Educators' experiences of working in Intensive English Language Programs: The strengths and challenges of specialised English language classrooms for students with migrant and refugee backgrounds

Abstract

In this article, educators' experiences of working in diverse classrooms designed to provide English language education as part of Intensive English Language Programs (IELPs) in South Australia are considered. To this end, responses to qualitative interviews with 14 educators working in three schools are examined using Braun and Clarke's method of qualitative thematic analysis. Results indicate that the model of education provided within IELPs is seen by teachers as the best approach to educating young refugees and migrants in Australia.

Introduction

Research indicates that language educators working with children of migrant and refugee backgrounds play a significant role in the wellbeing and educational success of this cohort of young people. The beliefs of educators concerning their role in the wellbeing of their students, as well as their approach to teaching, impact upon both psychological and academic outcomes for students (Baker, 2006; Martin, Reaume, Reeves, & Wright, 2012). This relationship appears to be particularly important for students with migrant and refugee backgrounds who may have few connections outside their family in their resettlement country (Bedir, 2010).

Yet, despite the potentially positive impact of teachers and educators on the wellbeing of refugee and migrant students, little research examines the experiences and perceptions of educators who are working with such students in the context of English as an Additional Language (EAL) programmes (Booth, 2007). The present article addresses this dearth of research by examining educators' experiences, attitudes and perspectives about the South Australian Intensive English Language Program (IELP).

Previous research

Previous research considering the experiences of educators working in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms has shown that teachers frequently report feeling ill-equipped to provide education to students from culturally diverse backgrounds. This particularly applies to educators who work with refugee or migrant students who may have complex backgrounds of trauma and little previous formal education (see for example, Abreu & Hale, 2014; Brown, Miller, & Mitchell, 2006; Matthews, 2008; McEachron & Bhatti, 2005; Tatar & Horenczyk, 2003; Whiteman, 2005). In addition, research from the United States has found that teachers misinterpret learnt behaviours pertaining to survival in refugee camps or the migration process itself as behavioural difficulties and maintain lower expectations of students they know come from immigrant families (Sirin, Ryce, & Mir, 2009). These findings are echoed in the United Kingdom in research demonstrating that teachers respond variably to cultural diversity in classrooms, with responses to students frequently depending on the academic competencies of the students, rather than on the specific needs of particular cultural groups (Abreu & Hale, 2014).

This lack of awareness amongst teachers of the impact of migration experiences and individual histories is compounded by the importance that teachers and educational policies place upon language acquisition. Research suggests that teachers frequently place primary emphasis on language acquisition rather than other elements of education or social support within schools (Riggs & Due, 2011; Sinkkonen & Kytalla, 2014). Such research indicates that mainstream teachers in general – compared with English language teachers in particular – hold the view that once the language of the relevant country has been acquired, other outcomes including satisfactory peer relationships will follow (Riggs & Due, 2011; Taylor, 2008). Such an emphasis on language learning is concerning in that an emphasis upon English language acquisition as the primary route to social inclusion can lead to problematic outcomes whereby the ‘blame’ for exclusion is placed upon newly arrived students’ ‘lack’ of English language skills, with responsibility placed on this cohort of students to acquire the means to communicate with their peers (Due & Riggs, 2009; Riggs & Due, 2011; Taylor, 2008; Woods, 2009). Correspondingly, Riggs and Due (2011) suggest that greater awareness is required on the part of mainstream teachers in terms of examining how the demand to acquire English perpetuates a power imbalance that favours those who speak English as their first language.

Furthermore, while research suggests that support and training for teachers in terms of their understanding of the effects of trauma may be an important element in providing appropriate education to students with migrant or refugee backgrounds (Cassity & Gow, 2005; Roxas, 2011; Woods, 2009), it is also the case that increasing cultural awareness or skills cannot alone lead to the provision of an inclusive and welcoming school environment for newly arrived students. Instead, as Walton, Priest, and Paradies (2013) argue, holistic approaches are needed within the whole school environment which scaffold the development of teachers', students' and the school community's intercultural understanding. In such a holistic space, teachers become responsible for promoting acceptance and diversity in their own classrooms, but the onus remains on the whole school community to echo such approaches at all levels. Whole school approaches are important in that they ensure that both teachers and students feel valued within the whole school environment, and that their skills and knowledge are appreciated (Pugh, Every, & Hattam, 2012).

