SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 28
Download to read offline
A P U B L I C AT I O N O F T H E N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N F O R B I L I N G UA L E D U C AT I O N
Perspectives
Getting to Know your
Students’ Linguistic
and Cultural Assets:
Opening Spaces for
Bilingual Pairs’ Voices
P L U S :
Influencia del vocabulario
académico en la
competencia lectora de
estudiantes con español
como lengua de herencia
Facilitators’Perspectives:
Strategies that Work in
Higher Education Dual
Language Immersion
Settings
Funtastic Apps and
Web-based Resources
for Korean Language
Development
JULY–SEPTEMBER 2015
Reach Thousands of
Bilingual Education
Professionals!
Advertise in NABE’s
Perspectives!
Perspectives, a publication of the National Association
of Bilingual Education, is read by nearly 20,000 educators and
administrators. These readers possess significant purchasing power. Many are
responsible for procuring the full range of educational materials, products, and services
for use in linguistically and culturally diverse learning environments.
To reserve your space, simply fill out the contract (available online at
http://www.nabe.org/publications.html) and fax it to 240-450-3799.
Call 202-450-3700 if you have any questions.
Take advantage of this great opportunity to increase your
revenue and advertise in Perspectives!
A
Full page B&W
7.5" x 10"
B
2/3 page B&W
4.875" x 10"
C
1/2 page B&W
7.5" x 4.875"
D
1/3 page B&W
2.25" x 10" or
4.875" x 4.875"
F
1/4 page B&W
3.5" x 4.875"
G
Full page Color
No Bleed: 7.5" x 10" or
Bleed: 8.625" x 11.125"
(trims to 8.375" x 10.875")
Live content 1/4" from trim
E
Perspectives is published
in four issues each year,
according to the following
schedule of publication/
mailing date:
Issue 1:	January-March
Issue 2:	April-June
Issue 3:	July-September
Issue 4:	October-December
For rates to advertise
please contact the NABE
office at (240) 450-3700
Save with multiple insertions!
2 insertions: 	 10% off 	
3 insertions: 	 15% off 	
4 insertions: 	 20% off
Contributing to Perspectives
GUIDELINES FOR WRITERS
NABE's Perspectives is published six times
a year on a bimonthly basis. We welcome
well written and well researched articles on
subjects of interest to our readers. While con-
tinuing to address issues facing NABE mem-
bers, Perspectives aims to meet the growing
demand for information about bilingual
education programs and the children they
serve. It is a magazine not only for veteran
educators of Bilingual and English language
learners but also for mainstream teachers,
school administrators, elected officials, and
interested members of the public.
Articles for Perspectives must be original,
concise, and accessible, with minimal use
of jargon or acronyms. References, charts,
and tables are permissible, although these
too should be kept to a minimum. Effective
articles begin with a strong“lead”paragraph
that entices the reader, rather than assuming
interest in the subject. They develop a few
themes clearly, without undue repetition or
wandering off on tangents.
ThePerspectiveseditorsareeagertoreceive
manuscriptsonawiderangeoftopicsrelatedto
BilingualandEnglishlearnerprograms,including
curriculumandinstruction,effectivenessstudies,
professionaldevelopment,schoolfinance,parental
involvement,andlegislativeagendas.Wealsowel-
comepersonalnarrativesandreflectiveessayswith
whichreaderscanidentifyonahumanaswellasa
professionallevel.
Researchers are encouraged to describe their
work and make it relevant to practitioners.
Strictly academic articles, however, are not
appropriate for Perspectives and should be sub-
mitted instead to the Bilingual Research Journal.
No commercial submissions will be accepted.
TYPES OF ARTICLES
Each issue of Perspectives usually contains three or
four feature articles of approximately 2,000 –
2,500 words, often related to a central theme.
Reviews are much shorter (500 – 750 words
in length), describing and evaluating popular
or professional books, curriculum guides,
textbooks, computer programs, plays, movies,
and videos of interest to educators of English
language learners. Manuscripts written or spon-
sored by publishers of the work being reviewed
are not accepted. Book reviews and articles
should be emailed to:
Dr. José Agustín Ruiz-Escalante
jare21@yahoo.com
ColumnsareAsianandPacificIslanderEducation
andIndigenousBilingualEducation.(Ifyouhave
otherideasforaregularcolumn,pleaseletus
know.)Thesearticlesaresomewhatshorterin
length (1,000 – 1,500 words, and should be
emailedtooneoftheeditorsbelow:
Asian and Pacific Islander Education	
Dr. Clara C. Park: clara.park@csun.edu 	
Indigenous Bilingual Education
Dr. Jon Allen Reyhner: jon.reyhner@nau.edu
PREPARING ARTICLES FOR SUBMISSION
Manuscripts to be considered for the
September/October issue must be received by
July 15. Manuscripts to be considered for the
November/December issue must be received
by September 15. Reference style should con-
form to Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Articles and
reviews should be submitted electronically to
NABE’s Editor, Dr. José Agustín Ruiz-Escalante at
jare21@yahoo.com in a MicrosoftWord file, 11
point,Times New Roman, double-spaced. Be sure
to include your name, affiliation, e-mail address,
phone and fax numbers.
Photographs and artwork related to the manu-
script are encouraged. Please include the name
of the photographer or source, along with notes
explaining the photos and artwork, and written
permission to use them. Photographs should
be submitted as separateTIFF, or JPEG/JPG files,
not as images imported into MicrosoftWord or
any other layout format. Resolution of 300 dpi or
higher at actual size preferred, a minimum pixel
dimension of 1200 x 1800 is required. (Images
copied from a web page browser display are only
72 dpi in resolution and are generally not accept-
able.)When in doubt, clean hard-copy images
may be mailed for scanning by our design staff.
is a tax-exempt, nonprofit professional
association founded in 1975 to address the
educational needs of language-
minority Americans.
National Office:
11006 Veirs Mill Rd. #L-1
Wheaton, MD 20902-2582
Telephone: (240) 450-3700
Fax: (240) 450-3799
www.nabe.org
J U L Y – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ● V O L U M E 3 8 , I S S U E 3
Perspectives
Published by the National Association
for Bilingual Education
EDITOR
DR. JOSÉ AGUSTÍN RUIZ-ESCALANTE
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS – PAN AMERICAN
CO-EDITOR
DR. MARÍA GUADALUPE ARREGUÍN-ANDERSON,
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO
ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER
COLUMN EDITOR
DR. CLARA C. PARK
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY-NORTHRIDGE
INDIGENOUS BILINGUAL EDUCATION
COLUMN EDITOR
DR. JON ALLAN REYHNER
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
DESIGN & LAYOUT:
WINKING FISH
PRINT AND EDITORIAL POLICY
Readers are welcome to reprint
noncopyrighted articles that appear in
Perspectives at no charge, provided proper
credit is given both to the author(s) and to
Perspectives as the source publication.
All articles printed in Perspectives, unless
written by an Association staff person or
a member of the current NABE Executive
Board of Directors, are solely the opinion
of the author or authors, and do not
represent the official policy or position
of the National Association for Bilingual
Education. Selection of articles for
inclusion in Perspectives is not an official
endorsement by NABE of the point(s) of
view expressed therein.
Contents■ Cover Story
Getting to Know your Students’
Linguistic and Cultural Assets:
Opening Spaces for Bilingual Pairs’ Voices
María G. Arreguín-Anderson and Iliana Alanis..................................................................6
■ Columns & Articles
Influencia del vocabulario académico
en la competencia lectora de estudiantes
con español como lengua de herencia
Ana R. Carlton............................................................................................................12
Facilitators’ Perspectives:
Strategies that Work in Higher Education
Dual Language Immersion Settings
Ángel A. Toledo López and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera....................................................16
Funtastic Apps and Web-based Resources
for Korean Language Development
Grace McField.............................................................................................................23
■ Departments
Contributing to Perspectives - Guidelines for Writers........................................................2
Are you a member?
Membership in NABE includes a subscription to Perspectives,
and so much more.
Visit nabe.org to renew or start your new memberhip today!
TREASURER – MEMBER-AT-LARGE
Josie Tinajero, Ed.D.
Assistant to the VP for Research
The University of Texas at El Paso
500 W. University Ave
El Paso, TX 79968
W: (915)-747-5552
F: (915)-747-5755
tinajero@utep.edu
SECRETARY – MEMBER-AT-LARGE
Rossana Boyd, Ph.D.
University of North Texas
3410 Clydesdale Dr.
Denton, TX 76210
C: (940)-391-4800
rossana.boyd@unt.edu
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
Luis F. Cruz, Ph.D.
Education Consultant
20867 Amar Rd., Ste 2 -#815
Walnut, CA 91789
C: (626)-705-9415
lcruz@newfrontier21.com
CENTRAL REGION REPRESENTATIVE
Leo Gómez, Ph.D.
PO Box 420
Edinburg, TX 78540
H: (956)-467-9505
lgomez2@aol.com
WESTERN REGION REPRESENTATIVE
Minh-Anh Hodge, Ed.D.
Tacoma School District
P.O. Box 1357
Tacoma, WA 98401
W: (253)-571-1415
F: (253)-571-1232
mhodge@tacoma.k12.wa.us
EASTERN REGION REPRESENTATIVE
Anita Pandey, Ph.D.
Professor and PD Coordinator
Morgan State University
1700 E.Cold Spring Ln
Baltimore, MD 21251
C: (443)-422-5923
anita.pandey@morgan.edu
CENTRAL REGION REPRESENTATIVE
José Agustín Ruiz-Escalante, Ed.D.
Ret. Prof. of Bilingual and Dual Language
Education
3740 Frontier Drive
Edinburg, TX 78539
C: (956)-607-1955
jare21@yahoo.com
PARENT REPRESENTATIVE
Julio Cruz, Ed.D.
9715 Woods Drive Apt. 1705
Skokie, IL 60077
H: (773)-369-4810
jcruzr@aol.com
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Santiago V. Wood, Ed.D.
C: (954) 729-4557
drsantiagow@gmail.com
NABE EXECUTIVE BOARD
2 0 1 5 – 2 0 1 6
PRESIDENT – WESTERN REGION REP.
Yee Wan, Ed.D.
Director, Multilingual Education Services
Santa Clara County Office of Education
1290 Ridder Park Drive, MC237 • San Jose, CA 95131-2304
W. (408)-453-6825 • yeewan.nabe@gmail.com
VICE PRESIDENT – EASTERN REGION REP.
Margarita P. Pinkos, Ed.D.
Executive Director, Department of Multicultural Education
School District of Palm Beach County
3388 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite A 204 • West Palm Beach, FL 33411
W: (561)-434-8010 • F: (561)-434-8074
margaritapinkos@gmail.com
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 54
Letter from
the President Yee Wan, E.d. D.
NABE Board President
This is my first column as NABE president since
assuming this position in July 2015. As I reflect on
the shared vision of NABE and its 20+ affiliates, it is
very clear that the Seal of Biliteracy initiative is a major
force, which unites bilingual educators nationwide.
The State Seal of Biliteracy is an award given by the state
in recognition of students who have studied and attained
proficiency in two or more languages by high school
graduation. Appearing on the transcript or diploma of the
graduating senior, the Seal of Biliteracy is a statement of
accomplishment for future employers and for college admissions.
On October 8, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law
AB 815 (Brownley) creating the State Seal of Biliteracy, making
California the first state in the nation to offer this opportunity to
millions of students. The achievement was a result of the efforts of
Californians Together, a coalition of parents, teachers, education
advocates and civil rights groups committed to improving policy
and practice for educating English learners. In supporting this
effort, NABE formally endorsed California’s Seal of Biliteracy
in 2012 and commended Californians Together at the 41st
NABE Annual Conference in Dallas, Texas. At NABE’s 2012
and 2014 annual conferences, Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, Executive
Director of Californians Together, presented featured sessions on
establishing the Seal of Biliteracy awards. Californians Together
has also made presentations in Chicago, Colorado, New Mexico
and New York At the NABE-CABE Pre-conference Institute
in 2014 in San Diego, California, a State Seal of Biliteracy
Panel was convened represented by California, Illinois, New
York and Texas. Today, eleven states have adopted the Seal of
Biliteracy legislation including California, Washington, New
Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, New
York, Nevada and Hawaii. The collaboration across the states has
been phenomenal. NABE greatly values the strong partnership
with Californians Together, CABE and other state affiliates.
In fall 2014, three national organizations (American Council
on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, National Council of
State Supervisors for Languages, and TESOL International
Association), along with NABE, collaborated on the National
Guidelines for Implementing the Seal of Biliteracy. The guidelines
were released in spring 2015 and are posted at http://www.
multibriefs.com/briefs/nabe/BiliteracyPressRelease.pdf.
Below are additional resources that can help you establish the
Seal of Biliteracy or Pathway Awards in your school or district.
◗◗ Californians Together: California Campaign for Biliteracy
https://www.californianstogether.org/california-campaign-for-
biliteracy/
◗◗ Communications Toolkit, Videos and PowerPoint Presentations
http://mes.sccoe.org/bwlct/home/Pages/default.aspx
In addition, there is a Seal of Biliteracy website that shows an
interactive map of the 50 states and highlights which ones have
approved and which ones are considering the Seal of Biliteracy.
The website is a joint project with Velazquez Press and Californians
Together. For more information, please visit http://sealofbiliteracy.
org/ (simply click on a state to reach that state’s profile).
The NABE 2016 Conference will hold the Seal of Biliteracy
Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting on Thursday, March
3, 2016. If you are interested in supporting the planning, or
contributing to share your resource, please contact Ms. Nivia
Gallardo, Chair of the NABE Seal of Biliteracy SIG. Ms.
Gallardo can be reached at ngallardo@cnusd.k12.ca.us.
NABE is strongly committed to promoting the Seal of Biliteracy
as a means of preparing our students to be successful in the 21st
century. It is one of NABE’s top priorities to support our affiliates
as they initiate legislation to adopt the Seal of Biliteracy. NABE
strongly encourages all state affiliates and members to join the
Seal of Biliteracy movement to recognize students’ language
achievements. Please feel free to contact the NABE office for
support. It is critical that NABE continue to be the advocate
and champion for our multilingual learners at the national
level. With our collective effort, we can actualize our vision of
every student graduating high school biliterate and ready to
take their place as a globally competent 21st century citizen.
Best regards,
Yee Wan, Ed.D.
Dear NABE Members:
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 5
COVER STORY
Getting to Know your Students’
Linguistic and Cultural Assets:
Opening Spaces for Bilingual
Pairs’Voices
María G. Arreguín-Anderson, The University of Texas at San Antonio
Iliana Alanis, The University of Texas at San Antonio
In this article, we highlight the importance of releasing control and opening spaces for
children’s voices.That is, setting up an environment in which we, teachers, occasionally take
center space, but also provide opportunities for students to teach and learn from each other as
well as opportunities for the teacher to learn from the students. A vision that Freire articulated
when he proposed that:
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 56
…Through dialogue, the teacher-of
the-student” and the students-of the
teacher cease to exist and a new term
emerges: teacher-student with student-
teachers. The teacher is no longer
merely the –one-who-teaches, but one
who is himself taught through dialogue
with the students, who in turn while
being taught also teach. They become
jointly responsible for a process in
which all grow. (Freire, 2003, p. 80)
The idea of a classroom in which all
students can be teachers has profound
