Models of English Language Learner and Bilingual Education (Standard 4C6)

 

English immersion/mainstreaming/submersion: Many schools do not provide bilingual instruction at all (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  In mainstreaming programs, minority language students spend all day in classes with native speakers of English (Baker, 2006).  Mainstream teachers often have little or no training in how to accomodate English language learners in their classrooms (Baker, 2006).  Mainstreaming programs do not provide any means for students to keep up with grade-level content in the native language  while they are learning English (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  The lack of support for native language development encourages subtractive bilingualism, and students do not have the opportunity to develop literacy or academic language skills in the native language (Baker, 2006).  Students may also find that their languages, cultures, and experiences are not valued or reflected in the school's curriculum, and they may have difficulty forming a positive ethnic identity as a result (Baker, 2006).

 

Structured Immersion: In structured immersion programs, minority language students are taught exclusively in English (Baker, 2006).  In contrast to mainstreaming programs, minority language students are separated from native English speakers, and instruction is conducted in simplified English (Baker, 2006).  These programs do not provide any means for beginning English language learners to keep up with grade-level content in the native language while they are learning English, although intermediate-level students receive content instruction in simplified English (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  The lack of support for native language development encourages subtractive bilingualism, and students do not have the opportunity to develop literacy or academic language skills in the native language (Baker, 2006).  Segregation from native English speakers and high student-teacher ratios reduce the opportunities minority language students have to practice with native speakers and can lead to stigma (Baker, 2006).

 

Pull-out ESL programs: These programs provide support to English language learners in mainstream classes by pulling them out for English language and simplified content instruction in ESL classes conducted only in English (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  Language minority students spend part of their time in mainstream classrooms with native English speakers, and part of their time with other language minority students in ESL classes.  Again, mainstream teachers may provide little support for language minority students in their classes (Baker, 2006).  ESL classes help students develop English proficiency, but as a result of being pulled out from mainstream classes, students may fall behind (Baker, 2006). Again, the lack of support for native language development encourages subtractive bilingualism, and students do not have the opportunity to develop literacy or academic language skills in the native language (Baker, 2006).  Students may also find that their languages, cultures, and experiences are not valued or reflected in the school's curriculum, and they may have difficulty forming a positive ethnic identity as a result (Baker, 2006).

 

Pull-out Sheltered English/Sheltered Content Instruction/Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English:  These pull-out programs provide content instruction using simplified English with additional language support (explicit language instruction, use of visuals, hands-on activities, cooperative learning, etc.) (Baker, 2005).  Teachers are educated in ESL methods, and students are able to comprehend more content than in a typical mainstream classroom (Baker, 2005).  At the same time, language minority students in these classes are separated from native English speakers, which can lead to stigma and reduce opportunities to interact with native English speakers (Baker, 2006).  At the same time, sheltered content programs can give ELL students more opportunities to participate than in the mainstream classroom, and may provide more culturally-responsive instruction than mainstream programs (Baker, 2006).  Still, the lack of support for native language development encourages subtractive bilingualism, and students do not have the opportunity to develop literacy or academic language skills in the native language (Baker, 2006). 

 

Transitional/Early Exit:  In this model of bilingual education, the goal is to help students keep up with content by offering content instruction in the native language until they learn enough English to take content classes in English (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  over time, the amount of native language use is gradually reduced until students are transitioned to mainstream classes with instruction exclusively in English (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  For preliterate students, initial literacy instruction may be carried out in the native language (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Language maintenance or the building of higher-level native language literacy and academic language skills are not priorities in this model (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Transitional programs have been criticized for transitioning students to the mainstream classroom too quickly, before their academic language skills are developed enough to allow them to succeed in English language content classes (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998). Many transitional programs move students into the mainstream within 2-3 years, while academic language proficiency may take 4-7 years to develop (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  These programs have also been criticized for fostering subtractive bilingualism and for focusing exclusively on language minority students, without providing opportunities for native English speakers to become bilingual.

 

Maintenance/Late Exit: These programs place a priority on the maintenance of the native language and the development of academic language skills in both the native language and English (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  The goal is for students to develop bilingualism and biliteracy.  The native language continues to be used for content instruction alongside English through the sixth grade (up to 40% of the time) . These programs encourage additive bilingualism, support students' linguistic and cultural identity development, and help students build common underlying proficiency that can transfer across languages.  For example, literacy skills and content understandings that students build in the native language can be transferred to English. 

