Section 2. English Language Learners and Bilingual Program Models In this section of the course, through the course text and selected external readings, you will be learning about the needs English Language Learners (ELLs). ESL and Bilingual Program Models ERIC Digest Jeanne Rennie ED362072 Children from families in which English is not the language of the home represent a rapidly increasing percentage of students enrolled in U.S. schools. Language minority students can be found in schools across the country, not just those in large cities or in areas near the U.S.-Mexican border. All schools must be prepared to meet the challenge of an increasingly diverse student population, including many students who are not proficient in English. The effectiveness of various program models for language minority students remains the subject of controversy. Although there may be reasons to claim the superiority of one program model over another in certain situations (Collier 1992; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991), a variety of programs can be effective. The choice should be made at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the students involved and the resources available. Factors to Consider in Selecting a Program Model It is critical to consider several variables that will ultimately influence the type of program most likely to be appropriate and effective in a given situation. 1. DISTRICT OR SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS. While some districts have a large population of students from a single language background, others have several large groups of students, each representing a different home language. Still others may have small numbers of students from as many as 100 different language backgrounds scattered across grade levels and schools. The total number of language minority students, the number of students from each language background, and their distribution across grades and schools will influence the selection of the type of program to meet the needs of district students (McKeon, 1987). © 2017 5600 49 2. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS. Some language minority students enter U.S. schools with strong academic preparation in their native language that may equal or surpass that of their grade-level peers in the United States. Others, however, may arrive in this country with little or no school experience. Social, economic, and cultural factors in their home country may have interrupted their schooling--if, indeed, they attended school at all. The needs of these students are clearly much different from those of students with a solid academic background (McKeon, 1987). 3. DISTRICT OR SCHOOL RESOURCES. Districts that have had a significant language minority enrollment for many years will likely have teachers, aides, and administrators trained to work with students who have limited English proficiency. They may be able to draw on a large pool of bilingual personnel in the community to staff bilingual programs. Other districts, faced with a sudden influx of students from one or more unfamiliar language backgrounds, may have to scramble to find qualified teachers or volunteers. Material resources will also influence the type of program that a district or school may be able to provide. Districts with declining enrollments may have classroom space available for magnet programs or ESL (English as a second language) resource centers. Other districts may be so overcrowded they cannot even find a classroom to accommodate ESL pull-out classes (McKeon, 1987). ESL Program Models ESL programs (rather than bilingual programs) are likely to be used in districts where the language minority population is very diverse and represents many different languages. ESL programs can accommodate students from different language backgrounds in the same class, and teachers do not need to be proficient in the home language(s) of their students. ESL pull-out is generally used in elementary school settings. Students spend part of the school day in a mainstream classroom, but are pulled out for a portion of each day to receive instruction in English as a second language. Although schools with a large number of ESL students may have a full-time ESL teacher, some districts employ an ESL teacher who travels to several schools to work with small groups of students scattered throughout the district. ESL class period is generally used in middle school settings. Students receive ESL instruction during a regular class period and usually receive course credit. They may be grouped for instruction according to their level of English proficiency. The ESL resource center is a variation of the pull-out design, bringing students together from several classrooms or schools. The resource center concentrates ESL materials and staff in one location and is usually staffed by at least one full-time ESL © 2017 5600 50 teacher. Bilingual Program Models All bilingual program models use the students’ home language, in addition to English, for instruction. These programs are most easily implemented in districts with a large number of students from the same language background. Students in bilingual programs are grouped according to their first language, and teachers must be proficient in both English and the students’ home language. Early-exit bilingual programs are designed to help children acquire the English skills required to succeed in an English-only mainstream classroom. These programs provide some initial instruction in the students’ first language, primarily for the introduction of reading, but also for clarification. Instruction in the first language is phased out rapidly, with most students mainstreamed by the end of first or second grade. The choice of an early-exit model may reflect community or parental preference, or it may be the only bilingual program option available in districts with a limited number of bilingual teachers. Late-exit programs differ from early-exit programs “primarily in the amount and duration that English is used for instruction as well as the length of time students are to participate in each program” (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). Students remain in late-exit programs throughout elementary school and continue to receive 40% or more of their instruction in their first language, even when they have been reclassified as fluent-English-proficient. Two-way bilingual programs, also called developmental bilingual programs, group language minority students from a single language background in the same classroom with language majority (English-speaking) students. Ideally, there is a nearly 50/50 balance between language minority and language majority students. Instruction is provided in both English and the minority language. In some programs, the languages are used on alternating days. Others may alternate morning and afternoon, or they may divide the use of the two languages by academic subject. Native English speakers and speakers of another language have the opportunity to acquire proficiency in a second language while continuing to develop their native language skills. Students serve as native-speaker role models for their peers. Two-way bilingual classes may be taught by a single teacher who is proficient in both languages or by two teachers, one of whom is bilingual. Other Program Models Some programs provide neither instruction in the native language nor direct instruction in ESL. However, instruction is adapted to meet the needs of students © 2017 5600 51 who are not proficient in English. Sheltered English or content-based programs group language minority students from different language backgrounds together in classes where teachers use English as the medium for providing content area instruction, adapting their language to the proficiency level of the students. They may also use gestures and visual aids to help students understand. Although the acquisition of English is one of the goals of sheltered English and content-based programs, instruction focuses on content rather than language. Structured immersion programs use only English, but there is no explicit ESL instruction. As in sheltered English and content-based programs, English is taught through the content areas. Structured immersion teachers have strong receptive skills in their students’ first language and have a bilingual education or ESL teaching credential. The teacher’s use of the children’s first language is limited primarily to clarification of English instruction. Most students are mainstreamed after 2 or 3 years. Characteristics of an Effective Program Researchers have identified a number of attributes that are characteristic of effective programs for language minority students. 1. Supportive whole-school contexts (Lucas, Henz, & Donato, 1990; Tikunoff et al., 1991). 2. High expectations for language minority students, as evidenced by active learning environments that are academically challenging (Collier, 1992; Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990; Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991). 3. Intensive staff development programs designed to assist ALL teachers (not just ESL or bilingual education teachers) in providing effective instruction to language minority students (Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990; Tikunoff et al., 1991). 4. Expert instructional leaders and teachers (Lucas, Henze, and Donato, 1990; Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991; Tikunoff et al., 1991). 5. Emphasis on functional communication between teacher and students and among fellow students (Garcia, 1991). 6. Organization of the instruction of basic skills and academic content around thematic units (Garcia, 1991). 7. Frequent student interaction through the use of collaborative learning techniques © 2017 5600 52 (Garcia, 1991). 8. Teachers with a high commitment to the educational success of all their students (Garcia, 1991). 9. Principals supportive of their instructional staff and of teacher autonomy while maintaining an awareness of district policies on curriculum and academic accountability (Garcia, 1991). 10. Involvement of majority and minority parents in formal parent support activities (Garcia, 1991). Conclusion Successful program models for promoting the academic achievement of language minority students are those that enable these students to develop academic skills while learning English. The best program organization is one that is tailored to meet the linguistic, academic, and affective needs of students; provides language minority students with the instruction necessary to allow them to progress through school at a rate commensurate with their native-English-speaking peers; and makes the best use of district and community resources. References Collier, V. P. (1992). A Synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, p. 187-212. Garcia, E. (1991). Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective instructional practices. Educational practice report number 1. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 099) Lucas T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language minority students: An Exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (1), 315-340. McKeon, D. (1987). Different types of ESL programs. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Pease-Alvarez, L., Garcia, E., & Espinosa, P. (1991). Effective instruction for language minority students: An early childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 347-361. © 2017 5600 53 Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Tikunoff, W., Ward, B., van Broekhuizen, D., Romero, M., Castaneda, L.V., Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1991). A Descriptive study of significant features of exemplary special alternative instructional programs. Washington: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. ----This Digest is based on an article published in the August 1993 issue of Streamlined Seminar (Volume 12, Number 1), the newsletter of the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). For information on Streamlined Seminar or NAESP, write NAESP, 1615 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3483. The author acknowledges the assistance of Denise McKeon of the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education in the preparation of this report. © 2017 5600 54 Ten Common Fallacies about Bilingual Education ERIC Digest James Crawford ED424792 Researchers have made considerable advances in the fields of psycholinguistics, second language acquisition, bilingual pedagogy, and multicultural education. Today, we know a great deal more about the challenges faced by English language learners and about promising strategies for overcoming them. One such strategy, bilingual education, has been the subject of increasing controversy. Although a growing body of research points to the potential benefits, there are a number of commonly held beliefs about bilingual education that run counter to research findings. Based on current research, this digest clarifies some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding language use and bilingual education in the United States. Fallacy 1: English is losing ground to other languages in the United States More world languages are spoken in the United States today than ever before. However, this is a quantitative, not a qualitative change from earlier periods. Concentrations of non-English language speakers were common in the 19th century, as reflected by laws authorizing native language instruction in a dozen states and territories. In big cities as well as rural areas, children attended bilingual and non-English schools, learning in languages as diverse as French, Norwegian, Czech, and Cherokee. In 1900, there were at least 600,000 elementary school children receiving part or all of their instruction in German (Kloss 1998). Yet English survived without any help from government, such as official-language legislation. Fallacy 2: Newcomers to the United States are learning English more slowly now than in previous generations To the contrary, today’s immigrants appear to be acquiring English more rapidly than ever before. While the number of minority-language speakers is projected to grow well into the next century, the number of bilinguals fluent in both English and another language is growing even faster. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of immigrants who spoke non-English languages at home increased by 59%, while the portion of this population that spoke English very well rose by 93% (Waggoner, 1995). In 1990, only 3% of U.S. residents reported speaking English less than well or very well. Only eight-tenths of one percent spoke no English at all. About three in four Hispanic immigrants, after 15 years in this country, speak English on a daily basis, while 70% of their children become dominant or monolingual in English (Veltman, 1988). © 2017 5600 55 Fallacy 3: The best way to learn a language is through “total immersion” There is no credible evidence to support the “time on task” theory of language learning--the claim that the more children are exposed to English, the more English they will learn. Research shows that what counts is not just the quantity, but the quality of exposure. Second-language input must be comprehensible to promote second-language acquisition (Krashen, 1996). If students are left to sink or swim in mainstream classrooms, with little or no help in understanding native-their lessons, they won’t learn much English. If native-language instruction is used to make lessons meaningful, they will learn more English--and more subject matter, too. Fallacy 4: Children learning English are retained too long in bilingual classrooms, at the expense of English acquisition Time spent learning in well designed bilingual programs is learning time well spent. Knowledge and skills acquired in the native language--literacy in particular--are “transferable” to the second language. They do not need to be relearned in English (Krashen, 1996; Cummins, 1992). Thus, there is no reason to rush limited-Englishproficient (LEP) students into the mainstream before they are ready. Research over the past two decades has determined that, despite appearances, it takes children a long time to attain full proficiency in a second language. Often, they are quick to learn the conversational English used on the playground, but normally they need several years to acquire the cognitively demanding, decontextualized language used for academic pursuits (Collier & Thomas, 1989). Bilingual education programs that emphasize a gradual transition to English and offer native-language instruction in declining amounts over time, provide continuity in children’s cognitive growth and lay a foundation for academic success in the second language. By contrast, English-only approaches and quick-exit bilingual programs can interrupt that growth at a crucial stage, with negative effects on achievement (Cummins, 1992). Fallacy 5: School districts provide bilingual instruction in scores of native languages Where children speak a number of different languages, rarely are there sufficient numbers of each language group to make bilingual instruction practical for everyone. In any case, the shortage of qualified teachers usually makes it impossible. For example, in 1994 California enrolled recently arrived immigrants from 136 different countries, but bilingual teachers were certified in only 17 languages, 96% of them in Spanish (CDE, 1995). Fallacy 6: Bilingual education means instruction mainly in students’ native languages, with little instruction in English Before 1994, the vast majority of U.S. bilingual education programs were designed to encourage an early exit to mainstream English language classrooms, while only a © 2017 5600 56 tiny fraction of programs were designed to maintain the native tongues of students. Today, a majority of bilingual programs continue to deliver a substantial portion of the curriculum in English. According to one study, school districts reported that 28% of LEP elementary school students receive no native-language instruction. Among those who do, about a third receive more than 75% of their instruction in English; a third receive from 40 to 75% in English; and one third of these receive less than 40% in English. Secondary school students are less likely to be instructed in their native language than elementary school students (Hopstock et al. 1993). Fallacy 7: Bilingual education is far more costly than English language instruction All programs serving LEP students--regardless of the language of instruction--require additional staff training, instructional materials, and administration. So they all cost a little more than regular programs for native English speakers. But in most cases the differential is modest. A study commissioned by the California legislature examined a variety of well implemented program models and found no budgetary advantage for English-only approaches. The incremental cost was about the same each year ($175-$214) for bilingual and English immersion programs, as compared with $1,198 for English as a second language (ESL) “pullout” programs. The reason was simple: the pullout approach requires supplemental teachers, whereas in-class approaches do not (Chambers & Parrish, 1992). Nevertheless, ESL pullout remains the method of choice for many school districts, especially where LEP students are diverse, bilingual teachers are in short supply, or expertise is lacking in bilingual methodologies. Fallacy 8: Disproportionate dropout rates for Hispanic students demonstrate the failure of bilingual education Hispanic dropout rates remain unacceptably high. Research has identified multiple factors associated with this problem, including recent arrival in the United States, family poverty, limited English proficiency, low academic achievement, and being retained in grade (Lockwood, 1996). No credible studies, however, have identified bilingual education among the risk factors, because bilingual programs touch only a small minority of Hispanic children. Fallacy 9: Research is inconclusive on the benefits of bilingual education Some critics argue that the great majority of bilingual program evaluations are so egregiously flawed that their findings are useless. After reviewing 300 such studies, Rossell and Baker (1996) judged only 72 to be methodologically acceptable. Of these, they determined that a mere 22% supported the superiority of transitional programs over English-only instruction in reading, 9% in math, and 7% in language. Moreover, they concluded that “TBE [transitional bilingual education] is never better than structured immersion” in English. In other words, they could find little evidence that bilingual education works. © 2017 5600 57 Close analysis of Rossell and Baker’s claims reveals some serious flaws of their own. Krashen (1996) questions the rigor of several studies the reviewers included as methodologically acceptable--all unfavorable to bilingual education and many unpublished in the professional literature. Moreover, Rossell and Baker relied heavily on program evaluations from the 1970s, when bilingual pedagogies were considerably less well developed. Compounding these weaknesses is their narrative review technique, which simply counts the votes for or against a program alternative--a method that leaves considerable room for subjectivity and reviewer bias (Dunkel, 1990). Meta-analysis, a more objective method that weighs numerous variables in each study under review, has yielded more positive findings about bilingual education (Greene, 1998; Willig, 1985). Most important, Krashen (1996) shows that Rossell and Baker are content to compare programs by the labels they have been given, with little consideration of the actual pedagogies being used. They treat as equivalent all approaches called TBE, even though few program details are available in many of the studies under review. Researchers who take the time to visit real classrooms understand how dangerous such assumptions can be. According to Hopstock et al. (1993), “When actual practices...are examined, a bilingual education program might provide more instruction in English than...an ‘English as a second language’ program.” Moreover, from a qualitative perspective, programs vary considerably in how (one or both) languages are integrated into the curriculum and into the social context of the school. Finally, simplistic labels are misleading because bilingual and English immersion techniques are not mutually exclusive; several studies have shown that successful programs make extensive use of both (see, e.g., Ramirez et al., 1991). Even when program descriptions are available, Rossell and Baker sometimes ignore them. For example, they cite a bilingual immersion program in El Paso as a superior English-only (submersion) approach, although it includes 90 minutes of Spanish instruction each day in addition to sheltered English. The researchers also include in their review several studies of French immersion in Canada, which they equate with all-English, structured immersion programs in the United States. As the Canadian program designers have repeatedly stressed, these models are bilingual in both methods and goals, and they serve students with needs that are quite distinct from those of English learners in this country. Fallacy 10: Language-minority parents do not support bilingual education because they feel it is more important for their children to learn english than to maintain the native language Naturally, when pollsters place these goals in opposition, immigrant parents will opt © 2017 5600 58 for English by wide margins. Who knows better the need to learn English than those who struggle with language barriers on a daily basis? But the premise of such surveys is false. Truly bilingual programs seek to cultivate proficiency in both tongues, and research has shown that students’ native language can be maintained and developed at no cost to English. When polled on the principles underlying bilingual education for example, that developing literacy in the first language facilitates literacy development in English or that bilingualism offers cognitive and career-related advantages--a majority of parents are strongly in favor of such approaches (Krashen, 1996). References California Department of Education (CDE). (1995). Educational demographics unit. Language census report for California public schools. Sacramento: Author. Chambers, J., & Parrish, T. (1992). Meeting the challenge of diversity: An evaluation of programs for pupils with limited proficiency in English. Vol. IV, cost of programs and services for LEP students. Berkeley, CA: BW Associates. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, p26-39. Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingual Education and English Immersion: The Ramirez Report in Theoretical Perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, p91-104. Dunkel, P. (1990). Implications of the CAI effectiveness research for limited-Englishproficient learners. Computers in the Schools, 7, p31-52. Greene, J. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. Hopstock, P., Bucaro, B., Fleischman, H. L., Zehler, A. M., & Eu, H. (1993). Descriptive Study of Services to Limited English Proficient Students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates. Kloss, H. (1998). The American Bilingual Tradition. Washington, DC and McHenry, IL.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics and Delta Systems Inc. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Lockwood, A. T. (1996). Caring, Community, and Personalization: Strategies to Combat the Hispanic Dropout Problem. Advances in Hispanic Education, 1. © 2017 5600 59 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. Executive summary. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Rossell, C., & Baker, K. (1996). The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, p7-74. Veltman, C. (1988). The Future of the Spanish Language in the United States. Washington, DC: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Waggoner, D. (1995, November). Are Current Home Speakers of Non-English Languages Learning English? Numbers and Needs, 5. Willig, Ann C. 1985. A Meta-Analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Review of Educational Research, 55, p269-317. This Digest is drawn from the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) report Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act (1997), by James Crawford. For the complete report, see the NCBE home page at http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu. James Crawford is author of “Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice,” 4th ed. (Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services, 1999) 800-448-6032. © 2017 5600 60 Why Bilingual Education? ERIC Digest Stephen Krashen ED403101 Bilingual education continues to receive criticism in the national media. This Digest examines some of the criticism, and its effect on public opinion, which often is based on misconceptions about bilingual education’s goals and practice. The Digest explains the rationale underlying good bilingual education programs and summarizes research findings about their effectiveness. When schools provide children quality education in their primary language, they give them two things: knowledge and literacy. The knowledge that children get through their first language helps make the English they hear and read more comprehensible. Literacy developed in the primary language transfers to the second language. The reason is simple: Because we learn to read by reading--that is, by making sense of what is on the page (Smith, 1994)--it is easier to learn to read in a language we understand. Once we can read in one language, we can read in general. The combination of first language subject matter teaching and literacy development that characterizes good bilingual programs indirectly but powerfully aids students as they strive for a third factor essential to their success: English proficiency. Of course, we also want to teach in English directly, via high quality English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) classes, and through sheltered subject matter teaching, where intermediate-level English language acquirers learn subject matter taught in English. The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. Non-English-speaking children initially receive core instruction in the primary language along with ESL instruction. As children grow more proficient in English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math and science) in sheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream classes. In this way, the sheltered classes function as a bridge between instruction in the first language and in the mainstream. In advanced levels, the only subjects done in the first language are those demanding the most abstract use of language (social studies and language arts). Once full mainstreaming is complete, advanced first language development is available as an option. Gradual exit plans, such as these, avoid problems associated with exiting children too early (before the English they encounter is comprehensible) and provide instruction in the first language where it is most needed. These plans also allow children to have the advantages of advanced first language development. © 2017 5600 61 Success without Bilingual Education? A common argument against bilingual education is the observation that many people have succeeded without it. This has certainly happened. In these cases, however, the successful person got plenty of comprehensible input in the second language, and in many cases had a de facto bilingual education program. For example, Rodriguez (1982) and de la Pena (1991) are often cited as counterevidence to bilingual education. Rodriguez (1982) tells us that he succeeded in school without a special program and acquired a very high level of English literacy. He had two crucial advantages, however, that most limited-English-proficient (LEP) children do not have. First, he grew up in an English-speaking neighborhood in Sacramento, California, and thus got a great deal of informal comprehensible input from classmates. Many LEP children today encounter English only at school; they live in neighborhoods where Spanish prevails. In addition, Rodriguez became a voracious reader, which helped him acquire academic language. Most LEP children have little access to books. De la Pena (1991) reports that he came to the United States at age nine with no English competence and claims that he succeeded without bilingual education. He reports that he acquired English rapidly, and “by the end of my first school year, I was among the top students.” De la Pena, however, had the advantages of bilingual education: In Mexico, he was in the fifth grade, and was thus literate in Spanish and knew subject matter. In addition, when he started school in the United States he was put back two grades. His superior knowledge of subject matter helped make the English input he heard more comprehensible. Children who arrive with a good education in their primary language have already gained two of the three objectives of a good bilingual education program--literacy and subject matter knowledge. Their success is good evidence for bilingual education. What about Languages Other Than Spanish? Porter (1990) states that “even if there were a demonstrable advantage for Spanishspeakers learning to read first in their home language, it does not follow that the same holds true for speakers of languages that do not use the Roman alphabet” (p. 65). But it does. The ability to read transfers across languages, even when the writing systems are different. © 2017 5600 62 There is evidence that reading ability transfers from Chinese to English (Hoover, 1982), from Vietnamese to English (Cummins, Swain, Nakajima, Handscombe, Green, & Tran, 1984), from Japanese to English (Cummins et al.), and from Turkish to Dutch (Verhoeven, 1991). In other words, those who read well in one language, read well in the second language (as long as length of residence in the country is taken into account because of the first language loss that is common). Bilingual Education and Public Opinion Opponents of bilingual education tell us that the public is against bilingual education. This impression is a result of the way the question is asked. One can easily get a near-100-percent rejection of bilingual education when the question is biased. Porter (1990), for example, states that “Many parents are not committed to having the schools maintain the mother tongue if it is at the expense of gaining a sound education and the English-language skills needed for obtaining jobs or pursuing higher education” (p. 8). Who would support mother tongue education at such a price? However, when respondents are simply asked whether or not they support bilingual education, the degree of support is quite strong: From 60-99 percent of samples of parents and teachers say they support bilingual education (Krashen, 1996). In a series of studies, Shin (Shin, 1994; Shin & Gribbons, 1996) examined attitudes toward the principles underlying bilingual education. Shin found that many respondents agree with the idea that the first language can be helpful in providing background knowledge, most agree that literacy transfers across languages, and most support the principles underlying continuing bilingual education (economic and cognitive advantages). The number of people opposed to bilingual education is probably even less than these results suggest; many people who say they are opposed to bilingual education are actually opposed to certain practices (e.g., inappropriate placement of children) or are opposed to regulations connected to bilingual education (e.g., forcing teachers to acquire another language to keep their jobs). Despite what is presented to the public in the national media, research has revealed much support for bilingual education. McQuillan and Tse (in press) reviewed publications appearing between 1984 and 1994, and reported that 87 percent of academic publications supported bilingual education, but newspaper and magazine opinion articles tended to be antibilingual education, with only 45 percent supporting bilingual education. One wonders what public support would look like if bilingual education were more clearly defined in such articles and editorials. © 2017 5600 63 The Research Debate It is sometimes claimed that research does not support the efficacy of bilingual education. Its harshest critics, however (e.g., Rossell & Baker, 1996), do not claim that bilingual education does not work; instead, they claim there is little evidence that it is superior to all-English programs. Nevertheless, the evidence used against bilingual education is not convincing. One major problem is in labeling. Several critics, for example, have claimed that English immersion programs in El Paso and McAllen, Texas, were shown to be superior to bilingual education. In each case, however, programs labeled immersion were really bilingual education, with a substantial part of the day taught in the primary language. In another study, Gersten (1985) claimed that all-English immersion was better than bilingual education. However, the sample size was small and the duration of the study was short; also, no description of “bilingual education” was provided. For a detailed discussion, see Krashen (1996). On the other hand, a vast number of other studies have shown that bilingual education is effective, with children in well-designed programs acquiring academic English at least as well and often better than children in all-English programs (Cummins, 1989; Krashen, 1996; Willig, 1985). Willig concluded that the better the experimental design of the study, the more positive were the effects of bilingual education. Improving Bilingual Education Bilingual education has done well, but it can do much better. The biggest problem, in this author’s view, is the absence of books--in both the first and second languages--in the lives of students in these programs. Free voluntary reading can help all components of bilingual education: It can be a source of comprehensible input in English or a means for developing knowledge and literacy through the first language, and for continuing first language development. Limited-English-proficient Spanish-speaking children have little access to books at home (about 22 books per home for the entire family according to Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta, 1991) or at school (an average of one book in Spanish per Spanishspeaking child in some school libraries in schools with bilingual programs, according to Pucci, 1994). A book flood in both languages is clearly called for. Good bilingual programs have brought students to the 50th percentile on standardized tests of English reading by grade five (Burnham-Massey & Pina, 1990). But with a good supply of books in both first and second languages, students can go far beyond the 50th percentile. It is possible that we might then have the Lake Wobegon effect, where all of the children are above average, and we can finally do away with the tests (and put the money saved to much better use). © 2017 5600 64 References Burnham-Massey, L., & Pina, M. (1990). Effects of bilingual instruction on English academic achievement of LEP students. Reading Improvement, 27(2), 129-132. Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C. (1984). Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application, pp. 60-81. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. (ED 249 793) de la Pena, F. (1991). Democracy or Babel? The case for official English in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. English. Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language-minority students: Results of a longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187-196. Hoover, W. (1982). Language and literacy learning in bilingual education: Preliminary report. Cantonese site analytic study. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (ED 245 572) Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. McQuillan, J., & Tse, L. (in press). Does research matter? An analysis of media opinion on bilingual education, 1984-1994. Bilingual Research Journal. Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic Books. Pucci, S. L. (1994). Supporting Spanish language literacy: Latino children and free reading resources in schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1-2), 67-82. Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S., Ramey, D., & Pasta, D. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for language-minority children (Final Report, Vols. 1 & 2). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. (ED 330 216) Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. An © 2017 5600 65 autobiography. Boston: D. R. Godine. Rossell, C., & Baker, R. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74. Shin, F. (1994). Attitudes of Korean parents toward bilingual education. BEOutreach Newsletter, California State Department of Education, 5(2), pp. 47-48. Shin, F., & Gribbons, B. (1996). Hispanic parents’ perceptions and attitudes of bilingual education. Journal of Mexican-American Educators, 16-22. Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquisition of literacy. Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee (AILA) Review, 8, 61-74. Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-316. © 2017 5600 66 A Global Perspective on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education ERIC Digest Richard G. Tucker ED435168 The number of languages spoken throughout the world is estimated to be 6,000 (Grimes, 1992). Although a small number of languages, including Arabic, Bengali, English, French, Hindi, Malay, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish serve as important link languages or languages of wider communication around the world, these are very often spoken as second, third, fourth, or later-acquired languages. Fewer than 25% of the world’s approximately 200 countries recognize two or more official languages, with a mere handful recognizing more than two (e.g., India, Luxembourg, Nigeria). However, despite these conservative government policies, available data indicate that there are many more bilingual or multilingual individuals in the world than there are monolingual. In addition, there are many more children throughout the world who have been and continue to be educated through a second or a later-acquired language, at least for some portion of their formal education, than there are children educated exclusively via the first language. In many parts of the world, bilingualism or multilingualism and innovative approaches to education that involve the use of two or more languages constitute the normal everyday experience (see, e.g., Dutcher, 1994; World Bank, 1995). The results from published, longitudinal, and critical research undertaken in varied settings throughout the world indicate clearly that the development of multiple language proficiency is possible, and indeed that it is viewed as desirable by educators, policy makers, and parents in many countries. Multiple Languages in Education The use of multiple languages in education may be attributed to numerous factors, such as the linguistic heterogeneity of a country or region, specific social or religious attitudes, or the desire to promote national identity. In addition, innovative language education programs are often implemented to promote proficiency in international language(s) of wider communication together with proficiency in national and regional languages. In Eritrea, for instance, an educated person will likely have had some portion of their schooling in Tigrigna and Arabic and English, and will have developed proficiency in reading all these languages, which are written using three different scripts (Ge’ez, Arabic, and Roman). In Papua New Guinea, a country with a population of approximately 3 million, linguists have described more than 870 languages (Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995). Here it is common for a child to grow up speaking one local indigenous language at home, © 2017 5600 67 to speak another in the market place, to add Tok Pisin to her repertoire as a lingua franca, and to learn English if she continues her schooling. Analogous situations recur in many parts of the world in countries where multilingualism predominates and in which children are exposed to numerous languages as they move from their homes out into surrounding communities and eventually through the formal education system. Research on the Use of the First and Second Languages in Education A comprehensive review of research on the use of first and second languages in education, carried out for the World Bank (Dutcher, 1994), examined three different types of countries: (1) those with no (or few) mother tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Haiti, Nigeria, the Philippines); (2) those with some mother tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Guatemala); and (3) those with many mother tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Canada, New Zealand, the United States). Several conclusions can be drawn from this study: • • • • • • • • Success in school depends upon the child’s mastery of cognitive/academic language, which is very different from the social language used at home. The development of cognitive/academic language requires time (4 to 7 years of formal instruction). Individuals most easily develop literacy skills in a familiar language. Individuals most easily develop cognitive skills and master content material when they are taught in a familiar language. Cognitive/academic language skills, once developed, and content subject material, once acquired, transfer readily from one language to another. The best predictor of cognitive/academic language development in a second language is the level of development of cognitive/academic language proficiency in the first language. Children learn a second language in different ways depending upon their culture and their individual personality. If the goal is to help the student ultimately develop the highest possible degree of content mastery and second language proficiency, time spent instructing the child in a familiar language is a wise investment. Common Threads of Successful Programs In the research review conducted for the World Bank (Dutcher, 1994), the following common threads were identified in successful programs that aimed to provide students with multiple language proficiency and with access to academic content material. © 2017 5600 68 • • • • • • Development of the mother tongue is encouraged to promote cognitive development and as a basis for learning the second language. Parental and community support and involvement are essential. Teachers are able to understand, speak, and use with a high level of proficiency the language of instruction, whether it is their first or second language. Teachers are well trained, have cultural competence and subject-matter knowledge, and continually upgrade their training. Recurrent costs for innovative programs are approximately the same as they are for traditional programs, although there may be additional one-time start-up costs. Cost benefit calculations can typically be estimated in terms of the cost savings to the education system, improvements in years of schooling, and enhanced earning potential for students with multiple language proficiency. Cross-Cutting Themes Two cross-cutting themes that appear critical for policy or planning discussions within the domain of language education reform are discussed below. “Nurturing the first language.” Despite decades of sound educational research, there still remains a belief in many quarters that when an additional language is introduced into a curriculum, the child must go back and relearn the academic concepts already mastered. Although there remains much to be learned about the contexts and strategies that facilitate transfer across languages, the fact that such transfer occurs should not be a topic of debate. The work of Hakuta (1986) and his colleagues provides clear evidence that a child who acquires basic literacy or numeracy concepts in one language can transfer these concepts and knowledge easily to a second or third or other later-acquired languages. The literature and our practical experience are replete with examples confirming the importance of nurturing the child’s mother tongue. Gonzalez (1998), in particular, writes and speaks especially compellingly about the need to develop basic functions of literacy, numeracy, and scientific discourse in the first language to the fullest extent possible while facilitating transfer to the second language. “Importation of models versus importation of cycles of discovery.” Swain (1996) described the need to “transfer” the stages and processes of evaluation, theory building, generation of hypotheses, experimentation, and further evaluation that will help to ensure the implementation of programs appropriate for the unique sociocultural contexts in which they will operate. That is, she cautioned that it is not a particular model of innovative language education (and, in particular, a Western model) that should be transferred but rather a “cycle of discovery” that should be transferred. Swain reminded us that the so-called threshold levels of second © 2017 5600 69 language skills required for successful participation in formal education may differ dramatically across content areas, and that a majority of children face a language gap that must be bridged when they move from learning the target language to using the target language as a medium of instruction. Many policy makers have characterized bilingual education as a high risk undertaking, by which they mean that it is necessary to attend to a complex set of interacting educational, sociolinguistic, economic, and political factors. Key Issues Warranting Further Attention Based upon a review of available literature, four areas have been identified that appear to deserve additional attention. These include (1) sociolinguistic research throughout the world; (2) a more thorough examination of the concept and parameters of transfer; (3) materials development, reproduction, and distribution in the truly