implications. It means that the teacher
believes in students’ ability to effectively
communicate and use language to learn
and just as importantly, the teacher believes
that students have something to contribute.
Does this mean that, as an educator, I
have to give up the idea of lecturing or
direct teach? In our view the answer is No!
but moderation is key. Doses of lecture
and teacher intervention are essential
elements as we work towards achieving
instructional objectives. In the following
sections, we discuss direct instruction
as well as the importance of identifying
children’s linguistic and cultural repertoire.
What is the Role of Direct Teach
in the Classroom?
Adopting collaborative approaches is not in
contradiction with the use of direct teach.
In fact, direct teach has its place in general
instruction at all levels (Bass, Contant,
& Carin, 2009) including situations in
which the teacher must provide safety
instructions in subjects such as science and
mathematics; teach well defined concepts,
skills, and information that studens must
remember; provide additional examples,
and summarize key concepts of a lesson.
	 Direct instruction is generally short.
There is no set rule for how long children
can listen to a teacher’s explanation of a
concept, skill, or procedure. In all cases,
it is important to remember that direct
instruction involves more than simply telling
and showing. It involves the following steps:
◗◗ Attend (draw children’s attention to the
task)
◗◗ Show and tell (show or tell children
something)
◗◗ Differentiate (help children recognize
examples and nonexamples)
◗◗ Apply (have children apply what they
are learning) (Kostelnik, Soderman, &
Whiren, 2011, p. 93).
These steps are illustrated in In
Mr. Clarks’ classroom as he directs
a group of kindergarteners to sit
on a rug after exploring rocks:
1.	Mr. Clark begins his lesson by asking
children to sit next to their partner and
together look at pictures of rocks that
he is going to show them. He indicates,
“these are the same ones that you just
explored. I have the same rocks right here
in this box and I am going to take one at
a time and then discuss all of them.”
2.	The children look at the picture and
begin talking about the rocks with their
peers.
3.	Mr. Clark continues, “Here is one of the
rocks. Tell your partner what you notice
about the rock and I will call on one pair
to share.”
4.	Children begin sharing information about
the rock for about a minute.
5.	Mr. Clark randomly selects one pair.
One of the partners expresses that “the
rock felt bumpy.” Mr. Clark extends his
comment, “Yes, we can also say that the
rock was rough. We will refer to it as
texture. Some rocks are smooth. Others
are rough and we can classify them based
on how they feel.”
6.	Now, Mr. Clark asks, “What else can
you tell me about this other rock? Talk
to your partner.” After one minute Mr.
Clark asks one pair and they express that
“the rock is small and round.”
7.	“Well”, says, Mr. Clark, “We can also
group the rock based on size and shape.
Look at the two groups I have on the
screen. All the rocks that are small and
round are in this group. The big rocks are
in this other group. Now tell your partner
about the different types of groups that
we have identified. In other words, in
what ways have we classified rocks?
In the example above, Mr. Clark infuses
all steps of this direct instruction segment
with opportunities to interact, talk, and
expand students’ thinking. Children are
challegend to apply what they know to
new situations and to produce complete
sentences. Children’s expressive language
may take many forms, and in bilingual
settings, a mix of langauges may be evident.
Recognizing Bilingual
learners’Linguistic Abilities
In bilingual, dual language classrooms,
linguistic minorities, generally Latino
learners, often receive instruction aimed
at remediating perceived deficiencies. This
deficit view translates into a belief that
“children don’t have any language” and
“they lack significant experiences”. These
beliefs strongly influence teachers’ actions
and are congruent with transmission
models of instructions in which, educators
visualize themselves as “knowledge
givers” and the one whose responsibility
centers on providing not only knowledge,
but also, skills that children “lack” as
illustrated in the following vignette:
On her first day of class, Ms.
Gutiérrez, a first grade teacher,
meets with her students on the
carpet near the calendar to conduct
morning activities that include a
review of the days of the week, a
description of today’s weather, and
the news of the day. As they get
ready to begin, she listens to students’
conversations and overhears Gilbert
and Javier as they argue about whose
turn it is to lead the activity:
The idea of a classroom in which all students can be teachers
has profound implications. It means that the teacher believes
in students’ ability to effectively communicate and use
language to learn and just as importantly, the teacher believes
that students have something to contribute.
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 7
Gilberto: Yo sigo [It is my
turn], right teacher?
Javier: No. Siéntate en la carpeta
hasta que diga la Miss quien sigue.
[No. Sit down on the carpet until
the teacher says who is next.}
Gilberto: No’stoy chiriando
[I am not cheating].
Javier: Teacher, I am
next. ¿Veda que sí?
Mixed feelings overwhelm Ms.
Gutiérrez as she listens to this
conversation. She clearly understands
what her students are saying and
what the source of conflict is, but she
is concerned about her students’ use of
language. She later shares her concerns
with her colleague: “I am afraid my
students don’t have a language. They
speak neither English nor Spanish.”
The “lack of language” myth historically
originated from the assumption that
children who do not speak English do not
have a way to function in academic settings
and therefore will not succeed. Based on
this assumption, generations of Latino
children have experienced an education
that has subtracted their language and
culture and has focused on assimilation or
a process in which they closely resemble
the dominant group’s language and culture.
The truth is, as Ofelia Garcia (2014) has
argued, many Latino students do not
have a “single” language or even two,
easy to identify languages that are used
separately as if a switch was turned off
and on. Instead, bilingual learners often
arrive in our classrooms with languages
that can be classified under many labels.
These languages are used dynamically as
children communicate. Gloria Anzaldúa
(1999) a Chicana writer and intellectual
proposed that some of the languages
that children speak may include:
1.	standard English
2.	working class and slang English
3.	standard Spanish
4.	standard Mexican Spanish
5.	North Mexican Spanish dialect
6.	Chicano Spanish
7.	Tex-Mex, and
8.	Pachuco (p. 77)
With this in mind, an initial step
in releasing teacher control is the
conceptualization that all students arrive
in classrooms with one, two, and possibly
more languages. These languages are often
used flexibly as Javier and Gilberto did in
the above scenario. Gilberto, for example,
speaks Tex-Mex at home, Standard English
at school, and understands working class
and slang English, each one of them at
different proficiency levels. As his teacher,
Ms. Gutiérrez is in a crucial position to
establish an environment where students
continue acquiring standard academic
English and standard academic Spanish
while maintaining or enhancing the
languages they already speak. As a teacher,
she is to take the role of facilitator, exposing
children to enriching experiences in which
they read, speak, listen, and write in
meaningful contexts. The use of pairs will
be one of those powerful strategies that
will foster language development while
allowing the teacher to release control.
The “lack of language” myth historically originated from the
assumption that children who do not speak English do not
have a way to function in academic settings and therefore
will not succeed. Based on this assumption, generations of
Latino children have experienced an education that has
subtracted their language and culture and has focused on
assimilation or a process in which they closely resemble the
dominant group’s language and culture. The truth is, as Ofelia
Garcia (2014) has argued, many Latino students do not have
a “single” language or even two, easy to identify languages
that are used separately as if a switch was turned off and on.
Instead, bilingual learners often arrive in our classrooms with
languages that can be classified under many labels.
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 58
A Closer Look: An Inventory
of Languages Spoken in your
Classroom
What languages do your children speak?
You can begin by using Gloria Anzaldúa’s
classification of languages as a starting point
to develop a language inventory of each
one of your students’ linguistic abilities.
You may notice that additional categories
or languages may need to be added. For
example, you may have students who speak
Hindi, Guatemalan Spanish, Russian, etc.
Once you have identified the languages
by each child add a general language
proficiency descriptor. Based on your own
perception, do children seem comfortable
expressing themselves orally in Hindi for
example? Finally, associate this description
with a particular language skill (listening,
speaking, reading, and writing). A child’s
inventory may look like Figure 1.
	 At the conclusion of the school year,
you could revisit this inventory. How has it
changed? Children who spend most of the
day listening to the teacher are likely to have
very few opportunities to develop oral skills
in a given language. What do you notice?
Recognizing that Bilingual
Children Make Valuable
Contributions
Relinquishing control is difficult, especially
when our own schooling experience may
have left us with memories of passive
learning. Therefore, we are often tempted
to replicate what we know, that is, we speak
to children, provide and grade assignments,
and tell them when something is right or
when something is wrong. We also share
our knowledge and our experience. On the
other hand, when we transform our views
of children and allow ourselves to hear
their voices we also acknowledge that they
have much to contribute. Contributions
will reflect children’s funds of knowledge
(Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005).
	 What children know and who they are,
culturally, is expressed in a variety of ways:
a) the games they play, b) the language
they use, c) the activities they engage in,
d) the food they eat, etc. In the classroom,
it is difficult to draw from this wealth of
knowledge when the teacher is in control
all the time, that is, when the teacher is the
one who speaks and tells children what they
need to know and how they should learn it.
A Closer Look: An Inventory of
Children’s Funds of Knowledge
What hobbies, activities, and cultural
celebrations do your students engage in
when not in class? At the beginning, and
throughout the school year, document
activities that are significant in the lives
of your students. Interview children’s
caretakers including a few simple questions:
◗◗ What are your children’s favorite activities
when at home?
◗◗ What hobbies, pastimes, and activities do
you engage in with your child? (at any
point of the week?)
◗◗ What type of hobbies, pastimes, and
activities do you and your child engage in
at any point of the week?
◗◗ To what degree is your child involved in
these activities?
It is important to design collaborative
structures that allow children to share their
personal experiences when they wish to
do so. How many times for example, have
you conducted whole group discussions
that spark children’s interest motivating
them to raise their hand or plainly
inspiring them to shout out or narrate their
experience? These are critical moments
in which you realize that as important as
children’s stories are, you perhaps, only
have time to listen to one or maybe two.
	 The power of pairs lies in the
collaborative structure that allows all
children to share, all of the time. For
the teacher, the realization that children
don’t have to share with “her/him” is an
important step. After all, when Laura
is paired with Joel and finds out that
she can share her experience gardening
with her grandmother and Joel has an
opportunity to share that his father took
him fishing last weekend and that he caught
a catfish, we have children whose sense
of community gradually evolves out of
knowing each other on a personal basis.
Figure 1
Listening Reading Speaking Writing
Mexican
Spanish
Advanced
fluency
Intermediate
fluency
Advanced
fluency
Early
production
Standard
Academic
English
Intermediate
fluency
Intermediate
fluency
Early
production
Early
production
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 9
Releasing Control by Facilitating
Learning: We are Designed
for Dialogue
An inventory of children’s interests and
activities will allow you to become a better
facilitator. As a facilitator, you will be
equipped with crucial information to make
important decisions on a daily basis. When
you consider Laura’s case, for example, you
will realize that her language(s) and cultural
background make her an ideal partner for
Roberto during a science lesson that focuses
on states of matter. As a monolingual
Spanish-speaker who is unfamiliar with the
American school system, Roberto is not
only in need of a space in which to safely
ask questions, but in need of interactive
structures in which he can continue to
grow linguistically. This safe space allows
him to contribute not only to class
discussions in general, but to the growth
of his classmates as evident in each child’s
identified characteristics (see Figure 2).
How Do You Distribute
your Instructional Time?
Classrooms in which children encounter
clear opportunities to collaboratively use
language while mastering content, generally
reflect an intentional distribution of time
in which the teacher opens spaces for
student participation throughout the entire
instructional day. In these classrooms,
teachers know when they have lectured
excessively, or when they have allowed
direct instruction to prevail. We have
noticed that often, teachers use interactive
learning only during learning center time or
perhaps during guided reading lessons. To
counter this tendency, Johnson, Johnson, &
Holubec (1998) recommend that teachers
break direct teaching periods into “short
processing times” (p. 3-10) or checkpoints
so that students have opportunities to
think about the big ideas of the lesson.
	 During those purposely infused
processing times, or stops, the teacher
can verify children’s comprehension
of the explained concept and assess
children’s ability to “produce language
to communicate”. Receptive language
development and expressive language
development, Otto (2014) argues is closely
related to each child’s developmental level,
each aspect of language knowledge, and
learning environment” (p. 3). Figure 3
shows a direct instruction routine in which
the teacher includes three checkpoints
and two five-minute lecture segments.
A Closer Look: How do you
Distribute your Instructional Time?
In your classroom you often have visitors,
parent volunteers, observers, and student
teachers among others. As part of your self-
reflection and analysis of your own practices,
ask one of these individuals or a colleague
to shadow you for a day. Preferably, ask
this individual to select a random day.
During this day, this person’s job will be
to keep track of a) the amount of time
you lecture speak for each instructional
segment of your day along with the general
purpose. Purpose may include: explain,
Prior
Knowledge
Question
5 minute lecture
Discussion pair #1
5 minute lectureDiscussion pair #2
2 minute closure
Summarization
pair
Figure 3: Direct instruction routine
Figure 2
Laura Roberto
Languages Tex-Mex, North Mexican
Spanish, Academic English
Monolingual
Spanish speaker
Hobbies Collects rocks Loves to watch cartoons
Favorite subject Science Mathematics
Personality Extrovert Introvert
Funds of Knowledge Construction, baking,
gardening
Wrestling
Extracurricular activities None Soccer
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 510
read to students, provide instructions, etc.
Don’t make any changes, just conduct
teaching ‘as usual’. Additionally, ask
this person to record the questions that
you ask and the tasks that you assign.
	 A recording log would include the
