Culturally Sensitive Teaching and various ELL Service Models

1
Culturally Sensitive Teachingand various ELL
Service Models

• TTWELL Faculty Summer Institute
• August 14, 2009
• Elke Schneider, PhD

2
Outline

• Factors influencing selected English Language
  Learner (ELL) Service models
• Types of ELL Service Models
• Proposition 227English-only movement
• Arguments in favor of Bilingual Education
• Arguments against Bilingual Education
• Culture-sensitive instruction
• Selected references

3
Selection of ELL Service Models

• The selection and design of an ELL service model
  depends largely on
• District demographics
• Individual student characteristics
• District resources
• State regulations (i.e., MA, CA)

4
Overview of ELL Service Models

• 5 versions of BILINGUAL PROGRAMS
• Total early Immersion (90/10 model)
• Partial immersion (50/50 model)
• Two-way or dual language program
• Early exit or Transitional model
• Late exit or Maintenance model

5
Bilingual Programs

• 1) TOTAL EARLY IMMERSION 90/10 MODEL
• GRADE 1 early total immersion 90 academic
  instruction through L1
• GRADE 2 1 hour of academic instruction in L2
  added
• GRADE 3 2 hours of academic instruction in L2
  added
• GRADES 4-5 50 L1 and 50 L2 instruction
• GRADES 6-7 60 of instruction in L2

6
Bilingual Programs

• (2) PARTIAL IMMERSION 50/50 MODEL
• K-GRADE 5 50 L1 and 50 L2 instruction
• GRADES 6-7 60 of instruction in L2 and 40 in
  L1

7
Bilingual Programs

• (3) LATE- EXIT or MAINTENANCE Programs
• K-6th grade 50 L1 and 50 L2 instruction
• Goal Keep L1 active and ready for academic
  performance (not just oral)
• Goal not attainable if model discontinues beyond
  Grade 6 (generally the case)

8
Bilingual Programs

• (4) EARLY EXIT or TRANSITIONAL Programs
• First 2-3 years 50 L1 and 50 L2 academic
  instruction
• After that 100 L2 academic instruction
• GOAL not bilingualism, but support until enough
  L2 has been acquired
• Ineffective because it takes more than three
  years to reach proficiency for academics in L2

9
Bilingual programs

• (5) TWO WAY DEVELOPMENTAL BILINGUAL PROGRAMS or
  DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAMS
• The minority language group learns the majority
  language (e.g. immigrants to US learn English)
  while native speakers of majority language learn
  the language of the minority (e.g., Spanish)
  works best with homogeneous immigrant group
  (e.g., all native speakers of Spanish)

10
Overview of ELL Service Models

• 5 versions of ENGLISH ONLY PROGRAMS
• Structured immersion programs
• ELL Pull-out programs
• Sheltered Instruction or Content-based Programs
  (SIOP Model)
• ESL/ENS or ESOL taught as a subject
• submersion

11
English only Programs

• Structured Immersion
• Offered in elementary or secondary schools
• Teachers are usually bilingual but use sheltered
  English to respond to students and to instruct
  even if students address teacher in L1
• Instruction in content areas using L2 acquisition
  strategies

12
English only Programs

• (2) Pull-out Programs
• Generally used in ELEMENTARY
• Pulled out during regular classes taught by
  TESOL certified person who applies second
  language acquisition techniques
• English is primary language of instruction
• All content areas can be taught
• Grouping often according to L1
• Time 30 min. to 50 of day

13
English only Programs

• (3) Sheltered English of Content-based programs
• Primarily used in secondary schools
• ELLs have intermediate English skills
• Taught in content areas to assure comprehensible
  input by TESOL certified teacher
• Can parallel each subject or 1-2 only

14
English only Programs

• (4) ESL/ENL or ESOL taught as a subject
• Primarily used in secondary schools
• Instruction during regular class periods
• Students receive credit for course
• Students may be grouped according to L2
  proficiency

15
English only Programs

• (5) Submersion
• Non-instructional/academic support
• provided by trained specialists to meet the
• requirement that all ELLs have to have
• equal support to succeed in school

16
Which programs are most effective?

• Educational GOAL
• non-native speakers of English gain social and
  academic command of L2 as quickly as possible
• Legal MANDATE
• ELLs must receive the same high quality education
  as native speakers
• Instruction must be provided by highly qualified
  teachers

