• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Strategic use of two languages.final.share withparticipants.webinar.1.22.14(1)
 

Strategic use of two languages.final.share withparticipants.webinar.1.22.14(1)

on

  • 233 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
233
Views on SlideShare
233
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Wide view: Programmatic overviewBeliefs about language learnersNarrow in on strategic use of two languages in classroom practice and planning
  • a) if you are mostly working within a bilingual scenario (TBE or DL)b) if you are mostly working within a monolingual scenario (work with ELLs in TPI or General Ed setting)c) both
  • Smiley faces: pink=native speakers of LOTE/identified as ELLsBlue=native speakers of English/not identified as ELLNote in the “students served” column, the students for whom the programs are traditionally designed are represented on the left of the dotted line, while all other students who may be actually served are included to the right.Color: deeper color denotes deeper level of language proficiency. Note: recognizes the language development of native English speakers in their first language (ie. Everyone is engaged in language development, not just ELLs)
  • Smiley faces: pink=native speakers of LOTE/identified as ELLsBlue=native speakers of English/not identified as ELLNote in the “students served” column, the students for whom the programs are traditionally designed are represented on the left of the dotted line, while all other students who may be actually served are included to the right.Color: deeper color denotes deeper level of language proficiency. Note: recognizes the language development of native English speakers in their first language (ie. Everyone is engaged in language development, not just ELLs)Note that ESL can refer to a model/approach to entire program, but is an essential component to all other programs, including DL and TBE.Ask yourself – what relevance does the conversation about strategic use of two languages have in monolingual programs?
  • Add your thoughts to the chat:what relevance does the conversation about strategic use of two languages have in monolingual programs? (mostly asking about ELLs in general ed and TPI programs)
  • Look at these side by side to note basic elements of each.TPI and TBE mandated in ILDL is recognized as meeting the mandates of TBE – but goes above and beyond requirementsLOTE should be scaffolded – in TBE more likely for the variety of native language development among ELLs, in DL additionally scaffolded with the non-ELL students in mind.
  • The more robust the TPI program in terms of leveraging students’ use of their native language and providing NL supports, the more it resembles TBE…the more robust (closer to developmental program) the TBE, the more it resembles DL.
  • Thinking about program design – how are staff, schedules, resources allocated to accomplish the various elements of the program? (Column headings reflect input districts must report in their SIS.)How will these choices help or hinder strategic use of two languages?How can strategic use of two languages be maximized based on the structures? (e.g. if scaffolded content in English is taking place in a departmentalized context, how must content area teachers communicate and collaborate to ensure consistent practices in use of LOTE?)Whenis language the goal and when is language the means toward the goal?Administrators need to work with teachers so they have input on how to design programs and allocate resources so that teachers can thoughtfully implement each component as robustly as possible within their scenario (TPI, TBE, DL)
  • Must regularly check our own beliefs – these are the lens through which we should ultimately make programmatic and instructional decisions. Too often we are pressured to make these decisions through a pragmatic lens.Need to share these with colleagues to build common vision – toward collaborative decision making and consistency across the program.
  • Digestible read for participants to use in own PD/study groups/staff meetings. Available online. Most applicable to all ELLs, though some myths focus on Latino ELLs (majority language group among ELLs in IL).
  • If there will be no text based discussion of article, can quickly review the highlights/conclusions in the whole group.
  • Espinosa’s conclusions about parents are not directly relevant to this presentation but take the opportunity to note:Linguistic and cultural assets of parents can enhance strategic use of language in classroom – can be engaged as partners to give input on culture (e.g. share traditions from their culture), provide language models (e.g. do a read aloud in NL), and engaging them is critical to supporting teacher’s approach at home. Parents can support strategic use of two languages in any kind of program - from TPI to DL.
  • If we agree that bilingualism is a worthy goal, we must build programs that nurture it as much as possible. For EVERY child to have access and opportunities to add a language, not just learn a second language (English) at the expense of their LOTE.
  • Note: benefits of bilingualism have gotten growing attention in the mainstream media. But how much attention is there to the distinction – bilingualism for whom? For native English speakers? For ELLs?
  • Big ideas from Chapter 4 of Teaching for Biliteracy. Following slides follow this progression.
  • Some important points to highlight on this slide:ELLs are not a monolithic group – they represent a wide spectrum of diversity across many dimensionsWe have to challenge our assumptions about which of these variables “go together” – e.g. while it is common for refugees to have significantly interrupted schooling, some refugees may be highly educated and on grade level in their native language. OR, while a newcomer may be identified as an ELL, they may not be at the earliest stages of English Language Development because they had the opportunity to learn English in their country of origin. ORNot all ELLs are immigrants. LANGUAGEWhether we label them by their language “deficit” (e.g. LEP) or more positively by their learning process (ELL), we are defining them first by their language – but we need to look at all aspects of diversityWhat is spoken in their home may not be the language they prefer to use (in some or all contexts) – the language listed on the HLS may not be the language with which they identify…Home language (language spoken in the home) may not be their “native” or first language but a heritage languageWhat ELLs demonstrate in social language may be at a different level from their academic language (in either English or their home language)Parents may have different levels of language development than student in either/both languagesBACKGROUNDELLs can range from Newcomer to 2nd, 3rd, 4th generationELLs can range from very Unfamiliar/Resistant to US culture to very well acclimated/embraces US culture The immigration experience (for ELLs or for their parents, grandparents) is not the same for all (e.g. some immigrate by choice, some for economic necessity, some for political necessity/fear)CULTUREMay be different ethnic cultures among ELLs of from the same country of origin/heritage. (Also culture may vary across geographic areas of one country)LEARNER PROFILEELLs can have a range of Cognitive, Behavioral, Physical GIFTS or disabilities – we can often conflate or confuse linguistic or cultural attributes with their range of other abilitiesRange from Interrupted Formal Education to having grade level academics in home country/native languageOTHER DEMOGRAPHICSThis and all of the other variables apply to all students in some way. Some are more of a stretch and less of immediate use to teachers to know about their students (e.g. we ALL have at least one country of origin/heritage if we go back far enough in the generations, and we either have lost or maintained some level of the language of our ancestors) but all kids have language and culture and background and a unique learner profile…
  • 2012 – Common Core connections embedded
  • New! Followsformat of WIDA ELD standards, but tailored to specific nature of SpanishSLD standards look at lang development across content and throughout day - Distinct from Spanish Language Arts Standards (content area paradigm)
  • Distinct from new WIDA SLD standards. Use these to inform Spanish Language Arts planning (content area paradigm)
  • Raise your hand if you reference WIDA standards regularly in your planning and formative assessment
  • Planning instructionally and planning programmatically go hand in hand.Program designers (ideally administrators and teachers --- and parents and students) have to think through the necessary conditions (staff, materials, supports, schedules, etc.) to make effective and strategic use of two languages possible.
  • Before we get into biliteracy unit structure, address some more general questions that are often hot topics in language use.
  • If LOTE is only seen as a tool to provide ELLs with access to content until they can survive content instruction in English…that’s one storyIf development of LOTE is recognized as a benefit in and of itself (and to the development of literacy in English), done both through content and explicit NL development, that is another.
  • Teachers, no matter how fluent, need to prepare for teaching in the LOTE to make sure they have the vocabulary and essential language for the teaching of a particular unit without code-switching.Teachers must also anticipate how they will respond to students when they code-switch in different contexts.Instruction in LOTE – student response in English or mix of Eng and LOTE – teacher response must be guided by understanding why the student has code-switched.
  • Here Idefer to LOTE as language of heavy lifting – raise its status and ensure ample time allocated to it. But note that it can go either way.TPR – leads them into a new concept through experience and examples
  • LEA is a great practice and highlights how we may need to undertake big shifts from how we traditionally approach language arts – here we are starting with Doing and Writing, vs a more traditional Listening and Reading (before Writing).
  • [LOTE] is added by me (not in orginal text).
  • Double helix analogy – Bilinguals are not 2 parallel monolinguals within the same brain - we are double helix of language usersA biliteracy curriculum mirrors the double helix.
  • Bridging happens – bilinguals do it anyway - but when teachers are intentional about facilitating it (plan for the Bridge), it is much more powerful.
  • Note that it goes two ways. LOTE to English and English to LOTE.
  • Not an exhaustive list…
  • The extension from one unit provides a natural launching pad for a new unit that begins in that (extension) language. E.g. Soc Studies unit primarily in Spanish Bridge in both Sp and Eng – extension activity in English allows for highlighting more universal concepts/vocabulary that can be thematically connected across disciplines - provides a lead-in to a Science unit primarily in English (while the next Social Studies unit begins in Spanish).
  • The extension from one unit provides a natural launching pad for a new unit that begins in that (extension) language. E.g. Soc Studies unit primarily in Spanish Bridge in both Sp and Eng – extension activity in English allows for highlighting more universal concepts/vocabulary that can be thematically connected across disciplines - provides a lead-in to a Science unit primarily in English (while the next Social Studies unit begins in Spanish).Double helix analogy. This structure for the curriculum is a bit like a parking garage in which the up ramp curls around the down ramp – and there are points of intersection where we are guided to cross over to the other ramp (Bridge).
  • Beeman and Urow – contains Biliteracy Unit Framework, Unit template, focus on Spanish-English biliteracy in programs designed with biliteracy as a goalMenken and Kleyn – big idea – power of reintroducing native language instruction to ELLs who have not recently or ever had formal NL instruction.Fu – good reference on how to use NL and Eng across settings – including where English is the primary language of instruction (TPI). Addresses code-switching.
  • https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PTSFXGT

Strategic use of two languages.final.share withparticipants.webinar.1.22.14(1) Strategic use of two languages.final.share withparticipants.webinar.1.22.14(1) Presentation Transcript