EDCI 516
Bilingualism and Language Acquisition Research
Summer 2004
 
 

Instructor EDCI 516-603:   Virginia F. Doherty

Class Day & Time:   Monday thru Friday: 09:00-13:30
July 26, 2004 to August 6, 2004 

Class Location:   Arlington Campus/Original Bldg.
      Room 105B

Contact Information & Office Hours
E-Mail: vdoherty@gmu.edu

Office Hours:    After class and by appointment
 

Fax:     (703) 993-2044 (FAST TRAIN Office)
 

COURSE OUTLINE

Course Description:

Examines research in first and second language acquisition, including the interaction of a bilingual person's two languages, with applications for the classroom.  Field experience in public schools is required.
 Course Outcomes:

Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to demonstrate:

1. Understanding of first language (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition processes, research, and developmental stages as well as their applicability to classroom instruction.
2. Knowledge of various definitions and theories of bilingualism, language proficiency, and language acquisition.
3. Understanding of the developmental stages of L2 acquisition.
4. Ability to identify and discuss the social, cultural, affective, and cognitive factors playing a role in L2 acquisition.
5. Familiarity with code-switching, language borrowing, and the role of L1 in L2 acquisition and foreign language acquisition (FLA).
6. Familiarity with the relationship of standard languages and dialects and the implications for teaching.
7. Understanding of the relationships among practice and second language acquisition (SLA) research, methods of teaching foreign/second languages, and language assessment practices.
8. Use of technology to assist in their understanding of SLA and an understanding of its use to support learning in the SL classroom.

3. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Standards

NCATE TESOL STANDARDS FOR P-12 TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Domains Standards Standards specifically met by EDCI 516
One: Language Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts, theories, and research related to the nature and acquisition of language to construct learning environments that support ESOL students’ language and literacy development and content area achievement.
 1a. Describing language
1b. Language acquisition and development 1a5, 6, 8, 9, & 10
1b1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, & 13
Two: Culture Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to the nature and role of culture and cultural groups to construct learning environments that support ESOL students’ cultural identities, language and literacy development, and content area achievement.
 2a Nature and role of culture
2b. Cultural groups and identity 2a1, 3, & 4
Three: Planning, Implementing, and Managing Instruction Candidates know, understand, and use standards-based practices and strategies related to planning, implementing, and managing ESL and content instruction, including classroom organization, teaching strategies for developing and integrating language skills, and choosing and adapting classroom resources.
 3a. Planning for standards based ESL and content instruction
3b. Managing and implementing standards-based ESL and content instruction
3c. Using resources effectively in ESL and content instruction.  3a3
3b2
3c1, 3, 4, & 5
Four: Assessment Candidates understand issues of assessment and use standards-based assessment measures with ESOL students
 4a. Issues of assessment for ESL
4b. Language proficiency assessment 4a1& 3
4B2& 3
Five: Professionalism Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the history of ESL teaching. Candidates keep current with new instructional techniques, research results, advances in the ESL field, and public policy issues. Candidates use such information to reflect upon and improve their instructional practices. Candidates provide support and advocate for ESOL students and their families and work collaboratively to improve the learning environment.
 5a. ESL research and history
5b. Partnerships and advocacy
5c. Professional development and collaboration 5a1& 2
5b2 & 3
5c1 &.4

Nature of Course Delivery

The course is delivered through a variety of face-to-face, on-line, and individualized instructional strategies.  During class meetings there are large group, small group, and individual activities.  Students also conduct independent research, as well as communicate with each other and the instructor via electronic media.

Text

Collier, V.P. (1995).  Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. Woodside, NY:  Bastos Educational Books.

Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998).  Second language learning theories.  New York: Oxford University Press.

EDCI 516 uses videos, handouts, and supplemental readings from various scholarly journals.  Copies of handouts and supplemental readings will be posted on the course Blackboard site (http://blackboard.gmu.edu).
 
Selected Reference Books:

American Psychological Association (2002).  Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

[All papers and professional writing in the GMU Graduate School of Education follow the APA Style Manual (Fifth Edition).]
 