 

Two-way/bilingual/developmental immersion:  In this model, both language minority students and native English speaking students have the opportunity to become bilingual and biliterate, and to learn about one another's cultures (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  All students learn the curriculum through both languages (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  English language learners receive maintenance bilingual education, and native English speakers receive enrichment immersion (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  This model encourages additive bilingualism, and gives native speakers of both languages opportunities to learn from one another (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  These programs are most effective when there is a balanced ratio of speakers of each language and students have the opportunity to participate for six years or more (to achieve academic language proficiency in both languages) (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  Research shows that two-way programs enable students to develop advanced levels of bilingualism and master content (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  Classes may alternate languages based on subject, day of the week, or teacher (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).

 

Mainstream education with foreign language instruction: In this model, native English speakers study the curriculum in English, and take language classes in a foreign language as part of their studies.  Because of the limited exposure to the target language and limited contact with native speakers, students may not attain high levels of proficiency in the target language (Baker, 2006).  Language minority students may study their own languages in foreign language classes, but these classes are typically not designed with native or heritage speakers of the target language in mind.

 

Enrichment immersion: In this model, native speakers of English are immersed in a second language and take content courses in that language (Lessow-Hurley).  Enrichment programs have often been used as magnet programs to encourage desegregation.  This model does not focus on students who are native speakers of the target language, so the students may lack contact with the target-language community and target language speakers outside of the classroom (Lessow-Hurley, 2005). 

 

Preview/Instruction/Review: In this model, the preview and review of each lesson is conducted in the students' native languages, while the instruction is carried out in English (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  This model works well in settings where students come from several different first language backgrounds, because students can work in small groups with others of the same background in the preview and review sections, but they can also work in mixed groups during instruction.  Students are able to acquire some academic language skills in both languages, although practice in their native languages is more limited than in dual-language models. 

 

Effectiveness of Bilingual Education (Standard 4C6, 4A6)

 

 

History of Bilingual Education in the United States and the Role of Educators and Advocates (Standard 4C3, 4C4)

 

1700s-1800s

Over 150 languages were spoken in the US prior to the arrival of European colonists (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  European colonists also brought their own languages to the US, including English, Spanish, French, Dutch, and German (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  In the 1700s and 1800s European immigrants established schools in many states where the curriculum was taught either bilingually or exclusively in their native languages (Lessow-Hurley, 2005; Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Schools used German, Swedish, Danish, Russian, Spanish, French, Polish, Italian, and Czech in addition to English, and public schools used bilingual programs to compete with private schools (faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Some groups of Native Americans, such as the Cherokees of Oklahoma, were able to maintain control over their schools and teach their native languages as well (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  By the late 1800s, however, the federal government had taken control of Native education and begun to send many Native student to boarding schools, where they were instructed exclusively in English and severely punished for using their native languages (Faltis & Hudelson, 2005).  Changing immigration patterns, with an increasing number of immigrants coming from eastern and southern Europe and China, as well as annexation of new territories with diverse populations (northern Mexico, Alaska, the Phillipines, Puerto Rico) led some Americans to fear a loss of national identity (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  New laws were passed restricting immigration (eg. Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and requiring applicants for citizenship to pass an English proficiency test (Nationality Act of 1906) (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  The number of schools teaching in languages other than English fell (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).

 

World War I-1950s

The outbreak of World War I led to strong nationalistic sentiments, and negative attitudes toward foreign languages in general, especially German.  Use of languages other than English in schools, whether in bilingual programs or foreign language instruction, was banned in most states (34 of 58 states had banned languages other than English by 1923) (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  It was not until the Cold War of the 1950s that foreign language instruction was again promoted under the National Defense Education Act (Lessow-Hurley, 2005). 

 

1960s-1970s

Bilingual education received a boost in the 1950s and 1960s as Cuban refugees established schools in Florida (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  Many Cubans and Americans believed that the Revolution would not last and that Cubans would soon be able to return home, so they encouraged young people to develop their Spanish as well as their English.  The schools used a two-way bilingual model, with native English speakers also attending.  The most famous bilingual school of this period was the Coral Way Elementary School, founded in Dade County, Florida in 1963.  Coral Way was highly successful in producing students who were bilingual and biliterate, with high academic achievement (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).   Bilingual schools were founded in other states as well during this period, although many of them followed a transitional model (Lessow-Hurley, 2005; Faltis & Hudelson, 1998). 

