Virginia F. Doherty Academic Progress Portfolio George Mason University Return to Second Portfolio Review

 
Return to EDUC 882

EDUC 882

Seminar in Bilingual Education

George Mason University

Research-Based Program Models for English Language Learners

Virginia F. Doherty

December 14, 2003
 


 

 

 

It is unfortunate that…programs for minority students have become part of a political struggle between opposing groups. Educators and parents have been forced into political camps,…without a thorough understanding of their instructional attributes and characteristics. Perhaps it would be easier to reach a consensus regarding the nature of sound pedagogical principles and practices rather than to continue to debate such politically loaded issues. (Trueba, in Baker & Jones 1998, p. 562)

The United States public school system finds itself responsible for educating growing numbers of children who enter without proficiency in English, the language in which most academic instruction takes place.As the immigrant and native-born, non-English speaking population increases so does the need to examine educational program models that serve the children who are not proficient in English.As mentioned above by Trueba, decisions on how best to educate the English language learner (ELL) should be research- based rather than politically motivated.Given criteria generated by researchers in three separate fields: effective schools,multicultural education reform and second language acquisition, what do schools need to consider when choosing a program to assure that language minority students, especially English learners, have an opportunity to be successful?This paper is organized first, to show the reasons that educators should be concerned about the choice of academic program models for their English language learners.Then the research-based program models will be compared and discussed.Finally the conclusion will point to factors to consider when choosing a program for English language learners.

Reason for Concern

Language minority students are the fastest growing population in the U.S. public schools.The number of language minority, school-aged children in the U.S. leapt from 8 million in 1991 to 15 million in 1999.The number of K-12 students classified as English language learners increased from 5.3 million to 10 million during the decade of the 1990s (Escamilla, 1999).The majority of these students speak Spanish (77%), live in urban areas and attend schools in high poverty neighborhoods.Children from language minority families are less likely to have attended pre-school or to have had any kind of early childhood education (Hodgkinson, 2001). Collier and Thomas (2002) predict that by 2030, 40% of school-age children will be from families that speak a language other than English at home.Schools need to address the academic needs of these language minority children, many of whom are English language learners.

Even though schools are legally responsible for providing equal educational opportunities to students whose first language is not English, ELLs generally do not perform as well as other students on standardized tests in the elementary grades. Thirty percent of ELLs do not receive English as a Second Language (ESL) or home language academic support such as a bilingual program, and one in four ELLs in schools with a high percentage of language minority families has repeated a grade by 3rd grade (NCBE, 1995).The academic achievement gap continues to increase throughout the high school years and the dropout rate for these students continues to be high, hovering around 30% for Hispanics, the largest group of English language learners (Valdes, 2001).

Program Models and Criteria for Successful Learning

 
Return to top
In an effort to address academic achievement of language minority students and English language learners, researchers have studied schools that managed to raise and maintain high academic standards for all (Brookover, 1996; Coleman, 1966, Edmonds, 1979; Lezotte 1999).Nieto (1999, 2003), Holloway (2003) and Banks (2003) examined the criteria for successful learning for cultural minority students.Research on second language acquisition looked at effective program models for English language learners (August & Hakuta, 1997; Baker& Prys Jones, 1998; Chamot, 1993; Christian, 2000; Collier, 1995; Cummins, 2000; Genesee, 1999; Lindholm, 1999; Ramirez, 1991).All three of these fields of research examined academic programs to develop a list of criteria, for successful learning in elementary schools.
Effective Schools Research
In 1966, James Coleman, an education researcher, wrote in a paper funded by the U.S. office of Education, that public schools did not make a significant difference in student success in schools.Coleman concluded that students from poor and uneducated families would not learn, regardless of the programs in the school or the efforts of the teachers.If the conditions of low socio-economic level, low family literacy and low educational background existed, the child would not be academically successful. (Coleman, 1966).

