1703 North Beauregard St. Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723) Fax: 703-575-5400
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723), press 2
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Table of Contents
by Lynn Malarz
American schools are changing; schools are much more diverse than they were twenty-five years ago. Educators can no longer expect the majority of their students to be predominately English speaking. The numbers of black, brown, and Asian citizens are dramatically increasing, with Hispanics representing the fastest growing population in this country (Austin American Statesman 1986). The Census Bureau reported that as of March, 1985, the Hispanic population in the United States had increased some 16 percent in a little over five years, compared to the national population increase of 3.3 percent. In the 1980s, the population of Hispanics grew by approximately 2.3 million. In 1986, Hispanics represented 7 percent of the population. Projections were made at that time (Reich 1986), that by the year 2080 the Hispanic population in the United States will increase to 19 percent. The influence of minorities is undeniable in a nation which, by the year 2000, will have approximately 260 million people, one of every three of whom will be either black, Hispanic, or Asian-American.
With our changing society has come a clearly defined increase in the number of language minorities (Omark and Erickson 1983). In 1980, there were fourteen or fifteen major language groups with almost 2,400,000 students between the ages of five and fourteen. This number of language minority students has been projected to increase by approximately one-third by the year 2000. By far, the largest language minority population being represented is Spanish-speaking, with more than two-thirds of the entire language minority population being represented by Spanish speakers. In 1985, it was projected that the number of Spanish speakers in this country would increase some 48 percent by the year 2000, numbering more than 22 million persons by the year 2000 (Macias 1985).
Because of this tremendous increase in the numbers of Asian, Hispanic, and other linguistically and culturally different individuals, school districts can no longer ignore the need for adjusting instructional programs to better serve these groups. One result has been a great expansion of bilingual education to provide for the educational needs of students with limited proficiency in English. To better understand programming needs, some clarification of terms is necessary—clarification that can lead to far more effective instructional methods.
Demographic variables show evidence that there will be an expansion of groups eligible for services through bilingual education. However, bilingual education often means different things to different people. In order to understand the basic concepts of bilingual instruction, certain terms need clarification.
The terms bilingualism and bilingual education appear frequently in literature. However, there is a great deal of variation with regard to the meaning of these two terms (Hakuta 1986). An individual who can speak two languages is usually considered bilingual. However, confusion ensues when the degree of proficiency enters into the discussion. Some authorities claim that a bilingual person must have native-like fluency in both languages (Bloomfield 1933). Others maintain that minimal competency in two languages is sufficient to be called bilingual (Haugen 1956; Diebold 1961). Hornby (1977) gives the following advice in hopes of resolving this issue: bilingualism is not all-or-none, rather it is an individual characteristic that may exist to varying degrees from minimum ability to complete fluency in more than one language.
Bilingual education is another term requiring clarification because of its variation of meaning in different circles. The following is a commonly accepted definition of bilingual education:
“Bilingual education” is the use of two languages as media of instruction for a child or a group of children in part or all of the school curriculum (Cohen 1975, p. 18).
The U.S. Congress in P.L. 95-561, which is known as the Bilingual Act, defines the term program of bilingual education as follows:
A program of instruction, designed for children of limited English proficiency in elementary or secondary schools, in which, with respect to the years of study to which the program is applicable . . . there is instruction given in, and study of, English, and, to the extent necessary to allow a child to achieve competence in the English language, the native language of the child of limited English proficiency, and such instruction is given with appreciation for the cultural heritage of such children, and of other children in American society, and with respect to elementary and secondary school instruction, such instruction shall, to the extent necessary, be in all courses or subjects of study which will allow a child to progress effectively through the educational system.
The basic definition of bilingual education generally agreed upon by both scholars and laypersons, is the “use of two languages as media of instruction.” In other words, there is agreement regarding what the process of bilingual education is, but confusion arises when the philosophy and goals of bilingual education are discussed. (Appendix B provides a checklist for effective bilingual programs..
Bilingual education can be organized into the following four categories: cognitive development, affective development, linguistic growth, and cultural enrichment.
Blanco (1977) notes that the consensus of experts in the field of bilingual education is that its primary goals are in the area of cognitive and affective development rather than linguistic and cultural realms. From this, one could surmise that the primary goal of bilingual education is not necessarily to teach English or a second language, but to teach children concepts, knowledge, and skills through the language they know best and reinforce this information through the second language. Anderson and Boyer (1970, pp. 43–44) emphasize this strategy in their definition of bilingual education:
[Bilingual education is a] new way of conceiving the entire range of education especially for the non-English child just entering school. Bilingual learning necessitates rethinking the entire curriculum in terms of a child's best instruments for learning, of his readiness for learning various subjects, and his own identity and potential for growth and development.
Although bilingual education experts feel that cognitive and affective development should be at the core of the bilingual program, not everyone recognizes these as the primary goals. It is not uncommon to have people feel that the linguistic goals should be primary: “The main purpose of the bilingual program is to teach English as soon as possible and integrate the children into the mainstream of education;” or to place emphasis on cultural goals: “The main purpose of the program should be to maintain the native language and culture while the children learn English.” By placing emphasis on the linguistic and cultural side of bilingual education, confusion and controversy often arise. Although transition to the mainstream and maintenance of the native culture are both important, neither should be the central theme of the bilingual program.