following fields for example (See figure
4). Awareness of the way we distribute
time and the types of question that we
ask will serve as data for our personal
needs assessment. What do we need to
change? Observational data is a valuable
source of information as we embark on an
intentional shift of teaching paradigm.
Conclusions
The shift from teacher-centered to
student-centered pedagogy requires that
teachers know their students’ linguistic
and cultural background. A classroom
in which students’ languages and cultures
are celebrated is a classroom in which
children are inevitably empowered to
take control of their own learning.
	 Small interactive structures, such as
pairs, allow children to teach and learn from
each other. The role of the teacher is to
purposefully and deliberately assign students
to pairs based on strengths, academic level,
language proficiency, cultural background
and other factors so that they benefit from a
partnership in ways that transform
their lives. ★
References
Anzaldua, G. (1999). Borderlands, La Frontera: The new
Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
Bass, J. E., Contant, T. L., & Carin, A. A. (2009). Methods for
teaching science as inquiry. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Diaz, Z., Whitacre, M., Esquierdo, J. J., & Ruiz-Escalante, J.
A. (2013). Why did I ask that question? Bilingual/ESL
preservice teachers’insights. International Journal of
Instruction, 6(2), 163-176.
Garcia, O. (2014). Countering the dual: Transglossia,
dynamic bilingualism, and translanguaging in education.
In R. R. L. Alsagoff (Ed.), The global-local interface,
language choice and hybridity (pp. 100-118). Bristol:
Multiligual Matters.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of
knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. (2008). Asking the right questions:
Teachers’questions can build students’English language
skills. Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 46-52.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson Holubec, E. (1998).
Advanced Cooperative Learning. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Company.
Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., & Whiren, A. P. (2011).
Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in
early childhood. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Otto, B. (2014). Language development in early childhood.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery,
P. D., Mack, C. E., et al. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy
for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing
School Failure, 50(1), 29-34.
Dr. María G. Arreguín-Anderson is an
Associate Professor of Early Childhood
and Elementary Education at the
University of Texas at San Antonio. Her
areas of expertise include dual language
education, elementary science education
in dual language environments, and
cooperative learning in dyads. Contact
information: arreguinma@aol.com
Dr. Iliana Alanis is an Associate Professor at
the University of Texas at San Antonio who
prepares preservice and inservice teachers
for their work in culturally and linguistically
diverse classrooms. Dr. Alanis been in the
field of dual language and early childhood
education for over 20 years. Contact
information: iliana.alanis1@gmail.com
Mathematics 8:00-9:00 a.m.
8:00-8:10 Explain instructions (Teacher)
8:10-8:15 Give one example (Teacher)
8:30-8:40 Read to students (Teacher)
8:40-8:50 Teacher guided activity
(three students were called to participate)
(Questions asked to the entire class as a whole
group included: How many of you are finished?)
Total= 55 minutes
Figure 4
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 11
James Cummins (1979) hace una distinción
entre el lenguaje que se utiliza comúnmente
en la conversación (Habilidades Básicas de
Comunicación Interpersonal o BICS por
sus siglas en inglés) y el lenguaje que se
utiliza en contextos académicos (Capacidad
Cognitiva de Lenguaje Académico o CALP por
sus siglas en inglés). El vocabulario cognitivo
académico es el “lenguaje” utilizado en la
literatura y en las pruebas académicas del
ámbito escolar. El nivel bajo o la ausencia
de este vocabulario ha sido identificado
como un factor que pudiese evitar el
avance académico en ciertas poblaciones
de inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos.
En específico, la investigación de Carlo
et al. (2004), sugieren que el avance en la
competencia lectora de los niños, anglos y
latinos, están relacionadas al conocimiento
del vocabulario. Se ha identificado que la
enseñanza del vocabulario es crucial para los
estudiantes bilingües (August & Shanahan,
2006; Kinsella, 2005). No solamente se
espera que estos estudiantes desarrollen
la parte lingüística, si no también, el
contenido curricular para así obtener el éxito
académico. Sin embargo, se observa, que
es baja o nula la frecuencia de la enseñanza
del vocabulario de una manera explícita
y sistemática (Gamez & Lesaux, 2012;
Faller, Kieffer, Kelley &, Lesaux 2010).
	 La legislación federal actual del país
requiere que todos los estudiantes obtengan
niveles de rendimiento aceptables (básico,
proficiente, o avanzado) en los exámenes
de habilidades estatales; esto con el fin de
confirmar la igualdad de educación para
todos los alumnos y a la vez mantener altos
estándares académicos (acta “Ningún Niño
Se Quede Atrás” del 2001-“No Child Left
Behind” NCLB). Por esta razón, los docentes
están abocados a abordar el rendimiento
de poblaciones clasificadas de acuerdo a: su
condición étnica, ser aprendientes del inglés
como segundo idioma, ser aprendientes del
idioma inglés como tercer idioma, estrato
económico, y/o por ser estudiantes con
problemas de aprendizaje (dislexia, déficit
de atención, trastornos del habla, etc.). Los
inmigrantes internacionales por lo tanto
están incluidos en algunos de estos grupos;
evidentemente las necesidades académicas de
estas poblaciones han cambiando con el paso
del tiempo de acuerdo a segundas y terceras
generaciones de inmigrantes, las cuales
exhiben nuevas características y redefinen
las pautas en cuanto al tratamiento y la
enseñanza del idioma. De ahí que el desafío
en el campo investigativo sea identificar los
vacíos en el conocimiento o habilidades que
cognitivamente pudiesen impedir a estas
poblaciones lograr el éxito académico dentro
del sistema escolar público estadounidense.
	 El crecimiento de la población
inmigrante en los Estados Unidos y en
especial, el grupo hispano o latino ha
generado en las aulas una serie de situaciones
que exigen cambios en la forma de enseñar.
Fenómenos lingüísticos como el Espanglish,
el préstamo léxico (tochar, guachar, etc.),
la extensión semántica (carpeta, yarda,
troca, etc.), y programas de educación
bilingüe enfocados más a la adquisición
del inglés que a el mantenimiento
de la lengua nativa, son factores que,
probablemente, pudiesen contribuir a una
baja disponibilidad léxica y al uso cada vez
menos frecuente del lenguaje formal del
idioma español (López Morales, 1999).
	 Esta investigación de la influencia del
vocabulario en la comprensión lectora surge
a partir de los recurrentes niveles bajos de un
grupo de estudiantes en educación primaria/
bilingüe de segunda generación del
Influencia del
vocabulario
académico en la
competencia lectora
de estudiantes con
español como lengua
de herencia
Ana R. Carlton, Universidad Nebrija
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 512
español como lengua heredada, hijos
de inmigrantes hispanos—latinos. La
carencia del conocimiento del vocabulario,
siempre evidente durante el monitoreo
de lectura, sobresale como un factor que
constantemente genera dificultades durante
la comprensión de literatura de no ficción.
	 La población participante en esta
intervención, proveniente de familias de
padres con poca o ninguna educación
académica a nivel superior formal, tiene
reducidas las oportunidades de aprender/
usar el vocabulario cognitivo en el ámbito
familiar; quedando así marginadas
principalmente al aula. Ahora bien, se
observa que el énfasis dado a la enseñanza
del vocabulario CALP en el plan de
estudios académicos diseñado para este
grado elemental, no es amplio y que el
mayor enfoque se da a las palabras de
alta frecuencia. Por ende se infiere que la
comprensión lectora de textos escolares,
los cuales presentan una cantidad elevada
de vocabulario cognitivo, conlleva un
grado de dificultad y demanda cognitiva
más alta a este grupo de estudiantes.
Marco Conceptual
El conocimiento del vocabulario es una
habilidad crítica que influye en los procesos
de competencia lectora y específicamente
a los procesos superiores del lenguaje
como el procesamiento gramatical, la
construcción de esquemas, y de estructuras
textuales (Chall, 1987). Así, el lector puede
manejar una cantidad mínima de palabras
desconocidas durante la lectura de un texto
sin que ello afecte su comprensión debido
a que generalmente obtiene su significado a
partir del contexto, pero si esa cantidad de
palabras desconocidas es considerablemente
alta entonces la comprensión del
texto se entorpece (Carver, 1994).
Investigaciones
Las siguientes investigaciones han
analizado la relación entre la escasez de
vocabulario y el desarrollo de las áreas
académicas de lectura y escritura:
	 Beck, McKeown y Perfetti (1982),
analizan las implicaciones de los resultados
de la enseñanza de vocabulario y su
significado individual en la comprensión.
Examinan la relación entre el conocimiento
del significado de las palabras y los procesos
semánticos. Durante un periodo de 5 meses,
un grupo de 27 niños de cuarto grado
de primaria y de bajo estrato económico
recibieron una intervención de enseñanza
de 104 palabras. Se incluyeron pruebas
para aprender el significado de palabras
y desarrollar la capacidad de procesar
palabras de manera más eficiente en las
tareas de comprensión. Los sujetos del
grupo experimental se desempeñaron de
una manera más eficiente en las tareas de
comprensión y a un nivel significativamente
más alto que los sujetos del grupo de
control con respecto al conocimiento del
vocabulario y la comprensión lectora.
	 Carpenter y Just (1987), plantean que la
decodificación de palabras y el acceso léxico
se llevan a cabo por medio de los procesos
de análisis de letras y sílabas que son
transparentes para el lector, lo que da inicio
a un ciclo accediendo al significado de las
palabras en la memoria semántica. Cuando
el significado es activado, éste se ubica
en la memoria operativa, esta activación
tiende a decaer paulatinamente. El acceso
al significado de una palabra es más rápido
cuando ésta es frecuente o familiar al sujeto.
	 Defior (1996) analiza que las ortografías
profundas por lo general representan
la morfología y la fonología de manera
simultánea ya que ambos recursos son
necesarios para la ortografía. En ortografías
poco profundas, como la del español, la
fonología sería suficiente para explicar la
mayoría de las palabras. Sin embargo, el
conocimiento morfológico también puede
participar en la ortografía. Este estudio
examinó cómo niños nativos del español,
48 de primer grado, 155 de segundo
grado y 155 de tercer grado de primaria
utilizan la información morfológica para
codificar nombres plurales y verbos.
Los resultados muestran que, aunque la
ortografía del español está influenciada
por la fonología, también se utiliza la
información morfológica. Por lo tanto,
al proporcionar capacitación en estas
dos áreas se facilita el reconocimiento de
palabras y de esta manera si el enfoque a la
decodificación de estas palabras es bajo y
se realiza de forma automática, la atención
va dirigida mayormente a la comprensión.
	Carlo, et al., (2004), aluden que los
bajos niveles del léxico de estudiantes
en grados primarios, contribuyen a las
dificultades en la lectura de textos escolares.
En su estudio incluyó a 142 estudiantes
bilingües de quinto grado de primaria, de
escuelas que sirven a la clase trabajadora
de las áreas de California, Massachusetts y
Virginia. Se administró una intervención
de vocabulario durante 15 semanas
continuas, en base a la enseñanza explícita
de 10-12 palabras semanales. El 90% de
los participantes que recibieron pruebas de
pre test y post test obtuvieron resultados
significativos en la comprensión lectora.
	 Así que, el bajo nivel del conocimiento
y dominio del vocabulario cognitivo es
identificado como un factor que influye en
el desarrollo de la habilidad lectora tanto
en estudiantes monolingües como en
estudiantes bilingües. Las investigaciones
de Beck, McKeown y Perfetti (1982),
Carpenter y Just (1987), Defior (1996),
y Carlo, et al., (2004), han medido el
conocimiento del léxico de la población
participante y su relación directa con
la mejora de la competencia lectora.
Por lo tanto, el estudio a describirse en
este artículo, ha tomado en cuenta los
parámetros y los hallazgos de aquellos
cuatro estudios previos e interviene a un
grupo experimental con un tratamiento
de enseñanza explícita y directa del
vocabulario CALP con el propósito de
enriquecer el léxico y a su vez el desarrollo
de la comprensión lectora. No se intenta,
replicar ninguna de estas investigaciones
primarias ya que estas han analizado,
principalmente, el comportamiento
lingüístico en el aprendizaje de la segunda
lengua. El objeto meta de esta investigación
El conocimiento del vocabulario es una habilidad crítica
que influye en los procesos de competencia lectora y
específicamente a los procesos superiores del lenguaje como el
procesamiento gramatical, la construcción de esquemas, y de
estructuras textuales (Chall, 1987).
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 13
en particular ha sido el análisis del desarrollo
del vocabulario en la lengua heredada y el
efecto en áreas dentro de la misma lengua.
En comparación, es posible consultar una
cantidad considerable de estudios realizados
a poblaciones infantiles aprendientes
de inglés como segundo idioma, o en
adultos/jóvenes de español como lengua
de herencia que tienen el idioma inglés
como lengua dominante pero muy
pocos, a la fecha, en población infantil
hispano-latino de segunda generación,
inmersa en una comunidad de lenguas en
contacto, en este caso, español e inglés.
	 Este estudio, entonces, desea vislumbrar
algunos de los beneficios de fortalecer
las habilidades cognitivo-lingüísticas
de segundas generaciones con el fin de
mantener un bilingüismo balanceado. Se
aporta así una investigación de observación
ceñida al impacto del vocabulario en la
lengua de herencia para el desarrollo de
otras competencias de alfabetización.
Metodología
Este trabajo de investigación tiene un
objetivo exploratorio y una metodología
cuantitativa, con un grupo de control
y un grupo experimental, y con
mediciones anteriores y posteriores
(pre test y post test); la información
obtenida se tradujo a números para la
elaboración de tablas estadísticas. Se
diseña un tratamiento de vocabulario
para ser administrado en un lapso de seis
semanas a un grupo de 42 estudiantes.
	 Para el análisis de la incidencia del
vocabulario en la competencia lectora este
estudio parte del siguiente objetivo general:
Determinar si la enseñanza del vocabulario,
por medio de la instrucción diferenciada,
mejora el nivel de la comprensión lectora
en textos escolares en estudiantes de
primer grado de primaria, que tienen
el español como lengua heredada en el
estado de Texas (consulta Tabla 1).
Informantes
Todos los participantes en esta investigación
son residentes de la ciudad de Houston,
Texas y están matriculados en el mismo
plantel educativo de un distrito escolar
público. La muestra válida estuvo formada
por 42 alumnos pertenecientes al 1er grado
de primaria, con una edad media de 6 años:
8 meses (rango 6:5–7:7), distribuidos en
dos grupos: un Grupo Experimental (N
= 14) y un Grupo de Control (N = 28).
Las características generales
de estos alumnos son:
◗◗ Edad (entre 6 y 7 años)
◗◗ Nivel socioeconómico desfavorecido.
◗◗ Cursan 1er grado de primaria (Ninguno
repite grado)
◗◗ Poseen el español como lengua de herencia.
◗◗ Inmigrantes de segunda generación nacidos
en los Estados Unidos De América, y que
no han vivido en un país de habla hispana.
◗◗ Reciben educación formal en inglés (40%)
y en español (60%)
Los informantes de cada grupo
(control y experimental) se compararon
antes de iniciar la intervención para
determinar que no existiesen diferencias
significativas entre los dos.
Resultados y Conclusiones
Se han analizado las medias por medio
de la prueba T (T-test). En la prueba
previa al tratamiento seguido en el
grupo experimental, las diferencias
