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