Teachers’ use of need supportive practices in second language classes: Variations following CLIL Program, Grade Level, and Target Language
(2018) European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) — Location: Bolzano, Italy (4.September.2018)
Files
No attached file found for this publication.
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- Self-System Model of Motivational Development (SSMMD, Connell & Wellborn, 1991) posits that student motivation to learn and master school subjects is grounded in the satisfaction of three fundamental needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. According to this model, students are highly responsive to a need supportive environment. As such, teachers’ practices have a critical influence of students feeling of being part of the school, of being competent, and that schooling is in line with their personal goals (ref). SSMMD postulate that there are three main teaching practices to adopt: involvement, autonomy support, and structure. Involvement is teachers’ ability to create a nurturing environment by caring for their students and developing a positive relationship with them. Teachers who use autonomy support allow their students to make choices in class, they adapt their teaching to students’ difficulties, and explain why learning are important. Structure is teachers’ provision of simple, clear, and predictable rules and expectations in the classroom. Over the years, autonomy support and structure have received less attention than involvement (Stroet, ref). In general, learning in a need supportive classroom should support students’ motivation and achievement. However, some features can influence teachers’ ability to use need supportive practices. For instance, many schools adopt various programs tailored to fit different students’ needs, interests, and goals. In many countries, schools now offer language immersion to younger and older students (e.g., Canada, Belgium, France, Austria). Since 1998, students in French-speaking Belgium can choose between regular language education and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Dutch or in English. In CLIL, primary and secondary school students are taught some content classes in the selected language. In the regular program, students choose between Dutch and English language classes, and all other subjects are taught in French. It is often suggested that students enrolled in CLIL are more successful in mastering the selected second language than students in regular programs (ref). However, little is known about the processes leading to learning English or Dutch (ref). Relying on SSMMD, we posit that teachers’ need supportive practices is a key mechanism leading to student success in CLIL. To assess this assumption, our research team is one of the first to conduct an extensive longitudinal study to investigate how CLIL and non-CLIL students learn a second language. A first step is to assess how teaching practices are influenced by the general context: CLIL or regular program, chosen language (Dutch or English), and level (primary or secondary). There is evidence suggesting that students enrolled in the Dutch curriculum have a more favorable background (ref, article en preparation, authors, 2018, Luk….). Also, teachers use of need supportive practices may change as students get older. Studies conducted in elementary and secondary students do not reach the same results as to which practices are more important for students (ref). Teachers are generally sensitive to the context in which they work (ref: Authors, in preparation). It is thus possible that CLIL and regular program teachers use different levels of need supportive practices depending of the teaching language (English or Dutch) and of their students’ developmental stage (primary or secondary school). Our study aims to assess how a teaching context influences teachers’ use of autonomy support and structure in their classroom. We will first investigate if the program (CLIL or regular), the language (Dutch or English), and the level (primary or secondary) is associated with teachers’ practices. We will then assess moderation effects between program and language, between program and level, and between language and level. These research questions will be assessed at the student and at the classroom levels. This allows to investigate students’ individual perceptions of their teachers’ practices and classrooms’ global evaluation. Using a mean evaluation of students’ perceptions in each classroom is a reliable evaluation of teachers’ practices (ref MARSH). Methods We collected data among 880 students attending Belgian French-speaking schools. Elementary students were sorted between 28 classes and came from 13 different schools. Secondary students were sorted between 26 classes and came from 9 different schools. In primary schools, students were sorted in English non-CLIL (n = 107; 12.16%), Dutch non-CLIL (n=62; 7.05%), English CLIL (n=102; 11.59%), and Dutch CLIL (n=173, 19.66%). In secondary school, students were sorted in English non-CLIL (n=102; 11.59%), Dutch non-CLIL (n=104; 11.82%), English CLIL (n=92; 10.45%), and Dutch CICL (n=138, 15.68%). Student answered a paper-pen questionnaire on their experience in school. For this abstract, we used data from T1 (2016). We expect to use longitudinal data for the ECER presentation (T2; 2017). Students reported their perception of their teachers’ practices on items drawn from the Teacher as a Social Context scale (ref). Students answered 7 questions on their teachers use of autonomy support such as “My teacher offers us to choose between various activities during class.” (=.74). They also evaluated their teachers use of structure by answering 10 questions such as “My teacher takes time to explain the rules to follow.” (=.86). These items were rated on a scale from 0/1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). We performed two path-analyses model using Mplus7 to assess how program (CLIL or regular), level (elementary or secondary), and teaching language (English or Dutch) are associated with students’ perceptions of teachers’ need supportive practices. The first path-analysis model was tested at the student level to investigate students’ individual perceptions. The second model was tested at the classroom-level to investigate a global evaluation of students in each classroom. To do this, we aggregated students’ rating of their teachers’ practices in each classroom. Both models included the direct association of program, level, teaching language, the three two-way interaction (program*level; program*language; level*language), and the three-way interaction (program*level*language) with autonomy support and structure. Results We first assessed a path-analysis model at student-level. Results indicate a marginal association between the program (CLIL or regular) and students’ evaluation of teachers’ autonomy support (b=.18, p=.08) and structure (b=.20, p=.07). CLIL students perceive slightly more need supportive practices from their teachers. Level and teaching language did not moderate the association between program and need supportive practices, and were not directly associated with teachers’ practices. Yet, results highlight an interaction between level and language. Students enlisted in an English curriculum perceive a high and stable level of autonomy support (b=.06, p=.48) and structure (b=-.12, p=.18) regardless of whether they are in primary and secondary school. In contrast, students following a Dutch curriculum perceive more autonomy support (b=-.19, p<.05) and structure (b=-.44, p<.001) in primary than in secondary school. The three-way interaction was not significant. We then tested a path-analysis model at classroom-level. Results indicate that program, level, and language had no effect on classroom average perception of teachers’ need supportive practices. There was also no significant interaction effect. These classroom-level findings suggest that teachers’ practices are not influenced by the general context, although the lack of results may be due to a small variance or to the small sample size (54 teachers). Overall, students enlisted in English classes individually perceived higher quality of teaching throughout their scholastic development. As these practices are associated with student motivation and success, students are probably more likely to succeed in learning English. In contrast, students in Dutch classes do not perceive such a favorable environment, especially in secondary school. Finally, being in the CLIL curriculum was marginally associated with students’ perceptions of higher levels of teachers’ autonomy support and structure. Although we have to conduct more analysis to deepen our understanding, this result suggests that teaching practices may be a mechanism leading to achievement in CLIL students.
- Affiliations
Citations
Olivier, E., Galand, B., & Van Mensel, L. (2018). Teachers’ use of need supportive practices in second language classes: Variations following CLIL Program, Grade Level, and Target Language. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Bolzano, Italy. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/118927