observadas (grupo de control 12,71;
grupo experimental 14,36 en una escala
de 30 puntos) no son estadísticamente
significativas (p > 0,05). Son, por lo
tanto, grupos equivalentes que no parten
de ninguna ventaja significativa previa.
	 Sin embargo, las diferencias observadas
en la prueba posterior al tratamiento en el
grupo experimental (grupo de control 17,32
y grupo experimental 23,50 ambos en una
escala de 28 puntos) sí son estadísticamente
significativas. La prueba de Levene indica
que debe asumirse la igualdad de las
varianzas. (F = 0,088; p = 0,768). Por lo
tanto el valor del nivel de significación
para la prueba T es de p = 0,006 (T =
2,891; grados de libertad 40; p > 0,05) y
se afirma que las diferencias observadas
son estadísticamente significativas y en este
caso atribuibles al tratamiento. Es decir,
la enseñanza específica del vocabulario
cognitivo por medio de una instrucción
diferenciada a grupos pequeños con
características similares contribuye de una
manera positiva en la competencia lectora,
con lo cual se cumple el objetivo general y la
hipótesis de este estudio (consulta Tabla 2).
Esta investigación se propuso encontrar
respuesta a la pregunta inicialmente
formulada y observar si la hipótesis
establecida se confirmaba o no después
de la intervención al grupo experimental.
Las siguientes son las conclusiones
a las que se ha llegado después del
análisis de los resultados obtenidos:
◗◗ La enseñanza específica del vocabulario,
por medio de una instrucción
diferenciada a grupos pequeños con
características similares, contribuye
positivamente a la comprensión lectora de
textos escolares de los estudiantes de 1er
Tabla 1: Correlación de los Elementos de Investigación
Pregunta de
Investigación Hipótesis Instrumento
¿Cómo un tipo de
instrucción diferenciada
del vocabulario cognitivo
promueve una mayor
comprensión lectora de
los textos escolares de
1er grado de primaria?
La comprensión lectora
de textos escolares en
español mejora si se
enseña el vocabulario
cognitivo por medio de
una instrucción diferenciada
a grupos pequeños
Exámenes de pre test y post
test para valorar los niveles
de comprensión lectora. Kit
de evaluación de lectura
nivelada de la edición Rigby
PM de Harcourt Achieve
Tabla 2
Grupos
Lectura
(Pre test)
Lectura
(Post test)
Grupo Experimental 14,36 23,50
Grupo de Control 12,71 17,32
Prueba T (t test) de las variables de pre test y post test con respecto a la variable dependiente nivel de lectura.
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 514
grado de primaria en una población que
tiene el español como lengua de herencia.
◗◗ Un tratamiento específico en la adquisición
del vocabulario influye de manera
significativa en la mejora de la prueba de
pre test del vocabulario cognitivo, de igual
manera las diferencias son significativas
respecto al desempeño de la competencia
lectora, o sea que a mayor input de
vocabulario mayor comprensión lectora.
El aporte de esta investigación al campo
de la lingüística en poblaciones de segunda
generación brinda una pauta dentro del
área de conocimiento de la didáctica de
lenguas extranjeras. Propone estudiar
los procesos enseñanza-aprendizaje en
el desarrollo de la competencia en la
comprensión lectora teniendo en cuenta las
deficiencias y necesidades de los estudiantes
de 1er grado de primaria con español
como lengua de herencia. Aunque en
estudios anteriores se observa que la falta
de vocabulario es un predicamento en el
bajo desarrollo de la habilidad lectora, esta
investigación contribuye con el análisis de
una intervención académica por medio
de una enseñanza diferenciada a grupos
pequeños, con niveles similares; aplicando
estrategias enfocadas al aprendizaje del
vocabulario por medio de una instrucción
explícita y descontextualizada.
	 Aunque en los currículos escolares se
incluyen los bancos de vocabulario de
acuerdo al grado y a la materia, es evidente
que incluirlo sólo para utilizarlo en
contexto no es suficiente. El acercamiento
del estudiante a la parte semántica y la
apropiación del mismo por medio de
una instrucción directa y explícita crea
conexiones auténticas que apoyan el
éxito escolar. Así es que la competencia
lectora mejora de acuerdo al dominio
del vocabulario cognitivo en estudiantes
norteamericanos de español como
lengua de herencia, (Carlton, 2012).
	 Por ende, se aspira que este estudio
sea una contribución a las guías de
enseñanza del vocabulario español a la
población infantil de segunda generación,
especialmente cuando su español tiende
al deterioro. Que este trabajo permita
la continuación de otros estudios
enfocados a las necesidades específicas
de estudiantes que crecen inmersos en
comunidades con lenguas en contacto. La
conservación del español en la comunidad
Anglosajona amerita el esfuerzo unificado
de padres, docentes, investigadores y
los programas de lenguaje dual. ★
Referencias
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E.,
Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., ... & White, C. E. (2004).
Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of
English language learners in bilingual and mainstream
classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2),188-215.
Recuperado de: http://www.reading.org/publications/
journals/rrq/v39/i2/abstracts/RRQ-39-2-Carlo.html
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in
second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy
Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Perfetti, C. (1982). Effects of
long term vocabulary instruction on lexical access
and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74(4), 506-521.
Carlton, A. (2012). La Influencia del nivel del conocimiento
del lenguaje académico español en el desempeño de la
destreza lectora. Análisis de las producciones de estudiantes
norteamericanos con español como lengua heredada.
(Tesis inédita). Universidad Nebrija. Madrid, España.
Carpenter, P., & Just, M., (1987). The psychology of reading
and language comprehension. Massachusetts: Allyn &
Bacon.
Carver, R.P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary
words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the
text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26.
Chall, Jeanne S. (1987). Two Vocabularies for Reading:
Recognition and Meaning, The Nature of Vocabulary
Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chall, Jeanne S. (1996). Stages of Reading Development. (2ª
ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language
proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum
age question and some other matters. Working Papers on
Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
Defior, S. (1996). Las dificultades de aprendizaje: un enfoque
cognitivo. Málaga: Aljibe.
Faller, S.E., Kieffer, M.J., Kelley, J.G., & Lesaux, N.K. (2010).
The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an
academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically
diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading
Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196-228.
Gamez, P., & Lesaux, N.K. (2012). The Relation between
Exposure to Sophisticated and Complex Language and
Early-Adolescent English-Only and Language-Minority
Learners’Vocabulary. Child Development, 83(4), 1316-
1331.
Kinsella, K. (2005). Preparing for Effective Vocabulary
Instruction. A SCOE Aiming High brief. Recuperado de:
http://www.scoe.org/docs/ah/AH_kinsella1.pdf
López, H. (1999). Léxico disponible de Puerto Rico. Madrid,
Arco Libros.
Ana R. Carlton posee 11 años de experiencia
como docente bilingüe e intervencionista
académica en las escuelas primarias de Texas.
Su crecimiento profesional lo atribuye a los
distritos escolares de Cypress Fairbanks ISD y
Klein ISD. Actualmente vinculada a Spring ISD;
brinda capacitación y asesoría a los maestros
de aula, especialistas de instrucción, y
administradores con el propósito de fortalecer
la enseñanza y aumentar el aprendizaje para
el éxito académico estudiantil. Es miembro
activo y presentador en TABE y NABE. Sus
áreas de investigación e interés incluyen
la lingüística aplicada en español, lengua
de herencia y programas bilingües-duales.
Dirección electronica: argac07@gmail.com.
El acercamiento del estudiante a la parte semántica y la apropiación del mismo por medio de una
instrucción directa y explícita crea conexiones auténticas que apoyan el éxito escolar. Así es que
la competencia lectora mejora de acuerdo al dominio del vocabulario cognitivo en estudiantes
norteamericanos de español como lengua de herencia, (Carlton, 2012).
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 15
Facilitators’ Perspectives:
Strategies that Work
in Higher Education
Dual Language
Immersion Settings
Ángel A. Toledo López, SUAGM - Universidad del Este
Luis Javier Pentón Herrera, Concordia University Chicago
Introduction
Teaching is the art of promoting the
retrieval of prior knowledge, however
much that may be, and providing the
tools to integrate such knowledge to a
new base of information with which to
expand our understanding of the world
around us (Ausubel, 1968; Meyer, 2004).
Learning occurs through informal and
formal experience. That is, individuals
learn as they walk through life. People learn
about nature, family, pain, perceptions,
and preferences as they live different
experiences that may be unexpected or
unplanned. Other more formal experiences,
like the ones that teachers plan, prepare,
and include in their lesson plans, provide
a space for learning that is problem or
inquiry-based. These formal learning
experiences allow students to make
meaningful connections with knowledge
that they have previously acquired (Smith,
Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005). In
the end, the art of teaching requires that
educators use techniques and strategies
that promote effective, life-long learning.
	 The process of teaching, however, is
not one-size-fits-all. No single teaching
technique or strategy works for all students
mainly because they learn in their “own
ways, using different methods, different
styles, and at different speeds” (Christensen,
Horn, & Johnson, 2008, p.1). What is
consistent in classrooms across the nation
is the diversity of learners with which
teachers must work. This means that
teachers must adopt and use teaching
strategies that cater to the different needs
and interests of their students. In an ever-
changing learning environment, it also
means that professional development is
necessary to help teachers evaluate their
beliefs, reinforce their professional practices
(Guskey, 2002), and understand diversity to
create an equitable academic environment.
	 One of the most significant changes
that classrooms in the United States are
encountering is the dramatic increase of
first-generation Hispanic students (Harper
& de Jong, 2004) and other non-native
English speakers (Honigsfeld, 2009).
This trend is expected to continue as the
Hispanic population continues to grow,
and immigrants and their children seek
for opportunities that formal education
can provide. This demographic shift has
had a dramatic impact in the practices and
procedures used in schools and colleges to
provide for a diverse population of learners
(Toledo López & Pentón Herrera, 2015).
While the teaching strategies that help
English language learners (ELLs) acquire
knowledge of both content and language
are also effective for native speakers of
English (Tissington & LaCour, 2010),
some teaching techniques and strategies
clearly work better than others and
provide students with different modes of
engagement and expression that facilitate
the learning and assessment process.
After all, there is not one single method
of teaching, and the needs of ELLs merit
special attention (Harper & de Jong,
2004). Knowing which techniques work
and which do not is, thus, key if teachers
want to create an equitable environment
that motivates young and adult students to
learn and participate. This article explores
the different learning environments that are
suitable for adult ELLs. It also identifies,
from the facilitators’ perspective, the
teaching techniques that work in an adult
setting. Throughout the article, teachers,
professors, or educators are referred to as
facilitators to highlight their role as guides
and mentors of the students’ learning
process as opposed to being owners of the
shared knowledge (Burden, 2004), and to
remain true to the duties and responsibilities
that the Discipline Based Dual Language
Immersion Model vests upon them. There is
some discussion concerning the differences
between teacher and facilitators, but this
goes beyond the scope of this work.
Adult Education: One Side
of The Coin
Different experiences occur in the lives
of individuals that shape how they act,
believe, think, and process information.
These factors are all important when
designing teaching methodologies
and lessons that facilitate the learning
process for different types of learners.
From an early stage in life, individuals
develop the ability to extract meaning
and significance from their experiences.
However, thought processes and patterns,
and learning experiences in children differ
from those of adults (McLeod, 2015).
	 Adults come to their learning processes
with a broader spectrum of ideas and a
wider array of experiences. They have
more information where to draw from
and their schemas have been constructed,
adapted, and transformed to accommodate
new realities. Andragogical principles are
established to help adults learn and focus
“on facilitating the acquisition of and
critical thinking about the content and its
application in real-life practical settings”
(Pew, 2007, p. 17). These principles are
based on six assumptions that summarize
the intentions and motivations that adults
in first world settings have to pursue higher
levels of education (Chan, 2010). These
assumptions include: (a) self concept; (b)
role of experience; (c) readiness to learn;
(d) orientation to learning; (e) internal
motivation; and (f) need to know.
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 516
The self-concept assumption refers to the
notion that adults are self-directed and self-
motivated. It is, thus, the responsibility of
the educator not to teach, but to facilitate
the learning process. Moreover, the role
of experience assumption is consistent
with constructivist models of learning that
place emphasis on prior knowledge and
experience as a base for new knowledge.
Thirdly, andragogical principles sustain
that adults are ready to learn what they
need to know and what they are prepared
to know. This is largely associated with
the fourth assumption, orientation to
learning, which holds that “adults learn
for immediate applications rather than
for future uses. Their learning is problem-
centered, task-oriented, and life-focused”
(Chan, 2010, p. 28). In essence, adults
must see a purpose behind going back to
school to learn, and whatever information
is given to them must have a relevant
and meaningful application to their real
world. The last two assumptions, internal
motivation and need to know, relate to
the idea that adults’ “learning processes
are connected to who students are, what
they care about, and how they perceive and
know” (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2009, p.
130). When adult learners value the need to
learn, they develop an internal motivation
to connect to sources of information and
acquire the knowledge that they need for
immediate application to their everyday life.
	 Adults, like children, have different
learning styles and ways of perceiving
and processing information (Gardner,
1983). Because of this, teaching and
assessment mechanisms must be planned
and differentiation techniques must be
used. Careful attention must be paid to
differentiation to guarantee that activities
are interrelated and appropriate for the
students’ varied needs (Pappano, 2011).
Through modeling, accommodation
of new realities, and active experiential
participation, teachers can create “interesting
and challenging learning environments
that encourage the active involvement of
students” (Vosniadou, 2001, p. 8). Group
work, collaborative learning, scaffolding,
and sheltered instruction are techniques
that good teachers use to facilitate learning
and to clarify content to all students
alike (Hansen-Thomas, 2008; Pray &
Monhardt, 2009), including adult learners.
Adult English Language Learners
Vygotsky (1962) argues that learning is a
social process, and language is the mechanism
through which individuals interact and
communicate their thoughts and visions