 

In the 1960s, Chicano and Latino activists and organizations, such as LULAC, La Raza Unida, and GI Forum began to advocate for culturally relevant and bilingual curricula (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Students and teachers participated in sit-ins to fight for new instructional programs, including Chicano studies classes in high schools (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Teachers such as Ernesto Galarza designed new curricula and instructional materials to better meet the needs of Chicano and Latino students in California (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998). 

 

In 1965, as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed.  The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the ESEA, was authorized in 1968.  The Bilingual Education Act, introduced by senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas,  provided a competitive funding program for schools that wanted to establish bilingual programs  (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  The hope was that using students' first language in instruction would improve student achievement and reduce the dropout rate of English language learners, especially Mexican American students (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Many teachers were strongly supportive of bilingual education.  For example, the National Education Association published a report in 1966 that advocated for bilingual education and culturally relevant education to better serve the needs of English language learners. 

 

Life after the Bilingual Education Act

The Bilingual Education Act did not mandate bilingual programs in schools or define what model of bilingual education schools had to use (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  It provided funds for teacher training, materials development, and program operations, but only to schools that applied (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Many schools failed to make any changes to better serve the needs of English language learners (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  The Office of Civil Rights began to receive complaints about such schools from parents, teachers, and community activists (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998). The Office of Civil Rights conducted an investigation and concluded that schools were violating students' civil rights (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) by discriminating against students based on national origin (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  The Office of Civil Rights sent out a memo to schools with many English language learners reminding them that they must take "affirmative steps" to provide support for these students (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  The memo was an important step forward, but it did not specifically ask schools to provide support in the students' native languages (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998). 

 

Massachussets became the first state to mandate bilingual education for students with limited English proficiency in 1971 (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).

 

In 1974, the Supreme Court decided Lau vs. Nichols.  In this case, Chinese American families filed a class-action suit against their school district in San Francisco (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  They asserted that the district had identified over 2,000 students with limited English proficiency, but had not provided ESL classes for the majority of these students (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  The Court found that schools must "take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by [the] students in [their] instructional programs" (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Again, "appropriate action" was not defined as bilingual education, but the decision did require schools to provide some type of program specifically designed for English language learners (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998). 

 

By the 1980s, nine states had mandated bilingual education for students with limited English proficiency, and bilingual education was allowed in all states.  However, the future of bilingual education was not secure.  During the 1990's and into the 21st century, rising anti-immigrant sentiments and a lack of understanding of the effectiveness of bilingual education on the part of the public have led to the rise of groups such as US English and English First (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  These groups lobby for English to be declared the official language of the US, and for English to be the sole language of instruction in public schools (Faltis & Hudelson, 1998).  Other groups, such as English Plus and the National Association for Bilingual Education, lobby for bilingual programs and work to increase awareness of the effectiveness of bilingual education.  Prominent language theorists such as Stephen Krashen, Jim Cummins, and James Crawford have published books supporting bilingual education.  Despite their efforts, lack of public support for bilingual education has caused many schools to drop bilingual programs altogether (Lessow-Hurley, 2005).  California and Arizona passed laws prohibiting bilingual education altogether (Lessow-Hurley, 2005). The No Child Left Behind legislation, despite its purported goal of closing the achievement gap between LEP and non-LEP students, encourages ESL and sheltered English instruction, rather than bilingual programs, and this has led even more schools to drop bilingual programs.