While there is evidence to suggest that teachers face a range of challenges teaching in diverse classrooms, previous research also indicates that they have a critical role to play in both the psychological wellbeing and education of this cohort of students. For example, EAL teachers in particular often develop a unique set of skills in relation to working in culturally diverse environments and with children who may have a complex range of needs, and frequently pass these skills onto teachers working in more ‘mainstream’ settings (Booth, 2007; Brown, 2005; Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010). Moreover, research indicates that a child's relationship with their teachers within primary school is predictive of a range of outcomes for students (including future academic success and psychological wellbeing), and this is particularly salient for migrant and refugee students, for whom teacher relationships may be one of their first community connections (Baker, 2006; Bedir, 2010; Martin et al., 2012).

Despite their central role in the education of refugee and migrant students, little is known about the everyday challenges EAL teachers face in Australia, or the strengths and challenges of various EAL structures within schools. As such, this article examines IELPs in South Australia and the ways in which they are understood by educators who work in them. Specifically, the research aimed to answer the following questions: 1) what are the challenges of the IELP as identified by teachers? 2) what are the benefits of the IELP as identified by teachers? and 3) what are teachers' perceptions of the policies in relation to the Intensive English Language Centre (IELC) at both their school and a broader institutional level, specifically in relation to cultural diversity and transition from the IELP into mainstream classes?

IELP structures in South Australia

The IELP is offered through IELCs which are located on the grounds of mainstream public primary schools. Currently, IELCs are located in 18 government primary schools across South Australia. They utilise specialist EAL educators in classes that are separate from mainstream classes. EAL students are eligible to attend the programme for 12 months unless a case is made for a longer time period; an aspect of the programme which changed during the current study, as discussed later in this article. Students enter the programme on a continuous, rolling basis, soon after their arrival in Australia, rather than only in one intake at the beginning of the school year. The programme is structured so that after students have participated in the IELP for a 12 month period, they are required to exit the programme and transition into mainstream classes. Students exit to either the same school as their IELC or to a different school, depending on the wishes of their parents and factors such as housing and job locations.

Method

This study uses an inductive qualitative approach in order to understand South Australian IELP educator's perceptions and experiences of the IELP in greater depth. Ethics approval for the project was granted by the South Australian Department for Education and Child Development (DECD) and The University of Adelaide.

Participants

Responses to the study's instruments (see below) were received from 14 IELP educators, all of whom were considerably immersed in IELP student contact (that is, worked with students in classrooms on a daily basis), progress and issues. Four of the participants were in leadership positions with schools, while the remaining 10 were teachers.

It is worth noting that the term ‘educators’ is used in this study rather than the term ‘teachers’ since the structure of the IELP is such that those in leadership positions are also frequently immersed in teaching within the programme.

Instruments and procedures

The data reported in this article were collected from IELP educators from centres in three South Australian primary schools who participated in the research. The three IELP sites represented in this study volunteered to participate in the broader study in response to information provided by DECD in South Australia. It should be noted that these three sites were all located in metropolitan Adelaide with 15 km from the Central Business District, and while their student numbers and site environments were typical of all schools with IELCs, the schools were situated in medium socio-economic areas and therefore may not be representative of all schools in Adelaide.

All 24 IELP staff – including Principals and IELC directors – at the three IELC sites were invited to participate in the study by way of questionnaire and subsequent face-to-face interviews to collect more in-depth data. Fourteen responses to the questionnaires were obtained and six agreed to participate in an interview which corresponded to a 58% response rate for the former and a 25% response rate for the latter. Given the small number of potential respondents, demographic information was not collected in the questionnaires. Participants in the face-to-face interviews included one male and five females, with an average more than five years experience working in an IELP. Participants returned their questionnaires in a reply-paid envelope and interviews were conducted on the school grounds at a time convenient to the participant.