about the world. Speech and language are
the means that facilitate the expression of
thoughts and ideas. However, language
is also used to construct internal visions
of the world, perceptions, and thoughts.
These constructions must be intelligible to
the individual for them to be transformed
into verbal expressions. Because social
interaction is necessary for learning and
language is necessary for social interaction
to occur, we must guarantee that our
students, particularly the non-native speakers
of English, develop language skills in all
dimensions to facilitate social interaction and
effective learning (See Figure 1). Language
learning is, thus, necessary to level the
playing field for students who have the
ability to learn and succeed, but must acquire
linguistic tools with which to materialize
their thoughts and express their ideas.
Many English language learners come
to classrooms in the U.S. with different
levels of language proficiency and literacy.
Some need to develop language skills in
English while others must endure the task
of mastering both content and language.
It takes longer for students with less
formal schooling to acquire and learn a
second language than those who have
completed more years of formal schooling
(Thomas & Collier, 1997). Moreover,
research suggests that high level of language
proficiency in students’ native language
facilitates second language acquisition
(Cummins, 1996). However, teachers
cannot and do not control who comes
into their classrooms or their levels of
cognitive and linguistic sophistication.
	 Adult learners have long passed their
critical period where language learning
occurs naturally and spontaneously
(Alghizzi, 2014). It is unlikely that they will
acquire language skills like children, but
they can learn the mechanics of the language
and use them effectively to communicate
Language
Learning
Thought
Social
Interaction
Figure 1: Language and Learning
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 17
(Krashen, 1981). An academic environment
that promotes equitable learning and that
engages adult learners in their educational
process must be constructed. One alternative
is the dual language enrichment models,
which is deemed the best in helping close
the achievement gap in second language
(Collier & Thomas, 2004). This model
helps develop bilingual, bicultural, and
biliterate students through a cross-
cultural curriculum that engages students
in meaningful and relevant learning.
	 Both the 90-10 and the 50-50 two-
way immersion models are beneficial for
improving literacy and helping students
acquire content knowledge while they
develop English language skills. The
50-50 model helps “students learn in each
language about half the time throughout the
program. In many programs, all students
learn to read in their primary language and
then add the second language (Gómez,
Freeman & Freeman, 2005, p. 149). In
this model, the instruction time in each
language can be divided in different ways
as long as it is equal. Translation is not
used when moving from one language to
the other because students are expected to
learn the information in both languages
in all classes. Teaching supports and
strategies are used to create a sheltered
environment where students can use their
prior knowledge, make cultural links that
facilitate comprehension, and construct
their own learning processes guided by
clearly laid out objectives and standards.
	 While these models were designed for a
K-12 academic setting, the Ana G. Méndez
University System developed the Discipline-
Based Dual Language Immersion Model® for
adult learners. This model resembles the
50-50 two-way immersion model and adapts
many of the strategies that have proven
effective in the K-12 setting to an adult-
learner academic environment. It focuses
on the teaching of language skills through
content and promotes the acquisition of
cognitive academic language proficiency
in both English and Spanish. The dual
language immersion model for adults
takes into account the students’ cultural,
linguistic, and experiential backgrounds
to create an academic environment that
promotes bilingual and bicultural literacy.
The model “is founded on seven major
elements that determine how education
is imparted to promote language learning
through content” (Toledo López & Penton
Herrera, 2015, p.25). These elements
are summarized in the figure below.
The Discipline-Based Dual Language
Immersion Model® is built on the
constructivist notion that learning is best
promoted in a student-centered environment
that encourages learners to become active
participants of their academic process and
use prior knowledge to construct a deeper
understanding of the world around them.
This vision seems reasonable for adult
learners who come to school with a wealth
of experiences and knowledge, and with
readiness to learn what they will need for
immediate application in their professional
environment. With the constructivist
methodology comes the different teaching
and assessment techniques that facilitate
learning in a dual language environment.
Facilitators must be fully bilingual and must
create an equitable learning environment
through the use of sheltered instruction,
differentiation, and cognitive-academic
language learning strategies. Scaffolding and
technological aids are also used with adult
learners who need the additional support
to get a better grasp of both language and
content skills. However, ELL programs
and dual language models are not one-size-
fits-all (Honigsfeld, 2009). Some teaching
techniques and strategies work better than
others. Knowing which teaching techniques
help set the stage for learning, and facilitate
the development of oracy, reading, writing,
speaking, and listening skills is necessary
in a demanding academic environment
with adult learners who expect the best.
Use of both
languages in
content courses
Placement
testing
E-Lab
Language
development
across the
curriculum
Systematic
distrbution of
language arts
Development
of both
languages
through
coursework
Bilingual
faculty and
staff in a
multicultural
environment
Figure 2: Elements of the Dual Language Immersion
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 518
Facilitators’Perceptions: What
Works and What Doesn’t
With Adult Learners?
In-depth interviews were administered
to four facilitators who teach at the Ana
G. Méndez University System and apply
the teaching methodologies of the dual
language immersion program tailored for
adult learners. Two facilitators of language
courses and two of content courses were
selected to provide an overview of the
teaching techniques and strategies that
work best when teaching both language
and language-through-content. Facilitators
were asked to provide detailed explanations
of techniques and strategies that they
consider appropriate to develop students’
reading, writing, vocabulary, and oracy
skills. They were also asked to explain what
works in an adult setting to set the stage
for learning, manage time, and close their
academic sessions. In general, these in-depth
interviews provide an insight of the teaching
and assessment strategies that facilitate the
management of this adult-based academic
environment. The results of these interviews
are summarized in the tables below.
Table 1: Summary of findings: Language dimension
Facilitators of Language Dos
Vocabulary Reaching Comprehension Writing Oracy
Direct exposure to new
words in a relatable
environment.
Use readings that are
relevant to the student both
culturally and professionally.
Help students identify
differences between casual
and college writing.
Use oral presentations of
relevant topics. They can apply
their findings to real life.
Interactive learning:
words are practiced
not memorized.
Pre-reading activities help
students share their thoughts
and beliefs. They frame
readings in a context.
Teach students the steps of
the writing process: prewrite,
draft, revise, edit, and publish.
Engage students in simple oral
exercises in every workshop. Use
different tasks to assess oracy.
Scaffold using visuals and
total physical response.
Group readings and summaries.
Students take turns reading
sentences. They will summarize
paragraphs in their own words.
Scaffold the writing process
with sentence starters,
transitions, and conclusions.
Adult learners want to speak
“good English.” They should
know that there are different
accents in the U.S.
Use native language
and cognates to
make connections.
Use Reading and Analyzing
Nonfiction Text (RAN) charts.
Have students read aloud their
written work to identify errors
Timely and tactful corrections
of pronunciation errors
are necessary.
Use real world activities to
introduce new vocabulary.
Use graphic and
semantic organizers.
Choose a topic. Write simple
sentences. Put sentences
together in paragraphs.
Construct an essay. Follow
step-by-step procedures
in different workshops.
Engage students in the respectful
evaluation of other peers’
speech and pronunciation.
Work in groups to get
meaning from context.
Students engage in
question and answer
sessions after reading.
Use group writing. Students
take turns writing sentences
of a paragraph about a
topic of their choice.
Model appropriate pronunciation
of key words. Select
those words carefully.
Facilitators of Language Don’ts
Do not ask them to look
up words in the dictionary.
Do not assign long readings
for them to read individually.
Do not ignore the different
types of writing. Ignore
differences between
narrative, argumentative,
and expository writing.
Do not force students to speak
in public; they will speak in
public when they feel ready.
Do not provide the
meaning of words.
Do not select any reading
just to get them to read.
Do not ask beginner students
to write extensively or
about topics they dislike
and are not interested in.
Do not correct them on the
spot for every single error to
avoid loss of motivation.
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 19
Table 2: Summary of findings: Language dimension
Facilitators of Language Dos
Vocabulary Reaching Comprehension Writing Oracy
Use visual and
auditory techniques to
introduce vocabulary.
Use articles or short journal
articles related to the
students’ areas of interest.
Clearly model that we do
not write how we speak.
Adult students want to speak
“American English.” Show them
that there is no such thing.
Highlight key words
in presentations
and readings.
Have students discuss meaning
and content with peers.
Show students the difference
between colloquial writing
and college writing.
Help them develop confidence.
Having and accent is not
equivalent to bad pronunciation.
Use activities where
students can identify the
meanings of key concepts.
Choose readings that relate
to the course content and
that are relevant for students’
professional work.
Begin teaching how to write
short sentences. Many do
not know the basic structure
of a simple sentence.
Proper and timely correction
is useful. Make them
feel comfortable.
Have students infer
meaning from the
assigned readings.
Have students read in pairs
or groups and summarize
readings one section at a time.
Use explicit examples related
to the course content.
Make writing meaningful.
Be specific and direct in your
corrections and suggestions.
They expect clear and
specific suggestions.
Have students write
meaningful sentences
with key concepts.
Provide guidelines or
questions to guide reading.
Teach step-by-step writing
techniques. Let students know
exactly what you expect.
Provide meaningful
opportunities for students to
hear themselves speak.
Encourage the use
of key words in oral
presentations and
written assignments.
Use pre-reading tasks before
class. Have them do research
on specific topics and come
to class ready to read.
Provide them with immediate
feedback in both content
and language use.
Promote positive interaction
between more proficient and less
proficient peers. Students can
comment on each other’s work.
Facilitators of Language Don’ts
Do not ask students
to look up words in
the dictionary and
write sentences with
those words.
Do not make reading a chore.
Many adult learners do not
have time to read unless
readings are relevant.
Do not assign long and
burdensome writing
assignments. Do make writing
important and meaningful.
Do not criticize overtly or
embarrass them in public.
Do not use web
dictionaries. Students will
not discriminate between
different definitions of
polysemous words.
Do not assign long and
uninterrupted reading.
There must be a short term,
immediate purpose for reading.
Do not ask students to
write about uninteresting
and irrelevant topics.
Do not use condescending
comments or sound patronizing
in your corrections.
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 520
Finally, the facilitators agreed that
closing the lesson or workshop with
summary activities is important to tie the
different topics together and to establish
expectations for the next meeting. Adult
learners want to be guided through their
learning process.
Other important factors to consider when
working with adult learners are: setting
the stage, time management, and closing
activities. Many adult learners have been
out of the academic environment for some
time, and returning to school is a big
step and challenge. Creating a welcoming
and equitable learning environment for
adult learners is necessary to help them
succeed. To set the stage, the facilitators
recommended organizing the classroom in a
way that fosters group work, collaboration,
and interpersonal communication. This
class arrangement helps establish clear and
realistic expectations and helps students
know from the beginning what they must
do, how they will be evaluated, and what
they will learn. The facilitators also argued
that adult learners expect them to know the
time frames for the different activities and to
allow some flexible space to accommodate
their needs. Informing students about time
frames and possible modifications was
identified as another convenient strategy for
setting the stage in an adult environment.
	 In addition, the facilitators argued
that time management is a challenge,
especially in content courses. Facilitators of
content must juggle between teaching of
content and ensuring that students meet
the language objectives. Flexibility is the
key in time management. One facilitator
recommended laying out a blue print of
the different activities that will take place
during the lesson or workshop. This gives
facilitators a clear notion of what to do
and when. It also allows them to make
necessary changes to adjust to the schedule
or to determine which material will be
covered in an upcoming workshop if that
were necessary. Planning ahead is essential.
The secret to keeping adult learners
engaged is balance: too many activities will
overwhelm the adult learners, and too few
activities will turn the class into a lecture.
	 Finally, the facilitators agreed that
closing the lesson or workshop with
summary activities is important to tie the
different topics together and to establish
expectations for the next meeting. Adult
learners want to be guided through their
learning process. They come to class with a
wealth of knowledge, but they are somewhat
scared about coming back to school and
being able to meet the expectations. The
facilitators agreed that full disclosure of
activities, assignments, expectations, and
upcoming work is necessary to lower the
students’ affective filter and give them a sense
of control of their learning process. Closing
activities are, perhaps, one of the most
important parts of the workshop. Activities
such as exit slips, random questioning,
1-minute reflections, and 1-minute papers
all proved effective and adult learners
enjoy them. As they think critically about
the topics discussed in class, they come to
conclusions that definitely show that they
were engaged and thinking. The goal is to
make sure that students understand and that
they feel comfortable with what they learned.
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 21
Concluding Arguments
Sound teaching practices are essential for
the appropriate management of academic
settings. Having clear views and ideas of
who their students are will give teachers
an extra edge that will facilitate their
understanding of the academic environment
and the development of effective and
meaningful lesson plans. Children and
adult learners differ in many ways. Their
motivations and aspirations are different,
and their learning processes vary greatly
depending on their age, personalities,