 

 

Legal Issues in the Education of LEP Students (Standard 4F4)

Reference: Lessow-Hurley, 2005

• 1923: Supreme Court Decision Meyer v. Nebraska: The Court determined that states cannot outlaw the teaching of foreign languages.
• 1958: National Defense Education Act: Provided funding for foreign language education because of national security interests during the Cold War.
• 1954: Supreme Court Decision Brown v.the Board of Education: The Court determined that separate educational facilities based on race were inherently unequal and unconstitutional.
• 1964: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act: States that federally-funded institutions cannot discriminate based on race, color, or national origin.
• 1968: Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Bilingual Education Act): Provided funds for dual-language education for English language learners whose families earned less than $3000 annually.  The Act set aside $7.8 million for bilingual education programs.  The Act did not mandate bilingual education, but it did provide a competitive funding program for schools that wanted to implement bilingual programs.  It also influenced policy by encouraging bilingual programs, funding research on bilingual education, and funding teacher training and development of materials and curricula for bilingual programs.
• 1970: Office for Civil Rights Memo: School districts must provide support and resources for students to learn English, place students appropriately, taking their language proficiency into account, avoid tracking language minorities into inferior classes, and provide information to parents in the home language.  
• 1974 Reauthorization of Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Bilingual Education Act): Broadened the program to include all students with limited English-speaking ability, regardless of income.
• 1974: Supreme Court Decision Lau v. Nichols: Families of 1,800 students participated in a class-action lawsuit against San Francisco Unified School District, charging that the district was not providing their LEP children with appropriate services.  The Court determined that the district had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act because students were not being given the support they needed to meaningfully participate in their education.  The Court chose to review Lau and not Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools.  The Serna case was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and a decision on that case would have been more binding.  The circuit court decision in Serna supported the students right to bilingual education.
• 1974 Equal Educational Opportunities Act: Section 1703 states that educational agencies must not deny equal opportunity based on race, color, sex, or national origin, and that they must take "appropriate action" to overcome language barriers faced by students.
• 1974: Aspira of New York v. New York Board of Education: This district court decision held that the program to support English Language Learners was not adequate.  The program needed to have clear assessment criteria to measure student progress and needed to provide appropriate instruction, including native language instruction.
• 1978 Reauthorization of Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Bilingual Education Act): Broadened the program to include all students with limited English proficiency (not restricted to limited basic interpersonal conversation skills). 
• 1978: Rios v. Reed: This district court decision found that the bilingual program of the Patchogue-Medford School District did not meet the needs of Puerto Rican students, and that the school needed to hire and train more qualified staff, provide better materials, and improve placement assessments.
• 1978: Cintron v. Brentwood:  This district court decision stated that the bilingual program of the Brentwood School District unnecessarily segregated LEP students from other students during art and physical education, and had not established adequate exit criteria to move students into the mainstream.
• 1981: Castañeda v. Pickard: This district court decision established that bilingual programs must be based on sound educational theory, have enough resources and trained staff to be effective, and measure their effectiveness and make changes as needed.
• 1981: Idaho Migrant Council v. Board of Education: State education agencies are required to assure that local districts provide all students with an equal education.
• 1982: Plyer v. Doe: Undocumented immigrant children have the right to attend public schools, and schools cannot ask parents or students for documents or require them to submit social security numbers.
• 1983: Keyes v. School District No. 1: This district court decision held that the school district continued using an ineffective program for teaching language minority students, despite the directives in the Equal Educational Opportunities Act and the precedent set in the Casteñada decision.
• 1984 Reauthorization of Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Bilingual Education Act): Added family literacy programs and provided specific funds for two-way bilingual programs.
• 1987: Gomez v. Illinois: This circuit court decision established that state and local educational agencies must meet the criteria described in the Equal Educational Opportunities Act and in the Casteñada decision.
• 1992: Flores v. Arizona: This district court decision stated that states must adequately fund programs for English language learners.
• 1992: Office of Civil Rights publishes The Provision of an Equal Education to Limited English Proficient Students. Programs for LEP students must properly assess students for participation in the program, dedicate adequate staff and resources to the program, and include evaluation of individual student progress and program effectiveness.  Where programs are found to be ineffective, the district must make changes.
• 1998: California voters pass Proposition 227, a referendum to end bilingual education in the state.
• 2000: Arizona voters pass Poposition 203, a referendum to end bilingual education in the state.
• 2001: Supreme Court Decision: Alexander v. Sandoval: The Court ruled that Title VI only holds for acts of intentional discrimination and does not include discrimination based on language (eg. an English-only law).  The Court also ruled that individual citizens cannot sue the federal government based on Title VI.
• 2002: No Child Left Behind Act is signed into law: Provides funding for programs for LEP students, but with a strong emphasis on English-only programs rather than bilingual programs.  Requires all LEP students to be included in assessments of adequate yearly progress. 