less commonly spoken languages (e.g., the majority of the African languages spoken in Namibia); and (4) development of a cadre of trained teachers who are proficient speakers of these languages. Despite several decades of extensive sociolinguistic fieldwork in many areas, there remains much to be done to describe the language situation in many parts of the world. Many of the world’s languages have yet to be written, codified, or elaborated. Furthermore, there are no materials available for initial literacy training or for advanced education; nor are there teachers who have been trained to teach via many of the world’s languages. These are all issues that have been identified as crucial by the World Bank (1995) in a recent report of priorities and strategies for enhancing educational development in the 21st century. They are issues that must be dealt with effectively before systemic reform that will encourage multilingual proficiency can be widely implemented. Questions to Address Regarding Multilingual Education in Your Community The cumulative evidence from research conducted over the last three decades at sites around the world demonstrates conclusively that cognitive, social, personal, and economic benefits accrue to the individual who has an opportunity to develop a high degree of bilingual proficiency when compared with a monolingual counterpart. Below are a number of important questions to be addressed whenever parents, educators, and administrators discuss the prospects of multilingual education for their communities. What are the explicit or implicit goals for formal education in the region? • Is there general satisfaction throughout the region with the level of educational attainment by all participants (both those who terminate their education relatively early and those who wish to go on to tertiary studies)? • Is the region relatively homogeneous or is it heterogeneous linguistically and © 2017 5600 70 • • • • • • culturally, and how would bilingual education complement the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the community? Does the region have an explicit or implicit policy with respect to the role of language in education, and how would bilingual education fit or not fit with this existing policy? Is this policy based upon tradition or the result of language (education) planning? What priorities are accorded to goals such as the development of broadly based permanent functional literacy, the value of education for those who may permanently interrupt their schooling at an early age, and the power of language to foster national identity and cohesiveness? Are the language(s) selected for instruction written, codified, standardized, and elaborated? Is there a well developed curriculum for the various levels/stages of formal education--that is, a framework that specifies fairly explicitly a set of language, content, cognitive, and affective objectives that are then tied to or illustrated by exemplary techniques, activities, and supported by written materials? Are sufficient core and reference materials available for teachers and students in the language(s) of instruction? If not, are there trained individuals available who can prepare such materials? Is there a sufficient number of trained and experienced teachers who are fluent speakers of the language(s) of instruction and who are trained to teach via that language(s)? References Dutcher, N., in collaboration with Tucker, G.R. (1994). The use of first and second languages in education: A review of educational experience. Washington, DC: World Bank, East Asia and the Pacific Region, Country Department III. Gonzalez, A. (1998). Teaching in two or more languages in the Philippine context. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 192-205). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Grimes, B.F. (1992). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1995). A survey of vernacular education programming at the provincial level within Papua New Guinea. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Author. © 2017 5600 71 Swain, M. (1996). Discovering successful second language teaching strategies and practices: From program evaluation to classroom experimentation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17, 89-104. World Bank. (1995). Priorities and strategies for education. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. © 2017 5600 72 The following guidelines have been issued by the Texas Education Agency regarding the instruction of students of limited English proficiency (LEP). Although this document references Texas’ state requirements, the information provided is relevant to bilingual instruction in all states. Bilingual Education Strategies Every school district is responsible for providing all students an English language arts program that includes the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) of oral communication, reading with comprehension, composition, and the mechanics of language. Students of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) will need to receive instruction in language arts as a subject as well as language as medium for instruction in required subjects other than language. Administrators should provide a quality language arts program that develops expanded meaning of language, builds vocabulary, and teaches word recognition and comprehension techniques to both LEP and native English-speaking students. English-speaking students in the regular classroom have acquired prereading and basic reading abilities they can add to the specific requirements a language arts program demands. Therefore, these students have a good start in attaining a mental framework upon which to establish the additional competencies needed for successful reading in a language arts program. The content areas must be taught in the primary language as well as in English commensurate to the student’s needs in the Bilingual program. Bilingual teachers need to teach the ESL TEKS when instructing students in the content areas as well as language arts and reading. Particular attention needs to be paid to the modifications stated in the TEKS. On the other hand, the LEP student who is struggling to speak, read, and comprehend the English language will have few, if any, of the pre-skills necessary for academic success in language arts. The reading requirements are often extensive and unrealistic, and these students’ comprehension of the abstract concepts basic to reading comprehension is minimal. Success in mastering language arts concepts is possible only to the extent that the LEP students have acquired the basic oral proficiency and reading skills, specialized abilities, and knowledge demanded in the content area. To ensure that a quality English language arts program is provided for LEP students: • • © Instruction must include all the characteristics of a quality English language arts program for native speakers of English Administrators must provide this program through a required bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program 2017 5600 73 Transferring Skills between Languages Transfer is the process of connecting prior learning to present learning. Bilingual education as a mode for teaching English language arts is based upon the positive transfer process whereby original learning in the primary language boosts comprehension and retention of information given in the course of English instruction. Recent research on effective schools includes Effective Teaching Practices (ETPs) in the areas of: • • • • Teaching strategies Time on task Feedback techniques Learning climate Enumeration of these strategies as they affect LEP students provides administrators and teachers with some important indicators of the quality of the programs they are directing. Teachers and administrators should be aware that: • • • • Teachers need to provide information in a way that is clearly understood. For the LEP student, this means that instruction may need to be given in the student’s primary language and through ESL. Appropriate variations of instructional strategies increase the probability that students will master, retain, and transfer knowledge and skills. LEP students are best able to absorb knowledge through the language they know. Therefore, their English proficiency is strengthened through ESL until English becomes an appropriate modality for learning the language arts Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Teachers should differentiate instruction for LEP students according to their entry-level language skills. Students understand complicated concepts by transferring known language competency to English and by developing conversational language abilities to abstract academic levels. When they are acquiring English language skills and simultaneously receiving reading instruction in print as well as orally, LEP students should concentrate on developing these basic competencies: • • © Word recognition techniques to build reading vocabulary Comprehension of phrases, sentences, and expressions peculiar to reading instruction, syntax and grammar, and speaking skills 2017 5600 74 • • Ability to organize and sequence information logically Ability to follow specific oral and written directions A LEP student would have difficulty learning to speak, read and write a second language while simultaneously trying to comprehend complex reading passages. Therefore, a teacher specializing in language arts must consider two relevant and basic questions: • • • How much prior skill and knowledge of the field does the student possess? How effectively is the student able to read the passages assigned? What is the academic level of the student in all of the content areas in the primary language? Unless the student has significant prior skill and knowledge and can effectively read the text, modifications of the lesson delivery will be necessary. Modifying the Language Arts Curriculum for LEP Students Educators employ two distinct programs, Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language (ESL), to modify the general education program to teach English language arts to students limited in English proficiency (LEP). A bilingual education program makes use of a LEP student’s native language as well as English. An ESL program uses the second language, English, as the medium of instruction along with adaptive methodologies. The instructional staff should assess LEP students’ language abilities to determine which language should convey the content of the course. The selection of the appropriate medium is dependent on the language strengths and maturities of LEP students. LEP students vary in the extent of language proficiency that they bring to the classroom. Some students come to school without English language skills or with some basic word knowledge in English but are not able to communicate well with teachers or peers. Other students come to school with academic language proficiency in their primary language, but have not acquired sufficient content vocabulary in English to enable them to complete their classroom assignments or participate in oral assignments. Many students come to school with some knowledge of English and some proficiency in their primary language, but still need intensive language development in both languages. It is imperative that a careful diagnosis of language proficiency be done in English and, if possible, in the primary language. After the LEP students’ language characteristics have been determined, teachers can identify the appropriate instructional methods, material, and pacing necessary to ensure mastery. © 2017 5600 75 General Principles of Modification for Language Arts In a bilingual education program, teachers provide the regular curriculum through dual language use to meet students’ academic needs. They modify the instructional program by altering the language in which the content is conveyed; however, they would not alter the scope of the curriculum in a bilingual education program. District planners should design their curriculum to ensure mastery of the English language arts Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). The