and styles. Teachers must be prepared
to work with a diverse environment to
make it welcoming for all students alike.
	 The United States has experienced
a significant increase in adult education
and literacy programs during recent years
(Sticht, 2002). This increase presents
new opportunities and challenges in the
educational field and requires that educators
understand the individualities of this
increasing diverse population. Adult learners
must focus on acquiring and learning
information they can apply immediately
in their work and everyday lives. For
immigrant Hispanic adult learners, as a
minority within andragogy, pursuing higher
education can be a challenge. Hispanic
adult learners seek the same educational
goals of self-improvement, but language
and English literacy can act as barriers to
participate in adult literacy programs. The
Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion
Model® is a teaching approach that helps
Hispanic adult learners overcome those
barriers and be successful. This model can
be successfully implemented in higher
education, but it is important to follow
strict guidelines and recommendations
to make it feasible and practicable. ★
References
Alghizzi, T. (2014). Critical period hypothesis. Language in
India, 14(1), 15.
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational Psychology. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Burden, P. (2004). The teacher as facilitators: Reducing
anxiety in the EFL university classroom. JALT Hokkaido
Journal, 8, 3-18.
Chan, S. (2010). Applications of andragogy in multi-
disciplined teaching and learning. Journal of Adult
Education, 39(2), 25-35.
Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting
class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the
world learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Collier, V. & Thomas, W. (2004). The astounding effectiveness
of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of
Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for
empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles, CA:
California Association for Bilingual Education.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
intelligences. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books.
Ginsberg, M.B. & Wlodkowski, R.J. (2009). Diversity and
motivation: Culturally responsive teaching in college (2nd
ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gómez, L., Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2005). Dual language
education: A promising 50-50 model. Bilingual Research
Journal, 29(1), 145-164.
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher
change. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice,
8(3/4), 381-391.
Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered instruction: Best
practices for ELLs in the mainstream. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 44(4), 165-169.
Harper, C. & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about
teaching English language learners. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
Honigsfeld, A. (2009). ELL programs: Not ‘one size fits all’.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(4), 166-171.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second
language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
McLeod, S.A. (2015). Jean Piaget.
Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/
piaget.html
Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers’conceptions
of learners’prior knowledge. Science Education, 88(6),
970-983.
Pappano, L. (2011). Differentiated instruction reexamined.
Harvard Education Letter, 27(3), 1-2.
Pew, S. (2007). Andragogy and pedagogy as foundational
theory for student motivation in higher education.
Insight: A collection of faculty scholarship, 214-25.
Pray, L. & Monhardt, R. (2009). Sheltered instruction
techniques for ELLs. Science and Children, 26(7), 34-38.
Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005).
Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices.
Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101.
Sticht, T. G. (2002). The rise of adult education and literacy
system in the United States: 1600-2000. In Comings, J.,
Garner, B., & Smith, C. (Eds.) (2002). The annual 	review of
adult learning and literacy: Volume 3. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, W. P, & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for
language minority students. Washington, D.C.: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Report presented
at the California Association for Bilingual Education 	
Conference, San Diego.
Tissington, L. & LaCour, M. (2010). Strategies and content
areas for teaching English language learners. Reading
Improvement, 47(3), 166-172.
Toledo López, A. & Pentón Herrera, L. (2015). Dual language
immersion in higher education: An introduction. NABE
Perspectives, 37(2), 24-28.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press
Vosniadou, S. (2001). How children learn. Brussels, Belgium:
International Academy of Education.
Dr. Angel A. Toledo-López completed his
Ph.D. in Political Science at the Pennsylvania
State University where he majored in
American Politics, Research Methodology,
and Comparative Politics. He attended the
Institute of Survey Research at the University
of Michigan-Ann Arbor and was co-primary
investigator of Puerto Rico’s second wave of
the World Values Survey that is conducted
from the University of Michigan. After
completing his Ph.D., Dr. Toledo-López
pursued a law degree from the University
of Puerto Rico School of Law, and obtained
his Juris Doctor in 2006. He worked both
as a full time professor at the Universidad
del Este in Carolina, Puerto Rico, and as a
litigating attorney, until he relocated to the
state of Maryland. He is Associate Professor
of Social Science at the Universidad del Este
and teachers at the Ana G. Méndez University
System, Capital Area Campus in Wheaton,
Maryland where innovative teaching
methods are used in the implementation of
the System’s Discipline-Based Dual Language
Immersion Model®. He facilitates social
sciences, statistics, and criminal justice
courses, and trains faculty members in
processes and techniques related to the
Dual Language Immersion Model. His most
recent publications and his research interests
run a gamut of topics that include political
psychology; perception and conduct of actors
in the judicial system; research methodology;
and language acquisition among adults. His
contact information is lcdotoledo@gmail.com.
Professor Luis J. Pentón-Herrera is a Cuban-
born United States Marine Corps Veteran.
His academic career began in the state of
Maryland immediately after completing his
military service. He obtained a Master’s of
Education in Adult Education from Strayer
University and a Graduate Certificate in
Teaching of English as a Second Language
from the American College of Education.
His passion for teaching and languages led
him to pursue another Master’s of Science
degree in Spanish Education from NOVA
Southeastern University that he completed
in May of 2016 and a Master’s of Education in
Curriculum and Instruction with specialization
in Bilingual Education from the American
College of Education. Professor Pentón-
Herrera is a certified K-12 teacher in the state
of Virginia and Maryland where he has both
Spanish and ESL endorsements. He is also
an Adjunct Professor at the Ana G. Méndez
University System-Capital Area Campus where
he teaches Spanish, English, and Education
courses and trains faculty members in areas
related to the System’s Discipline-Based
Dual Language Immersion Model®. Professor
Pentón-Herrera is currently pursuing his
Ph.D. in Reading, Language, and Literacy at
Concordia University Chicago. His current
research focuses on language acquisition,
bilingual and multicultural education, and
teaching techniques and strategies for ELLs.
He can be contacted at luis.penton@gmail.com.
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 522
Introduction
Today’s digital native students are driving
their own learning outside the classroom
(Prenski, 2001). We know that learning a
second language can be enhanced if done
in a way that combines necessary learning
or life activities and the target language
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Tools such
as apps and web resources including
interactive lessons, games, and videos are
not only fun; they can naturally facilitate
language development via platforms,
topics and activities that are engaging,
motivating and rewarding. Such technology
tools can help set the stage for ongoing
self- directed learning activities to prompt,
enhance and foster biliteracy for life.
	 In addition to facilitating learning
outside the classroom in informal home
and community settings, apps and websites
and videos offer enticing opportunities
to develop language in the context of
formal school settings, as well. Currently,
38 states in the country (Gil, 2014) and
359 California schools offer dual language
programs that teach two languages to
students dominant in English and in
another target world language (California
Association for Bilingual Education, 2015).
California in 2011 became the first to
begin issuing a state level Seal of Biliteracy
(Seal of Biliteracy, 2014) and currently
boasts over 800 schools that participate
and issue the seals to graduating students.
The present review offers insights and
tips for boosting fun in Korean language
development in both informal and formal
settings, using apps and web resources.
However, the discussion of guiding
principles regarding how to review and use
apps may be applicable to other languages
including English as well (see Chen, 2015).
	 This article includes three main
components. The first component is the
presentation of highlights of 22 apps and
websites (Table 1), and is based on a review
of about 40 apps and 20 websites that aid
in learning Korean. A full review of each
of all 40 apps and 20 websites is available
elsewhere (look for the Wikipedia entry
on this topic, coming soon!). The second
component is that I will comment in this
article on different rubrics available for
both evaluating and creating language
apps and websites. Finally, in the third
component, I will provide an overview
of several frameworks, guidelines and
standards as additional resources to inform
Korean language instructional planning
as deemed appropriate by local entities.
Overview of Available Korean
Language Materials
In the popular market, there exist several
different types of Korean language materials
and resources. There are resources that target
adult travelers or business audiences, and
address conversational or cultural topics,
with typically nonnative Korean speakers
targeted. Books and audio CDs (published
mostly in the United States) generally
comprise the bulk of this first market,
although there are online tools such as apps,
websites and videos as well in this category.
	 There are also materials targeting
younger learners and these typically are
Funtastic Apps and
Web-based Resources
for Korean Language
Development
Grace McField, California State University, San Marcos
Asian and Pacific Islander
J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 23
for native speaker teachers who would
teach a heritage or home language in a
home, school or other community setting.
For this age group, there exists a relatively
small number of resources for nonnative
speakers of Korean to develop their language
skills. The majority of Korean language
books, cartoons, movies and YouTube
videos alike typically assume oral language
proficiency in Korean, or at least access to
a native Korean speaker such as a parent,
other family member, or teacher. The
majority of these are published in South
Korea and available in Korean book stores,
though they are increasingly becoming
available online (on Korean websites).
Favorite Funtastic Korean
Language Apps and Websites
Korean language apps and websites run
the gamut in terms of domains and topics
and skills targeted. They cover topics of
language skills such as Hangul or the Korean
alphabet, phonics, vocabulary, conversation
or phrases, pronunciation, reading. There are
also apps related to Korean culture ranging
from Korean soap operas (a.k.a. Korean
dramas), Kpop (e.g., a game based on Psy’s
Kangnam Style song), how to cook Korean
food or desserts, or a dressup game of Korean
dolls and traditional hanbok outfits. Table 1
below focuses on apps and websites related
to language skills. Korean dictionaries,
translators and typing programs are also
included in Table 1 as additional resource.
Table 1: Korean Language Apps and Websites
Language Level Resources – APPS and Websites / Description
Beginner to
Intermediate
(Rated Five Stars
or Four Stars
by this author’s
test users)
1. Innovative (APP - Apple)Using a lively and engaging radio talk show format, focuses on conversation rather
than vocabulary. Organized by category, for each talk show there is an audio lesson, audio review, audio dialog,
vocabulary from the audio, line by line audio, expansion, and lesson notes. Categories include, Where did you
learn to speak Korean like that! First Impressions, Farewells, Basic Bootcamp, and Korean Culture Class. A free app
similar to Rocket Languages, which is fee-based, Innovative has many more features without the monthly cost.
2. Hangul (Korean) (APP - Apple)
This app has videos narrated in English, while the characters speak in Korean with English subtitles. Every time
there’s a new word, it is spelled out and pronounced slowly for the user to understand it and say it. It provides
categories of words, sentences, and the Hangul alphabet. Caveat: there are only a few sections of each category.
3. Hangul (Koean) 101 (APP - Apple)
This app first allows the user to learn a letter, vowel, or syllable, and then review what was learned at the ‘table.’
Then, the user can piece together words, take a quiz, and check progress. Uses images, typing and quizzes to teach
how to write syllables using the Korean Hangul alphabet. A good beginner-level app. Caveat: has occasional ads.
4. Korean Word Power (APP - Apple)
This app is wonderful. It features different levels, Korean word pronunciation using a dictionary,
grammar, Hangul alphabet, and more. This app just gets better and better.
5. Learn Korean (APP - Apple)
This app is a phrase book and is organized by categories such as medical, romance, transportation, eating
out. The app pronounces phrases the user listens to. Allows user to add phrases to a favorites list.
6. Learn and Play (APP – Apple)
This app is a 5-in-1. It has different levels. The beginner level, practice 1, has 7 short objectives. There are different forms
of greetings, numbers, and different kinds of drinks. Once each of the tasks is completed, a reward is given (e.g., you can
win a bronze medal). Caveat: there are some glitches and it crashes once in a while, but hopefully that will be fixed soon.
7. Mango Languages (APP and Website options)
www.mangolanguages.com
This website provides conversational and grammar goals at the beginning of each lesson. Organized by
themes, vocabulary instruction is given using flashcards and the correctly modeled pronunciation. Users can
then record their own pronunciation and compare the two. Themes include greetings, discussing the day
and the weather, discussing Korea, and food. Grammar notes accompany each lesson and address sentence
structure, pronunciation and proper word choice. Each subsequent lesson builds on the vocabulary and
knowledge from previous lessons nicely. English is used to scaffold Korean learning. Unlike Memrise (not
reviewed here) and other language resources, Mango Languages does not include Hangul instruction. (Note:
In Memrise and Quizlet, users search for lessons and quizzes, respectively, designed by other users.)
8. Official Site for Korea Tourism http://english.visitkorea.or.kr
This is a free site designed for tourists. The content is divided into three different levels and includes
grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, conversations to facilitate activities such as using transportation
from the airport, making hotel reservations and hospital visits. Topics are organized as follows:
a. Beginning Korean for foreigners living in their home country
b. Korean when arriving in Korea
c. Korean while living in Korea.
N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 524
NABE Article (sept 2015)
NABE Article (sept 2015)
NABE Article (sept 2015)
NABE Article (sept 2015)