Nieto, S. (2002).  Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

Thomas, W.P. and 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 & Excellence.  Available by phone at (800) 551-3709 or downloadable online at http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html.

Tse, L. (2001).  "Why don't they learn English?" Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate.  New York:  Teacher College Press.

Requirements

 Participation (10%) ­ Students are expected to attend all class meetings for the entire session, read the assigned materials, arrive promptly, and participate in class discussions.  Students absent one full day or more will have their final grade reduced by one letter grade.  Students cannot receive an acceptable grade if they miss two full days (25%) or more of class.  Class participation at the “A” level is defined as being prepared for class (readings and assignments), participating actively in class discussions and cooperative learning activities, and demonstrating the ability to connect past experience and assigned readings to topics being covered in class.  Each student is required to log on daily to http://blackboard.gmu.edu for between-class discussion topics, questions, and assignments.

 In-Class Reflective Writing Assignments (20%) ­ During the second week of class, participants will be given daily, in-class writing assignments (four one-page papers worth 5% each).  This activity is designed to serve as a vehicle for synthesis and reflection, and to provide students a means for demonstrating mastery of the assigned readings and class discussions.  While it is anticipated that the time allotted for writing during class will be sufficient for completion, writing prompts will be posted the night before, and completed papers will be accepted up until 9:00 pm on the date the paper is due.

Critical Journal Response (20%)  This assignment comprises two parts.  First, using traditional and on-line sources, each student will find and review a substantial report of research (a juried article or short book/monograph) related to second language acquisition.  (Assigned readings may not be used to satisfy this requirement.)  The student will submit a 1000-2000 word written response to the instructor and post a copy on Blackboard.  Second, working in pairs, participants will exchange drafts of their reports; each pair will provide thoughtful written feedback to each other.  While there is no prescribed format or list of topics to be covered in the feedback report, feedback should be constructive, written in a scholarly style, and not exceed one page in length (single spaced).

 Reference list  (10%) ­Since this is a class about research, each student will be responsible for submitting a list of at least 5 books, articles or websites which address the topics of this class.  The list will have the name of the source, the reason for recommending the source and a description of the contents and/or implication for language acquisition research.  These lists will be posted on Blackboard so that all students will have access to them for future research.

 Language Analysis and Presentation (40%) ­ Students will work in groups to record and analyze oral and written language samples made by language learners.  Each group will prepare a written commentary, together with a list of references, connecting this hands-on experience to course readings and materials.  In addition, each student (individually) will attach a personal reflection to the group report.  Groups will share their findings in a formal presentation to the whole class during the last two class days.

 Field Experience ­ Successful completion and documentation of the FAST TRAIN field experience pertaining to bilingualism and language acquisition research is a requirement for completion of EDCI 516.  Since the report of field experience will be evaluated as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, the field experience will not be included in the calculation of the course grade.  For details on completion of the field experience requirement, refer to the FAST TRAIN field experience guidelines.

 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
 

Session Theme/Topic Required Readings
(Before each class) Activities/Assignments
July 26 Course Introduction Pre-course reading assignment:

Wong-Fillmore, L. & Snow, C.E. (2000). "What teachers need to know about language" [August 23, 2000] at: http://www.cal.org/resources/teachers/teachers.pdf

Collier, V. (1995).  Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school.  Woodside, NY: Bastos Educational Books. K-W-L:  What do we know about how people learn languages?

Subscribe to The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA) newsletter by going to:
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/enews/subscribe.htm

Principles of language acquisition
Key words and concepts
July 27 Key Concepts Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 1: Second language learning: key concepts and issues.

McLaughlin, B. (1992). "Myths and misconceptions about second language learning" at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/FullText/McLaughlinMyths.pdf Video: American tongues. Center for New American Media ; by Andrew Kolker and Louis Alvarez. PE2841 .A53
 

Organize pairs/groups for CJR and Language Analysis projects.
July 28 History of SLA Research;   Intro to Bilingual Education Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 2: The recent history of second language learning research.

