A high percentage of students enrolled in public schools today aren't native English speakers; the No Child Left Behind program addresses the length of time states can test students in academic subjects in their native language. Right now, this length of time is three years; however, the House is considering extending this time period to five years.
This amendment seems logical, considering that research suggests that "an average of five to seven years is required to attain parity with native speakers" (Collier, 1995; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Cummins, 1981). And this is assuming that the ELLs (English Language Learner) have had some instruction in English before attending school here! If they have not had any instruction previously, the average number of years necessary to attain parity rises to about ten.
In analyzing how long it takes students to become proficient in English, another question arises: what is the most effective method of teaching a language?
The four most popular methods are:
Submersion: ELLs are placed in ordinary classrooms where only English is spoken; the minority home language is not used at all.
English as a Second Language (ESL): ESL students are placed in regular submersion instruction for most of the day. However, they are also placed in separate classes based on a special curriculum designed to teach English as a second language.
Structured Immersion: Instruction is in English, but the immersion teacher understands the student's native language, and students can address the teacher in their native language.
Two-Way Bilingual Immersion: Students are taught in both their native language and English; initially, classes are taught in 90% native language and 10% in English. As children progress through the program, the amount of English language instruction is increased until the two languages attain parity.
[http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects05/be/alternatives.html]
Interestingly, research has shown that programs of submersion prove least effective; these students end up lagging behind the others, and generally require a greater length of time to become proficient. This seemed counter-intuitive to me, seeing as I always hear about people going to different countries to immerse themselves fully in a language in order to really learn it. Maybe it has more to do with the fact that kids who are being taught completely in a different language lose interest or are discouraged by the fact that there is nothing comprehensible to them?
[http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/winter_95/page32.html]
...On another note, did anyone else read the article titled "Language: Translating the lingo of adultalescence"? I think the articles written by adults attempting to capture the "cool" words of the day always end up sounding silly. I've never heard anyone use the expression "stella" or "starlike" or "nose wide open." Is that just an East Coast thing or what?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can sympathize with your surprise that submersion seems to be least effective. I am friends with a counselor who works in an inner city school in Richmond where the majority of the students are Hispanic and know English as a second language. I volunteered there a lot in high school and I had a discussion with the counselor about the English learning classes in which the Hispanic students were enrolled. She said that they seemed very ineffective, and from her experience with the students thought that they would learn much more efficiently if they were in all mainstream classes. But I guess it all really depends on the circumstances of the situation. It was also really sad because she told me that the school had to cut really fun electives like band and art so that they could put all students in multiple english and math classes so they could pass standardized tests to keep the school open based on NCLB.
Post a Comment