English Language Learners Composition Now that you are familiar with several bilingual program models and the English Language Instructional Programs in yo
English Language Learners Composition Now that you are familiar with several bilingual program models and the English Language Instructional Programs in your state (TEXAS), describe how you will meet the needs of ELLs in your classroom. Discuss instructional approaches and responsibilities specific to your content area (ENGLISH). The rubric and reading are provided 5600: Assignment 3 Rubric
Comparison of Program Models Essay
Assignment
Unsatisfactory (1)
Characteristic
Understanding Candidate has not
of State Law
named state-specific
requirements for the
education of ELL
students.
Basic (2)
Proficient (3)
Exemplary (4)
Candidate has named
state-specific requirements
for the education of ELL
students but does not
demonstrate thorough
understanding of the
referral, services, and
review process.
Candidate has named
state-specific
requirements for the
education of ELL students
and demonstrates
thorough understanding
of the referral, services,
and review process.
Methods
Candidate has described
methods suitable for
working with ELL students,
but in limited detail.
Candidate demonstrates
limited understanding of
Candidate has described
methods suitable for
working with ELL
students, including
detailed examples.
Candidate demonstrates
Candidate has named
state-specific
requirements for the
education of ELL
students and
demonstrates thorough
understanding of the
referral, services, and
review process.
Candidate also identifies
ways to serve students
speaking languages
other than Spanish and/
or ELLs with other
special needs.
Candidate has described
methods suitable for
working with ELL
students, including
detailed examples and
with examples for non-
©
Candidate has not
described methods
suitable for working
with ELL students.
Candidate does not
demonstrate
2017
5600
1
Spelling and
Grammar
©
understanding of the
advantages or
disadvantages of
various approaches.
the advantages or
disadvantages of various
approaches.
thorough understanding
of the advantages or
disadvantages of various
approaches. Candidate
acknowledges the role of
culture in effective
instruction for ELLs.
The work contains 5 or
more spelling or
grammatical errors, or
the work is not written
at a graduate level. The
lack of proofreading or
writing mastery
significantly interferes
with the clarity of the
work.
The work contains 3-4
spelling or grammatical
errors, or the writing is
basic in sentence structure.
The lack of proofreading or
writing mastery detracts
from the clarity of the
work but the writers
overall meaning is still
clear.
The work contains 1-2
spelling or grammatical
errors but they do not
interfere with the clarity
of the work. The work is
written at a graduate
level.
2017
5600
Spanish speaking ELLs
and/or ELLs with
concurrent special
needs. Candidate
demonstrates thorough
understanding of the
advantages or
disadvantages of various
approaches, including
significant consideration
to the role of culture in
providing effective ELL
instruction.
The work contains no
spelling or grammatical
errors. The work is
written at a graduate
level or post-graduate
level. The writing is wellorganized and clear.
2
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 teachers use of the childrens 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, todays 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 wont 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 childrens cognitive growth and lay a foundation for aca…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