Baker, C. (1996).  An introduction to bilingual education.  In C. Baker, Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed.) (pp. 182-202).  Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Video: Discovering human language (1995) with Noam Chomsky, Federick Newmeyer, Lila Gleitman, George A. Miller, and Lewis Thomas -- P106 .H85 1995

Jigsaw of readings up to this point with emphasis on the Collier report.
July 29 Universal Grammar; Multiple Intelligences Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 3: Linguistics and language learning: the Universal Grammar approach.

Haley, M.H. (2004).  Learner-centered instruction and the
theory of multiple intelligences with second language learners.  Teachers College Record, 106(1), 163-180.

Gardner, H. (2003, April).  Multiple intelligences after twenty years.  Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Activity: Brain Works User Profile

Video: Multiple Intelligences and The Second Language Learner (1998).  Use of multiple intelligences theory in the classroom.

Presentation on Bilingual education with emphasis on Dual language or TWI (two-way immersion)
July 30 Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Learning Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 4: Cognitive approaches to second language learning.

Baker, C. (1996).  Cognitive theories of bilingualism and the curriculum.  In C. Baker, Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (2nd ed.) (pp. 135-161).  Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Activity: School profiles; preparing for Field Experience report and Language Analysis report.

Mid-term course feedback.

Peer input on journal article response.  
July 31, August 1 Weekend
August 2
 National Language Policies Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 5: Functional/pragmatic perspectives on second language learning.

Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 6: Input and interaction in second language learning.

Crawford, J. (1999).  Theory into practice: the case studies project.  In J. Crawford, Bilingual education: history, politics, theory and practice (4th ed.) (pp. 158-175).  Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.

Katz, S.R. (2004).  Does NCLB leave the U.S. behind in bilingual teacher education?  English Education, 36(2), 141-152. In-class Reflective Writing
 

August 3
   
Discussion on opposition to bilingual education (guest speaker)

Case studies and reality
August 4 Language and Culture Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 7: Sociocultural perspectives on second language learning.

Walqui, A. (2000). “Strategies for success: Engaging immigrant students in secondary schools” at:
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0003strategies.html In-class Reflective Writing

Video: That's not what I meant!: language, culture, & meaning.  Produced in cooperation with the Department of
Linguistics at Georgetown University. GN345.6 .T53 2004
 

August 5 Sociolinguistics Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 8: Sociolinguistic perspectives.

Stevick, E.W. (1989).  Success with foreign languages: seven who achieved it and what worked for them.  New York: Prentice Hall.  (Select one chapter from this book.) In-class Reflective Writing

Video: Fear and Learning at Hoover Elementary.  Interweaves the testimony of two teachers -- one Mexican-American, the other an Anglo; interviews with kids and adults who live in Pico Union, Los Angeles' "Ellis Island"; and the story of Mayra, a self-possessed, ambitious nine-year-old from El Salvador to personalize the ways California’s Prop 187 has divided school and community.
 

Group Presentations
August 6 Pulling It All Together Mitchell & Myles.  Ch. 9: Conclusion. In-class Reflective Writing

Group Presentations; Wrap-Up; Course Evaluation

All assignments due
Language Analysis Paper Due
 ASSESSMENT RUBRICS

Rubric for Scoring Class Participation
 

Level Performance Indicator
Excellent
(4 points) Student participates regularly and enthusiastically, is an active contributor to class and group work, misses no classes, turns in all assignments on time.  Questions and reflections show deep thought, the ability to look below the surface, juggle the complexities of situations encountered in class discussions, and remain open minded about ideas of others.
Competent
(3 points) Student participates regularly, is an active contributor to class and group work, misses not more than one full day of class and makes up all work, turns in assignments on time.  Student is reflective, asks questions of self and others, questions “received wisdom.”
Minimal
(2 points) Student participates on a fairly regular basis, contributes to class and group work, misses not more than two classes and makes up most work, turns in most assignments on time.  Student makes some attempt to ask questions of self and others, remains open to changing and growing through time in the class.
Unsatisfactory
(1 point) Student participates occasionally, misses more than two classes without making up work, does not submit assignments on time.  Thinking in class tends to be rote or superficial.  Student does not appear to question self or others.  Shows some sign of growth in thinking throughout course of the class.

