Scaffolding and differentiation in early EFL

Helping children take part in a shared language task

How can children make a choice and communicate it in English when the task sheet itself may be difficult to access?

In this workshop, you will adapt a short classroom activity. Start from the learning goal, identify a possible barrier and decide what support could help. Your decisions should be specific enough for another teacher to try and review.

Suggested time: 60 minutes. Work individually or with a partner. The times are planning estimates, not deadlines. You can use this workshop independently or as part of a seminar.

What you will produce

By the end, you will have:

• identified at least two possible barriers in a task, using evidence from its design;
• created a revised task with two justified supports;
• distinguished a support that preserves the learning goal from a change to the goal;
• planned what to observe when checking whether a support helps.

Your product is a revised task sheet and a short explanation. Write approximately 150–250 words or use structured bullet points covering the same decisions. Keep a copy for yourself; sharing is optional unless your seminar teacher specifies otherwise.

1 Read with a purpose — 10 minutes

Open the course material checklist and the QUA-LiS page on Supportsysteme. These resources are in German.

Choose one checklist item and one support from the QUA-LiS page. Explain each in your own words. Keep them available for the task analysis below. If an external page cannot be opened, use the task and working distinctions on this page and record which source you could not consult.

For this workshop, use these working distinctions:

• Scaffolding: support that helps a learner perform a task they cannot yet manage independently. A teaching prompt can be adjusted as the learner gains independence.
• Differentiation: planned variation in the task, process, support or intended outcome in response to the learners and context.
• Access support: an arrangement that enables participation, such as a usable communication method or accessible presentation. It may need to remain available.

These distinctions guide our analysis. A support does not have to disappear simply because a learner progresses. Ask what the learner still needs to access the activity.

2 Examine the original task — 10 minutes

Context: A primary EFL class has practised familiar animal names and “I choose …” / “It can …”. They are choosing an imaginary class mascot. The animals are fictional characters; no pet ownership or personal experience is required.

Intended language goal: Each child communicates a mascot choice and one ability in English, orally or through their established communication system. Spoken pronunciation can be observed separately where appropriate. Copying a sentence is not the target skill.

Original task for analysis:

Read all three mascot descriptions, compare their abilities, choose the one you like best, write three complete sentences about your decision and read your answer to the whole class. You have five minutes. Work on your own and do not ask for help.

Mascot	Information
Pip the bird	Pip can sing. Pip can fly.
Sam the fish	Sam can swim.
Bo the dog	Bo can run. Bo can jump.

This is a deliberately constrained task created for analysis in this course. It is not a quotation from a textbook or a recommendation for classroom use.

Discuss:

1. Which demands are necessary for the intended language goal?
2. Which demands could hide what a child already understands or can communicate?
3. What evidence would you need before deciding that a particular child requires a particular support?

3 Consider the learners — 10 minutes

The following fictional observations describe classroom situations, not diagnoses. Choose two and explain why the same worksheet may create different barriers.

Alex: Alex matches familiar spoken animal words to objects accurately. Reading several lines independently takes much longer, and Alex often loses their place.

Mina: Mina can organise the activity and explain a choice in a familiar language. Mina has recently joined the English class and does not yet know all the English phrases used on the sheet.

Robin: Robin communicates using an established communication board and partner-assisted scanning. Robin needs an accessible way to select the mascot and a corresponding English message. The teacher and support team know Robin’s usual communication method.

Leo: Leo uses the target phrases in pairs but rarely speaks when unexpectedly called on in front of the whole class. The teacher has not yet asked which participation conditions Leo prefers.

Avoid explanations such as “Alex is a visual learner” or “Mina cannot think at this level”. Name the observation, consider more than one explanation, and identify information that is missing.

4 Redesign the task — 20 minutes

Create a usable task sheet based on the mascot information. You may start from the accompanying pupil task, but explain your own choices rather than merely copying it.

Your revision must include:

1. The learning goal in language children can understand.
2. A clear sequence with manageable instructions.
3. Two supports linked to the chosen observations.
4. An opportunity for each child to communicate a choice and an ability.
5. A way to check participation and the language goal.

Possible design decisions include a demonstrated first turn, a short phrase strip, spoken presentation of the options, rehearsal with a partner, or access through a familiar communication system. Select only what fits your cases. A drawing or silent choice alone does not demonstrate the full English message in the stated goal.

Use this planning table:

Task feature or observation	Possible barrier	My change	Goal preserved or changed?	What I will observe
…	…	…	…	…
…	…	…	…	…

For one temporary teaching prompt, explain when you might reduce it. For one access arrangement, explain why it might remain necessary. If you propose a different individual learning goal, state it explicitly and provide matching evidence rather than pretending that every outcome measures the same skill.

5 Review and reflect — 10 minutes

Exchange your plan with a partner, or use these questions for a self-review:

• Can I see how each change addresses the stated barrier?
• Does the child still have a meaningful decision to communicate?
• Is the evidence appropriate to the learning goal?
• Could this support introduce another barrier or single a child out?
• What would the teacher ask or observe before making a further change?

Feedback starter: “Your change may help with … because … . I would also check … .”

Finish with: “One decision I changed was … . I would test it by observing … . If the observation did not support my expectation, I would … .”

Success criteria

Your explanation is ready when a reader can identify the learning goal, two evidence-based barrier hypotheses, the matching supports and a realistic observation for each. It distinguishes what the scenario states from what you infer. It also names any change to the learning goal and does not treat a diagnosis as a complete explanation of a learner’s needs.

Here, “evidence-based barrier hypothesis” means a hypothesis grounded in the given task and observations. It does not mean that the proposed intervention has already been experimentally validated.

Optional further exploration

• CAST UDL Guidelines 3.0: select a consideration concerning language access or expression and compare it with one of your decisions.
• Differentiation in All Means All: further reading across subjects. Access and the full chapter still need checking before it becomes required reading.

The mascot task, cases and workshop prompts are original course drafts. They have not yet been tried with a class or a student seminar. The working distinctions draw on the linked QUA-LiS, CAST and differentiation resources; the classroom design is our own proposed application.