OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN IN RACIALLY DIVERSE CLASSROOMS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER TWO: OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN IN RACIALLY DIVERSE CLASSROOMS

 Introduction

This chapter provides a literature review on opportunities to learn in racially diverse classrooms. The chapter discusses the literature on the provision of opportunities to learn and on teaching and learning processes in racially diverse classes in the international landscape and within the local South African context. In reviewing both international and national literature, I found some researchable issues, especially on the effectiveness of teaching and learning strategies in racially diverse contexts, that have not been covered by research conducted on this topic in the South African context.

Opportunities to Learn in racially diverse classrooms: The international landscape

Researchers in the international arena have maintained that learning experiences are different for learners from different social economic statuses (SESs) and for learners in different ability or track classrooms. Low performing learners (low-track placement) and learners from low SES are taught a simplified curriculum with less detailed content, and are provided with fewer learning opportunities while high-performing learners (high-track placement) and affluent learners are afforded the opportunity for learning problem-solving skills (Oakes & Lipton, 1990; Oakes, Ormseth, Bell & Camp, 1990; Oakes, 1992; Wang, 1998; Herman & Abedi, 2004; Callan, 2005; RennieCentre, 2013). For instance, in a study conducted in California, Boscardin, Aguirre-Munoz, Stoker, Kim, and Lee (2005), found that learner characteristics such as poverty, family income, learner’s English proficiency status and other socioeconomic indicators had a significant impact on learner outcomes. Furthermore, learners who were disadvantaged socio-economically were less likely to be taught by teachers who held full certification and a degree in their field.
In Massachusets in the United States of America (USA) in it was found that high performing schools had more educators who had specialised in key subject areas such as Science compared to low-performing schools and that the educators had more preparation time (RennieCentre, 2013). High performing schools also had school leaders who supported Science instruction, had more Science funding, Science material resources, and real-world experiences for learners. Parental involvement at high performing schools was high compared to low performing schools (RennieCentre, 2013). The language used in classrooms vividly affected learners’ opportunity and ability to learn (Pflepsen, 2011). Pflepsen (2011) also argues that learners who understand the language of instruction are more likely to perform better than those who do not understand the language. Similarly, the findings of a study conducted by Wang and Goldschmidt (1999) in California in the USA revealed that immigrant learners with poor English proficiency did not accomplish (in Mathematics) the same achievement levels of their English-proficient classmates. This implies that, if the students do not understand the language of teaching and learning, their epistemological access is restricted and their opportunities to learn are also limited.
Martínez, Bailey, Kerr, Huang and Beauregard (2010) conducted a study in California in the USA using a mixed methods approach to measure opportunities to learn (OTL) and academic language exposure for English language learners in Elementary Science classrooms. They found that proficient English language learners worked more one-on-one with the teacher compared to their non-proficient English language counterparts. In other words, English language learners got more opportunities to learn than non-English language learners. In terms of assessing learners’ academic achievement, Martínez et al. (2010) revealed that educators paid more attention to the understanding of scientific concepts, the use of scientific vocabulary, knowledge of scientific facts and progress in terms of class with proficient English Language learners compared to when they evaluated non-proficient English language learners. This showed that there were differences in terms of the provision of opportunities to learn for proficient English language learners compared to non-proficient English language learners and in the manner in which those different groups of learners were being evaluated. This indicated that non-proficient English language learners did not get equal opportunities to learn compared to proficient English language learners, thus their epistemological access was also constrained due to their inability to comprehend the language of learning and teaching, which was not their indigenous (home) language.
While I acknowledge that the socio-economic background, English language proficiency and learner ability have an effect on learners’ learning opportunities, my study seeks to understand whether or not South African teachers provide equal opportunities to learn who come from diverse racial backgrounds. This study attempts to find out whether teachers take racial diversity into consideration during teaching and learning processes as it has a bearing on the teachers’ ability to provide equal opportunities to learn.