 EDCI 516
Critical Journal Response (CJR)

Connection to the NCATE TESOL Standards 1b, 2a, & 2b.

Objective:  To engage learners thoughtfully and meaningfully with current writings in the field of second language acquisition research and theory, and to apply their emergent analyses and reflections to classroom practices and application.

The critical journal response engages students in a thoughtful process that will help them become critical consumers of the second language research literature, and will bring current course readings and additional research in the field together with emergent classroom practice.  They will require that you formulate thoughts on paper and connect those thoughts to current research.  The Critical Journal Response should be between 1000-2000 words.  It should reflect what your reading means to you as an emergent educator, how you relate to the ideas of the author, and how and why you can or cannot apply these ideas in your current or future practice.  Each response should comprise three parts (or levels):

1) description;
2) analysis, application, and interpretation; and
3) reflection on the content and its meaning to you in your current/future professional role.

DETAILS TO GUIDE YOU IN YOUR ANALYSIS:

Level One: Description.  A paragraph or so in which you describe the article.  Tell briefly what the article is about.

Level Two:  Analysis, Application, and Interpretation.  This section is where you, the analyzer, apply your growing knowledge to comment on the theory(ies), core ideas, or research discussed in the article  It concerns your interpretation of the material based on all of your readings to date.  This section addresses how or why.  In this section, utilize at least three supporting sources from your readings, using APA style.  Cite references at the end of your journal critique.  These citations may be taken from the course text, other supporting articles read for class, or articles you may have read on your own.

Level Three: Reflection.  In this section you will connect the article you are analyzing to yourself personally.  What does this article mean to you?  You will reflect on the reading by synthesizing the material personally and evaluating your description and analysis, stating what this means to you as an educator.  Tell what you would/might do similarly or differently and why, to help students learn. Or, you may want to talk about what you learned through the article that will help you in the future in your particular environment.  This section personalizes the description, analysis, and interpretation to your individual situation.
 Rubric for Scoring Critical Journal Response
 

Level Performance Indicator
Excellent
(4 points) Article well chosen, follows all guidelines and requirements.  Critique well organized with a clear description; a section for analysis, interpretation, and connection to readings; and a personal reflection.  Well written, few or no errors or error patterns.  Referencing in APA Style.  Includes a strong reflective statement that connects journal article to classroom practice.
Competent
(3 points) Article well chosen, meets requirements and guidelines.  Critique generally well organized, but may need more work on one of the sections.  Well written with few spelling/stylistic errors.  Referencing in APA Style, but may contain some minor errors.  Includes reflective statement with connections to classroom practice, but needs to delve more deeply into the application.
Minimal
(2 points) Article chosen meets requirements.  Critique organization a bit hard to follow, but contains only a few written errors.  Referencing is not fully compliant with APA style.  Contains only a short reflective statement, or does not make personal connections to the article.
Unsatisfactory
(1 point) Article not chosen from a refereed journal.  Critique is not organized, or does not follow guidelines.  Referencing not in APA style.  Contains many stylistic errors or error patterns.  Does not contain a reflections/connections section.
 