A bilingual program with a transitional linguistic and cultural goal is one that uses the native language and culture of the student only to the extent necessary for the child to acquire English and thus function in the regular school curriculum. This program does not stress the child's native language (L1) and thus, does not teach the student to read or write in the native language.
English-language acquisition is also emphasized in a bilingual program with linguistic and cultural maintenance, but also promoted is the value of linguistic and cultural diversity. Children are encouraged to become literate in their native language and to develop bilingual skills throughout their schooling even into their adult lives. This transitional approach to bilingual education is supported by state and federal legislation; however, many districts go beyond the law and use local resources to implement maintenance programs for language-minority students.
Second-language acquisition (L2) is developmental, continuous, interactive with cognition, and rule-governed. It is acquired by the student through interaction with the environment. The affective variables include motivation, environment, attitude, and socioeconomic status. It would seem to parallel primary language (L1) acquisition with one major exception: the child is not usually a participant of the L2 target language group and as such is at a distinct disadvantage. The L2's ability and inclination to interact with the L2 group is vital for learning the language.
Principles
For a more elaborate discussion of these principles, see the ASCD Curriculum Handbook, Section 7: Foreign Languages.
In order to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate instruction, one must first formulate an operational definition of culture. Anthropologists and ethnographers define culture in relation to the abiding patterns of behavior, beliefs, and values of a designated group in society. Educators recognize that children in all cultures receive their first instruction within the close relationships of a family, be it nuclear or extended. Educators sense that culture is functional, that it is shared by a group and transmitted to new members. Culture is dynamic. A child is born into a culture, interacts with its precepts, and, based on his experiences in life, helps shape that culture. With time, travel, and exposure, he also interacts with other cultures. This process of interaction is called acculturation. During the period of acculturation an individual gradually adapts to his new environment and slowly incorporates one or more characteristics of the new surroundings into his set of behaviors. The result, at first, may be a blend of a traditional pattern with the newer adapted traits. All immigrants everywhere acculturate to a varying extent and at a different rate.
In many respects, second language acquisition parallels the process of acculturation. Table 1 outlines the list of the stages of acculturation and language learning that are complimentary:
Acculturatio.
Language Learnin.
Stage 1. The new culture is almost inaccessible. Frustration is constant.
The new language is very difficult to master. Transgenerational conflict is evident when children learn faster than parents.
Stage 2. The new culture is functionally understood.
The new language is beginning to make communicative sense.
Stage 3. Adaptation and blending is underway with subtle changes taking place.
With literacy in one's own language, literacy develops in second language.
Stage 4. Aspects of one's life are becoming bicultural.
Native proficiency is almost achieved.
Stage 5. The second culture feels “comfortable” although traditional values continue to be important.
The second language is both equally dominant and proficient.
Dulay, Bust, and Krashen (1982) in their survey of major findings in second-language research indicate that the most beneficial environment for the learner is one which encourages language learning in natural surroundings for genuine communication. Although the learner will be reluctant to speak during an initial “silent” period, it is best not to force speech since during the “silence” he is constantly absorbing and receiving language. Children are known to understand language often long before they produce it.
Further, it has been shown that optimal second-language learning takes place in an environment:
Motivation is a powerful force in second-language learning. Motivation governs a need to communicate, to make friends, to identify with a social group, to become part of a community and to begin to plan one's future. Motivation becomes a positive. Anxiety becomes an inhibitor. Self-confidence is very much related to second-language learning as is a low anxiety level and a tendency to be risk-takers and guessers.
As the child becomes more secure in the second language, it is entirely likely that the native language recedes, to some extent. As vocabulary in the second language increases, words in L1 may well be forgotten. During the second-language learning process, a learner may insert words from each language in the same sentence. Again, this tendency demonstrates a motivation to speak the second language and is a way of permitting precise expressions which carry cultural content and can be stated in a given language.
To become life-long language users, L2 students as well as native-English speaking students need to gain control over language and feel comfortable about using the language. The ensuing principles for second-language instruction can help classroom teachers create supportive language environments (Early 1990, pp. 568–569):
The characteristics of an effective classroom to help maximize language acquisition have been identified as (Enright and McCloskey 1985):
To be able to effectively participate in school, a non-English-speaking student must achieve a significant level of proficiency in English. Cummins (1981) theorizes that there exists a minimal level of linguistic competence—a threshold—that a student must attain to function effectively in cognitively demanding, academic tasks. This threshold of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) can take between five and seven years to develop in a student's second language. Using CALP as a basis, let us examine the content areas of reading and mathematics. First, we will look at mathematical problem solving.
How many times have you heard teachers say (referring to language minority students), “They are so much better in math than subject areas that require reading” or, “I am willing to integrate the language-minority student for math, but please, not a content area that requires reading.” Let us look at the appropriateness of these teacher perceptions given the research on mathematical achievement and language.
Research implies that there is a close relationship between language proficiency and mathematics achievement. More than eighty years ago this was suggested by E.L. Thorndike (1912) when he said, “Our measurement of arithmetic is a measure of two things: sheer mathematical knowledge on the one hand, and acquaintance with language on the other.” Language skills are the vehicles through which students learn, apply, and are tested on math concepts and skills. Unfortunately, the language of mathematics is often too difficult for many students. Consider the following elementary algebra problem:
Find a number such that five less than the number is equal to twice the number minus 21.