17
Arguments FOR bilingual programs

• Based on research in sociolinguistics,
  neuro-linguistics, psycholinguistics, second
  language acquisition, and multicultural education
• Best predictor for success in L2 CALP and BICS is
  proficiency (literacy) in L1
• Phonemic awareness, morphological awareness, and
  syntactic awareness in L1 will transfer to L2
  (Goswami, 2004 Frith, 2007)
• Brain constantly compares and contrasts L1 with
  L2 information (Koda, 2005, 2007)

18
Arguments AGAINST bilingual programs

• Bilingual programs too expensive
• Give ELLs excuse to not immerse in socio-cultural
  and academic majority culture
• Research on monolingual language development
  proposes quicker positive L2 results if
  instruction occurs in L2 only

19
Proposition 227English-only Movement

• A movement to make English-only instruction a
  national requirement
• Passed in 1998 in California as English only
  Movement prohibiting bilingual education in
  schools
• Caused the loss of 80 of bilingual programs in
  California
• Bilingual education can only be requested by
  parent signature collections
• Adopted since then by MA

20
Proposition 227English-only Movement

• 23 states passed English-only amendments
• English-only slowed down learning progress and
  increased anxiety for ELLs
• Only 3 of students were proficient after 1 year
  of English-only instruction.

21
Culture-sensitive instruction

• to reject a childs language in school is to
  reject the child.
• (Cummins, 2001, p. 9)
• Loss of L1 Loss of cultural identity

22
Culture-sensitive instruction

• Is based on multifaceted assessment of students
  background knowledge in L1 and of L2 competencies
• Teachers and administrators are aware of the
  stages of culture shock students and parents are
  challenged with (e.g., euphoria, anger,
  rejection, acceptance)

23
Culture-sensitive instruction

• Learning environment signals active integration
  of multicultural backgrounds of students
• Daily language phrases displayed in different
  languages
• Permission to use L1
• Celebration of differences as a positive

24
Learning environment (contd)

• Praise for effective use of L1 resources, not
  just for L2 performance
• Integrate ELLs parents and family members
• Provide visuals that illustrate openness to
  cultural diversity in classroom and in entire
  school (e.g., welcome messages in multiple
  languages)

25
Culture-sensitive instruction

• Instruction must be comprehensible
• visuals support oral and written information
• diction is clear, with pauses and repetition
• pre-teaching and repetition of focus vocabulary
• cognates are explicitly highlighted
• integration of first culture information/knowledge
  
• hands-on learning with individual and peer
  support

26
Culture sensitive instruction

• Activate ELLs background knowledge
• Encourage ELLs to share their L1 literacy math,
  science, and/or social studies experiences
• Allow same L1-students to work together
• Invite ELLs to share unique features of their L1
  and their home culture

27
Selected References

• Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of bilingual
  education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK
  Multilingual Matters.
• Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and
  pedagogy Bilingual children in the crossfire.
  Clevedon, UK Multilingual Matters.
• Cummins, J. (2001) Bilingual childrens mother
  tongue Why is it important for education?
  Sprogforum, 19, 15-20.
• Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S.,
  Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., et al. (2005).Affirming
  identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational
  Leadership, 63, 38-43.
• Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching
  theory, research, and practice. New York
  Teachers College Press.

28
Selected References (contd)

• Gonzales (1998). Teaching in two or more
  languages in the Phillipine context. In J.
  Cenoz, F. Genese (Eds.). Beyond bilingualism
  Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp.
  192-205). Clevedon, UK Multilingual Matters.
• Saslinas, C., Franquiz, M., Reidel, M. (2008).
  Teaching world geography to late-arrival
  immigrant students Highlighting practice and
  content. The Social Studies, 99, 71-76.
• Torres-Guzman, M. (2002). Dual language programs
  Key features and results. Directions in Language
  and Education, 14, 1-16.

29
Selected References (contd)

• Vallarreal, A. (1999). Rethinking the education
  of English language learners Transitional
  bilingual education programs. Bilingual Research
  Journal, 23, (1) 11-45.
• Whelan Ariza, E., Morales-Jones, C., Yahyn, N.,
  Zainnuddin, H. (2006). Why TESOL? Theories,
  issues in teaching English to speakers of other
  languages in K-12 classrooms. Dubuque, Iowa
  Kendall Hunt.

30
Selected References (contd)

• Many articles in Supporting English Language
  Learners, entire volume Educational Leadership,
  66 (7) 2009.
• Complete multilingual geometry picture glossary
  at www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el200904
  _dong_glossary.pdf
• Comparison of historical accounts at
  www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el200904_do
  ng_comparison.pdf