The interview questions were designed to stimulate discussion regarding the educators' experiences and perceptions of the IELP. Given the inductive nature of the research, a broad, open-ended, semi-structured interview schedule was developed in order to meet the research aims of examining the challenges and benefits of this model of education for newly arrived students (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In addition, open-ended questions included in the questionnaire specifically sought responses concerning educators' perceptions of the transition process of IELP students into mainstream classes, as well as educators' thoughts on cultural diversity in the school, and on identifying and meeting the needs of newly arrived students (see Appendix A for both the guide for the interview questions and the open-ended items in the questionnaire). Taken together, the interview recordings and written responses to open-ended questionnaire items form the dataset for this paper.

Analysis

For the purpose of the analyses presented in this article, responses obtained from the face-to-face interviews were added to the questionnaire data and treated as one dataset. The analysis undertaken adopted Braun and Clarke's (2006) approach to thematic analysis. After the interviews were completed by the first author of this article, the first stage of analysis involved familiarisation with the data through the transcribing process and multiple readings of the transcripts by the second author. The second and third stages of the analysis involved coding the data in terms of themes prevalent across the data. In this context, it is worth noting that Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 82) cautioned that ‘… the ‘keyness’ of a theme is not necessarily dependent on quantifiable measures, but rather on whether it captures something important in relation to the overall research question’. In a final step, the identified themes were reviewed, collated and agreed to by both authors in terms of the strengths and challenges of having an IELP at a school.

Representative extracts illustrating these themes are provided in the results section below. Participants were given numbers as pseudonyms. Given that the questionnaires were anonymous, it was not possible to know if the participants who completed an interview also completed a questionnaire, and as such, each individual participant component (interview recordings or returned questionnaires) is given different numbers.

Results

The strengths of the IELP: Developing whole school approaches

Educators indicated that they viewed the IELP to be highly beneficial to the wellbeing and education of students with migrant and refugee backgrounds. This was particularly the case in light of the specialist knowledge that IELP educators had in relation to the experiences that students with migrant or refugee backgrounds may have had prior to their arrival in Australia, as well as any resettlement issues. This expertise was also seen as beneficial to the whole school, as stated by participant two: ‘…having another person on our leadership team with an expertise not just in a specialty area of the school, but responsibilities across the school in other ways has been a real bonus for us’. As such, the IELC was identified as benefiting both students and the whole school. This was particularly the case where IELC educators were able to assist mainstream educators as students transitioned into a mainstream class at the same site.

Relating to whole school approaches to education, the increased cultural diversity brought to a school by an IELC was also seen to be positive for the whole school. For example, participant three stated that: ‘…in some ways I think it almost represents what the perfect world is, you know. Difference is normal, which I think is fantastic, and participant six stated that: ‘people say to us that if the world could be like this all the problems would be solved’. As such, the IELCs were seen as a positive for the whole school community, not just for the students enrolled in the programme. This echoes literature concerning whole school approaches, whereby all educators within a school become equipped to work with students from migrant and refugee backgrounds, and to foreground the skills and knowledge this cohort of students bring with them to their new country (Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010).

The strengths of the IELP: Students can feel a sense of community

Relatedly, all respondents stated that the IELP allowed refugee and migrant students to feel a sense of community in their new school, prior to entering mainstream classes. Educators felt that IELP students were unified through their shared experiences of migration and resettlement, and, as participant four described: ‘the sharing of issues that are quite unique to them’. As a result of these shared experiences, respondents felt that the students were able to create a sense of community in which they could thrive. For example, participant six stated that ‘the kids support each other, you know, you can just see it, straight away they know how that kid feels coming into school’.

This sense of community and mutual support was seen to facilitate students in experiencing a sense of belonging within the school environment before entering mainstream classes, where levels of mutual support between students may be lower.

The strengths of the IELP: Smaller class sizes

The smaller class sizes in IELPs – approximately 15 students compared with up to 30 in mainstream classes – were viewed as providing teachers and educators with the capacity to provide one on one support to students, as well as to manage the continuous IELC enrolments. Educators placed immense importance on developing close relationships with students, as participant five notes:

I think the numbers is crucial, because like sometimes in my class of twelve, I can look around, and I might have every child doing something completely different to each other. So, you can actually differentiate according to that really specific need.

As such, educators indicated that smaller and specialist classrooms enabled them to offer more support to students that would otherwise be possible in mainstream classrooms.