Although the solution to the problem is straightforward once the proper equation for the solution has been derived, the linguistic skills required to reach that point are rather sophisticated. First, one must understand that “such that” relates “five less than the number” to “twice the number minus 21.” It is also necessary to understand that “a number” and the subsequent “the number” (which is repeated twice) refer to the same number. Finally, the phrase “five less than the number” is syntactically confusing. It often leads the student to write “5 - n,” when the reverse, “n - 5,” is required. The problem also assumes that the student understands that the phrase “is equal to” signals an equation.
One can easily understand from the above example why it is not appropriate to assume that math is “language independent,” and further why it is not always correct to mainstream limited-English-proficient students into math classes before they are ready. Instead, it is advisable to establish an approach that simultaneously teaches language and mathematics content.
It has been suggested that there is an academic proficiency level (similar to CALP) in math. The cognitive academic mathematics proficiency (CAMP) is described as the threshold level of proficiency that students must reach to effectively perform cognitively demanding mathematical tasks (Dawe 1984). CAMP consists of cognitive knowledge (mathematical concepts and how they are applied) embedded in a language specifically structured to express that knowledge. The threshold level for CAMP consists of proficiency in both mathematics and in math language. Further, there are linguistic features that need to be taken into consideration for mathematics instruction. These have been described by Morris (1955) as syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics of the English language (See Appendix A). Table 2 outlines the complex interplay between syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features that occurs when students attempt to verbalize or interpret mathematical rules and concepts in English.
SYNTACTIC FEATURES
I. COMPARATIVE.
greater than/less tha.
as i.
all numbers greater than .
n times as much a.
Carlos earns six times as much as I do. Carlos earns $5.00 per hour. What do I earn.
as . . . a.
Mia is as old as Jack. Jack is three years older than Frank. Frank is 25. How old is Mia.
II. PREPOSITION.
divided into
four (divided) into nine (9 4 or 9-4.
divided by
four divided by nine (4 9 or 4-9.
by
two is multiplied by itself three times (multiplication) vs. x exceeds two by seven (addition.
III. PASSIVE VOIC.
as in x is defined to be greater than or equal to zer.
when 15 is added to a number, the result is 21 - What is the number.
IV. REVERSAL ERROR.
Examples: The number a is 5 less than the number b.
correct equation: a = b − 5
incorrect equation: a = 5 − b or a − 5 = b
There are five times as many students as teachers in the mathematics classes.
correct equation: 5t = s
incorrect equation: 5s = t
V. LOGICAL CONNECTOR.
if . . . the.
As i.
If a is positive, then −a is negativ.
if and only i.
a − b = c and only if b −a = c
given tha.
Given that a = 0, a × b = 0
SEMANTIC FEATURES
I. LEXICA.
A. NEW TECHNICAL VOCABULAR.
additive invers.
coefficien.
denominato.
binomia.
monomia.
polynomia.
B. NATURAL LANGUAGE VOCABULARY WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING IN MATHEMATIC.
squar.
rationa.
irrationa.
power.
qualit.
inequalit.
C. COMPLEX STRINGS OF WORDS OR PHRASE.
least common denominato.
negative exponen.
D. SYNONYMOUS WORDS AND PHRASE.
For addition: add, plus, combine, sum, more than, and increased b.
For subtraction: subtract, minus, differences, less than, and decreased b.
E. SYMBOLS AND MATHEMATICAL NOTATIONS AS VOCABULAR.
II. REFERENTIA.
A. ARTICLES PRE-MODIFIER.
a numbe.
the number as i.
Five times a number is two more than two times the numbe.
one numbe.
another number as i.
One number is ten times another number. If the first number is 7, find the second numbe.
B. VARIABLE.
Example: There are five times as many apples as pears in the fruit bowl.
correct equation: 5b = a, where b refers to the number of pears and a refers to the number of apple.
C. VAGUENESS IN PROBLEMS AND DIRECTION.
Example: Food expenses take 26% of the average family's income. A family makes $5000 a month. How much is spent on food.
That month.
In a year.
What is being asked for.
III. SIMILAR TERMS, DIFFERENT FUNCTION.
les.
vs.
less tha.
the squar.
the square roo.
divided b.
divided int.
multiply b.
increased b.
I. EPISTEMOLOGICAL
II. TEXTUAL
Table 2 indicates the many facets of the English language used in mathematical problem solving. It also points out why it is essential to incorporate a language approach to the teaching of mathematics. Further, by using a language approach, students will be given many opportunities to develop listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills while acquiring and perfecting mathematical skills.
(Source: Spanos, G., N. Rhodes, T. Dale, and J. Crandall. (1988). “Linguistic Features of Mathematical Problem Solving.” In Linguistic and Cultural Influences on Learning Mathematics, edited by R. Cocking and J. Mestre. (pp. 221–240). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Eribaum Associates).
The following suggestions for reading comprehension not only apply to language-minority students, but other students as well:
The three fundamental steps to increase reading comprehension skills are shown in Figure 1.
[Note: This figure is not available for electronic dissemination.]