curriculum that results from a dual language program should: • • • • • emphasize acquisition of basic skills foster the critical thinking process stimulate continuous reorganization of the information presented encourage further investigation of the information presented use multiple learning styles Bilingual or ESL certified instructors may also form teams with other teaching or support personnel to develop supplementary programs for LEP students. Parent volunteers and paraprofessionals can work with regular instructional personnel cooperatively to deliver the needed programs in accordance with State Board rules. In other specific modifications appropriate for teaching the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), teachers may include instructional strategies with the following objectives: • • • • • • • • to help students build card files on needed vocabulary to show the same information through a variety of visual aids to encourage students to underline key words or important passages in written student assignments to teach vocabulary helpful in grouping words, language arts concepts, and techniques into meaningful categories to pair students for team learning to teach English expressions and colloquialisms to teach prefixes and suffixes peculiar to the English language to develop and translate meanings through the language arts materials and context rather than providing mere translation in the vernacular which does not guarantee the same meaning in the native language and often creates confusion Further, instructional personnel should be alert to language and concepts that may be unclear in materials used because of cultural differences. © 2017 5600 76 Modifications in Pacing and Teaching Strategies for Language Arts The LEP students’ program must be paced according to language and academic abilities. Teachers should give consideration to the progression of language development; listening, speaking, reading, writing. They may make modifications in the language of instruction in accordance with each student’s language ability, a factor that also should govern pacing of instruction. In an ESL program, pacing modifications concentrate on vocabulary and concept development; in a bilingual program, dual language instruction concentrates on a process approach to the content area. Instructional personnel should carefully investigate course selections and placement at the students’ instructional levels in textbooks. Additional modifications may include the following: • • • • • • • • • • to explain special vocabulary terms in words known to the students to write shorter and less complex sentences to assign short homework tasks that require reading to teach the words that signal sequence to check understanding of written language that may convey complex concepts to rewrite story problems in simpler English by using shorter sentences and pictures to teach new vocabulary in each day’s unit and to review terms already mastered to tape short stories for independent listening assignments to de-emphasize speed and emphasize accuracy of reading to help students organize their materials, set realistic goals, and develop independent study habits Modifications of Materials Needed for Language Arts All materials, whether state-adopted textbooks in Spanish and English, teachermade lessons, or district-developed aids to instruction, should be modified to meet the students’ academic needs. Administrators and curriculum supervisors might encourage classroom instructors to: • • • • © provide numerous pictures to illustrate new words offer a variety of reference materials at the student’s instructional level for independent use keep a variety of word games to be played by pairs of students or small groups use cartoons and leave the bubbles above the speakers blank to be filled in by the students 2017 5600 77 • • • • • • have students prepare glossaries of reading terms use drawings to identify concepts and relationships maintain a library of supplementary reference books, workbooks, and other materials that are written in simple English and that offer additional reading samples that are well illustrated provide films, records, filmstrips, and other materials that may be used independently or in small groups help students improve writing skills by highlighting transitional devices used in writing samples use pictures and other visual aids to assist in comparison and contrasts for comprehension of concepts General Principles of Modification for Mathematics To meet the instructional needs of the LEP student through bilingual education and ESL programs, districts may modify their programs for learning English and for mastering the mathematics Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) required. The program as modified in an ESL language program should begin: • • • • • To emphasize and reinforce the concepts and ideas of mathematics as the students learn English To emphasize acquisition of basic mathematics skills To foster the thinking process To stimulate continuous reorganization of previously learned ideas To support multiple learning styles In an ESL program, the sequence in which the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are presented may be modified to accommodate the students’ progress in acquiring English language skills. Emphasis on oral and visual stimuli aids students in comprehending concepts English-speaking students develop through written material. Modification of Methods for Mathematics Instructional strategies may include the following objectives: • • • • • © To help students build card files and glossaries on mathematics vocabulary To show the same information through a variety of different graphs and visuals To encourage students to underline key words or important facts in their written assignments To encourage students to underline key words into meaningful groups To pair students for team learning 2017 5600 78 • • • • • To teach English expressions for mathematical operations such as “square”, “add”, and “multiply” To teach measurement terms through use of the actual instruments and devices whenever possible To teach the names of currency, coins, and monetary units To teach words that indicate quantitative relationships such as “more”, “less”, “larger”, and “twice as many” To teach prefixes peculiar to the language of mathematics such as “bi”, “deci”, “centi”, and “kilo” Modifications may also include the teaming of bilingual or ESL certified instructors with personnel on emergency teaching permits to develop supplementary programs for LEP students. Parent volunteers and paraprofessionals can work with regular instructional personnel cooperatively to deliver the needed programs in accordance with the State Board rules. Modification of Pacing and Placement for Mathematics The LEP students’ program must be paced according to language and academic abilities and should employ teaching strategies that take these students’ unique needs into consideration. Modifications may also involve placement of a student at an instructional level determined by what courses the students have successfully completed. Course selection and choice of state-adopted textbooks should be carefully supervised by teachers, counselors and administrators. Teachers of LEP students should teach the ESL TEKS and pay special attention to the modifications specified in them. In an ESL program, pacing modifications concentrate on vocabulary and concept development. In addition, teachers may be able: • • • • • • • • • © to explain special vocabulary terms in words known to the student to write instructions and problems using shorter and less complex sentences to prepare a sequence of ordinal numbers and identify the ordinal position of each one to extend understanding by writing the appropriate numerical symbol and word (i.e., “1st-first”) to assign short homework tasks that require reading to limit the number of problems that must be worked to emphasize special mathematical meanings of words commonly used in English to tape record problems for independent listening assignments to de-emphasize speed and emphasize accuracy of work 2017 5600 79 Modification of Materials for Mathematics All materials, whether state-adopted textbooks in Spanish, teacher-made lessons, or district-developed aids for instruction, should be modified to meet the students’ academic needs. Administrators and curriculum supervisors can encourage the classroom instructor: • • • • • • • • to provide numerous pictures to illustrate new words to offer a variety of reference materials at the student’s instructional level for independent use to keep a variety of number games to be played by pairs of students or small groups to maintain a library of supplementary books and workbooks written in simple English which offer additional illustrations for problems to keep listening tapes on mathematical problems for individual assignments to help students prepare glossaries of mathematics terms to encourage the use of diagrams and drawings as aids to identifying concepts and seeing relationships Texas Education Agency Bilingual/ESL Unit August 2004 Instructional Strategies for English Language Learners to support reading in mathematics by having films, records, filmstrips, and other materials which may be used independently or in small groups General Principles of Modification for Social Studies (SS) To meet the instructional needs of the LEP student through bilingual education and English as a second language programs, districts should modify their programs for learning English and for mastering the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) required in social studies programs. Assessments of mastery should be consistent with the method of instruction used and may be conducted in the primary language or in English. Teachers of SS need to teach the ESL TEKS when teaching SS with English as a second language methodology. Particular attention needs to be paid to the modifications stated in the TEKS. In a bilingual education program, the regular curriculum is provided through dual language use to meet students’ instructional needs. The districts have the responsibility to ensure that instructors modify curriculum according to the learning styles and instructional needs of various students. The social studies curriculum that results from a dual language or ESL program should begin: • • • © to foster the critical thinking process to stimulate continuous reorganization of previously learned ideas to encourage further investigation of the information presented 2017 5600 80 Modification of Methods for Social Studies Instructional strategies may also include the following objectives: • • • • • • • • • • • • to help students build individual card files on needed vocabulary for social studies to show the same information through a variety of different graphs and visuals to build vocabulary needed to read maps and legends as these are discussed to encourage students to underline key words or important facts in their written assignments to teach necessary vocabulary for sorting categories of social studies concepts into groups and to explain this vocabulary in words known to the student to use student pairs for team learning (cooperative learning) especially for reports to teach the vocabulary helpful in evaluating material for logic of written expression and for categorizing as opinion or fact to write shorter and less complex sentences and paragraphs with fewer sentences for easier comprehension to use language experience techniques in discussing concepts and ideas to teach the words that signal sequence to check understanding of written language that may convey complex concepts to show students how to use a timeline to arrange and sequence important facts Modification of the Pacing and Placement for Social Studies Appropriate pacing may require reordering the sequence in which Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are provided until some degree of reading comprehension is reached. Further secondary LEP students, whose academic needs require fulfillment of graduation credits, will