 

Based on the above laws and court decisions, programs serving English language learners must use adequate and nondiscriminatory assessments to determine eligibility and placement, provide services based on sound research and theory, provide adequate resources and trained staff, integrate LEP students with other students, use adequate exit assessments and provide transitional services, and document individual student progress and program effectiveness.  Programs must make modifications when they are found to be ineffective.

 

Instructional Strategies and Learning Activities (Standards 4A6, 4B5)

 

Instructional Strategies

A wide variety of instructional strategies can be used to support development of both the first and the second language (Herrera & Murry, 2005).  Strategies such as small group cooperative learning, role plays, stop-think-pair shares, jigsaw, corners, discussions, debates, and choral reading can all be used to help students develop proficiency in both languages.  Strategies such as activating prior knowledge, using advance organizers, making concept maps, using modeling and demonstrations, and using visual aids can improve student comprehension (Omaggio Hadley, 1993; Ornstein & Lasley, 2004).  Strategies such as guided questioning and guided writing allow teachers to scaffold reading comprehension and writing tasks to provide an appropriate challenge for students of different language proficiencies (Omaggio Hadley, 1993).  Strategies such as exit slips and one minute papers allow teachers to check for student comprehension and modify instruction as needed (Omaggio Hadley, 1993; Ornstein & Lasley, 2004).  Performance assessments and other alternative assessments allow teachers to assess student language skills in a variety of ways, and permit teachers to check for content understanding even when the student's ability to express understanding in one or both languages is limited (Omaggio Hadley, 1993; Ornstein & Lasley, 2004).

 

Learning Activities to Promote Proficiency in Listening, Reading, Speaking, and Writing

(Reference: Omaggio-Hadley, 1993)

Listening:

To improve listening proficiency, novice and intermediate level students can benefit from predicting and drawing on bacgkground knowledge before listening, using graphic organizers while listening, matching visuals to the content of what they are listening to, dictation exercises, TPR activities, and listening for different purposes (to summarize the main idea, to make inferences, to explain in the home language, to determine register or audience, or to complete activities to check for comprehension).

 

Advanced and superior level students can benefit from more complex dictation, summarizing and paraphrasing in the target language, taking notes, and listening for different purposes (to make inferences, identify differences in style and sociolect, to analyze language, to elaborate on what was said). 

 

Reading:

To improve reading proficiency, novice and intermediate students can benefit from predicting and drawing on background knowledge, using reading strategies (skimming, scanning, using pictures, titles, headings, etc.), identifying text structures (sequence, compare/contrast, cause and effect, problem and solution, question and answer, description), completing simple cloze activities (with choices), putting parts of a text in order, summarizing in the native language, reading for different purposes (to find specific information, to paraphrase in the native language, to understand the organization of text, to find key words). 

 

Advanced and superior level students can benefit from using reading strategies, paraphrasing in the target language, taking notes, and reading for different purposes (to summarize in the target language, to answer comprehension questions, to make inferences, to find idioms, to understand the text organization, to analyze, evaluate, or synthesize).

 

Speaking:

 

Students at the novice level can benefit from answering personalized questions with one- or two-word answers, including questions that ask them to agree or disagree and to complete a statement.  They can practice dialogues, use conversation cards, participate in surveys, use high-frequency vocabulary to name people, places, and things, and complete sentences when given a sentence starter.  They can use memorized language chunks, including formulaic expressions, to communicate.

 

Students at the intermediate level can benefit from answering questions with simple sentences, practicing short conversations (using formulaic expressions and sentences of their own creation), adapting dialogues, asking simple questions, using conversation cards, telling a story based on pictures, completing sentences when given sentence starters, storytelling, role playing, describing and defining, and interviewing others.

 

Students at the advanced level can benefit from asking and answering more complex questions, including questions about opinions, creating dialogues, participating in debates and discussions, role playing, storytelling, interviewing, describing and defining, and solving problems in a group.

 

Students at the superior level can improve speaking proficiency through asking and answering more complex questions, solving problems in a group, paraphrasing, creative use of language, practicing different styles of speech, interpreting, debating and discussing, interviewing, describing and defining, and persuading others.

 

Writing:

 

Students at the novice level can improve writing proficiency through completing cloze exercizes and sentences with sentence starters, dictation activities, dialogue journals, describing pictures, using high-frequency vocabulary to label and list, and filling out forms.

 

Students at the intermediate level can benefit from describing pictures, completing sentences and paragraphs, dictation exercises, completing graphic organizers, writing simple stories, translating, dialogue journals, diaries, free writing, writing letters, taking notes, and completing cloze exercises. 

 

Students at the advanced level can benefit from dictation exercises, translation exercises, exercises to practice the writing process (including peer editing), journals, summaries, taking notes, paraphrasing simple text, and describing and writing stories.

 

Students at the superior level can benefit from writing research papers and letters, practicing different writing styles, translating, taking notes, making transcriptions, creative writing, and academic writing activities.

 

 

Developing Academic Language Proficiency (Standard 4A6, 4B5, 4I8)

Cummins (2000) distinguishes between two types of English proficiency: conversational proficiency (formerly basic interpersonal conversational skills) and academic proficiency (formerly cognitive academic language proficiency).  The names of the two categories were changed because some felt that the words "basic" and "cognitive" made academic English sound inherently superior to or more intellectually challenging than conversational English, which it is not (Cummins, 2000).  The distinction between conversational and academic language skills explains research on English language learners that has found that learners are able to converse fluently with peers within about two years of exposure to English, but are not yet able to compete with peers in grade-level content classes (Cummins, 2000).  It takes learners an average of 5-7 years to attain the academic language proficiency needed to compete with native speakers in content classes (Cummins, 2000).  Therefore, it is important to assess academic language proficiency, rather than just conversational proficiency, when making the decision of when to exit students from ESL or bilingual programs and move them into mainstream classes without support (Cummins, 2000).  Cummins has created a framework to help teachers increase student comprehension and develop students' academic language proficiency (Cummins, 2000).  The framework has two dimensions: context embedded vs. context reduced language and cognitively demanding vs. cognitively undemanding language. 

                                                       Cognitively undemanding

                                                                       l

                                         A                            l                 C

                                                                       l

     Context embedded--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Context reduced

                                                                       l

                                               B                      l                  D

                                                                       l

                                                         Cognitively demanding

 

Quadrant A represents conversational skills.  We can see that these skills can develop quickly because learning is supported by context cues (body language, gestures, references to surrounding environment), and the language used is cognitively undemanding (Cummins, 2000).  Quadrant D represents academic language.  It is cognitively demanding and often abstract, with few context cues to assist comprehension (Cummins, 2000).  When teaching content to English language learners, teachers should begin in Quadrant B with activities that are cognitively demanding but provide context cues, including cooperative learning, hands-on activities, and project-based learning (Cummins, 2000).  Teachers can reinforce content with fewer context clues by following up with a discussion (Cummins, 2000).  Finally, teachers can move students into Quadrant D when they have them do activities where there are few context clues for language, such as writing reports or reading independently about the topic (Cummins, 2000). 

 

Teachers can explicitly have students practice academic language as a part of each content lesson.  The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) has teachers set language objectives for each lesson, including objectives for teaching academic language functions (seeking information, informing, comparing, ordering, classifying, analyzing, inferring, justifying and persuading, solving problems, synthesizing, and evaluating) and discipline-specific vocabulary (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).  The CALLA model requires that teachers move through five phases as they teach content: preparation, presentation, practice, self-evaluation, and expansion (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).  During the preparation and presentation phases, teachers connect the content to students' prior knowledge and provide modeling (context cues) (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).  During the practice phase, teachers monitor student learning and use of strategies and provide feedback, and then students self-evaluate (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).  During the expansion stage, teachers help students to transfer and apply their knowledge (reduced context language use) (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).

 

The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model also provides a framework for developing academic language proficiency. Teachers build background by connecting to prior knowledge and explicitly teaching content vocabulary and academic language (Echevarria et al., 2003). Teachers provide comprehensible input to students, using visuals and modeling (context cues) to help students understand content (Echavarria et al., 2003).  Teachers scaffold learning activities and give opportunities for students to use strategies and interact with others as they learn (Echevarria et al., 2003). Finally, teachers give students opportunities to practice and apply what they have learned (reduced-context language use) (Echevarria et al., 2003). 

                                  

Although these models were primarily developed with a focus on students acquiring English, they can also be used in the bilingual classroom to promote academic proficiency in both languages.

 

FrontPage