 Rubric for Scoring CJR Peer Feedback
 

Level Performance Indicator
Excellent
(4 points) Is positive and constructive in tone and cites at least two specific examples of things the author does well.  Provides at least two specific suggestions for improvement and/or expansion of the response content.  Supports all comments on content or theoretical perspective with specific, appropriate references to assigned readings..  Submits a well organized narrative with very few, minor errors in writing.
Competent
(3 points) Is positive and constructive in tone and cites at least one specific example of something the author does well.  Provides at least one specific suggestion for improvement or expansion of response content.  Supports most comments on content or theoretical perspective with specific, appropriate references to assigned readings. Submits a well organized narrative with recurrent, though mostly minor, errors in writing.
Minimal
(2 points) Is positive and constructive in tone but does not cite specific examples of things the author does well.  Provides one or more nonspecific suggestions for improvement and/or expansion of response content.  Supports some or most comments on response content or theoretical perspective with references to assigned readings, but the links are tenuous.  Highlights editing errors but does not explain necessary corrections.  Submits a loosely organized narrative with recurrent, though mostly minor, errors in writing.
Unsatisfactory
(1 point) Is negative or non-constructive in tone and does not cite examples of things the author does well.  Provides no suggestions for improvement and/or expansion of response content.  Does not support comments on content or theoretical perspective with references to assigned readings, or does so tenuously and/or incorrectly.  Highlights no editing errors.  Submits a poorly organized narrative with numerous errors in writing.
 

 Rubric for Scoring In-Class Reflective Writing Assignments
 

Level Performance Indicator
Excellent
(4 points) Responds clearly and fully to all elements of the writing prompt, sticking closely to the assigned topic.  Reports accurately and completely on matters of fact; supports opinions with fully developed, relevant arguments.  Demonstrates understanding of course content through specific references to assigned readings, field experience, and class discussions.  Uses terms associated with bilingualism and language acquisition accurately and precisely.  
Competent
(3 points) Responds to all or most elements of the writing prompt, generally sticking to the topic.  Reports accurately and completely on matters of fact; gives relevant personal opinions, though one or two points may not be fully developed.  Demonstrates understanding of course content through general references to assigned readings, field experience, and class discussions.  Attempts to use terms associated with bilingualism and language acquisition but may lack precision in their use.
Minimal
(2 points) Responds partially to the writing prompt, but introduces unrelated topics that dominate the response.  Reports inaccurately or incompletely on matters of fact; gives personal opinions that are not fully developed or are irrelevant.  Demonstrates superficial understanding of course content through general references to assigned readings, field experience, and class discussions.  Misuses many technical terms associated with bilingualism and language acquisition and/or is imprecise with respect to their application.  
Unsatisfactory
(1 point) Addresses topic(s) only peripherally related to the writing prompt.  Reports inaccurately and incompletely on matters of fact; does not react personally to issues addressed in the paper.  Fails to demonstrate understanding of course content through references to assigned readings, field experience, and class discussions.  Uses technical vocabulary associated with bilingualism and language acquisition inaccurately and imprecisely throughout the paper.
 

 Rubric for Reference list

Level Performance Indicator
Excellent
(4 points) Contributes valuable resources for each topic area, complete with a one paragraph description of each book, article or website. List is turned in on time and shows strong evidence of research outside of class readings.  

Competent
(3 points) Contributes valuable resources for most topics, complete with a one paragraph description of most books, articles or websites. List shows evidence of research outside of class readings.  

Minimal
(2 points) Contributes resources for some topics, complete with a one paragraph description of most books, articles or websites. List shows little evidence of research outside of class readings.  

Unsatisfactory
(1 point) Contributes already known resources, or does not submit descriptions of sources. List shows little evidence of research.  
 

 Language Analysis and Presentation
EDCI 516-603
Summer 2004
Project Guidelines

Due Date for Submission of Written Report: August 6, 2004
Group Presentations to Class: Last Two Sessions

Connection to the NCATE TESOL Standards:  This project provides connections to the following TESOL Standards - 1b, 2a, 2b, 4a, and 4b.

Objectives of Language Analysis Field Project & Presentation:

The Language Analysis Field Project and Presentation of EDCI 516-603 in the GMU teacher licensure program are designed to engage students in a performance-based assessment task in which they will analyze second language acquisition patterns in EFL/ESOL/FL/WL learners.  This project requires students to think critically about teaching and learning in the world/second language classroom.  It enables them to connect theory, research, and practice to the students with whom they will be working on a daily basis.  To promote collaborative research, students present their findings and share their recommendations with colleagues.  This project helps them develop a perspective that will contribute to their professional knowledge base and identity.

