Advertisement

Emergent Bilinguals Self-affecting Their Self-efficacy Through Bilingual Digital Environments

  • Julian VieraEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

In today’s digital world, students create multimodal digital learning environments from multiple sources of information, hypertext, videos, educational software, and social media. In 1994, Griffiths et al. opined that the impact of information technology on oppressed cultures hampered their education when the technology was not available in their native language and culture. Emergent bilinguals taking online mathematics courses in US universities perceive their native language and culture are of lesser value when the technology does not support their cultural communities. Emergent bilinguals feel that educational software does not allow them to be agents of learning. However, when they see their language embedded in the software, they engage with the software significantly more (Griffiths, D., Heppell, S., Millwood, R., & Mladenova, G. Computers & Education 22:9–17, 1994). In this study, emergent bilinguals exploited the translation capabilities of an intelligent tutoring system for meaning making and to create equitable and bilingual digital educational spaces. The author examined how participants’ meaning making strategies in creating equitable bilingual digital learning environments affected their self-efficacy. Emergent bilinguals enrolled in a 16-week, precalculus course, and translated the course software to make meaning of English vocabulary and mathematical syntax. Using two self-efficacy instruments as pre- and postsurveys, the author discovered that emergent bilinguals’ self-efficacy increased.

Keywords

Emerging bilinguals Self-efficacy Digital learning environments 

References

  1. ALEKS (2017). Math for Colleges and Universities, General Information, http://www.highedmath.aleks.com/about/Welcome-ENGLISH.html.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23(3), 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blunden, A. (2010). Studies in critical social sciences, An interdisciplinary theory of activity (Vol. 22). Boston, MA: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borthick, A. F., Jones, D. R., & Wakai, S. (2003). Designing learning experiences within learners' zones of proximal development (ZPDs): Enabling collaborative learning on-site and online. Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruno, J. K. (2016). Science as a second language: Analysis of emergent bilingual performance and the impact of English language proficiency and first language characteristics on the Colorado Measures of Academic Success for Science. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver).Google Scholar
  7. Casas, I., Goodman, P. S., & Pelaez, E. (2012). On the design and use of a cognitive tutoring system in the math classroom. In N. S. Narayanaswamy & R. S. Kinshuk (Eds.), IEEE fourth international conference on technology for education (pp. 9–17). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Engelbrecht, J., & Harding, A. (2005). Teaching undergraduate mathematics on the internet. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(2), 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Escamilla, K., & Hopewell, S. (2010). Transitions to biliteracy: Creating positive academic trajectories for emerging bilinguals in the United States. In Petrovic J. E. (ed.). International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy (pp. 69–93). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Etheridge, L. (2016). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics self-efficacy as predictors of mathematics teaching self-efficacy (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
  14. Everingham, Y. L., Gyuris, E., & Connolly, S. R. (2017). Enhancing student engagement to positively impact mathematics anxiety, confidence and achievement for interdisciplinary science subjects. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), 1153–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falmagne, J., Doignon, J. P., Koppen, M., Villano, M., & Johannesen, L. (1990). Introduction to knowledge spaces: How to build, test, and search them. Psychological Review, 97(2), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, B. (2012). Using digital technologies to redress inequities for English language learners in the English speaking mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 59(1), 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. García, O., Kleifgen, J., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. In Equity matters: Research review No. 1. New York, NY: A Research Initiative of the Campaign for Educational Equity.Google Scholar
  18. Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, 3rd. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, D., Heppell, S., Millwood, R., & Mladenova, G. (1994). Translating software: What it means and what it costs for small cultures and large cultures. Computers & Education, 22(1), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gutierrez, R. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics to Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1047–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technology. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hussaini, A., Amosa Isiaka, G., Olayiola Opeyemi, A. R., & Thomas Omotayo, A. (2017). Effects of computer assisted instruction on secondary school mathematics Students’ spatial ability, achievement and attitude in Niger State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Learning, 11(3), 244–250.Google Scholar
  23. Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J., & Ware, H. W. (2011). Mathematics achievement: The role of homework and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 310–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207–226). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Luke, C. (2005). New literacies-new media: Mediascapes and infoscapes. Pacific Archive of Digital Data for Education and Learning, 1–19.Google Scholar
  27. Moschkovich, J. N. (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared descriptions of linear graphs. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 239–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moschkovich, J. (2007). Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(2), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moschkovich, J. (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Moschkovich, J. N. (2015). Academic literacy in mathematics for English learners. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (2017). Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Procedural-Fluency-in-Mathematics/.
  32. Niss, M. A. (2015). Mathematical literacy. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical education: Intellectual and attitudinal challenges (pp. 409–414). Boston/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students’ attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers & Education, 48(2), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prayoga, T., & Abraham, J. (2017). A psychological model explaining why we love or hate statistics. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital native, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Remillard, J. T., & Cahnmann, M. (2005). Researching mathematics teaching in bilingual bicultural classrooms. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Language, literacy, and power in schooling (pp. 169–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Rivera, H. H., & Waxman, H. C. (2011). Resilient and nonresilient Hispanic English language learners’ attitudes toward their classroom learning environment in mathematics. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 16(3), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stankov, S. (2010). Intelligent tutoring systems in e-learning environments: Design, implementation and evaluation: Design, implementation and evaluation. Hersey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1960). Development of the higher mental functions. Moscow: Publishing House of the R.S.F.S.R. Academy of Pedagogical Sciences.Google Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Vygotsky, L. S., Hanfmann, E., & Vakar, G. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press (original work published 1934).Google Scholar
  42. Wang, Y. H., & Liao, H. C. (2011). Adaptive learning for ESL based on computation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 66–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Patricia A. Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of Maryland at Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations