ABSTRACT
Diversity of student population is becoming reality within the educational context in most societies. Recognition and acceptance of differences and similarities as well as whole-school approaches to learning are often employed in an inclusive setting where teaching emphasises the connection between social, cultural and linguistic aspects of students’ experiences and understanding. It is widely accepted that in such a context teachers should assume responsibility to stimulate a classroom environment where students develop language and cognitive skills along with their cooperative skills and recognition of perspectives rather than their own (Griva et al., 2011a). It is also advocated that throughout schooling, equality of access to learning should
be promoted, irrespective of students’ cultural, linguistic background and abilities. For this purpose, inclusive practices are often adopted aimed at enhancing learning of less competent students and providing the same opportunities for holistic learning and participation in all aspects of school life. There is also some evidence to suggest that through the adoption of appropriate approaches to learning, responsible behaviour in the classroom and adequate development of language skills, the following outcomes can be potentially achieved: improvement of interpersonal and intercultural relationships, understanding of individual differences, bias and stereotypes (Santora, 2006) which contribute to the immigrant students’ inclusion in the school. However, Greek teachers often express their anxiety and uncertainty about teaching bilingual immigrant students due to a lack of proper and relevant training on issues related to bilingualism within a pluralist context (Griva et al., 2011b). A number of issues are associated with bilingual students’ language development
and educational attainment, such as students’ personal characteristics, ethnic and
linguistic origin, socio-economic factors, parents’ education and basic skills, and parental involvement (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). However, despite the fact that school plays a vital role in literacy development, other influences that are likely to affect children’s everyday life in and out of school cannot be underestimated. It should also be noted that since effective education responds to the learning needs of individual children and the needs of their families, collaboration between school and family is essential to achieving education for all. Parental involvement also plays a central role in children’s successful literacy attain-
ment (Marsh, 2006). It has been suggested that children whose parents are actively involved in their development are more likely to succeed in school (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003). In addition, the attitudes of immigrant parents towards the majority language also tend to affect the speed and quality of children’s second language (L2) acquisition (Griva and Stamou, 2014; Li, 1999). It is widely believed that immigrant parents’ supportive attitudes towards both languages and their active involvement in their children’s linguistic progress can result in children’s acquisition of language skills.
While writing is considered to be an important part of literacy development, it is regarded as a complicated process which imposes some constraints on bilingual students. Children who do not learn to read and write and communicate effectively in primary school are more likely to leave school early, be unemployed or find themselves in low-skilled jobs, and are most likely to end up in poverty (Barnados, 2009). Students who encounter literacy difficulties are more likely to experience educational failure, and therefore they leave school without qualifications (Eivers et al., 2004). Not having the skills and qualifications to participate in today’s knowledge-based society, the individual faces a low-level quality of life (Kennedy et al., 2009). Those individuals do not enjoy certain outcomes that determine human well-being, such as psychological, economic, physical and social well-being (Maxwell and Teplova, 2007). Given the fact that first language (L1) writing process depends on mastering a
number of processes and sub-skills, such as generating and drafting ideas, producing content, revising and editing text (Griva et al., 2009; Reid, 1992), L2 writing involves all of these processes mixed up with L1 competence issues, which overwhelm the writing process, especially in the case of poor writers (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987). Some research suggests that bilingual students’ L2 literacy depends on the literacy
developed in L1 (Cummins, 2001; Baker, 2002). These students develop metalinguistic awareness and use a wider range of language learning strategies compared to monolingual ones (Cenoz and Valencia, 1994; Griva et al., 2011a). Furthermore, some studies have also shown that skilled writers tend to view
planning and composing as a continual process which includes developing an initial set of goals or plans to guide the writing process (e.g. Goddard and Sendi, 2008). In contrast, poor writers seldom set writing goals, monitor their final product as regards the writing goal and rarely revise a text (ibid., 2008). They believe
themselves to have weaknesses in the following areas of language (Victori, 1995): a) size of vocabulary; b) correctness of language; c) unconscious processing of language; d) language creation; e) mastery of the functions of language. Given the above described context, the present study was aimed at:
