Page 215 - Second language development of newly arrived migrant kindergarteners - Frederike Groothoff

General discussion and conclusions 215 which no developmental trajectory could be estimated. There were however, differences in developmental trajectories. The microstructural features improved linearly, while the macrostructural features showed a decrease in growth-rate. This was expected since Schneider, Hayward, and Vis Dubé (2006) also showed a reduction in growth rate for macrostructure around the age of 7. Contrary to Maviş, Tunçer, and Gagarina, (2016), no ceiling effect was visible in our data. 9.3.2 The school learning environment Focusing on teacher behaviour, we found many similarities in teacher behavior between the two school types, which means that pupils will encounter teachers with similar teacher behavior irrespective of school type. An explanation of this could be that teachers at both school types might have experienced similar teacher education or similar sources of professionalization, but this needs to be confirmed in a follow-up study. These many similarities also suggest that teachers at a DL2-school do not stand out: this is strange since they are supposed to be experts in education for second language learners, given that they have this specific student population in their class. Unfortunately, the DL2-school teachers do not seem to take the opportunity to provide the newly arrived migrant kindergarteners with richer, complex language supported with scaffolding. It is especially remarkable that the DL2-school teachers did not score highly on the variable Language Modeling, which measured how rich the language is the teacher uses. One interpretation would be that mainstream school teachers, at least in our sample, are well aware of the specific needs of newly arrived migrant pupils and therefore show similar behavior to DL2-school teachers. Another interpretation is that the CLASS dimensions could not capture the distinct behavior of DL2-school teachers. However, the most likely interpretation is that in general teachers have difficulty scoring highly on the Instructional Support domain of the CLASS of which language modeling is part, which was also shown in previous international and national studies (cf. Mashburn, Justice, Downer, & Pianta, 2009; Pakarinen et al., 2010; Leseman & Veen, 2016; Henrichs & Leseman, 2016; Veen et al., 2017). In recent publications teachers are educated in and encouraged to use strategies such as scaffolding and comprehensible input in the education of newly arrived migrant pupils (see for example Smits & van Koeven, 2016 and Schrijfgroep LPTN, 2017). Focusing on focal pupils’ experiences, we found differences between the two school types in focal pupils’ experiences. As might be expected in a class for children with a Dutch language gap, there were significantly more language activities at DL2-schools compared to Mainstream schools, as well as more teacher-focal pupil interactions and therefore more balanced language situations. Despite the greater focus on language learning in DL2-school, there was not more teacher instruction, not more teacher talk, or less play at DL2-schools compared to Mainstream schools. Interestingly, pupils at Mainstream schools were more engaged in peer interaction and consequently in language situations with peers