need assistance in pacing course selection to accommodate their language and academic abilities. Modifications may also involve placement to the student at an instructional level determined by what courses the student has successfully completed. Textbooks should be chosen to meet the student’s instructional needs. Informal reading inventories in the primary language and in English may be used to determine both instructional level and appropriate textbooks. © 2017 5600 81 Modification of Materials for Social Studies Social studies state-adopted textbooks are available at the elementary level in the primary language (English, Spanish). Districts can also design their own appropriate instructional materials in the primary language by using social studies Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) as the content guide. In ESL programs, the district may use the state-adopted social studies textbooks adapted to ESL methodologies. Other instructional materials such as teacher-made and commercially-made products should be modified to adjust for the students’ language and academic abilities. Additional suggestions for modifications may be: • • • • • • • • • • • to provide a number of pictures to illustrate new words to offer a variety of reference materials at the students’ instructional levels for independent use to use cartoons and leave the balloons above the speakers blank, to be filled in by the students to collect many of the available comic books that portray historic and cultural events in simplified language to provide biographies of significant men and women from different cultures to prepare difficult passages from textbooks on tape for listening activities to use outline maps for students to practice writing in the details and labels to support reading instruction in the social studies by maintaining films, records, filmstrips, and other materials which may be used independently or in small groups to present clear illustrations and concrete examples to assist the student in understanding complex concepts and skills to highlight written materials for readability by enlarging the size of print, by organizing chapters meaningfully, and by writing headings that show introductions for transition from one idea to another to use pictures, tables, maps, diagrams, globes, and other visual aids to assist in comparison and contrast for comprehension of concepts. General Principles of Modification for Science To meet the instructional needs of the LEP student through bilingual education and ESL programs, districts have the responsibility to modify their curriculum according to the learning styles and different instructional needs of various students. The program as modified for either dual language or ESL instructional should begin: • • • © to foster the critical thinking process to stimulate continuous reorganization of previously learned ideas to encourage further investigation of the information presented 2017 5600 82 Modification of Methods for Science The interdisciplinary nature of science experience provides students with opportunities to apply skills acquired in other content areas while in the process of acquiring science skills. Modifications may need to be made especially if the science activity requires reading or writing. Instructional strategies may include the following objectives: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • to practice cause and effect relationships in the environment, laboratory, and on field trips facilitated by providing language and visual cues to teach the special vocabulary of the scientist, particularly verbs such as discover, classify, and hypothesis to help students build notebooks of their hypotheses, materials, procedures, data, and conclusions or experiments and field experiences to ask numerous questions which require higher level thinking responses to limit the number of variables in laboratory experiments to show the same information through a variety of different charts and visuals to develop meanings through the science materials and activities rather than in terms of the equivalent words of the students’ vernacular since direct translations often do not convey the exact meaning to stress definitions of terms based on the students’ observations to read a variety of sources to highlight contributions of scientists, inventors, and researchers to contrast interrogative, negative, and affirmative statements drawn from the science lesson to encourage careful, thoughtful reading of short selections in which one main idea is presented to encourage students to underline key words or important facts in written assignments to teach interrogative words and expressions and show how they are used in science to answer such questions as who, how, when, and where and higher level questions to encourage complete sentences, correct spelling, and accuracy of expression of science methods and language Modification of the Pacing and Placement for Science Appropriate pacing may require reordering the sequence in which Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are provided until some degree of reading comprehension is reached. Further, secondary LEP students, whose academic needs require fulfillment of graduation credits, will need assistance in pacing course selections to accommodate their language and academic abilities. © 2017 5600 83 Modifications may also involve placement of the student at an instructional level determined by what courses the student has successfully completed. Textbooks should be chosen to meet the student’s instructional need. Informal reading inventories in the primary language and in English may be used to determine both instructional level and appropriate textbooks. Modification of Materials for Science Along with the instructional approaches and pacing modifications noted, modifications of the instructional materials may also be needed for LEP students. For districts with a bilingual education program, state-adopted science textbooks in Spanish are available. Districts may also design appropriate instructional materials in Spanish by incorporating the science Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in the content guide. In the ESL programs, the district may use the state-adopted science textbooks adapted to ESL methodologies. Other instructional materials such as teacher-made and commercially-made products should be modified according to the students’ language and academic abilities. Additional suggestions for modification may include the following: • • • • • • • • to provide a number of pictures to illustrate terms such as names of living things, weather patterns, and parts of the body to develop interests and arouse curiosity through hands-on experiences, outof-doors pictures, newspaper clippings, and periodicals to use cartoons and leave the balloons above the speakers blank, to be filled in by the students to have students prepare collections of science objects such as rocks and leaves to prepare difficult passages from textbooks on tape for listening activities to support reading instruction in science by having films, records, filmstrips, and other materials which may be used independently or in small groups to present clear illustrations and concrete examples to assist the student in understanding complex concepts and skills to highlight written materials for readability by enlarging the size of the print, by organizing chapters meaningfully, and by writing headings that show introductions for transition from one idea to another Adapted and revised by TEA, July 2004. © 2017 5600 84 In addition to understanding the rationale for and practices to support bilingual or ESL programs, it is important for teachers to understand how to engage ELLs in learning and to understand their learner’s home and cultural contexts. The following three articles focus more specifically on this need. Strategies for Success: Engaging Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools ERIC Digest Aída Walqui ED442300 High dropout rates among language-minority secondary school students are one indication that many schools are failing to adequately support the needs of these students. The belief that student dropout is due to a lack of proficiency in English often leads educators to overlook the economic, cultural, academic, and personal issues that immigrant adolescents must confront on a daily basis. To be effective, programs must begin with a compassionate understanding of these students and recognize and build on the identity, language, and knowledge they already possess. Instruction developed for native-English-speaking students may not be appropriate for students who are still learning English. To engage immigrant adolescents in school, educators must provide them with avenues to explore and strengthen their ethnic identities and languages while developing their ability to study and work in this country. Ten Principles of Effective Instruction for Diverse Students 1. The culture of the classroom fosters the development of a community of learners, and all students are part of that community. Immigrant teenagers bring a variety of experiences to the classroom that, if tapped, can serve as a springboard for new explorations that enrich everyone’s experience. In effective classrooms, teachers and students together construct a culture that values the strengths of all participants and respects their interests, abilities, languages, and dialects. Students and teachers shift among the roles of expert, researcher, learner, and teacher, supporting themselves and each other. 2. Good language teaching involves conceptual and academic development. Effective English as a second language (ESL) classes focus on themes and develop skills that are relevant to teenagers and to their studies in mainstream academic classes. Immigrant students need to learn not only new content, but also the language and discourse associated with the discipline. Therefore, all subject matter classes must have a language focus as well. © 2017 5600 85 Effective teaching prepares students for high-quality academic work by focusing their attention on key processes and ideas and engaging them in interactive tasks that allow them to practice using these processes and concepts. ESL teachers need to know the linguistic, cognitive, and academic demands that they are preparing their students for and help them develop the necessary proficiencies. Content-area teachers need to determine the core knowledge and skills that these students need to master. 3. Students’ experiential backgrounds provide a point of departure and an anchor in the exploration of new ideas. Immigrant adolescents know a great deal about the world, and this knowledge can provide the basis for understanding new concepts in a new language. Students will learn new concepts and language only when they build on previous knowledge and understanding. Some students have been socialized into lecture and recitation approaches to teaching, and they expect teachers to tell them what lessons are about. But by engaging in activities that involve predicting, inferring based on prior knowledge, and supporting conclusions with evidence, students will realize that they can learn actively and that working in this way is fun and stimulating. 4. Teaching and learning focus on substantive ideas that are organized cyclically. To work effectively with English learners, teachers must select the themes and concepts that are central to their discipline and to the curriculum. The curriculum should be organized around the cyclical reintroduction of concepts at progressively higher levels of complexity and interrelatedness. Cyclical organization of subject matter leads to a natural growth in the understanding of ideas and to gradual correction of misunderstandings. 