This project is appropriate for all EDCI 516 students, whether currently teaching or not.  It requires no prior knowledge of linguistics.

Project Objective:  To engage in a teaching-related language analysis field project that provides students a hands-on opportunity to work on analyzing an authentic language sample from a second language learner, present these findings to fellow program participants, and reflect on language acquisition with respect to the objectives and content of EDCI 516-603.

Presentation Component Objective:  The purpose of the group presentation component of this project is two-fold:
(1)  To provide students the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues in a learning/professional community on a relevant topic of professional interest (language assessment) to the second language classroom teacher; and
(2)  To provide students the opportunity to acquire and hone presentation skills, share professional knowledge and language analysis skills with colleagues and fellow students.

 Procedures
(Helpful Steps for Conducting the Project)

Step 1

 Each group will collect a language sample from a second language learner.  The sample should include both written and oral language.  The individual selected may be an elementary, middle, or high school student, or an adult learner (i.e., an ESL/EFL/FL/WL learner from any age or grade level).

Oral Sample:  You may us an interview or conversation format or any other activity that elicits language production in as natural and relaxed a setting as possible.  You may audio or videotape the sample.

Written Sample:  You may request a sample of the individual's school work or request other written material written by the individual.  This may be a letter, an essay, a short report, or anything that will help you gain access to this domain of their language acquisition.

a. You will need to gain appropriate permission from the individual.
b. If applicable, this language sample may be accomplished during field observations in the natural classroom setting.
c. Find out about the language, educational, cultural background of the person whose language sample you will be analyzing.  Be sure to identify the language sample by who, what, when, where, etc.

Step 2

Analyze the oral language sample in two distinct parts:

 Part One:  Listen to, or watch the video, of the language sample several times.  Make notes about what you hear/see about the language sample participant.  Record your preliminary impressions.  How would you assess the language of this learner?  What observations can you make about the learner based on this oral sample?  Does this sample tell you all you need to know about this language learner?  Why, or why not?

 Part Two:  You should now transcribe some of the major parts of the language sample upon which your analysis will focus.  A full transcription is not required.  Rather than conducting a detailed linguistic transcription (most participants will not yet have taken a formal linguistics course), the purpose of this project is to analyze the tape for overall language acquisition and potential error patterns.

  Students will prepare a thorough analysis of language acquisition patterns based on the assessment of the two domains collected for the language sample.

  In conducting your analysis, you may want to review:
1) Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM),
 http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Pages/solom914.htm or
2) Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA), http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/.
3) Oral Proficiency Scoring Rubric, ESOL Program, Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, VA. [Attached].

 If you wish, you may rate the language sample according to other rating scales and provide a copy of that scale.

- If you have taped a conversation between two individuals, you can observe them as they interact and analyze their language exchange patterns.  You want to look at: communication strategies used by language learners, social/psychological distance, etc.
- Now, look for other pragmatics, morpheme acquisition, individual learner differences in language acquisition, and/or use of learning strategies.

 Base your analysis on the research on language acquisition described in course readings and from other sources, and make theoretical and practical connections based on the course material and your personal research.  See the additional information in the grid included with the written report guidelines below.

 Analyze the written language sample:  You should also briefly analyze the written language sample you have from your individual.  To do this, you might use the GMU scoring rubric provided you in class, or another rubric.  Although most of your analysis will concentrate on the oral language sample, you should use the written domain of the language from your L2 learner to provide a more complete overview of the individual's L2 acquisition.  Make connections to course and other professional readings.

Step 3

 Students will prescribe an exploratory action plan to help the individual correct or overcome possible language difficulties, or a plan that will help your learner reach the CALP level for success in school.  This may consist of materials, activities, and/or suggestions which will address potential pathways for ameliorating language.

Step 4

 In a final section, each student will write his/her own thoughts and assessment of the experience, a reflection on the process, and its implications for teaching.