The strengths of the IELP: A ‘safe’ space

The concept of the IELP as offering classrooms which are ‘safe’ was also a prevalent theme in the data. Participant two indicated that the IELP provided students with a ‘soft landing’, while other participants referred to ‘safe spaces’ and the ‘scaffolding’ offered to students in terms of the combination of knowledge and expertise relating to students from migrant and refugee backgrounds combined with expertise in teaching English. As such, a distinct positive of having IELPs within mainstream schools was the fact that IELP students could observe and experience the school environment, but within a notionally ‘safe’ space. Educators identified that having IELCs within the mainstream school was the best possible scenario for students with migrant and refugee backgrounds. For example, participant ten stated that the IELC offered ‘less of a drastic change’ to students who may not have had prior experiences of formal education, while participant seven indicated that the IELC ‘allow[ed] an insight into mainstream before they get there; less shock’.

The challenges of the IELP: Administration of the programme

The main challenge of the IELP highlighted by participants was school administration. Examples of such challenges included the administrative load and classroom practicalities of continuous IELP enrolments and the requirement to juggle limited classroom space and school resources when the numbers of enrolments were unsure. Challenges that fell into this category were noted as something that were already on school agendas and that the school faculty worked together to resolve.

The challenges of the IELP: Policies leading to inequity

Due to the nature of the IELP and its requirement to respond to changing migration patterns, the IELP is affected by changes to the policies and practices of both migration and education in Australia. During the course of this study, recent policy changes and their repercussions were identified by participants as challenges in terms of restrictions on flexibility and their ability to respond to student needs ‘on the ground’. One such issue mentioned by participants was changes to transport assistance for students in the IELP, including new maximum age restrictions and minimum distance requirements to access school bus services rather than public transport. A number of participants indicated that they felt the policies were not targeted towards assistance for those most in need, as illustrated by a statement of participant five:

Kids over 10 are not entitled to buses at all…it will mean that if there's a 10 year old in a family and a five year old that the five year old can get on the bus but the ten year old can't. And we think that it will have an impact over time that families will enrol their kids at their local school and not go a bit further to an Intensive English Learning Centre.

Similarly, participant nine noted that:

You have to live beyond 1.75 kilometres. 1.75 kilometres is a fair walk you know, particularly on a hot day for a little kid, or a wet day for a little kid. Or with a single mother with three other little children, or five others and having to then get herself to English classes or whatever. So yeah I think it's going to really impact on the most disadvantaged group.

Participants indicated that they had little say in relation to such policies and had limited capacity to make independent decisions within the context of funds allocated to them to ensure that policies and practices were equitable and provided the best outcomes for students.

The challenges of the IELP: Length of time in the programme

A further challenge arose from policy changes that occurred during the study was the 2013 tightening of IELP policy which required that all students exited the programme after 12 months. The educators raised this as a challenge to their ability to assess each student's readiness to exit IELPs and to adjust the length of time in the programme to suit student needs. For example, participant six noted that:

…how long students stay [in the IELP], those kinds of things change. It's now a year max. Um, you know, whereas before you could stretch it over – on need. It's now not going to be on need.

Participants suggested that up to 18 months may be required for some students, and particularly for students with refugee backgrounds.

Several of the participants also reported challenges in the distribution of support services for IELPs through the provision for Bilingual School Services Officers (BSSOs). Participants indicated that the provision of these support staff was based on student numbers regardless of the diversity of languages within the classes. Therefore, leaders had to make decisions regarding the distribution of allocated funding for BSSO support, as indicated by participant two:

So we only get so many hours for the whole program per term and we have to prioritise those hours with you know students with the most need and the number of students with the most need, so often minority languages, children with just – you know maybe it's just one family from that speaking – that country, they probably won't get bilingual support. And they may be in need but ah, I just, you know you can only stretch the resources so far.