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

织图计划书
织图计划书织图计划书
织图计划书zihao1009
 
Hobartica presentation no video
Hobartica presentation   no videoHobartica presentation   no video
Hobartica presentation no videotravelmassive
 
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...Premier Publishers
 
Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...
Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...
Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...Premier Publishers
 
The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...
The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...
The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...Premier Publishers
 
Makalah tentang bid'ah
Makalah tentang bid'ahMakalah tentang bid'ah
Makalah tentang bid'ahALI FIKRI
 
Grisefiord, Ellesmere Island
Grisefiord, Ellesmere IslandGrisefiord, Ellesmere Island
Grisefiord, Ellesmere IslandMario Ricca
 
Diabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist final
Diabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist finalDiabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist final
Diabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist finalPROFESSOR DR. MD. TOUFIQUR RAHMAN
 

Viewers also liked (13)

Jennifer bolivar
Jennifer bolivarJennifer bolivar
Jennifer bolivar
 
Rivet
RivetRivet
Rivet
 
织图计划书
织图计划书织图计划书
织图计划书
 
Antarctica
AntarcticaAntarctica
Antarctica
 
Salamon george Resume
Salamon george ResumeSalamon george Resume
Salamon george Resume
 
Hobartica presentation no video
Hobartica presentation   no videoHobartica presentation   no video
Hobartica presentation no video
 
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...
Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Bangladesh: an overview of the present s...
 
Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...
Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...
Free radical scavenging activity, phytochemistry and antimicrobial properties...
 
The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...
The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...
The influence of pinching on the growth, flowering pattern and yield of butte...
 
Makalah tentang bid'ah
Makalah tentang bid'ahMakalah tentang bid'ah
Makalah tentang bid'ah
 
Grisefiord, Ellesmere Island
Grisefiord, Ellesmere IslandGrisefiord, Ellesmere Island
Grisefiord, Ellesmere Island
 
Diabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist final
Diabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist finalDiabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist final
Diabetes in bangla dr md toufiqur rahman nicvd cardiologist final
 
Magic time
Magic timeMagic time
Magic time
 

Similar to NABE Article (sept 2015)

Title of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDa
Title of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDaTitle of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDa
Title of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDaTakishaPeck109
 
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisadoSyllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisadoliznavarro888
 
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisadoSyllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisadoMery Rivadeneira
 
8530404811 beyond-language
8530404811 beyond-language8530404811 beyond-language
8530404811 beyond-languageElvina Arapah
 
Shifting Paradigms Presentation
Shifting Paradigms PresentationShifting Paradigms Presentation
Shifting Paradigms PresentationVirginia Fleming
 
Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1
Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1
Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1HDMcWhorter
 
Environmental Journalism
Environmental JournalismEnvironmental Journalism
Environmental JournalismAmeliaBahr
 
Native English Teacher or Non - Native English Teacher?
Native English Teacher or Non -   Native English Teacher?Native English Teacher or Non -   Native English Teacher?
Native English Teacher or Non - Native English Teacher?Self-employed
 
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTS
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTSUNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTS
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTSCarinne
 
Impact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabi
Impact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabiImpact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabi
Impact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabitonysafyc
 
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical GuideHow Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical GuideTELL ME MORE
 
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical GuideHow Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical GuideCarrie Myhre
 
IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010
IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010
IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010Sharon Pajka
 
Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students
Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students
Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students ainur_shahida
 
Courtney Berne's ESL Resume
Courtney Berne's ESL ResumeCourtney Berne's ESL Resume
Courtney Berne's ESL ResumeCourtney Berne
 
Nonie lesaux power point
Nonie lesaux power pointNonie lesaux power point
Nonie lesaux power pointTyson O'Steen
 

Similar to NABE Article (sept 2015) (20)

Title of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDa
Title of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDaTitle of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDa
Title of presentation goes hereStudent NameCourseNumberDa
 
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisadoSyllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
 
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisadoSyllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
Syllabus law i 2015 2016 revisado
 
Robinson Wang Creating Effective World Language Programs
Robinson Wang Creating Effective World Language ProgramsRobinson Wang Creating Effective World Language Programs
Robinson Wang Creating Effective World Language Programs
 
Jaime lara perez-4word
Jaime lara perez-4wordJaime lara perez-4word
Jaime lara perez-4word
 
8530404811 beyond-language
8530404811 beyond-language8530404811 beyond-language
8530404811 beyond-language
 
Shifting Paradigms Presentation
Shifting Paradigms PresentationShifting Paradigms Presentation
Shifting Paradigms Presentation
 
Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1
Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1
Colorin colorado toolkit_2012_1
 
Environmental Journalism
Environmental JournalismEnvironmental Journalism
Environmental Journalism
 
Native English Teacher or Non - Native English Teacher?
Native English Teacher or Non -   Native English Teacher?Native English Teacher or Non -   Native English Teacher?
Native English Teacher or Non - Native English Teacher?
 
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTS
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTSUNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTS
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ESL STUDENTS
 
Impact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabi
Impact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabiImpact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabi
Impact ics 21 ewrt 1 a f14 syallabi
 
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical GuideHow Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
 
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical GuideHow Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
How Libraries Can Transform Communities: A Practical Guide
 
IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010
IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010
IRA SIG Deaf HH newsletter 2010
 
Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students
Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students
Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESL students
 
Courtney Berne's ESL Resume
Courtney Berne's ESL ResumeCourtney Berne's ESL Resume
Courtney Berne's ESL Resume
 
Nonie lesaux power point
Nonie lesaux power pointNonie lesaux power point
Nonie lesaux power point
 
ASL
ASLASL
ASL
 
ASL
ASLASL
ASL
 

NABE Article (sept 2015)