The first step, before reading (pre-reading), helps set the stage for the student. It increases the student's interest, concentration, and comprehension while reading. It is always beneficial, if not essential, prior to beginning the story or unit to insure that the students are familiar with terms such as: plot, character, setting, theme, summary, main idea, and prediction. This is also the time when essential vocabulary words are reviewed. During the story reading (step 2), continue to review vocabulary as well as stop to ask questions for understanding. An archeological dig refers to the students uncovering facts not previously known or else making predictions and determining them to be true or false at the end of the story. In step 3, the students are asked to summarize the story, comparing the story to others they have read and perhaps applying and/or expanding the ideas of the story. When asking students to summarize, remember that it may be difficult for them to differentiate between important and insignificant details. As the teacher, you may need to help students understand when an example focuses on the specific events that are not crucial to the overall theme or main idea.
When a child first arrives in the United States from a non-English-speaking country, one of the first tasks is to begin learning English. Upon entering school, many teachers find that the child is still in the process of learning English but at the same time is asked to master content matter. Cummins (1981) points out that the academic language used in content areas is the hurdle to academic success that many students can not leap over. One way to help students jump this hurdle is to “ ... provide comprehensible input directly to the LEP student ... by teaching content in English using strategies and techniques that make the content comprehensible to the second-language learner (Short 1991, p. 1). Table 3 lists strategies and techniques for content teachers who wish to use an integrated approach in their classes:
Moving from a single lesson to an entire curriculum.
Develop one lesson.
Look for:
When Planning a Lesson, Consider:
Develop a unit in one academic area.
Advantage to developing a series of lessons:
Adapting Materials (Short and Rhodes 1990).
Implementation (Short and Rhodes 1990)
Potential Problems You Might Encounter
Facilitating between language and content-area teachers may be difficult.
In a thematic unit, tasks are designed to help students organize the patterns of their knowledge in a variety of ways and to allow them to develop the language to express and comprehend these knowledge structures.
KEY OBJECTIVE: To help students comprehend and express knowledge across a variety of topics, tasks, situations, and modes.
Figure 2 presents a unit on the topic of birds.
This unit is designed for ESL students, in 4th or 5th grade, who have varying degrees of language proficiency and come from diverse backgrounds. Displayed is the outline that could be used as the starting point for developing tasks that would provide students with an opportunity to develop rich and varied use of language.
Initially, in this unit, the teacher could start out with classification—a time for a great deal of teacher input and student talk using the language of classification. The unit would continue with many concepts in a variety of subject areas (i.e., science and social studies) being integrated. Thematic units also give students many opportunities to work in cooperative groups.
Sheltered English features characteristics such as:
Methods include:
How is Sheltered English Different from Other Approaches to Teach LEP Students?
Collaborative learning provides excellent opportunities for students to develop leadership, to learn to make decisions, to resolve conflicts, and to enhance communication skills, all critical factors to independent learning. Teachers can foster positive interdependence by establishing that the goal of the group is to ensure the learning of all group members, giving rewards based on the overall achievement of the group, structuring tasks so they require cooperation and coordination among group members to achieve the goal and giving complementary roles, sequenced for successful completion, for all members of the groups. Cooperative learning strategies are particularly effective for learners who have difficulty operating from a framework of independence and intrinsic motivation. An additional benefit for ESL students is that collaborative learning groups offer natural contexts for development of both conversational and academic language proficiency.See Appendix D for an overview of cooperative learning structures).
In the United States, methods to measure student achievement have not drastically changed in the past twenty years. With the accountability movement of the '70s, standardized tests (see Appendix A) became mandatory (at last count, 46 states had mandatory state-regulated testing) and are often given great weight by the public. Some feel this measurement-driven approach has merit in that it focuses teachers' attention on objectives; provides scores that yield uncomplicated comparisons between students, schools, districts, states, or nations; is easily administered and scored, leaving more time for instruction; and because of its long period of use, has scientific reliability and validity. Still others feel there is a need for better assessments. Standardized tests have been strongly criticized for their cultural bias, often making it difficult for many to succeed, “because they are deliberately constructed to insure that at least half the students will always score below average” (National Center on Effective Secondary Schools 1987, p. 1). Further, they provide information that is not always useful, do not cover the wide range of important instructional objectives, and because of pressure to produce “top” scores, adversely affect teaching and the curriculum. Within this controversy there is wide agreement that standardized tests should not be discarded completely; they do have a place in education in that the tests provide the general data for comparison on the large scale—educators are able to see the big picture. There is further agreement, however, that there is a need for more comprehensive,alternative means of evaluation; assessment tasks that will more closely parallel real-learning tasks. It is the combination of the two approaches that many educators are looking at today. Educators do not want to create tests that just look different but are different from the old methods. As the Congressional Report, “Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions” (1992, p. 5) points out “ ...testing has historically been viewed as a means to achieve educational equity; tests themselves have always been scrutinized on the question of whether they do more to alleviate or exacerbate social, economic, and educational disparities.”.
Since the United States' educational testing policy is at a crossroads, and if we look to history for clues, the future of assessment will depend in large part on basic equity, fairness, and the improvement of opportunities for minorities, limited-English speaking, and the disadvantaged. Baker (1992, p. 14) indicates that there are three principle concerns regarding equity in assessment of LEP students:
Simply stated, alternative assessment means anything but multiple choice (and problem true-false) and generally connotes extended and multi-step production tasks. Valdez, Pierce, and O'Malley (1992, pp. 1–2) describe alternative assessment as follows:
In Figure 3, McTighe (1992) demonstrates how traditional testing can move toward authentic assessment.