The challenges of the IELP: Transition into mainstream classes

Participants viewed transition – particularly if it was to a different school – as a difficult time for students and one of the main challenges of the programme. For example, the experience of transition to a new school was described as ‘a bit of a culture shock’ by participant eleven, and participant five stated that ‘they'll be going from an environment where they’ve had a lot of support to an environment where they have a lot less support’. In particular, educators expressed concern that the students’ feelings of belonging may be disrupted and that the change ‘can be a bit I think distressing for them’ (participant nine). The students’ well-being and sense of belonging were raised as a concern by participants, together with their English language and academic competencies. For example, participant eight stated:

…a lot of our kids, despite the fact that they exit at what's called a recommended exit level it's still well below that of a mainstream or of an Australian born child. So, um, I think getting the ah – having schools understand that they're just, that they've completed the beginning of their learning, that they've still got more learning and English to do, so they still need extra support. Some schools that they exit to don't have even an ESL teacher or SSO's to support them, you know they don't have a lot of extra support because they're a school that don't have many students like that so they don't provide, they don't have the provision for it. Um you know for some kids just that change is challenging, um change can be really challenging.

The lack of resources in mainstream schools was therefore seen as a challenge to successful transitions to mainstream classes, and participants expressed concern that students would struggle outside the ‘safe space’ of the IELC classroom. As participant nine expressed it:

It's a big shift to go from these lovely cosy little classrooms into sometimes a class of thirty and no BSSO support, maybe one ESL teacher in an hour a week and whatever wherever they do it supporting them, so I suspect that the transition – yeah probably transition [to an external school] is something I think we don't do all that well actually.

Participants also noted that experiences of transition to a new school depended upon the school to which students transitioned, as noted by three participants as outlined below:

We do offer the teachers – the new teachers to come and meet us or spend a day or time here or whatever. Very rarely is that taken up. I know that's because of, you know, releasing people and all that sort of stuff. (Participant four)

…one of our schools is only providing a one hour transition, which is basically a tour of the school, and you know the best is two days. (Participant eleven)

I certainly don't feel that I could impose on the schools where the kids are going to, to tell them what they should be doing. (Participant six)

As these extracts demonstrate, the participants highlighted that extended transition visits were likely to result in better outcomes for students. However, such a practice was not mandated and since it was in the hands of schools to which the students transitioned, IELP staff could do little to make this happen. Correspondingly, most participants indicated that transition to mainstream classes on the same site was considered desirable where-ever possible:

If they exit here it's ideal because they're already familiar with the school and we can do transition over a whole term before they start so it's a much longer and ah a truly, um a true transition, you know, a beneficial transition, it's over time and they really do get to know their kids and the teacher and the expectations that the curriculum is going to place upon them. (Participant two)

Hence, transition within the school where the IELP was located was seen as best-practice where possible.

The challenges of the IELP: Students with learning difficulties

Finally, educators also mentioned that learning difficulties impacted upon their classrooms and added complexities to already complex environments. However, participants also indicated that the IELP was the best environment in which to identify, diagnose and respond to students with learning difficulties who were new arrivals to Australia. In particular, participants identified that the existing IELP classroom practices were conducive to assisting students with learning difficulties, particularly in relation to visual aids:

…the size of the class and also that you're already using a whole heap of visuals, and a whole heap of scaffolding. So that really helps as well and all the materials that you have in the class are really geared to somebody who might not understand straight away what it is you are even asking. So everything you do is already scaffolded so it is a good – and it's small, so it's a good situation for them. For us as well. (Participant seven)

As such, the use of existing EAL tools which were originally designed to assist educators and new students to communicate were seen as contributing to a learning environment that was also beneficial for students with learning disorders.

Still, IELP educators acknowledged that the culturally and linguistically diverse student cohort posed unique difficulties in relation to identifying a child who may have a learning disorder, since, as stated by participant three: ‘It often takes six months before you really know if that child – whether it's just a language issue or whether it's actually a learning issue’

At the same time, participants expressed concerns that a lack of intercultural understanding in mainstream educators as well as mainstream class size and classroom demands would place students with migrant or refugee backgrounds at risk of either mis-diagnosis or non-diagnosis in terms of learning difficulties. This concern was highlighted by the following extract:

Cause sometimes you're thinking; “mmm, is that lack of education, is it just personality as in not really fitting into this environment quickly or are there disabilities behind all this”, and of course trying to work it out. Through a second language, through all those other factors it can just be a bit of a challenge sometimes. (Participant twelve)

In addition, teacher–parent communication regarding possible learning difficulties was considered somewhat problematic by the participants, requiring cultural sensitivity to socio-cultural perspectives of learning difficulties and intellectual disability. Participants suggested that parents may be resistant to diagnoses due to concerns that diagnoses may a) impact visa status, b) lead to students being removed from school, c) be seen to lay ‘blame’ for the child's diagnosis on the parents, for example, by blaming parents for malnourishment which resulted in developmental delays.

Discussion

The findings reported in this article indicated that participants saw a number of strengths in having an IELC located on a mainstream school site, including a learning environment sensitive to newly arrived students' recent and immediate circumstances, smaller specialist classes allowing for explicit teaching and curriculum differentiation, and the opportunity for students to obtain an insight into mainstream educational expectations.

In addition, participants identified benefits for the whole school community from having an IELC at the school, particularly in relation to the increase in cultural diversity and the extra resources that the programme brought to the school. Arguably, these whole school benefits are consistent with whole school approaches to education – that is, approaches which are ‘embedded deeply in the very foundation of the school, in its missions, its belief system, and its daily activities’ (Levin, 1997, p. 390) and which take into account the social situation and interaction of all members of the school environment. This is further supported by the focus on social justice and equity evidenced in participants’ discussions of policy and practice, including in relation to equity issues within the school community, and echoes previous work done in relation to English language provision for newly arrived students in Australia (Pugh et al., 2012).

However, it is worth noting that whole school approaches require that all students are able to participate fully in the school community (Pugh et al., 2012). Correspondingly, it is important that refugee and migrant students are not only seen as benefiting the whole school through the resources and diversity they bring with them, but that the whole school also provides benefits to them through their inclusion in the school community and their ability to shape and change the school environment (Walton, Priest, & Paradies, 2013). As such, it is important that all staff members understand the challenges which may be experienced by newly arrived students with migrant and refugee backgrounds in the school context, and work to ensure that this cohort of students is considered for all positions in the school, including student leadership positions such as school or sport captains (Cassity & Gow, 2005; Roxas, 2011; Walton et al., 2013; Woods, 2009).

Hence, it is concerning that the findings of this study indicate that staff within the IELP felt that mainstream schools and educators were frequently not able to offer the level of support required by this cohort of students (and see also Brown et al., 2006; Matthews, 2008; McEachron & Bhatti, 2005; Tatar & Horenczyk, 2003; Whiteman, 2005, for a discussion of the issue of teacher training in this area). In this context, transitions from the IELP into mainstream classes on the same site were seen as best-practice for students due to the range of support structures already in place which enabled students to both benefit and impact on the existing whole school community in the IELC. The benefits of this transition were seen as not only relating to students' familiarity with the school environment but also the extra assistance mainstream educators could gain from the specialist IELP staff. This finding supports previous literature concerning the sharing of knowledge from specialist to mainstream educators (see, for example, Brown, 2005; Martin et al., 2012; Pugh et al., 2012).

Conclusion

Taken together, the results of this research indicate that educators working within the IELP found that the benefits of the programme outweighed the challenges, with the IELP offering students a safe space within which to begin their education in Australia. However, the research is limited by the small sample size and the case study nature of the research design. As such, it is important to note that these findings may not be representative of the experiences or perceptions of all educators working within the IELP, particularly in relation to IELCs located in lower socio-economic status (SES) areas.

Overall, the findings of the study support previous research findings concerning the benefits of whole school approaches for student wellbeing and culturally safe educational practices (Brown, 2005; Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010; Walton et al., 2013). Further research concerning the experiences of both teaching staff and students in new IELCs is required in order to examine how whole school cultures can best be developed within a context of increasing cultural diversity and numbers of students with complex issues relating to migration. In addition, research with mainstream teachers and schools is necessary in order to examine how schools without IELCs – but who may take large numbers of students from such centres as they transition out of the programme – work with migrant and refugee students and the types of training such teachers may require (see also Woods, 2009). Finally, further research concerning the transition process of students would provide a useful evidence base concerning best-practice in relation to transition for this group of young people.

To conclude, participants in this study identified a broad range of benefits to the IELP model of education provision. In particular, IELPs were seen as offering safe and holistic learning environments for students. Educators were strongly supportive of this model of education provision for students, indicating that it supported themselves, the whole school community as well as the students. Given the increasing complexity of classrooms in countries such as Australia, ensuring that the initial educational experiences of newly arrived students are positive is critically important, and the findings of this study indicate that the IELP goes some way towards making this experience a positive one.