Multilingualism

We recently touched on effective methods to promote college- and career-readiness (CCR) among English Learners, and described some of the unique difficulties ELs face in preparing themselves for life after grade school. This week, we’re going to look at the extent to which certain CCR programs are available to ELs in the United States, and the extent to which ELs enroll in them.

Reporting on the 2011-12 academic year, the Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) found that 2% of ELs participated in Advanced Placement (AP) and Gifted and Talented (GATE) programs, compared to 5% and 7%, respectively, among non-ELs. In addition, some of the states with the highest proportions of ELs in their school systems reported some of the highest disparities between EL and non-EL participation in these programs: Virginia and California both reported a difference of 8%, while Maryland reported a difference of 14%.

Resource

For the 2013-14 academic year, OELA compared the availability of GATE and AP programs to EL enrolment in them. They found that these programs were available to 11% and 5% of ELs, but only saw participation rates of 3% and 2%, respectively.

GATE and AP programs not only help prepare students for the rigor of college work, but can also give them a head start on their undergraduate degrees by awarding them college credit. It is therefore important that students have access to and are made aware of these programs.

In 2013, the Cooperative Children’s Book Center (CCBC) conducted its annual survey of books published in the previous year for children and young adults. Even as talented authors made their debuts, there was limited cultural diversity in the content of these 3,600 books:

•          3.3 percent of books had significant African or African American content
•          2.1 percent had significant Asian/Pacific or Asian/Pacific American content
•          1.5 percent had significant Latino content
•          0.06 percent had Native American themes, topics, or characters

In a society as diverse as the United States, it is important to incorporate literature that represents a wide array of social and cultural backgrounds, in order to establish a welcoming and culturally responsive learning environment for all students. (In an encouraging sign, all these percentages had substantially increased in the most recent survey for books published in 2016.)

To learn about sustaining culturally responsive pedagogy in your literary lessons or in the literacy classroom, check out this article from the International Literacy Association.

Resources

Horning, K.T., Lindgren, M.V., & Schliesman, M. (2013). A few observations on publishing in 2012. Accessed from http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/books/choiceintro13.asp

Multiple studies have demonstrated the positive relationship between native language maintenance, the promotion of biliteracy, and educational outcomes for emergent bilingual students, particularly through bilingual programs.Research has shown similar influences on lower dropout rates and other important educational factors.

Teachers should create rich multilingual classroom environments that promote bilingualism and foster biliteracy. One way to do so is through ensuring that the classroom library includes books written in students’ native languages . Bilingual materials can also present valuable opportunities for addressing topics like diversity, multilingualism, and cultural awareness.  In selecting texts and other materials responsive to the linguistic needs of your students, consider consulting community members regarding accurate language use and appropriacy.

Resources

Botelho, M.J. & Rudman, M. (2010). Critical multicultural analysis of children's literature: Mirrors, windows, and doors. New York: Routledge.

Collier V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2), 187-212.

 Ernst-Slavit, G. & Mulhern, M. (2003). Bilingual books: Promoting literacy and biliteracy in the second-language and mainstream classroom. Reading Online, 7(2), 1096- 1232.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.

Snow, C.E. (1990). Rationales for native language instruction: Evidence from research. In A.M. Padilla, H.H. Fairchild, & C.M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues and strategies (pp. 60-74). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). Language minority student achievement and program effectiveness. NABE News, 19, 33-35.

Experts and scholars agree that best practices for ELs should include promoting native language maintenance and life-long biliteracy.

Research also suggests that teaching students to read in their first language promotes higher levels of reading achievement in English, possibly as a result of "knowledge transfer" across languages.

Several states across the U.S. (such as New York, New Mexico and California) currently have initiatives in place to better support, strengthen and develop the standards for bilingualism/bilteracy within schools and among students. These aim to recognize and acknowledge students’ capacities for, and orientation toward, bilingualism and biliteracy.  California now offers to students a Seal of Biliteracy, which is awarded to students upon graduation and recognized by the state.

 To get an overview of the program, how it was established, and suggestions for implementing a similar program in your area check out this short Colorín Colorado article.

For a look at the requirements for California’s Seal of Biliteracy check out the requirements checklist section on the California Department of Education’s website.

Resources

August, D. & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

García, O. and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and Christian, D. 2006. Educating English Language Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press

Valdés, Guadalupe. Learning and not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Traditionally, literacy development has focused on the processes of reading and writing, and the use of language for the purposes of societal assimilation.  Recent scholars, however, have proposed that we might think of literacy, and by extension, the conceptual definition of “literate” as also representative of knowledge, skills, expertise, and acuity beyond reading and writing to also represent language production and reception in other modes of interaction, communication, and processing within the multimodal context of contemporary society.  

Schools and society are often not equipped to accurately recognize the multiliteracies that English learners bring to the classroom, perhaps due to an over-emphasis on standardized and formal assessment, as well as linguistic repertoire that may not correspond to that of the U.S., English-medium school system. Lesson development and delivery therefore, should begin with understanding the linguistic, social, and cognitive resources and capital that English learners bring with them to the classroom, despite a possible mismatch with school.

For a look at ideas related to using multiple literacies in sheltered content instruction, check out this article from Minnesota TESOL!

Resources

Andrei, M. (2014). Multiliteracy in Three English as a Second Language (ESL) classrooms. The Tapestry Journal, 6(1), 19-34.

Kasper, L. F. (2000). New technologies, new literacies: Focus discipline research and ESL learning communities. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 105-128.