Effective schools research grew as a reaction to Coleman’s Equal Educational Opportunity Survey and his belief that a child’s academic achievement was influenced more by the home than by the school.In the 1970s, Ron Edmonds, while researching effective schools, documented two low-income schools in which children outperformed their higher-income peers in other schools.After the Edmonds report, hundreds of schools in which children from poverty were performing above expectations were studied and dubbed “effective schools” (Raham, 2001).From the studies of these schools, a framework for effective schools emerged which has guided school reform (Lezotte, 1999).

For the past three decades, effective school researchers (Edmonds, 1979; Druian & Butler, 1987; Lezotte, 1999) have tried to find the answer to what influences student success in a situation in which, according to Coleman, students should be low performing.Effective schools research has come up with characteristics that correlate with student success.These “correlates”, regardless of the socio-economic backgrounds of the students, include emphasis on high academic expectations, strong educational leadership, clear and focused goals, as well as a linkage between the school and the home and the school and the community (Druian & Butler, 1987, Lezotte, 1999, Raham, 2001).

Effective Practices for Language Minority Children

In the past decade, researchers have studied effective practices for language minority children, especially English language learners.A comprehensive report on school effectiveness identified thirteen attributes necessary for improving the schooling of language minority students in public schools (August & Hakuta, 1997).Cummins groups these thirteen into three dimensions: coherent school organization and leadership; affirmation of student and community identity; and balance between comprehensible language input and direct instruction which is designed to develop metacognitive skills (Cummins, 2000).In other words, for an English language learner to be successful, the student must be offered a comprehensible and challenging academic program in an environment that demonstrates respect and appreciation of their background and culture.

Multicultural school reform
Multicultural education reformers have identified criteria necessary for culturally and/or linguistically different students to experience success (Banks, 2003, Nieto, 2003).
Nieto (2003) lists characteristics of school reform that can substantially improve student learning for language minority students.According to Nieto, in order to promote social change and genuine respect for all children, education must be reflective of acceptance of all students.Their differences should be celebrated and respected rather than looked upon as handicaps.Students should be taught to think critically about themselves and what they bring to the classroom and to question practices that they feel are discriminatory.Nieto also stresses the importance of the integration of family members and the community in the education of the child.The people most closely connected to the student should be involved in the education process.Also, in order to receive a fair and equal education, teachers and administrators must hold the language minority students to rigorous and high standards.Students who come from another language background should be offered the same curriculum as their English background peers and expected to meet the same challenging goals.
Banks (2003) describes dimensions to guide school reform for implementing multicultural education.Bank’s list of attributes for multicultural school reform include: 1) The school must aim for prejudice reduction; 2) Students must learn to think critically and to be part of the knowledge construction process; 3) The school must become an interrelated social system involving all the groups in the learning process, and 4)The school must teach and promote equity pedagogy, facilitating the learning process for all students.
When looking at research on effective schools along side research on multicultural school reform and effective practices for language minority children, the overlap becomes clear.Four areas of commonality emerge: 1) validation or acceptance of what each person brings to the classroom; 2) transformative pedagogy which encourages critical thinking skills; 3) involvement of the family and community in the child’s learning environment, and 4) high expectations for all students.
Effective schools research does not specifically mention affirmation of the student’s identity but does stress strong leadership which sets the tone of respect for all (Druian & Butler, 1987) and a climate of caring and support (McPartland 1992).In effective schools, there are high expectations for success, opportunity to learn the essential content and skills, and a safe and orderly environment.Effective schools also emphasize strong home-school relations in which parents understand and support the programs and the school’s mission as well as believe that they have an important role in achieving the mission (Correlates of Effective Schools, 1995).
The table below synthesizes the attributes of successful programs, which address the needs of diverse student populations, effective schools research and the attributes of programs for success in language learning.

