bias

Table 2: Recontextualisation

                                                     % Routinely    n

When teaching a unit of work to this class how          67.2       60
often do you do the following? Contextualise the
application of new content matter with real world
examples

How often do the following occur in your                58.3       60
classroom? Class work is linked with examples of
application in the real world

Thinking about the work you expect students to          49.2       60
produce how often do you do the following?
Encourage students to apply new understandings/
theory/knowledge to the world outside of school

Available responses are: routinely; sometimes; rarely; never;
not relevant; not familiar with this

Table 3: Multiple regression analysis of linguistic scaffolding

Predictors                B       SE B      Beta        T          p

Females                0.2289    0.1211    0.2348     1.8910    0.0643

Pre-service ESL        0.2226    0.1211    0.2284     1.8380    0.0718
qualification

Number of LLRB         0.0266    0.0150    0.2224     1.7750    0.0818
students in class

Access to the          0.0851    0.0475    0.2231     1.7920    0.0790
resources needed to
effectively teach
LLRB students

(Constant)             2.8949    0.1726              16.7740    0.0000

Note: R squared = .226, 4, 52 df, p<.001

Items in scale: Identify and teach core vocabulary and terminology;
Consider Teach students to 'read' and interpret information
contained in diagrams, flow charts, maps, mathematical or chemical
formulae, tables etc students' existing knowledge of English and
the language demands of the new work; Re-phrase students' oral and
written contributions (wordings, ideas, information) so that they
make sense in the content area; Provide activities focused on
developing students' ability to write the necessary written forms
e.g. arguments, justifications, diagrams, graphs, maps, equations
etc; Explain how to think, write and sound like an expert in this
content area.