Traditional Testing
Authentic Assessment
Contrive.
Meaningful/Real-Lif.
Paper & Penci.
Performance-Base.
Recall/Recognitio.
Thoughtful Applicatio.
Basic Skill.
Significant Outcome.
Standardize.
Personalize.
Norm-Reference.
Criterion-Reference.
Teacher Structure.
Student Structure.
Uninterestin.
Engagin.
Short-Ter.
Long-Ter.
Summativ.
On-Goin.
(Source: McTighe, J. (1992). “Moving Toward Authentic Assessment.” Paper presented at the ASCD Mini-Conference, “Creating Thoughtful Assessment.” Baltimore, Md.: ASCD..
(For a complete discussion on this topic, including rating charts and checklists: Performance and Portfolio Assessment for Language Minority Students by L. Valdez Pierce and J.M. O'Malley. Spring 1992. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1118 22nd St., N.W., Washington, DC 20037).
To answer this question, one must first clarify the meaning of the word “restructuring.” Simply stated, restructuring is the word that has been attached to the change movement going on in education today. Schools find that the way they are organized—the way they conduct their business—is not producing the student outcomes we need to be a productive nation in the 21st century. Like a butterfly casting off a useless cocoon, the shape of education in schools across the country is being transformed in countless ways as practices and purposes are questioned and found unproductive.
Advocates of bilingual education support the restructuring changes, but, in addition, “ . . . want individuals involved in the restructuring process to understand and support the goals of bilingual education. In this way, restructuring can be inclusive of the needs of all children” (Guadarrama 1992, p. 2).
Guadarrama (1992, p. 2) suggests the following for bilingual education programs—guidelines that need to occur along with other restructuring plans:
There is no doubt that district personnel, especially bilingual/ESL program directors, facing restructuring efforts within their district will have many new challenges to confront. The major challenge of adjusting to substantially altered roles and responsibilities places a burden not only on directors, but on all program personnel (McKeon and Malarz 1991). Appendix C provides a summary of key actions that may be initiated to ease the burdens which may be caused when a school restructures.
Anderson, T., and M. Boyer. (1970). Bilingual Schooling in the United States. Austin, Tex.: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (pp. 43–44, 63).
Ashworth, M., J. Cummins, and J. Hanscombe. (1989). Report of the External Review Team on the Vancouver School Board's ESL Programs. Unpublished manuscript.
Au, K., and C. Jordan. (1981). “Teaching Reading to Hawaiian Children: Finding a Culturally Appropriate Solution.” In Culture and the Bilingual Classroom: Studies in Classroom and Ethnography, edited by K. Au, G. Guthrie, and H. Trueba. (pp. 139–152). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Austin American Statesman. (January 29, 1986). “Hispanic Population Found to be Growing Rapidly.” Austin American Statesman A-11.
Baker, E. (1992). “Issues in Policy, Assessment, and Equity.” Proceedings of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement. (pp. 1–19). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs.
Blanco, G. (1977). Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives. Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Cohen, A. (1975). A Sociolinguistic Approach to Bilingual Education. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Collier, V. (1987). “Age and Rate of Acquisition of Second Language for Academic Purposes.” TESOL Quarterly 21: 617–641.
Collier, V., and C. Ovando. (1985). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in Multicultural Contents. New York: McGraw Hill.
Comer, J. (1986). “Parental Participation in the Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan 67: 442–446.
Congress of the United States. Office of Technology Assessment. (February 1992). “Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Crandell, J., T. Dale, N. Rhodes, and G. Spanos. (1988). “Linguistic Features of Mathematical Problem Solving.” In Linguistic and Cultural Influences on Learning Mathematics edited by R. Cocking and J. Mestre. (pp. 221–240). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cummins, J. (1981). “Age and Rate of Acquisition of Second Language Learning in Canada: A Reassessment.” Applied Linguistics 2: 132–149.
Cummins, J. (1986). “Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention.” Harvard Educational Review 56: 18–36.
Cummins, J. (1981). “The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students.” In Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework, edited by the California State Department of Education Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education. Los Angeles, Calif.: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
Cummins, J., and M. Swain. (1986). Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research and Policy. London: Longman.
Dawe, L. (August 1984). “A Theoretical Framework for the Study of the Effects of Bilingualism on Mathematics Teaching and Learning.” Paper presented at the Fifth International Congress On Mathematical Education. Adelaide, Australia.
Diaz, R., and L. Moll. (1987). “Teaching Writing as Communication: The Use of Enthnographic Findings in Classroom Practice.” In Literacy and Schooling, edited by D. Bloome. (pp. 195–221). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Diebold, R. (1961). “Bilingualism and Biculturalism in a Hauve Community.” Doctoral diss. Yale University.
Dulay, H., M. Burt, and S. Krashen. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford Press.
Early, M. (1990). “Enabling First and Second Language Learners in the Classroom.” Language Arts 67: 567–575.
Early, M., C. Thew, and P. Wakefield. (1986). ESL Resource Book: Integrating Language and Content Instruction, K-12, Vol. 1. Victoria, B.C.: Ministry of Education.
Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in Bilingual Program: Habia Una Vez. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Enright, D., and M. McCloskey. (1988). Integrating English: Developing English Language and Literacy in the Multilingual Classroom. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Enright, D., and M. McCloskey. (Sept. 1985). “Yes, Talking! Organizing the Classroom to Promote Second Language Acquisition.” TESOL Quarterly 19: 3.
Erickson, J., and D. Omark. (1983). The Bilingual Exceptional Child. San Diego, Calif.: College Hill Press.
Guadarrama, I. (Fall 1992). “Restructuring Bilingual Education: Are the Rule the Same?” Mentor Teacher Network 1, 4: 1–3.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas; a Bibliography and Research Guide. Montgomery, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways With Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hornby, P. (1977). Bilingualism: Psychological, Social, and Educational Implications. New York: Academic Press.
Hudelson, S. (1986). “ESL Children's Writing: What We've Learned, What We're Learning.” In Children and ESL: Integrating Perspectives, edited by V. Allen and P. Rigg. (pp. 23–54). Washington, D.C.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Jordan, C. (1985). “Translating Culture: From Ethnographic Information to Educational Program.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 16: 105–123.
Macias, R. (1985). “National Language Profile of the Mexican Origin Population in the United States.” In Mexican in Comparative Perspective, edited by W. Connor. (pp. 285–308). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
McKeon, D., and L. Malarz (Summer 1991). School Based Management: What Bilingual and ESL Program Directors Should Know. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
McTighe, J. (1992). “Moving Toward Authentic Assessment.” Presentation at ASCD Mini-Conference, “Creating Thoughtful Assessment.” Washington, D.C.: ASCD.
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Morris, C. (1955). “Foundations of the Theory of Signs.” International Encyclopedia of United Science 1, 2: 78–137. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. (Fall 1987). “News Letter.” University of Wisconsin-Madison: School of Education 2, 2: 2–8.
O'Malley, J.M., and L. Valdez Pierce. (Spring 1992). Performance and Portfolio Assessment for Language Minority Students. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Reich, K. (September 26, 1986). “Hispanic Population Likely to Double by 2020.” Austin American Statesman A-11.
Rhodes, N., and D. Short. (1990). Strategies and Techniques for Integrating Language and Content Instruction. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Short, D. (Fall 1991). Integrating Language and Content Instruction: Strategies and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Thorndike, E. (1912). “The Measurement of Educational Products.” School Review 20: 289–299.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1983). “The Language Learner as an Individual: Implications of Research on Individual Difference in the ESL Teacher.” In On TESOL '82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching, edited by M. Clarke and J. Handscombe. (pp. 157–173). Washington, D.C.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
ACCULTURATION
The process of adjusting to and becoming comfortable with the ways of thinking, beliefs, values, and emotions of a culture different from one's own.
BICS
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills. Mastery of listening and speaking skills in a second language which usually takes about two years to accomplish.
BICULTURALISM
The ability of a person to feel comfortable with the beliefs, values, and ways of thinking of two different cultures.
BILINGUALISM
Effective communication in two languages.
CALP
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency. Academic language skills, such as processing information, reading, knowledge of sophisticated content-area vocabulary, and writing. Acquisition of CALP may require five to seven years.
CLDE CHILD
Culturally and linguistically different exceptional child. This child has special needs or handicaps which may require special education. He also has needs specific to his or her cultural and linguistic background. Often this child is also limited in English proficiency.
CLOZE PROCEDURE
An informal strategy for teaching and assessing understanding and use of language. This procedure may be oral or written, but involves leaving out a word systematically from a reading or oral passage. The student's task is to use context clues to select a word which fits into the passage and “makes sense.”.
COGNITIVE STYLES/LEARNING STYLES
This term describes how people prefer to process information, the way they organize and control the demands of complex situations and tasks.
CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS (CRT)
Provides information which is useful in classroom instruction. Criterion-referenced measures are used to ascertain an individual's status against some criteria or performance standard.
FIELD-INDEPENDENT
People who are field-independent tend to prefer individual and independent types of activities. They use a reflective, abstract, analytic style in processing information.
FIELD-DEPENDENT
Those who use a field-dependent style tend to place more emphasis on people and their environment, learn best from demonstration and concrete and active participation. They process information globally, seeing how parts fit into a whole.
CULTURE
A total way of life of a people that gives meaning to all human activity.
DIFFERENCE:
Contrasted with a disorder (or handicap), the assumption is made that many behaviors are the result of background and experience.
ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF ASSESSMENT:
Gathering information about the child's functioning in all environments (home, school, etc.) and noting the interaction between the child and his environment.
ESOL:
English for Speakers of Other Languages program, similar to ESL (English as a second language).
FLUENCY:
The ability to speak and\or write easily and smoothly.
LANGUAGE DOMINANCE:
The assumption that a bilingual person is more proficient in one of his languages than the other.
L1:
The first language learned, the native language of a person.
L2:
The second language learned by a person.
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY:
Competence in a language. This may be oral, written, reading, or listening competence and in L1 or L2.
LANGUAGE SAMPLE:
A sample of the speech or writing or a person which is collected and systematically analyzed to determine the proficiency of the individual.
L.E.P.:
Limited English Proficient. A person may be limited in all language skill areas (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) or in only one of these.