Some researchers have noted that time is one of many resources managed by schools for the sake of educating children (Benavot & Amadio, 2004; Gillies & Jester-Quijada, 2008; Moore, DeStefano & Gillies, 2006; ECONorthwest, 2010). The time learners spend at school and the way the allocated time is used are very crucial. The basis of opportunities to learn is that learning is a function of time and effort (Gillies & Jester-Quijada, 2008). Moore, DeStefano and Gillies (2006) observed and maintain that, without sufficient direct instructional time, no learning is possible. Learner achievement increases when learners are provided with more opportunities to learn, particularly when the allocated learning time is being used effectively (Benavot & Amadio, 2004). Investment in educators, teaching and learning materials, curricula, and classrooms are wasted if they are not being used for a reasonable period of time (Gillies & Jester-Quijada, 2008). This implies that time, particularly how allocated time is being used in the classrooms for teaching and learning, is critical as it has an impact on learners’ opportunities to learn, access to knowledge and ultimately their academic performance. Notably, equality of opportunities to learn requires increasing the amount of instructional time for the least prepared learners to help them to master the curriculum (Carrol, 1989). It is further suggested that the amount of time spent on teaching and learning is determined by two factors, namely the opportunities to learn in the form of the amount of time the school and teacher allocate to a specific learning task and learner perseverance or the amount of time the learner is willing to engage actively in learning (ibid.).
The literature on time-on-task revealed that opportunities to learn and learners’ performance were increased in the classes where educators maintained the continuity of the lesson (Berliner, 1990:4-5; Zimmerman & Carlos, 1999). The varied aspects of instructional time have been explained as follows (ibid.):
• Allocated time – the overall and subject instructional time allocated by the state.
• Engaged time – time in which students are paying attention to material resources with instructional goals.
• Academic learning time – a precise period when instructional activity is perfectly aligned with a student’s readiness and learning occurs.
• Time-on-task – a subset of engaged time, it measures learner engagement only on a specific learning task, rather than general engagement that may not be related to the assignment.
• Aptitude and perseverance – measures learner ability and willingness to engage in the academic task.
• Pace – measures the instructional mix of content and time.
• Transition time and waiting time – measures of non-instructional use of allocated time.
Silva (2007:5) states that there is a strong relationship between the amount of academic learning time and student achievement, a weak relationship between engaged time and student achievement, and there is no relationship between allotted time and student achievement. In their study on “the effect of active teaching and subject content coverage on students’ achievement: evidence from primary schools in Kenya”, Moses, Mutisya, Sagwe, Musyoka and Ngware (2012) found that exposure to content was positively related to student achievement, but they found no correlation between time-on-task and student achievement. Drawing from the above literature, the present study explored whether or not teachers are taking time into consideration in the provision of equal opportunities to learn in a racially diverse class.
Kher, Schmidt, Houang and Zou (2007) argue that curriculum differentiation can potentially create inequalities in learners’ opportunities to learn. In Colorado, USA, Snow-Renner (2001) observed that different classrooms were characterized by different levels of exposure to content and instructional practices. Learners in some classrooms received instructions on the topics that were being assessed while learners in other classrooms were not given instructions on such topics. In the same vein, Cooper and Liou (2007) observed in California that learners were less equipped with information that prepares them for high school and further than high school. They state that positive teacher-learner relationships are critical to create enhanced opportunities for learning. Drawing from the above literature, in this research I explored whether exposure to relevant content required by the curriculum has implications on the provision of equal opportunities to learn for learners who come from diverse racial backgrounds in the classrooms.
The achievement gap in Mathematics was observed to be a problem resulting in unequal opportunities to learn being experienced by many learners from low-income homes, particularly Latino and African American students in Delaware, USA (Flores, 2007). Flores’ (2007) study revealed that African American, Latino, and learners from low-income families were less likely to have access to experienced and qualified teachers, more likely to face low expectations, and were less likely to receive equitable per-student funding. Likewise, in a study conducted in California, Herman and Abedi (2004) observed that ethnic minority learners, including English language learners, normally achieved poorly in Mathematics because they had less exposure to content and their instruction tended to cover less content compared to non-minority learners. They found that there were disparities in the provision of equal opportunities to learn for English language and non-English language learners. Learners with lower levels of English language proficiency had less content coverage (Abedi, Courtney, Leon, Kao & Azzam, 2006). Nevertheless, Boscardin et al. (2005) observed in California that higher levels of content exposure in both writing and literary analyses were linked with higher performance for all learners, including non-English learners. In relation to the present study, this implies that the Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT), which is English, used by the participating school might constrain the provision of equal opportunities to learn in racially diverse classrooms. In other words, learners who are English Second Language Speakers might not have similar learning opportunities compared to English First Language Speakers.