 Groups will prepare a written report of their project, one project report per group, and will share their project with their classmates during the last two or three evenings of class.  The last section of the report includes a personal reflection written by individual group members.  This should be submitted with the group's report.  (For example, a group of 4 students would submit one language analysis and report with 4 personal reflections.)  See suggested format below
 

Suggested Format for Final Written Report

Part I:

  Introduction.
  Description/Identification, brief personal history of the sample participant.  This may include:
ß Age, place of birth, countries and cities where s/he has lived, if born overseas, and age when immigrated.  State why this individual was chosen for the language sample.
ß Social, educational, and personal background.
ß Academic history in the United States or overseas (e.g., grade level, type of educational background).
ß Linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural competencies.
ß Various learner variables that may have an effect on L2acquisition.

L1 and L2 languages.  Discuss the similarities or differences between the two languages.  Brief reference to the five domains (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking) and the participant's fluency level (social and academic).

Criteria for choosing the participant.
Setting in which the sample was conducted.

 Part  II:  Study of the language acquisition patterns.  Include the following, as appropriate:

L1 educational foundation: amount, level, and quality. Environment (L1, L2) and expectations for learning and success.
Communicative competency and functional proficiency. Individual learner differences:  linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural development.
Phonemic acquisition:  how L2 learner pronounces English/FL/WL words and sounds out English/FL/WL letters.  Relationship with L1. BICS & CALP - perceived and/or known skills that relate to the Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills & Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (Cummins, 1979).
L2:  situational?  Sociocultural?  Academic? Code-switching
ESL/TESOL (or other language scale) general proficiency levels:  Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced Body language (e.g., hand movements, proximity, eye contact).
Grammatical errors or error patterns.  Are these predictable? Stage of L2 acquisition (e.g., Ron Ellis, 1994). Filling gaps between words learner does not know or remember.  How is this accomplished? What does it reveal?
Relationship between L1 & L2:  phonology, morphology, syntax.
Difficulties with syntax, grammar, and tenses.  Transfer of cognitive strategies learned in L1.  
Applying L1 grammar rules to L2.  Is informant Thinking/ processing occurring in L1 or L2; is there "translating" from L1 to L2?  
What transference of skills is there from L1 to L2? Examples of some common errors:
Trouble with /th/ sound while speaking
Rolling the /r/
Dropping the endings of words (especially those ending in /s/
Confusing prepositions, such as form for to and of
Confusion among articles:  a, an, the
Confusion:  me, my and I
Social settings and opportunities to interact with fellow L2 and TL speakers  Level of self-awareness: L2 strengths and weaknesses, self-correction in the L2

Part III:  Discuss your group's findings.  Interpret your oral and written language samples and link/relate them to SLA theory and research (e.g., Baker, Bialystok, Collier, Ellis, Hakuta, Krahsen, McLaughlin, Peregoy and Boyle, Peale and Lambert, Snow, Wong Fillmore, Walqui & West, etc.).

When citing course readings, please follow the guidelines of APA style (5th edition).

Part IV:  Recommendations, conclusion(s) and application.  Make some recommendations for your learner.  Describe how you would apply the results of your study to classroom practice.  What might the learner do next?

Part V:  Personal Reflections/Connections.  Tell about what you learned through this project.  Each group participant will write his/her individual reflection about what was learned through this language analysis project.  This is a personal reflection, so you may want to include what you learned through the process, your personal knowledge gained, and/or connections you have made.  How might you use this process in the future? 
 
 

Group Presentation Guidelines:

1.  Groups of three or four make an optimal working group. ALL GROUP MEMBERS SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE PRESENTATION.  Some groups find it helpful to provide a PowerPoint presentation, and although an excellent idea, it is not required.
2. Play a short excerpt of the language sample tape.
3.  Provide a very short handout that outlines the highlights (principal findings and recommendations) of your presentation with the salient points clearly noted.

Presentation Time:  20 minutes—30 minutes.  Maximum 30 minutes
 (You will need to plan your presentation time carefully.)

 For Exclusive Classroom Use:
Copyright© 2003 by Fairfax County Public Schools
(From George Flowers)
Oral Proficiency Scoring Rubric
Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, VA
ESOL Program

This scoring rubric was developed as part of a comprehensive system for assessing the English language proficiency of language minority students.  The Oral Proficiency Scoring Rubric is to be used to assess oral proficiency only.  The other components of the FCPS ESOL Assessment System should be used to determine a student's level of proficiency in other language modalities (reading and writing).  All of the components of the FCPS ESOL Assessment System (oral, reading, and writing) must be reviewed together in making ESOL placement, level movement, and program exit decisions.

DIRECTIONS:  For each of the five categories below at left, mark an "X" across the box that best describes the student's abilities.  Use black ink for the fall oral observations/sample and red ink to indicate the student’s abilities at the spring administration.  Complete the back of the form with one holistic oral score for the fall observation/sample and one holistic oral score for the spring observation sample.  Place the completed form in the student's ESOL Assessment Folder.

NOTE: Students learning English may maintain an accent, depending upon the age at which they started learning English. The presence of an accent should not influence the oral proficiency rating unless the accent affects meaning.
 Communicative Stages in Second Language Acquisition

 1 2 3 4 5 6
Productive
Communication Begins to name concrete objects Begins to communicate personal and survival needs Begins to initiate conversation. Retells a story or experience, asks and responds to simple questions.  Initiates and sustains a conversation with descriptors and details; exhibits self-confidence in social situations. Begins to communicate in classroom settings. Speaks in social and classroom settings with sustained and connected discourse. Any errors to not interfere with meaning. Communicates competently in social and classroom settings.
Fluency Repeats words and phrases Speaks in single word utterances and short patterns Speaks hesitantly because of rephrasing and searching for words. Speaks with occasional hesitation. Speaks with near native like fluency. Any hesitations do not interfere with communication. Speaks fluently
Structure   Uses predominantly present tense verbs. Demonstrates errors of omission (leaves words out, leaves endings off). Uses some complex sentences. Applies rules of grammar but lacks control of irregular forms (e.g., "runned," "mans," "not never," "more higher.") Uses a variety of structures with occasional grammatical errors. Masters a variety of grammatical structures.
Vocabulary  Uses functional vocabulary Uses limited vocabulary. Uses adequate vocabulary; some word usage regularities. Uses varied vocabulary. Uses extensive vocabulary but may lag behind native speaking peers in vocabulary development.
Receptive
Comprehension  Understands words and phrases, requires repetitions. Understands simple sentences in sustained conversation; requires repetitions. Understands classroom discussions with repetitions, rephrasing, and clarification.  Understands most spoken language including classroom discussion. Understands classroom discussion without difficulty.
 

 Rubric for Scoring Language Analysis Project
 

Level Performance Indicator
Excellent
(4 points) Conforms to project guidelines with respect to collection of language samples, topics covered, and format.  Includes a bibliography that follows APA style.  Provides analysis and reflection that thoughtfully address areas covered in course content.  Links theory and readings to findings/observations clearly and logically.  Is clearly organized and written with few or no stylistic or grammatical errors.
Competent
(3 points) Conforms to most project guidelines with respect to collection of language samples, topics covered, and format.  Includes a bibliography that is limited or does not fully comply with APA style.  Provides analysis and reflection that thoughtfully address most areas covered in course content.  Links theory and readings to findings/observations, but links may lack clarity or logical focus.  Is organized and written coherently, but may lack clarity and may contain stylistic or grammatical errors.
Minimal
(2 points) Conforms minimally to project guidelines with respect to collection of language samples, topics covered, and format.  Does not include a bibliography.  Provides analysis and reflection that fail to adequately/thoughtfully address the areas studied.  Does not clearly link theory and readings to findings/observations.  Is organized and written in a manner that lacks clarity and contains errors in style or grammar.
Unsatisfactory
(1 point) Does not conform to project guidelines with respect to collection of language samples, topics covered, and format.  Does not include a bibliography.  Provides no analysis or reflection.  Does not link theory and readings to findings/observations.  Is written with extensive stylistic or grammatical errors.