Multicultural Reform
Nieto/Banks                               Effective schools                        Effective practices for LM
                                                 Edmonds/Lezotte                        Cummins/ August & Hakuta
Antiracist/antibias
Reflecting acceptance of all students and prejudice reduction
Strong educational leadership which values the contributions of all participants
Affirmation of community identity
Critical pedagogy/knowledge construction process
Clear, focused goals
Transformative pedagogy
Teachers/parents/students meaningfully involved in their education/interrelated social system.
Strong linkage between home/school/community
School organization and leadership.
High expectations and rigorous standards for all/equity pedagogy.
High academicexpectations for all students
Affirmation of student identity by setting high goals for all.

Program Models for English Language Learners

As shown in the table above, effective schools research, along with multicultural school reform and effective practices for language minority children offer a number of requisites which should be present for children to be successful.Since many English language learners are not as academically successful as their English speaking peers (August & Hakuta, 1997; Collier, 1995; Cummins 2000), school districts with a high percentage of ELLs must choose how to provide comprehensible input (Krashen, 1999) so that these students, who do not have strong home-based support in English, can be successful in school.Program models include those that use the home language to some extent as a support (bilingual education) and models that do not.Some program models use the home language as a tool to learn the second language.The home language is built on and enriched.Other program models ignore the home language as an asset and treat the child as if he or she is suffering from a language deficit.
English language learners entering the U.S. public schools encounter one or a combination of the following options for learning English in school: 1) Mainstreaming; 2) a bilingual program or, 3) language or content-based ESL.After a brief description of mainstreaming, ESL and bilingual education options, each program will be looked at to see how it conforms to the criteria for effective schools and successful programs for language minority or culturally different students.In addition, programs will be looked at in terms of whether the child’s home language is used for enrichment or remediation (Cummins, 2000; Cloud, Genesee & Hamayan, 2000).
Mainstreaming
Mainstream English is the absence of a support program designed to help students learn English as a new language. It is also known as the “Sink or Swim” or submersion approach.The English learner is included in the regular classroom with native English speakers.Some children have been mainstreamed because the parents reject the language support program (Collier, 1995) and others because no program existed in the school to help language minority children learn the language of instruction.In some cases, mainstreaming happens because there is no one who speaks the new student’s home language.When the non-English speaking child is the only one in the school who speaks that home language or there aren’t enough students in a school or school district to require the hiring of a resource teacher, the child is mainstreamed.
When children are exited from a language support program such as ESL or Bilingual Education, they are also usually mainstreamed.This means that their language support program has terminated and the student must function in the mainstream classroom and be responsible for the same content material as the native English speakers.
Research on students who have been mainstreamed, without language support, shows that their academic gains over a 6-year period are not as strong as students who participate in any kind of language support program such as ESL or bilingual education (Ramirez, 1991, 1992).The largest group of school dropouts comes from the mainstreamed ELL group (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
English as a Second Language
Some schools offer classes in English as a Second Language where the students learn English before being expected to function in the mainstream classroom.Classes can be language-based or content-based.Fifty-one percent of English language learners who receive help in learning English are in traditional, language-based ESL pull-out programs.When added to the number of students who receive ESL content-based instruction, 64% of ELLs receiving English language support in school are accounted for (Cummins, 2000).However, the research shows that without L1 (home language) support, the majority of children who receive instruction only in English never reach the 50th NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent), where their average English-speaking peers would perform on standardized tests.
One ESL approach to English language learning which goes beyond content and language instruction is the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).This approach integrates metacognitive skills by explicitly teaching strategies which tap into the students’ prior knowledge (Cummins, 2000), their “funds of knowledge” (Moll, 1992).Validating the knowledge that culturally and linguistically diverse students bring with them to the classroom affirms their identity which can in turn help them be successful learners (Banks, 2003; Nieto, 2003; Cummins, 2000).
Bilingual Education

In bilingual education programs, ELLs use their home language for academic content as they are learning English in school.ESL instruction is almost always an integral part of a bilingual program (Cummins, 2002; Krashen, 1999; Gándara, 2002; Collier, 1995).In all bilingual programs, the home language is a medium of instruction to some extent, but not with the same objective.When choosing bilingual education as an option for ELLs, schools must consider the end goals of the kind of program, the educational aims and whether it is an enrichment or a remedial program (Cummins, 2000).

There are two kinds of bilingual program models: transitional and developmental.In Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), L1 is used to transition the student from learning in the home language with the end goal of learning entirely in English. The use of L1 is seen as temporary and a transitional tool to provide learning in English as the child’s facility in English increases (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998).TBE is the most frequently encountered bilingual program model (Ramirez, 1992) with 26% of students in any kind of language support program.These students do not reach the level of their English speaking peers but do better than students who learn through ESL with no home language support (Cummins, 2000).

TBE is seen as a weak form of bilingual education (Garcia, 1997; Baker & Prys Jones, 1998; Lambert in Baker & Prys Jones, 1998). It is weak, assimilationist and subtractive because it does not support the home language and culture since the goal is monolingualism in the second language.

Early-exit TBE transitions the students after 2 or 3 years (Crawford, 1997) frequently before the student has reached academic fluency in English (Cummins, 2000) resulting in grade retention, tracking in low academic groups or placement in special education (Gándara, 1999).Late-exit programs end by 6th grade, gradually reducing the amount of L1 instruction until the curriculum is totally in English.Both kinds of TBE are considered remedial rather than enrichment because they aim to remedy a deficiency rather than build on an existing knowledge base (Cummins, 2000).

The other general approach to bilingual education is developmental. Also called late-exit or maintenance, developmental bilingual programs provide instruction using the home language for at least 50% of the instructional time (Cloud et al, 2000).Students in this kind of program develop strong literacy skills in the home language.They are able to transfer their knowledge about language into English, using the base they have formed in their home language (Christian et al, 2000; Collier, 1997; Cummins, 2000).Developmental programs are considered additive and strong models of bilingual education (Crawford, 1997; DeJong, 2002; Ovando, 2003) because the goal is parallel growth in the home language and the second language and eventual bilingualism.

Developmental or maintenance bilingual programs can be either one-way or two-way.In a one-way program, students learn content material in their home language while they are learning English.The goal is to protect, develop and learn in L1 as they develop and transfer language skills into their L2 (Alaniz, 2000; Cummins 2000; Ramirez, 1992). In a two-way bilingual, or Dual Language (DL) program, two language groups learn together.Dual language classrooms contain a balance or near balance of language majority and language minority students.The two languages are used on an equal or near equal basis for content area instruction.The goal is for both groups of students to become biliterate and bicultural (Cummins, 2000; Collier & Thomas, 2002; Baker & Prys Jones, 1998).

Developmental or maintenance programs incorporate and validate the student’s language as well as culture in a way which respects and affirms the language minority child’s background (Moll, 1992; Nieto, 1999).The use of the home language also increases the connection between the home and the school since the language of the home is used in the school (Cloud et al, 2000).These educational programs are seen as enrichment programs because the aim is to challenge the students to learn in their home language as well as learn about their home language as they progress as English language learners (Christian, 1994). 

The Collier and Thomas (2002) longitudinal study on long-range program effectiveness shows that developmental bilingual programs assist students to fully reach and maintain a high level of academic achievement throughout their school years.Only 10% of students receiving language support in schools are in a developmental bilingual program.But this 10% reach and maintain an academic level over the norms attained by English speaking peers on standardized tests (Cummins, 2000).

Program Models and Criteria for Success

The program models of mainstreaming, ESL language or content-based, developmental or transitional bilingual education all vary in the importance given the criteria for success taken from research on effective schools, multicultural school reform and effective practices for language minority students.The criteria for effective schools includes: high expectations for success, opportunity to learn the essential content and skills, a safe and orderly environment, and strong home-school relations in which parents understand and support the school’s mission (Correlates of Effective Schools, 1995).Multicultural school reform research emphasizes: an attitude of respect which aims for prejudice reduction, knowledge construction process, integration of parents and community and high expectations for all students (Banks, 2003; Nieto, 2003). Successful practices for language minority students include the affirmation of student and community identity as well as high expectations for all.

Synthesizing the Correlates for Effective Schools, with effective school practices for language minority and culturally different children, some of the most important commonalities are: 1) affirmation and validation of the students through their culture and language; 2) high expectations for all students; 3) exposure to critical thinking skills and content area material in a language that they can understand (comprehensible input), and4) integration of family and community into the learning process.The following discussion will present each program model in terms of the synthesized criteria for success.

In mainstreaming the expectation is that the child will eventually learn enough English to understand the curriculum without a language support program (Genesee, 1999).The lack of language support frequently causes student retention in grade and underachievement.Low self-esteem comes from lack of validation of the home language and culture (Banks, 2003; Collier, 1995; Cummins, 2000; Nieto, 2003).Mainstreaming does not inherently include outreach to the family since the child’s language and culture are not being affirmed in the school (Nieto, 2003).The child’s use of the home language is seen as a deficit that will eventually be corrected with time.

In language-based ESL/Content ESL, only one of the criteria is present and only to a partial degree.The content area material is presented in a sheltered approach, with scaffolding so that the language and the content are simplified as the learner’s English improves (Genesee, 1999).The family/school connection is not emphasized because generally the student is being taught in a language that many parents do not understand.The L1 is not used on a formal basis since many ESL classes are made up of mixed language groups.Expectations for students in ESL programs are not as high as their English-speaking peers because, without understanding the language of instruction, they are not able to keep up with their peers and on standardized tests.Again, the home language is looked at as a problem which can be remedied by the acquisition of English.

On the other hand, bilingual programs such as transitional bilingual education and dual language, many more of the attributes identified as critical for success, are reached.In TBE, the family and school connection can be strong because the home language is used for communication as well as teaching (Cloud et al, 2000, Genesee, 1999).Grade- level material is taught at the beginning of the academic program when the curriculum is taught in L1.Gradually, L1 is cut back until the child is transitioned to academic learning in English.The child’s culture and language are affirmed to a certain extent, especially at the beginning of TBE when the content area learning takes place in the home language.Many times students are transitioned to English before they are ready (early-exit) and therefore do not show high academic gains when compared to their English-speaking peers (Collier & Thomas, 2002).

A dual language bilingual model, learning in both the majority and minority language, is an enrichment program that leads to biliteracy and bicultural understanding.It also addresses each of the criteria identified as criteria for success for effective school programs.In being an enrichment program, it holds students from both languages to the same high academic goals.It is a researched approach to language learning, which shows long-term academic achievement if extended for at least four years (Cloud et al, 2000, Collier & Thomas, 2002)

Since both languages are used equally as media of content instruction (Cummins, 2000; Collier, 1995; Cloud et al, 2000), both languages are treated with the same respect.

Dual language programs emphasize the maintenance of the home culture as well as learning about the mainstream culture because the goal is to create bilingual as well as bicultural students.With two language groups learning each other’s language, parents are encouraged to participate in school activities to act as native speaker models for the language learners
 
Criteria for success
Mainstream
ESL/ESL content
TBE
D.L.
High expectations for all
X
Integration of school and community 
X
X
Opportunity to learn grade level content
n
n
X
Affirmation of student background and culture/ prejudice reduction
n
X

X = strongly emphasizesn = attempts or partially emphasizes

Upon examination of outcomes for each program model for English language learners, and the criteria for success in school, the options for program choices become clearer.When considering what is best for language minority and culturally different students, schools need to make the decision based on what research has shown to be effective practices for these students.

Conclusion

After looking at three program models, mainstreaming, ESL (content or language-based) and bilingual education programs, it becomes clear that not all of them meet the criteria for success for English language learners.Mainstreaming would be a last choice, and one used because of logistics rather than pedagogy.If there is little understanding of the needs of English language learners, or there are scarce resources for a language support program then mainstreaming will most likely occur.

ESL classes present an option when there are not enough students to form a bilingual class or bilingual program.Content area ESL, especially the CALLA program, provides models that offer scaffolding of the content material and access to the curriculum.If the student body is diverse in their home languages then a well-designed ESL program, especially content-based, is an option.

If a school district or school community is home to large numbers of students from the same first language background, then administrators should consider a developmental bilingual program.A developmental program, especially dual language models address all the noted criteria for effective schools and effective programs for cultural and language minority students.In particular, dual language program design is research-based, encompasses criteria for effective practices for language minority students and the correlates from effective schools research.

Implication for Future Research

Dual language has been shown in one large-sample, longitudinal study to be an effective model for English language learners to reach the academic level of their English-speaking peers.Yet only 3% of ELLs are in dual language programs.Could the success of these dual language programs be based on factors other than the program design? Could the mixture of economic groups as well as the majority language group with the minority group influence the outcomes when the two groups are mixed for instruction?When non-language minority parents seek a way for their elementary school children to learn another language, could the participation and activism of the parents influence the progress that the children in the dual language program make?Even though it is a growing program model, dual language is not at present the bilingual program model of choice.More study of program effectiveness should be done and the data disaggregated to see what the factors that influence success are.

In the situations in which a developmental bilingual program is not feasible or desired by the community, what can schools do to make sure that they are giving their language minority students, especially their English language learners, the best possible chance at academic success? They need to consider the correlates of effective schools, the research in the field of multicultural school reform and the effective practices for language minority children and try to implement a program which encompasses as many of the criteria as possible. To paraphrase Trueba (1998), there are a lot of political considerations that enter into program decisions.But, if schools seriously consider the needs of their English language learners, they will examine the research and make their choice based on sound pedagogical principles.

 

Return to top
Bibliography

Alanis, I. (2000) A Texas two-way bilingual program: Its effects on linguistic and

academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24,3.Retrieved May 28,2003 from http://www.miami.com/miamiherald/news/5066849.htm

Allington, R.L. (published 2000). Effects of reading policy on classroom instruction and

student achievement. Paper presented at the 1999 conference on Alternative

Approaches to Reading and Mathematics. Retrieved October 6, 2003 from 

http://cela.albany.edu/policy/index.html

Amselle, J. (2000, January/February).A simple matter of policy.American Language

Review, 4(1), 20-23.

Association for effective schools, Inc., (1996). What is effective schools research? 

Retrieved October 20, 2003 from 

http://www.mes.org/esr.html

August, D. & Hakuta, K. (Eds.) (1997) Improving schooling for language minority

children. A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved on September 11, 2003, from http://books.nap.edu/html/islmc/

August, A., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996).Attributes of effective programs and classrooms

serving English language learners.Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, 

National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language 

Learning.

Baker, C. & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, K. (1998).Structured English immersion: Breakthrough in teaching limited-

English proficient students.Phi Delta Kappan 80(3): 199-204.

Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. (2003).Multicultural Education:Issues & perspectives.NY:

Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Berman, P., Minicucci, C., McLaughlin, B., Nelson B., & Woodworth, K. (1995). School

Reform and student diversity:Case studies of exemplary practices for LEP

students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

Retrieved on November 5, 2003 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/schoolreform/10lessons.htm

Brookover, W.B., Erickson, F.A. & Mcevoy, A.W. (1996). Creating effective schools: An 

In-service program for enhancing school learning climate and achievement. 

Revised edition, Learning Publications, Holmes Beach, Fl.

Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd 

ed.) Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Chamot, A., (1993) Changing instruction for language minority students to achieve

national goals. Proceedings of the Third National Research Symposium on

Limited-English-Proficient Student Issues.Retrieved October 8, 2003, from

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/third/chamot.htm

Chamot, A., & O’Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the 

Cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Christian, D., Howard, E., Loeb, M. (2000, Autumn).Bilingualism for All: Two-way

immersion education in the United States. Theory into Practice, 39(4) 258-266

Cloud, N., Genessee, F. & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook

for enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Coleman, J. (2000).The Coleman report. In R. Arum & I.R. Beattie (Eds.), The structure 

of schooling: Readings in the sociology of education (pp.154-167).Boston:

McGraw Hill.

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.

Collier, V.P., (1995).Promoting academic success for ESL students:Understanding

second language acquisition for school.Elizabeth, NJ: New Jersey Teachers of 

English to Speakers of Other Languages ? Bilingual Educators.

Collier, V.P., & Thomas,W.P. (1999, April) Accelerated school learning for English

language learners.Educational Leadership, 56(7), 46-49.

Crawford, J. (1997).Best evidence: Research foundations of the bilingual education act.

Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.Retrieved

September 11, 2003, from

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/bestevidence/research.htm

Cummins, J. (2000).Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual children in the

crossfire.Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

DeJong, E.J. (2002).Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic

achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal,

26(1).

Dolson,D., & Lindholm, K. (1995).World class education for children in California:A

comparison of the two-way bilingual immersion and European schools models.

In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.), Multilingualism for all (pp.69-102) Lisse, 

Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003, January/February) Language proficiency and reading

ability in first and second-language learners.Reading Research Quarterly 38 (1),

78-103.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,

37(15-24).

Escamilla, K. (1999). The false dichotomy between ESL and traditional bilingual

education programs:Issues that challenge all of us.Educational Considerations, 

26(2), 1-6.

Feinberg, R.C., & Morencia, C.C. (1998, November/December).Bilingual education: An

overview. Social Education, (62)7,427-431.

Fitzgerald, J. (2000).How will Bilingual/ESL programs in literacy change in the next

millennium?Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 520-523.

Freeman, Y.S., Freeman, D.E., & Mercuri, S. (2001) Keys to success for bilingual

students with limited formal schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1/2),

203-213.

Franquiz, M.E. (1995).Transformations in bilingual classrooms: Understanding

opportunity to learn within the change process. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 57, no. 01A (1995). 

Gándara, P. (2002), In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the Post-227 era.

Bilingual Research Journal 24 (1&2)

Gándara, P. (1997, revised1999). Review of research on the instruction of limited English

proficient students:A report to the California Legislature.Retrieved September

8, 2003 from http://www.Imri.ucsb.edu/resdiss/2/pdf_files/gandar.pdf

Genesse, F. (Ed.). (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students.

(Educational Practice Report #1)Center for Research on Education, Diversity, 

and Excellence/Center for Applied Linguistics. Washington, DC.

Gersten, R. & Baker,S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for

English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4),454-470.

Greene, J.P. (1998).A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education.

Claremont, CA: Thomas Rivera Policy Institute.

Gutiérrez, K., Asato, J., Pacheco, M., Moll, L., Olson, K., et al. (2002) Conversations: 

Sounding American: The consequences of new reforms on English language

Learners.Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 328-343.

Hodgkinson, H. (2001). Educational Demographics: What teachers should know.

Educational Leadership, 58(4). 

Holloway, J. (2003) Managing culturally diverse classrooms. Educational Leadership,

61(1).

Iddings, A.C. (2001) On breaking ground: Second language literacy and language

learning through sociocultural practices.Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (05A) p.1705.

Kling, E. Maia (2001) Connections and disconnections:Immigrant-Latino parents’

beliefs about the meaning of education, schooling and parental involvement in their children’s development.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Virginia.

Krashen, S. (1997) Why Bilingual Education?(Report No. BBB00899) Office of 

Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. (ERIC No. ED439186)

Krashen, S. (1999) Bilingual education: Arguments for and (bogus) arguments 

against.Paper presented at the Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and 

Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. May 1999.

Lezotte, L.W. (1992). Principal insights from effective schools.The Education Digest, 

58(3), 14-17.

Lezotte, L.W. and Cipriano, J. (1999). The effective schools process: A proven path to

learning for all.Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.

Lindholm, K. (1999) Dual language education: Educational success for students of the

new millenium.Paper presented at the Two-way Bilingual symposium, 

Edinburg, Tx, May 1999.

Lucas, T.& Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate:The roles of native languages in

English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3).

Retrieved from 

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/minority/tesol/tesolquarterly/lucas/htm

McPartland, J. & Braddock II, J.H. (1993).A Conceptual framework on learning

environments and student motivation for language minority and other

underserved populations.Retrieved October 21, 2003 from

http:// www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/third/mcpartland.htm

Mpras, F. (2003) First language use in the classroom:A qualitative study of secondary

teachers and administrators in a ‘best case’ school.Unpublished dissertation, George Mason University, Virginia.

Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, and Gonzalez, N. (1992).Funds of knowledge for teaching

Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.Theory into 

Practice (31) 2, 132-141.

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (1995). Prospects: Congressionally

mandated study of educational growth and opportunity, Interim report:

Language minority and limited English proficient students. Retrieved May 16, 

2002, from http://www.ed.gov/pub/Prospects/index.html

Nieto, S. (1999).The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2003). School reform and student achievement: a multicultural perspective. In

Banks, J. & Banks, C.A. Multicultural Education: Issues & perspectives, 4th

ed. (pp. 379-401) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Oller, D.K., & Eilers, R.E. (2002).Language and literacy in bilingual children

Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.

Ovando, C. (2003).Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and

current issues.Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 1-23.

Porter, R. (1999/2000). The benefits of English immersion. Educational Leadership,

57(4), 52-56.

Portes, A.,& Hao,L. (1998). E. pluribus unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the

second generation. Sociology of Education, 71, 269-294.

Raham, H. (2001). Tracking the trends: Effective schools research.Retrieved November 

10, 2003 from http://www.saee.bc.ca/2001_4_2_3.htm

Ramirez, J.D.,Yuen,S., & Ramey, D.R. (1991) Final report: Longitudinal study of 

structured immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual

education porgrams for language minority children. NABE Journal, 8, 15-34.

Ramirez, J.D. (1992). Executive Summary.Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1&2) 1-62.

Roberts, C.A. (1995). Bilingual education program models: A framework for

understanding. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 369-378.

Short, D. & Echevarria (1999) The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for

teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development.Retrieved on June 19, 2002 fromhttp://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/epr.3.shtml

Stritikus, T.T. & Garcia, E. (2003, August 6).The role of theory and policy in the 

educational treatment of language minority students in California. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (26).Retrieved on September 2, 2003 from

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n26/

Spangenberg-Urbschat, K.,& Pritchard, R. (Eds.) (1994).Kids come in all languages:

Reading instruction for ESL students.Newark, DE: InternationalReading

Association.

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2002).A national study of school effectiveness for

language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.

Valdés, G. (1997).Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning

the education of language-minority students.Harvard Education Review, 67, 397-429.

Valdes, G. (2001) Learning and not learning English: Latino students in Americanschools.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Verde-Rivas, G. ((1998).A follow-up study of Hispanic English language learners who

Participated in bilingual programs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (02A) 0315.

Wavering, M. (2002).Second language learners in an elementary school:A case study

of teaching strategies used in an elementary school for kindergarten and firstgradestudents learning to read in a second language. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (01). P.70, (July 2003) 

Wray, D.J. & Medwell, J. (March 1999). Effective teachers of literacy: Knowledge, beliefs, and practices.International Electronic Journal for leadership in

learning.Retrieved on October 21, 2003 from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume3/wray.html
 
 

Return to top
Return to EDUC 882
Return to second portfolio review