According to the above findings, there is an achievement discrepancy between native English speaking and non-English speaking learners. Native English-speaking learners continue to outperform non-English speaking learners in Mathematics and Literacy because they are preferentially given adequate content coverage (that is adequate OTL) and they have the added advantage of being first language speakers of the language in which they are taught and assessed. This study will seek to understand whether or not the language of teaching and learning has implications on the provision of equal opportunities to learn in racially diverse classes.
In a study done in Taiwan, it was found that learners of higher status in class tend to hold better and more learning opportunities and were able to take advantage of learning resources in a more active way (Huang, 2002). According to the Forum on Education Accountability (FEA) (2011), children from low-income households and children of colour do not have sufficient access to opportunity to learn as their schools and communities cannot provide all the conditions children need to achieve at high levels (FEA, 2011). In addition, they state that learners of lower status tend to take learning opportunities in a more passive way in processing the higher-level of thinking, and even tend to avoid learning resources (FEA, 2011). However, inquiry-based experiments have been shown to provide learners in Israel with opportunities to develop independent thinking, share ideas, cooperate with peers in the group and enhanced their ability to ask high-quality and relevant questions (Hofstein, Shore & Kipnis, 2004). In a study that was conducted in California, it was found that learners in classrooms with higher rating on opportunities to engage in conceptual discussions were able to build on their understandings and were more likely to achieve better in their performance on problem solving items (Waltz, 1999). This reveals the advantage of contextualized experiential learning as learners have access to knowledge and are able to understand the subject matter.
Based on the above research findings, I concur with Huang (2002) when he argues that the invisible status structures existing in the learner will indirectly affect the distribution of learning opportunities. I think this is the case since learners from affluent families are more likely to have access (at home) to resources such as computers, mathematical instruments like calculators and educated parents. This enhances their epistemological access and learning opportunities in the classrooms compared to learners from poor families. The present study focuses on whether all learners, irrespective of racial and cultural backgrounds get the equal opportunities to learn and access to knowledge. In other words, the study examines the underlying mechanisms that enable or constrain the provision of equal opportunities to learn in racially diverse classrooms.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background and context of the study
1.3 The significance of the study
1.4 Rationale of the study
1.5 Aims and objectives of the study
1.6 Theoretical framework
1.7 Research Methodology
1.8 Outline of chapters
1.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER TWO: OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN IN RACIALLY DIVERSE CLASSROOMS
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Opportunities to Learn in racially diverse classrooms: The international landscape
2.2 Racial diversity: The international Landscape
2.3 Opportunities to learn (OTL): The South African scenario
2.3 Racial diversity in education in South Africa
2.4 Comparison of findings between international and national perspectives
2.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER THREE: THE CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Critical Realism
3.3 A Social Realist approach
3.4 Limitations of Archer’s Morphogenetic Social Realist Theory
3.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Methodological paradigm
4.3 Trustworthiness of the study
4.4 Ethical considerations
4.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ON STRUCTURE
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Arabia Primary School policies (pre– and post–1994)
5.3 Open access, school staff and learner composition
5.4 The school governance structure
5.5 Material resources
5.6 School venues and the timetable
5.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ON CULTURE
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Language as a catalyst for epistemological access
6.3 Cultural dimensions of learning
6.4 Teachers as content experts versus learners as the receivers of information
6.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ON AGENCY
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Agency of school management
7.3 The agency of teachers
7.4 Agency of learners
7.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Overview
8.2 The theoretical and analytical framework
8.3 The key findings
8.4 Contributions to knowledge
8.5 Limitations of the study
8.6 Conclusion
8.7 Recommendations
8.8 Suggestions for further research
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT