Get Talkative: Productive Eye & Elbow Pairings for Multilingual Students
Q&A with Nicole Shimizu
In classrooms with multilingual students, pairing strategies can make or break their learning experience. How do we set up productive pairings that support both language acquisition and content mastery? To explore this, I sat down with Nicole Shimizu, our Chief Academic Officer and a seasoned educator in-the-field who successfully creates environments where multilingual students not only survive but thrive. Together, we’ve guided school leadership teams through the intricate process of student shadowing, revealing deep insights into the academic lives of multilingual learners and the limited opportunities they have for engaging in discussion. Today, we’ll discuss pairing strategies, why they are important, and how to make the most of them with your multilingual students.
Q: Nicole, why is it that multilingual students often have limited opportunities to talk in English, both socially and academically?
Nicole: It’s a combination of factors. Traditional classroom models tend to prioritize quiet, transactional learning environments. Teachers may be reluctant to encourage talk, fearing it could lead to silence, chaos, or off-task behavior. But what we’ve seen through student shadowing is that this quiet often masks a lack of engagement and learning, especially for multilingual students. These students need frequent opportunities to practice speaking and listening in English to develop their language skills through engaging with content. Without the opportunity to talk, they can slowly disengage from school and lose their sense of being a student with a voice that matters. We send an implicit message that they don’t matter in academic spaces. This is the opposite of what we call culturally and linguistically sustaining practices.
Q: So, how do we best set up our practice for facilitating dialogue among students, particularly our multilingual students?
Nicole: One of the most effective strategies is intentional pairing based on students' content knowledge and linguistic output—what they are currently demonstrating in the classroom in terms of language use (both English and their home language), written work, social interactions, and overall disposition toward school and peers. This approach goes beyond simply considering "language proficiency" to avoid unintended positioning. When I'm pairing students, I don't pair a student who is a strong speaker who demonstrates their content understanding in the classroom unassisted with a student that requires many scaffolds to demonstrate their content understanding. This type of pairing leads to positioning one student as the expert and one student as always “needing help”. Instead, I try to pair students who are closer in terms of both linguistic output and ability to demonstrate content understanding. This positions students so that they have the opportunity to both receive support from their partner as well as provide support to their partner. Also so that they can engage in a conversation that doesn't feel one-sided.
Q. Can you further flesh out what positioning is?
Nicole: In Teaching Math to Multilingual Students, Grades K–8: Positioning English Learners for Success, Chval, Smith, Trigos-Carrillo, and Pinnow emphasize how teachers play a crucial role in shaping how multilingual learners are positioned in the classroom. Some might think they can avoid this by simply not positioning students, but that's just not possible. Positioning happens in every interaction, whether we intend it or not. Every word, gesture, silence, or look we give sends a message about how we see ourselves and others. We're constantly shaping identities through these subtle cues, so it's important to be mindful of the impact we have on our students. As they state, “In every classroom, teachers position students. It is a matter not of if a teacher positions, but of how the teacher positions.” This positioning is influenced by our mental models, unconscious biases, and beliefs about students, success, failure, efficiency, and discomfort. These beliefs affect how we handle classroom discourse—whether we ignore it, cut it short, frame it with a fixed or deficit mindset, or overlook issues that we should intentionally address. It is not just a matter of whether I should let them talk or not, this question is deeply linked to our beliefs and productive struggle.
Q: Wow, that’s deep, right? I can see the risks for students if we ignore positioning when we think about discourse.
Nicole: Right. When we ignore the importance of positioning in the classroom, we risk reinforcing negative or limiting perceptions that can hinder students' growth. Multilingual students, in particular, might internalize these subtle cues, leading to diminished self-confidence, reduced participation, and a belief that they are not capable or valued in the academic environment. This can result in lower academic achievement, disengagement from learning, and a lack of opportunities to develop their full potential. Ignoring positioning also perpetuates inequities, as it fails to address and challenge the biases and stereotypes that may influence how students are perceived and treated. Ultimately, it can prevent students from feeling empowered and supported, which is essential for their success both academically and personally.
Q: Could you walk us through your process for setting up these pairings?
Nicole: Sure! Here’s how I do it:
1. Data-Driven Grouping: If there’s one thing Dugan and Safir's Street Data has taught us, it’s that data in the classroom comes in many forms. Humans are complex and multifaceted, and traditional assessments only tell part of the story. While assessments can play a role in student groupings, there are no hard-and-fast rules. Instead of relying solely on assessments to rank students—something I’m uncomfortable with—I start my group-making process by crafting lists based on multiple indicators: students' overall linguistic output (across domains and both academic and nonacademic discourse and both in their home language and English), language assessments, and their perceived willingness or comfort in engaging with others. I aim to consider everything I know about the students before forming the lists. List 1 consists of students who may need several scaffolds to actively participate in a lesson (visuals, chunked text, a partner, a graphic organizer), while Group 4 includes students who are currently engaging without any additional support.
Four student lists based on linguistic output and student dispositions, not just assessments.
2. A/B Partnerships (short-stretch “eye” partnerships): I then create groupings of four, with the four students representing each of the four lists. This pairing ensures that students are working within their zone of proximal development, where they can stretch their language use with the right level of support. It allows for diverse interactions and ensures that each student has a peer slightly above their level to model language and content use. For group work, I know an eye-contact partner is readily accessible, that is, a configuration in which partners that are close in linguistic output and content demonstration are paired (pairing 1 and 2, 3 and 4), assuring a shorter stretch for students.
Shorter Stretch Eye Partnerships
3. Table Teams of 4 (large-stretch “elbow” partners): For larger group work with teams of four, I create teams with one student from each group (1, 2, 3, and 4). I can access a partnership that demonstrates a bit more of a stretch—an elbow partner (1 and 3, 2 and 4)—while at the same time they can also seek support from their eye partner if need be.
Larger Stretch Elbow Partners
Q: What are some tips you can share for making these pairings as effective as possible?
Nicole: Here are a few pro tips:
Consider Primary Language: If possible, pair students who share the same primary language and have enough oral proficiency to process their thinking together. This can be a powerful tool in their learning. However, as with any scaffold, it’s important to be cognizant of when the tool becomes a crutch and doesn’t work toward student growth.
Partner Prompts: Use different but related prompts for each partner in a pair. For example, Partner A might describe physical features of an animal, while Partner B explains behaviors. This sets a clear purpose for listening and encourages meaningful conversation, and it avoids the second partner just repeating what the first partner said or say, “I think so, too.”
Roles: Take a hint from project based learning, have students take on roles as part of their groupings - the facilitator, the reporter, the documenter, the timer - while they are also engaged in a discussion about any given topic, challenge, artifact, etc. Have them shift these roles. You will also need to teach these roles, actively discuss and reflect on the roles, and be patient as students take on more responsibility in the classroom.
Discussion Cues: Teach and make available discussion cues to give students the language to carry a group discussion. Statements of appreciation, affirmation, and agreement; yes/and; “I wonder”; “I respectfully disagree;” etc. are all helpful in cueing students to engage with each other. Over time, they will not need them.
Progress Monitoring: Keep track of your pairings. Use observations to see how students are interacting and adjust pairings as needed to maximize speaking opportunities.
Student Choice: Occasionally allow students to choose their partners. This can provide insight into which pairings they find most supportive and can help build their confidence.
Consider Race, Culture, and Gender Dynamics: Be alert to student dynamics related to race, culture, and gender. While we all want an inclusive learning environment that values diverse perspectives, promotes equity, and ensures all students feel respected and engaged, we also want to be aware of potential power, privilege, and personality imbalances that influence and can reinforce stereotypes or marginalize certain voices within the group. The important thing is to watch to make sure all students have opportunities to speak, contribute, and feel connected.
Q: Finally, what advice would you give to teachers who are hesitant to try these strategies?
Nicole: It’s natural to feel uncomfortable at first, both for you and the students. But remember, the more opportunities students have to practice speaking and listening, the more skilled they’ll become. Over time, you’ll see them grow in confidence and ability, and you’ll develop a closer understanding of their thinking and capabilities. Just like in the kitchen, experimenting with pairings can lead to some amazing results!