Moll, L. C. (1994). Literacy research in community classrooms: A sociocultural approach. In R.B. Rudell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes or reading, 4^th edition (pp. 179-207). Newark, DE: IRA. 

Did you know that according to a recent study conducted by the Migration Policy Institute, nearly 30 percent of young children in the US come from a linguistically diverse household (Park, McHugh, Zong, and Batalova, 2015)? The same study also found that roughly 17 percent of children of immigrants have at least one limited English proficient parent.

Students from linguistically diverse homes bring many cultural and linguistic strengths to their learning and educational development. These figures highlight the importance of ensuring that  teachers, schools, and school districts prioritize engagement with both students and their families.

For a comprehensive look at tools, techniques, and tips for developing family engagement practices for students and families of diverse linguistic backgrounds, check out this report, Supporting Family Engagement in Linguistically Diverse Families to Promote Young Children’s Learning, from Columbia University’s National Center for Children in Poverty.

Resources

Barrueco, S., Smith, S., & Stephens, S. (2015). Supporting parent engagement in linguistically diverse families to promote young children’s learning: Implications for early care and education policy. New York, NY: Child Care & Early Education Research Connections.

Park, M., McHugh, M., Zong, J., and Batalova, J. (2015). Immigrant and refugee workers in the early childhood field: Taking a closer look. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

In the past few decades, substantial discussion in the field of second language learning has addressed the issue of teaching grammar (Borg and Burns, 2008). Among these includes a pivotal debate around whether EL students should be given direct feedback on grammatical mistakes and error production, particularly in their written work.

Some in the field have argued that grammar correction often impedes student progress because it is ineffective and insufficient in the language learning process, and it often has negative side effects on students’ attitudes and will to learn (Truscott, 1996).  Others have argued that grammar correction is an important step in the language learning process and benefits students because it draws attention to linguistic accuracy, encourages self-correction, and may motivate students to work harder (Ferris, 2004).

As a whole, studies about grammar correction for EL students may be insufficient to support either side of the argument entirely. While grammar correction for EL students can often be a helpful tool to highlight mistakes and areas for improvement, a more successful approach for encouraging progress and particularly literacy development, might involve journaling. Inviting students to journal brings opportunities for them to interact with content and language at their level, and if appropriate, in their native language. Understanding your students’ needs, learning styles, and types of errors can be a valuable first step toward thinking about the role of error and grammar correction in language and content teaching and learning.  

Resources

Borg, S.  Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29, 456-482.

Ferris, D.R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-64.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327– 369.

The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) recently released a report on DLLs in the United States. The report contains both national and state-by-state data on DLL education policies and demographics—like age ranges, academic scores, and home languages.

MPI compiled these data based on census reporting between 2011 and 2015. MPI reports that DLLs constitute 32 percent of children under the age of eight in the United States. Spanish is spoken by 59 percent of DLLs’ parents, making it far and away the most common home language among DLLs. It is followed distantly by Chinese (including Cantonese, Mandarin, and other Chinese languages), Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Arabic. Together, these five languages constitute nearly 70 percent of all DLL home languages.

The report also includes an evaluation of the implementation of education policies that could benefit DLLs in particular, such as bilingual education and assessments in home languages. MPI found that, while some states had taken numerous policy measures to accommodate DLLs, many others had not.

English learners are not a rarity in the United States, and this report serves as a valuable reminder of that fact. As their population continues to grow, teachers, schools, and school systems will need to experiment with policies to promote equitable access to education and other services for ELs and their families.

Resource

If you would like to see MPI’s findings for the country or any state, you can find factsheets on both here.

Did you know that recent research suggests that students who take part in bilingual education programs, when compared with their non-bilingual peers, possess heightened social and emotional skills, experience fewer attendance and behavioral problems, have families that are more engaged, feel an increased sense of belonging, and seem to perform just as well as non-bilingual peers on standardized tests when it comes to reading and decoding texts? 

Resources

For a closer look at the research, and a discussion of how bilingual education programs might strengthen students’ educational experience, check out this article from NPR Ed. 

Do bilingual students approach reading differently from their monolingual peers? According to a recent study conducted in Spain, the way bilingual students learn to read may be influenced by which languages they know.

For this study, researchers examined languages with two types of alphabetic writing systems: phonetic and opaque. In phonetic languages, such as Spanish, letters are pronounced the same regardless of the words in which they appear. In opaque writing systems, such as English or French, letter sounds may vary depending on the word. While monolinguals with phonetic writing systems tend to use analytic reading and comprehension strategies (using and reading words in parts), monolinguals with opaque writing systems typically use global reading and comprehension strategies (examining the whole word and its context in order to elicit meaning).

So, what happens if a bilingual student is simultaneously learning two writing systems, one phonetic and the other opaque (for example, Spanish and English)?

Bilingual students in the study displayed a “contamination effect,” in which learning strategies best suited to a particular language were then carried over and applied to both languages. For example, when compared with a monolingual Spanish speaker, a bilingual student learning to read in Spanish and English will often show a greater tendency to apply global learning strategies even when learning to read in Spanish. Similarly, when reading in English, that same bilingual student will also tend to show greater use of analytic reading strategies than a monolingual English speaker.

Based on these findings, educators may be able to tailor their support to bilingual students through special consideration to the languages that the student knows.

Resource

For a closer look at the study from the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain, and Language, read the abstract or check out this brief article.