When teaching students with peculiar language-related needs, for instance, dual-language learners (DLLs), it is pivotal to organize one’s use of talking to encourage children’s active participation in conversations. DLLs demonstrate a steady advantage over other students when performing tasks requiring switching from one set of rules to another (Sandhofer & Uchikoshi, 2013). With that in mind, to maximize children’s participation and language use, I can incorporate classroom activities and games requiring switching a language quickly, translating notions expressed in images in another language, and so on.
Another approach to balancing the amount of teacher’s talking involves restricting verbal hints and suggestive interrogation in discussion activities in the classroom. Practices linked with encouraging DLLs to answer and ask questions during reading activities facilitate oral language development (Halgunseth et al., 2013). Nevertheless, to maximize children’s motivation to participate and express their thoughts, I can keep track of my questioning habits and replace the unnecessary remarks with non-verbal clues. For example, instead of answering my own questions when children cannot figure out the correct answer, I can implement visual clues, pantomime, and gestures to provide hints and direct their thinking. This will encourage them to engage in group discussions and express their guesses verbally, thus practicing speaking.
Finally, developing a system of non-verbal signals to minimize the use of repeated phrases can promote children’s increased activity as speakers while reducing the teacher’s talking. Based on research, the use of “manipulatives, illustrations, and gestures” is considered helpful to encourage preschool DLLs to express their thoughts freely (Goldenberg et al., 2013, p. 108). As an example, instead of announcing the transition to another activity in a verbal form, I can invent a sign or a gesture for it and create a related rule requiring children to use language. Specifically, students can be instructed to share their ideas and preferences concerning the next activity with the class every time they see this sign.
References
Goldenberg, C., Nemeth, K., Hicks, J., Zepeda, M., & Cardona, L. (2013). Program elements and teaching practices to support young dual language learners. In F. Ong & J. McLean (Eds.), California’s best practices for teaching young dual language learners: Research overview papers (pp. 90-118). California Department of Education.
Halgunseth, L., Jia, G., & Barbarin, O. (2013). Family engagement in early childhood programs: Serving families of dual language learners. In F. Ong & J. McLean (Eds.), California’s best practices for teaching young dual language learners: Research overview papers (pp. 119-171). California Department of Education.
Sandhofer, C., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2013). Cognitive consequences of dual language learning: Cognitive function, language and literacy, science and mathematics, and social-emotional development. In F. Ong & J. McLean (Eds.), California’s best practices for teaching young dual language learners: Research overview papers (pp. 51-76). California Department of Education.