5. New ideas and tasks are contextualized. English language learners often have problems trying to make sense of decontextualized language. This situation is especially acute in the reading of textbooks. Secondary school textbooks are usually linear, dry, and dense, with few illustrations. Embedding the language of textbooks in a meaningful context by using manipulatives, pictures, a few minutes of a film, and other types of realia can make language comprehensible to students. Teachers may also provide context by creating analogies based on students’ experiences. However, this requires that the teacher learn about students’ backgrounds, because metaphors or analogies that may work well with native English speakers may not clarify meanings for English language learners. In this sense, good teachers of immigrant students continually search for metaphors and analogies that bring complex ideas closer to the students’ world experiences. © 2017 5600 86 6. Academic strategies, sociocultural expectations, and academic norms are taught explicitly. Effective teachers develop students’ sense of autonomy through the explicit teaching of strategies that enable them to approach academic tasks successfully. The teaching of such metacognitive strategies is a way of scaffolding instruction; the goal is to gradually hand over responsibility to the learners as they acquire skills and knowledge. Delpit (1995) argues that the discourse of power--the language used in this country to establish and maintain social control--should also be taught explicitly, because it is not automatically acquired. Guidance and modeling can go a long way toward promoting awareness of and facility with this discourse. For example, preferred and accepted ways of talking, writing, and presenting are culture specific. Developing student awareness of differences, modeling by teachers of preferred styles, and study by students themselves of differences and preferred styles are three steps in the development of proficiency and autonomy that need to be included in the education of language minority students. 7. Tasks are relevant, meaningful, engaging, and varied. Some research indicates that most classes for immigrant students are monotonous, teacher-fronted, and directed to the whole class; teacher monologues are the rule (Ramírez & Merino, 1990). If students do not interact with each other, they do not have opportunities to construct their own understandings and often become disengaged. Because immigrant students are usually well behaved in class, teachers are not always aware that they are bored and are not learning. Good classes for immigrant students not only provide them with access to important ideas and skills, but also engage them in their own constructive development of understandings. 8. Complex and flexible forms of collaboration maximize learners’ opportunities to interact while making sense of language and content. Collaboration is essential for second language learners, because to develop language proficiency they need opportunities to use the language in meaningful, purposeful, and enticing interactions (Kagan & McGroarty, 1993). Collaborative work needs to provide every student with substantial and equitable opportunities to participate in open exchange and elaborated discussions. It must move beyond simplistic conceptions that assign superficial roles, such as being the “go getter” or the “time keeper” for the group (Adger et al., 1995). In these collaborative groups, the teacher is no longer the authority figure. Students work autonomously, taking responsibility for their own learning. The teacher provides a task that invites and requires each student’s participation and hands over to the students the responsibility for accomplishing the task or solving the problem. 9. Students are given multiple opportunities to extend their understandings and apply their knowledge. © 2017 5600 87 One of the goals of learning is to be able to apply acquired knowledge to novel situations. For English learners, these applications reinforce the development of new language, concepts, and academic skills as students actively draw connections between pieces of knowledge and their contexts. Understanding a topic of study involves being able to carry out a variety of cognitively demanding tasks (Perkins, 1993). 10. Authentic assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning. Assessment should be done not only by teachers, but also by learners, who assess themselves and each other. Considerable research supports the importance of selfmonitoring of language learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1989). Authentic assessment activities engage second language learners in self-directed learning, in the construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry, and in the analysis of problems they encounter. Calexico High School in Calexico, California, is attempting to put the principles described above into practice. Calexico is a bilingual/bicultural community on the southern border of the United States; 98% of the students are Latino, and 80% are English language learners. Once an unsupportive environment for English language learners, Calexico High School now operates with a philosophy that is based on such principles as respect for students’ culture, language, and background; a strong belief that all students can learn; and equal opportunities for all students to pursue further education. Calexico staff view bilingualism as an asset for the future and strive to develop academic proficiency, regardless of language. They have eliminated the tracking system and have high expectations for all students. An efficient system of counseling is in place that provides support ranging from interventions to sustain or improve academic success to coordination with agencies outside the school that provide social services. Groups of students are organized into academies and supervised by teams of teachers to help all students feel connected academically. In addition, the school actively involves parents by holding all school meetings in Spanish and English and by having bilingual/bicultural staff that develop and maintain connections between home and school. Learning English is given utmost importance. However, teachers realize that developing second language fluency is a long process, and that while it is essential to continue supporting and nurturing language development, cognitive growth also has an impact on long-range academic outcomes. Strong support is given to continuous development of students’ academic skills. Three language options are available for required courses: They may be taught through Spanish, English, or sheltered English. The same number of credits are © 2017 5600 88 granted for all options, and all options provide academically challenging study for students that will open doors to postsecondary education and other opportunities. Through their commitment to providing all students with more opportunities to succeed, the staff at Calexico High School have created a highly effective secondary school program for immigrant students. (For a description of other successful secondary school programs for immigrant students, see Walqui, 2000). Conclusion The ten principles of effective programs discussed in this digest can contribute to the success of immigrant secondary school students by creating positive and engaging learning contexts. A strong commitment to the educational success of immigrant students is ultimately the foundation for all successful programs. For society, this commitment involves supporting the development of effective programs through resources, funding, professional development, and research. References Adger, C., Kalyanpur, M., Peterson, D., & Bridger, T. (1995). Engaging students: Thinking, talking, cooperating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press. Kagan, S., & McGroarty, M. (1993). Principles of cooperative learning for language and content gains. In D.D. Holt (Ed.), Cooperative learning: A response to linguistic and cultural diversity (pp.47-66). McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics. O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1989). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Perkins, D. (1993). An apple for education: Teaching and learning for understanding (EdPress Elam Lecture, Rowan College of New Jersey). Glasboro, NJ: EdPress. Ramírez, J.D., & Merino, B.J. (1990). Classroom talk in English immersion, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs. In R. Jacobson & C. Faltis (Eds.), Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 61-103). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Walqui, A. (2000). Access and engagement: Program design and instructional approaches for immigrant students in secondary schools. McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics. © 2017 5600 89 This digest was prepared with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008. © 2017 5600 90 Effective Approaches to Teaching Young Mexican Immigrant Children ERIC Digest. Julia Reguero de Atiles, Martha Allexsaht-Snider ED471491 Of the 22 million children currently enrolled in schools in the United States, more than 2 million have limited English proficiency (Macias, 2000). Preschoolers and elementary-age children make up the greatest proportion of the immigrant student population. Given these demographic trends, many teachers need support in educating young children from diverse linguistic backgrounds (Soto, 1991). The following review outlines strategies for working with Mexican and other immigrant children. The effectiveness of these research-based approaches has been affirmed by teachers. Myths About the Second-Language Learner A teacher’s limited experience with second-language learners may lead her to believe that using the child’s home language interferes with the child’s ability to learn English (McLaughlin, 1992). Well-educated and less-educated bilingual parents frequently relate stories of well-meaning teachers who advised them, “You should stop speaking Spanish at home so your child can learn English.” Because language and culture are intimately related, Byrnes and Cortez (1992) note that disregarding a child’s native language is denying a part of who the child is and the cultural background the child brings to school. In addition, parent-child communication can be eroded if parents are persuaded that speaking in their native language is not in their child’s best interest (Fillmore, 1991). Research literature indicates that bilingualism is in the best interest of children; the intellectual experience of learning two languages contributes to concept formation and mental flexibility (Cummins, 1991; Garcia, 1986; Genishi, 2002). When teachers respect and promote the development of the first language and encourage maintenance of the home culture, children feel cared for and connected to their family, school, and community (McGroarty, 1986). Language Acquisition Process Language acquisition is a complex process that may take a minimum of 12 years (Collier, 1989). Even when children seem to understand and express themselves in a second language, they may not have mastered more complex uses of the language that incorporate content knowledge in different subjects (August & Hakuta, 1997). The National Association for the Education of Young Children (1996) advises that © 2017 5600 91 when we set unrealistic expectations too early, school assessments of seemingly proficient children may identify them as lacking vocabulary and problem-solving skills. Misreading the language development process can result in immigrant children being over-referred to special education (Baca & Cervantes, 1998; Harry, 1994). Teaching Strategies for Early Strategies for Early Childhood Teachers Encourage development of the first language. As we encourage children to maintain their first language we also support the development of the second language. When students feel relaxed and confident, language learning is maximized (Krashen, 1992). We know that literacy developed in the first language will transfer to the second language (Ada, 1993; Garcia, 1986; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Teachers and families can use materials, such as children’s books in Spanish, to build children’s confidence in their literacy skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Provide visible signs of ch...
Purchase answer to see full attachment