LOCUS OF CONTROL:
A construct from the study of social learning theory often viewed as a dimension of personality. Students with an external locus of control perceive outside forces of chance, luck, and fate as powerful controlling forces in their lives. People with an internal locus of control see themselves as in control of what happens to them in life.
MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM:
A team of educators and specialists with a wide variety of skills from their different backgrounds. They have responsibility as a team to consider a student's problems, devise a plan for intervention and\or assessment, implement that plan, and make decisions for further intervention or placement in special education, based on interpretation of information collected.
NATIVE LANGUAGE:
Also called mother tongue or home language, this is generally thought of as the first language learned.
NONBIASED ASSESSMENT:
A systematic procedure whereby the evaluator examines tests and testing situations for possible linguistic or cultural bias which may distort the assessment results.
PHONOLOGY:
Pronunciation of the sounds of a language.
PRAGMATICS:
the study of how linguistic signs are used and interpreted by speakers of natural languages in specific contexts of use, e.g., the relationship in English between the words, “I promise” and a speaker's intentions to perform a future action or a hearer's expectations that the action will be performed.
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA):
The process of learning a second language after the basics have been learned in a first language.
SEMANTICS:
the study of how linguistic signs behave in relation to the objects or concepts they refer to (their denotations) or their senses (their connotations), e.g., the relationship between the English word star and the numerous and earthly objects to which it may refer and the several senses it may have.
STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT:
A set of consistent procedures for constructing, administering, and scoring an assessment. The goal of standardization is to ensure that all students are assessed under uniform conditions so that interpretation of their performance is comparable and not influenced by differing conditions.
SYNTACTICS:
the study of how linguistic signs, or symbols, behave in relation to each other, e.g., the formal relationship that obtains between active and passive verb forms in English.
SYNTAX:
The grammar and structure of a language.
The following checklist focuses on the key issues that should be considered to ensure a quality bilingual program. This checklist can be used as a planning tool for developing and implementing new bilingual programs as well as reexamining existing ones.
I. Provisions of a Bilingual Program. Regarding the district's documents, does the bilingual program provide the following.
Ineffective
Somewhat effective
Effective
Very Effective
A. Program's Philosophy
1. Clearly articulated philosophy.
a. Overall goal of education.
_________.
b. Objectives of the program.
2. Description of the program's views.
a. The child as learner.
b. Role of the administrator.
c. The nature of the curriculum.
d. The subject-matter content.
3. Instruction and assessment.
a. Teaching method.
b. Evaluation procedure.
4. Guidelines for classroom control.
B. Language Policy
1. Coherent description of the program's philosophy regarding anticipated language outcomes.
2. Description of the approach to classroom language development appropriate for ages of students in the program.
3. Delineation of strategies for language development to be used by teachers.
C. Place for Subject-Matter Content
1. Statement of commitment to subject-matter instruction.
2. Listing of subject-matter instruction to be provided at each grade level.
3. Suggestions for teaching subject-matter content to LEP students.
D. Role of Culture
1. Identification of the approach to culture.
2. Description of cultural traits expected in teachers.
3. Discussion of how student's background experiences, values, motivation, and learning styles as well as communicative abilities are to be accommodated by the program.
E. Development of Literacy
1. Statement of the definition of literacy adopted by the district and followed in the program.
2. Discussion of how integration of the language arts will be accomplished in the program.
3. Description of the commitment to first language literacy.
4. Description of the decision-markers for initiation of second language literacy program.
5. Description of ESL program, methodology, and its interrelatedness with language arts.
F. Adequate Assessment and Evaluation
1. Clear description of assessment policy.
a. Purposes for testin.
b. Uses of test dat.
c. Recognition of the limits of test.
d. Reliance on many sources for educational decisions.
2. Evaluation procedures.
a. Criteria for judging adequacy of instructio.
b. Formal measures to be use.
c. Informal measures and other indicators used along with formal tests in describing student progres.
d. Intended use of evaluation result.
e. Description of match between outcomes expected, instruction provided, and assessment employed.
G. Materials Selection
1. Guidelines for material selection.
a. Oral and written literacy material.
b. Subject-matter instruction material.
2. Criteria for judging the merit of materials.
a. Consistency with district's curriculum.
b. Appropriateness of instruction for varied levels of student proficiency.
c. Variety of linguistic, social, and academic experiences provided.
d. Usefulness in meeting program goal.
3. Placement of bilingual materials in each curriculum adoption cycle.
H. Classroom Management
1. Statement of time allotments for primary language and English instruction in each year of the program.
2. Indication of the use of the primary language and English in teaching various subjects.
3. A description of grouping criteria.
4. Provision for flexibility in placement.
I. Parental Involvement
1. Policy regarding the involvement of parents in educational decisions about their children.
2. Goals to be achieved through parental involvement.
3. Suggestions for involving parents.
(Source: California State Department of Education. (1990). Designing Instruction for LEP Students: Bilingual Education Handbook. Sacramento, Calif.: California State Department of Education).
II. Effectiveness of Bilingual Program How effective is your bilingual program in providing students opportunities to...
A. Bilinguality
1. Receive content-based literacy instruction in their primary language.
2. Receive instruction in sheltered English.
3. Receive instruction in the mainstream classroom.
B. Culture
1. Develop a sense of self-worth.
2. Accept others and be accepted.
3. Allow and respect a variety of perspectives and interpretations.
4. Apply new lessons to personal experiences.
5. Separate cultural diversity from cultural stereotypes.
6. Work alongside students from different cultures.
C. Content
1. Study the same content encountered by English-speaking students.
2. Read great works of literature.
3. Continue the study of the primary language in reading, writing, speaking, and listening after reclassification.
4. Explore the responsibilities of the citizen in sustaining a democracy in history-social science.
5. Have hands-on experiences demonstrating principles of the natural world in science.
6. Recognize the mathematical relationship in a complex situation and use that insight to come up with a solution in mathematics.
7. Encounter works of dance, drama, music, and art from their own cultural heritage.
8. Learn English in communication-based ESL classes.
D. Assessment/Evaluation
1. Demonstrate language proficiency consistent with the program's goals.
2. Demonstrate content mastery consistent with the program's goals.
3. Exit the bilingual program.
4. Graduate from high school.
5. Enter higher education.
E. Materials
1. Find books written in their primary language in the classroom and school library.
2. Use films, video tapes, computer software, laser discs, and other technology-related materials to build subject-area concepts and language mastery.
F. Classroom Management
1. Take part in cooperative/collaborative learning sessions.
2. Be placed in cross-age or cross-ability groupings.
3. Set their own educational agenda.
4. Take responsibility for learning.
III. Opportunities for Teachers How effective is your bilingual program in giving teachers the opportunity to...
1. Hone their proficiency in the primary language.
2. Study effective classroom techniques for teaching cross-ability groupings.
3. Provide in-class support and follow-up.
IV. Opportunities for Parents How effective is your bilingual program in giving parents the opportunity to...
1. Participate in the education of their children.
2. Collaborate in decisions regarding curriculum, testing, and classroom management.
3. Help out in the classroom.
4. Serve as resources in explaining cultural benefits.
(Source: D. McKeon, and L. Malarz. (Summer 1991). School Based Management: What Bilingual and ESL Program Directors Should Know. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education).
Structure and Brief Description
Functions (Academic and Social)
Team Building
Round Robin. Each student in turn shares some kind of information with his or her teammates.
Expressing ideas and opinions, creating stories. Equal participation, getting acquainted with teammates.
Class Building
Corners. Each student moves to a corner of the room representing a teacher-determined alternative. Students discuss within corners, then listen to and paraphrase ideas from other corners.
Seeing alternative hypothesis, values, problem-solving approaches. Knowing and representing different points of view, meeting classmates.
Communication Building
Paraphrase Passport. Students correctly paraphrase the ideas of the person who has just spoken and then contribute their own ideas.
Checking comprehension. Giving feedback. Sharing ideas.
Spend-a-Buck. Each student is given four quarters (or four votes) and must make a decision about what to “spend” them on or use them for in a particular situation. The team tallies the results to determine its decision.
Decision making. Consensus building. Conflict resolution.
Group Processing. Students evaluate their ability to work together as a group and each member's participation, with an aim to improving how the group works together.
Communication skills. Role-taking ability.
Mastery
Numbered Heads Together. The teacher asks a question; students consult to make sure everyone knows the answer.
Review, checking for knowledge comprehension.
Send-a-problem. Each student writes a review problem on a flash card and asks teammates to answer or solve it. Review questions are passed to another group.
Review, checking for comprehension.
Cooperative Review. Students engage in a variety of games to review the week's material.
Concept Development
Three-Step Interview. Students interview each other in pairs, first one way, then the other. Students share with the group information they learned in the interview.
Sharing personal information such as hypotheses, reactions to a poem, conclusions from a unit. Participation, listening.
Brainstorming. Students encourage each other to generate ideas regarding a particular topic or problem and build upon each other's ideas.
Generating and relating ideas.
Group Discussion. The teacher asks a low consensus question. Students talk it over in groups and share their ideas.
Sharing ideas. Reaching consensus.
Multifunctional
Round table. Students pass a paper and pencil around the group. The paper may contain several choices for ways of doing something. Each student in turn writes his/her name by his preferred strategy. Teams then agree on which strategies to use.
Assessing prior knowledge, practicing skills, recalling information, creating cooperative art. Team building, participation for all.
Partners. Students work in pairs to create or master content. They consult with partners from other teams. They then share their products or understanding with the other partner pair in their team.
Mastery and presentation of new material, concept development. Presentation and communication skills.
Co-op Co-op. Students work in groups to produce a particular group product to share with the whole class; each student makes a particular contribution to the group.
Learning and sharing complex material, often with multiple sources. Evaluation, application, analysis, synthesis. Conflict resolution, presentation skills. Planning, group decision making.
Group investigation. Students identify a topic and organize into research groups to plan learning tasks or sub-topics for investigation. Individual students gather and evaluate data and synthesize findings in a group report.
Application, analysis, inference, synthesis, evaluation. Planning, group decision making.
Resources can be found in federal, state, and local levels. This list is not comprehensive, but should serve as a starting point for schools and families.
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), 1118 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037, (800) 321-NCB.
National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), Union Center Plaza, 810 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 2000.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE), 1118 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037, (800) 321-NCB.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 1600 Cameron Street, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314-2751, (703) 836-077.
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our twice-monthly e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.