  • 1. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F T H E N AT I O N A L A S S O C I AT I O N F O R B I L I N G UA L E D U C AT I O N Perspectives Getting to Know your Students’ Linguistic and Cultural Assets: Opening Spaces for Bilingual Pairs’ Voices P L U S : Influencia del vocabulario académico en la competencia lectora de estudiantes con español como lengua de herencia Facilitators’Perspectives: Strategies that Work in Higher Education Dual Language Immersion Settings Funtastic Apps and Web-based Resources for Korean Language Development JULY–SEPTEMBER 2015
  • 2. Reach Thousands of Bilingual Education Professionals! Advertise in NABE’s Perspectives! Perspectives, a publication of the National Association of Bilingual Education, is read by nearly 20,000 educators and administrators. These readers possess significant purchasing power. Many are responsible for procuring the full range of educational materials, products, and services for use in linguistically and culturally diverse learning environments. To reserve your space, simply fill out the contract (available online at http://www.nabe.org/publications.html) and fax it to 240-450-3799. Call 202-450-3700 if you have any questions. Take advantage of this great opportunity to increase your revenue and advertise in Perspectives! A Full page B&W 7.5" x 10" B 2/3 page B&W 4.875" x 10" C 1/2 page B&W 7.5" x 4.875" D 1/3 page B&W 2.25" x 10" or 4.875" x 4.875" F 1/4 page B&W 3.5" x 4.875" G Full page Color No Bleed: 7.5" x 10" or Bleed: 8.625" x 11.125" (trims to 8.375" x 10.875") Live content 1/4" from trim E Perspectives is published in four issues each year, according to the following schedule of publication/ mailing date: Issue 1: January-March Issue 2: April-June Issue 3: July-September Issue 4: October-December For rates to advertise please contact the NABE office at (240) 450-3700 Save with multiple insertions! 2 insertions: 10% off 3 insertions: 15% off 4 insertions: 20% off Contributing to Perspectives GUIDELINES FOR WRITERS NABE's Perspectives is published six times a year on a bimonthly basis. We welcome well written and well researched articles on subjects of interest to our readers. While con- tinuing to address issues facing NABE mem- bers, Perspectives aims to meet the growing demand for information about bilingual education programs and the children they serve. It is a magazine not only for veteran educators of Bilingual and English language learners but also for mainstream teachers, school administrators, elected officials, and interested members of the public. Articles for Perspectives must be original, concise, and accessible, with minimal use of jargon or acronyms. References, charts, and tables are permissible, although these too should be kept to a minimum. Effective articles begin with a strong“lead”paragraph that entices the reader, rather than assuming interest in the subject. They develop a few themes clearly, without undue repetition or wandering off on tangents. ThePerspectiveseditorsareeagertoreceive manuscriptsonawiderangeoftopicsrelatedto BilingualandEnglishlearnerprograms,including curriculumandinstruction,effectivenessstudies, professionaldevelopment,schoolfinance,parental involvement,andlegislativeagendas.Wealsowel- comepersonalnarrativesandreflectiveessayswith whichreaderscanidentifyonahumanaswellasa professionallevel. Researchers are encouraged to describe their work and make it relevant to practitioners. Strictly academic articles, however, are not appropriate for Perspectives and should be sub- mitted instead to the Bilingual Research Journal. No commercial submissions will be accepted. TYPES OF ARTICLES Each issue of Perspectives usually contains three or four feature articles of approximately 2,000 – 2,500 words, often related to a central theme. Reviews are much shorter (500 – 750 words in length), describing and evaluating popular or professional books, curriculum guides, textbooks, computer programs, plays, movies, and videos of interest to educators of English language learners. Manuscripts written or spon- sored by publishers of the work being reviewed are not accepted. Book reviews and articles should be emailed to: Dr. José Agustín Ruiz-Escalante jare21@yahoo.com ColumnsareAsianandPacificIslanderEducation andIndigenousBilingualEducation.(Ifyouhave otherideasforaregularcolumn,pleaseletus know.)Thesearticlesaresomewhatshorterin length (1,000 – 1,500 words, and should be emailedtooneoftheeditorsbelow: Asian and Pacific Islander Education Dr. Clara C. Park: clara.park@csun.edu Indigenous Bilingual Education Dr. Jon Allen Reyhner: jon.reyhner@nau.edu PREPARING ARTICLES FOR SUBMISSION Manuscripts to be considered for the September/October issue must be received by July 15. Manuscripts to be considered for the November/December issue must be received by September 15. Reference style should con- form to Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Articles and reviews should be submitted electronically to NABE’s Editor, Dr. José Agustín Ruiz-Escalante at jare21@yahoo.com in a MicrosoftWord file, 11 point,Times New Roman, double-spaced. Be sure to include your name, affiliation, e-mail address, phone and fax numbers. Photographs and artwork related to the manu- script are encouraged. Please include the name of the photographer or source, along with notes explaining the photos and artwork, and written permission to use them. Photographs should be submitted as separateTIFF, or JPEG/JPG files, not as images imported into MicrosoftWord or any other layout format. Resolution of 300 dpi or higher at actual size preferred, a minimum pixel dimension of 1200 x 1800 is required. (Images copied from a web page browser display are only 72 dpi in resolution and are generally not accept- able.)When in doubt, clean hard-copy images may be mailed for scanning by our design staff.
  • 3. is a tax-exempt, nonprofit professional association founded in 1975 to address the educational needs of language- minority Americans. National Office: 11006 Veirs Mill Rd. #L-1 Wheaton, MD 20902-2582 Telephone: (240) 450-3700 Fax: (240) 450-3799 www.nabe.org J U L Y – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ● V O L U M E 3 8 , I S S U E 3 Perspectives Published by the National Association for Bilingual Education EDITOR DR. JOSÉ AGUSTÍN RUIZ-ESCALANTE THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS – PAN AMERICAN CO-EDITOR DR. MARÍA GUADALUPE ARREGUÍN-ANDERSON, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER COLUMN EDITOR DR. CLARA C. PARK CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY-NORTHRIDGE INDIGENOUS BILINGUAL EDUCATION COLUMN EDITOR DR. JON ALLAN REYHNER NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY DESIGN & LAYOUT: WINKING FISH PRINT AND EDITORIAL POLICY Readers are welcome to reprint noncopyrighted articles that appear in Perspectives at no charge, provided proper credit is given both to the author(s) and to Perspectives as the source publication. All articles printed in Perspectives, unless written by an Association staff person or a member of the current NABE Executive Board of Directors, are solely the opinion of the author or authors, and do not represent the official policy or position of the National Association for Bilingual Education. Selection of articles for inclusion in Perspectives is not an official endorsement by NABE of the point(s) of view expressed therein. Contents■ Cover Story Getting to Know your Students’ Linguistic and Cultural Assets: Opening Spaces for Bilingual Pairs’ Voices María G. Arreguín-Anderson and Iliana Alanis..................................................................6 ■ Columns & Articles Influencia del vocabulario académico en la competencia lectora de estudiantes con español como lengua de herencia Ana R. Carlton............................................................................................................12 Facilitators’ Perspectives: Strategies that Work in Higher Education Dual Language Immersion Settings Ángel A. Toledo López and Luis Javier Pentón Herrera....................................................16 Funtastic Apps and Web-based Resources for Korean Language Development Grace McField.............................................................................................................23 ■ Departments Contributing to Perspectives - Guidelines for Writers........................................................2
  • 4. Are you a member? Membership in NABE includes a subscription to Perspectives, and so much more. Visit nabe.org to renew or start your new memberhip today! TREASURER – MEMBER-AT-LARGE Josie Tinajero, Ed.D. Assistant to the VP for Research The University of Texas at El Paso 500 W. University Ave El Paso, TX 79968 W: (915)-747-5552 F: (915)-747-5755 tinajero@utep.edu SECRETARY – MEMBER-AT-LARGE Rossana Boyd, Ph.D. University of North Texas 3410 Clydesdale Dr. Denton, TX 76210 C: (940)-391-4800 rossana.boyd@unt.edu MEMBER-AT-LARGE Luis F. Cruz, Ph.D. Education Consultant 20867 Amar Rd., Ste 2 -#815 Walnut, CA 91789 C: (626)-705-9415 lcruz@newfrontier21.com CENTRAL REGION REPRESENTATIVE Leo Gómez, Ph.D. PO Box 420 Edinburg, TX 78540 H: (956)-467-9505 lgomez2@aol.com WESTERN REGION REPRESENTATIVE Minh-Anh Hodge, Ed.D. Tacoma School District P.O. Box 1357 Tacoma, WA 98401 W: (253)-571-1415 F: (253)-571-1232 mhodge@tacoma.k12.wa.us EASTERN REGION REPRESENTATIVE Anita Pandey, Ph.D. Professor and PD Coordinator Morgan State University 1700 E.Cold Spring Ln Baltimore, MD 21251 C: (443)-422-5923 anita.pandey@morgan.edu CENTRAL REGION REPRESENTATIVE José Agustín Ruiz-Escalante, Ed.D. Ret. Prof. of Bilingual and Dual Language Education 3740 Frontier Drive Edinburg, TX 78539 C: (956)-607-1955 jare21@yahoo.com PARENT REPRESENTATIVE Julio Cruz, Ed.D. 9715 Woods Drive Apt. 1705 Skokie, IL 60077 H: (773)-369-4810 jcruzr@aol.com EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Santiago V. Wood, Ed.D. C: (954) 729-4557 drsantiagow@gmail.com NABE EXECUTIVE BOARD 2 0 1 5 – 2 0 1 6 PRESIDENT – WESTERN REGION REP. Yee Wan, Ed.D. Director, Multilingual Education Services Santa Clara County Office of Education 1290 Ridder Park Drive, MC237 • San Jose, CA 95131-2304 W. (408)-453-6825 • yeewan.nabe@gmail.com VICE PRESIDENT – EASTERN REGION REP. Margarita P. Pinkos, Ed.D. Executive Director, Department of Multicultural Education School District of Palm Beach County 3388 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite A 204 • West Palm Beach, FL 33411 W: (561)-434-8010 • F: (561)-434-8074 margaritapinkos@gmail.com N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 54
  • 5. Letter from the President Yee Wan, E.d. D. NABE Board President This is my first column as NABE president since assuming this position in July 2015. As I reflect on the shared vision of NABE and its 20+ affiliates, it is very clear that the Seal of Biliteracy initiative is a major force, which unites bilingual educators nationwide. The State Seal of Biliteracy is an award given by the state in recognition of students who have studied and attained proficiency in two or more languages by high school graduation. Appearing on the transcript or diploma of the graduating senior, the Seal of Biliteracy is a statement of accomplishment for future employers and for college admissions. On October 8, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 815 (Brownley) creating the State Seal of Biliteracy, making California the first state in the nation to offer this opportunity to millions of students. The achievement was a result of the efforts of Californians Together, a coalition of parents, teachers, education advocates and civil rights groups committed to improving policy and practice for educating English learners. In supporting this effort, NABE formally endorsed California’s Seal of Biliteracy in 2012 and commended Californians Together at the 41st NABE Annual Conference in Dallas, Texas. At NABE’s 2012 and 2014 annual conferences, Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, Executive Director of Californians Together, presented featured sessions on establishing the Seal of Biliteracy awards. Californians Together has also made presentations in Chicago, Colorado, New Mexico and New York At the NABE-CABE Pre-conference Institute in 2014 in San Diego, California, a State Seal of Biliteracy Panel was convened represented by California, Illinois, New York and Texas. Today, eleven states have adopted the Seal of Biliteracy legislation including California, Washington, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Nevada and Hawaii. The collaboration across the states has been phenomenal. NABE greatly values the strong partnership with Californians Together, CABE and other state affiliates. In fall 2014, three national organizations (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, and TESOL International Association), along with NABE, collaborated on the National Guidelines for Implementing the Seal of Biliteracy. The guidelines were released in spring 2015 and are posted at http://www. multibriefs.com/briefs/nabe/BiliteracyPressRelease.pdf. Below are additional resources that can help you establish the Seal of Biliteracy or Pathway Awards in your school or district. ◗◗ Californians Together: California Campaign for Biliteracy https://www.californianstogether.org/california-campaign-for- biliteracy/ ◗◗ Communications Toolkit, Videos and PowerPoint Presentations http://mes.sccoe.org/bwlct/home/Pages/default.aspx In addition, there is a Seal of Biliteracy website that shows an interactive map of the 50 states and highlights which ones have approved and which ones are considering the Seal of Biliteracy. The website is a joint project with Velazquez Press and Californians Together. For more information, please visit http://sealofbiliteracy. org/ (simply click on a state to reach that state’s profile). The NABE 2016 Conference will hold the Seal of Biliteracy Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting on Thursday, March 3, 2016. If you are interested in supporting the planning, or contributing to share your resource, please contact Ms. Nivia Gallardo, Chair of the NABE Seal of Biliteracy SIG. Ms. Gallardo can be reached at ngallardo@cnusd.k12.ca.us. NABE is strongly committed to promoting the Seal of Biliteracy as a means of preparing our students to be successful in the 21st century. It is one of NABE’s top priorities to support our affiliates as they initiate legislation to adopt the Seal of Biliteracy. NABE strongly encourages all state affiliates and members to join the Seal of Biliteracy movement to recognize students’ language achievements. Please feel free to contact the NABE office for support. It is critical that NABE continue to be the advocate and champion for our multilingual learners at the national level. With our collective effort, we can actualize our vision of every student graduating high school biliterate and ready to take their place as a globally competent 21st century citizen. Best regards, Yee Wan, Ed.D. Dear NABE Members: J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 5
  • 6. COVER STORY Getting to Know your Students’ Linguistic and Cultural Assets: Opening Spaces for Bilingual Pairs’Voices María G. Arreguín-Anderson, The University of Texas at San Antonio Iliana Alanis, The University of Texas at San Antonio In this article, we highlight the importance of releasing control and opening spaces for children’s voices.That is, setting up an environment in which we, teachers, occasionally take center space, but also provide opportunities for students to teach and learn from each other as well as opportunities for the teacher to learn from the students. A vision that Freire articulated when he proposed that: N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 56
  • 7. …Through dialogue, the teacher-of the-student” and the students-of the teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with student- teachers. The teacher is no longer merely the –one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught through dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. (Freire, 2003, p. 80) The idea of a classroom in which all students can be teachers has profound implications. It means that the teacher believes in students’ ability to effectively communicate and use language to learn and just as importantly, the teacher believes that students have something to contribute. Does this mean that, as an educator, I have to give up the idea of lecturing or direct teach? In our view the answer is No! but moderation is key. Doses of lecture and teacher intervention are essential elements as we work towards achieving instructional objectives. In the following sections, we discuss direct instruction as well as the importance of identifying children’s linguistic and cultural repertoire. What is the Role of Direct Teach in the Classroom? Adopting collaborative approaches is not in contradiction with the use of direct teach. In fact, direct teach has its place in general instruction at all levels (Bass, Contant, & Carin, 2009) including situations in which the teacher must provide safety instructions in subjects such as science and mathematics; teach well defined concepts, skills, and information that studens must remember; provide additional examples, and summarize key concepts of a lesson. Direct instruction is generally short. There is no set rule for how long children can listen to a teacher’s explanation of a concept, skill, or procedure. In all cases, it is important to remember that direct instruction involves more than simply telling and showing. It involves the following steps: ◗◗ Attend (draw children’s attention to the task) ◗◗ Show and tell (show or tell children something) ◗◗ Differentiate (help children recognize examples and nonexamples) ◗◗ Apply (have children apply what they are learning) (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 2011, p. 93). These steps are illustrated in In Mr. Clarks’ classroom as he directs a group of kindergarteners to sit on a rug after exploring rocks: 1. Mr. Clark begins his lesson by asking children to sit next to their partner and together look at pictures of rocks that he is going to show them. He indicates, “these are the same ones that you just explored. I have the same rocks right here in this box and I am going to take one at a time and then discuss all of them.” 2. The children look at the picture and begin talking about the rocks with their peers. 3. Mr. Clark continues, “Here is one of the rocks. Tell your partner what you notice about the rock and I will call on one pair to share.” 4. Children begin sharing information about the rock for about a minute. 5. Mr. Clark randomly selects one pair. One of the partners expresses that “the rock felt bumpy.” Mr. Clark extends his comment, “Yes, we can also say that the rock was rough. We will refer to it as texture. Some rocks are smooth. Others are rough and we can classify them based on how they feel.” 6. Now, Mr. Clark asks, “What else can you tell me about this other rock? Talk to your partner.” After one minute Mr. Clark asks one pair and they express that “the rock is small and round.” 7. “Well”, says, Mr. Clark, “We can also group the rock based on size and shape. Look at the two groups I have on the screen. All the rocks that are small and round are in this group. The big rocks are in this other group. Now tell your partner about the different types of groups that we have identified. In other words, in what ways have we classified rocks? In the example above, Mr. Clark infuses all steps of this direct instruction segment with opportunities to interact, talk, and expand students’ thinking. Children are challegend to apply what they know to new situations and to produce complete sentences. Children’s expressive language may take many forms, and in bilingual settings, a mix of langauges may be evident. Recognizing Bilingual learners’Linguistic Abilities In bilingual, dual language classrooms, linguistic minorities, generally Latino learners, often receive instruction aimed at remediating perceived deficiencies. This deficit view translates into a belief that “children don’t have any language” and “they lack significant experiences”. These beliefs strongly influence teachers’ actions and are congruent with transmission models of instructions in which, educators visualize themselves as “knowledge givers” and the one whose responsibility centers on providing not only knowledge, but also, skills that children “lack” as illustrated in the following vignette: On her first day of class, Ms. Gutiérrez, a first grade teacher, meets with her students on the carpet near the calendar to conduct morning activities that include a review of the days of the week, a description of today’s weather, and the news of the day. As they get ready to begin, she listens to students’ conversations and overhears Gilbert and Javier as they argue about whose turn it is to lead the activity: The idea of a classroom in which all students can be teachers has profound implications. It means that the teacher believes in students’ ability to effectively communicate and use language to learn and just as importantly, the teacher believes that students have something to contribute. J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 7
  • 8. Gilberto: Yo sigo [It is my turn], right teacher? Javier: No. Siéntate en la carpeta hasta que diga la Miss quien sigue. [No. Sit down on the carpet until the teacher says who is next.} Gilberto: No’stoy chiriando [I am not cheating]. Javier: Teacher, I am next. ¿Veda que sí? Mixed feelings overwhelm Ms. Gutiérrez as she listens to this conversation. She clearly understands what her students are saying and what the source of conflict is, but she is concerned about her students’ use of language. She later shares her concerns with her colleague: “I am afraid my students don’t have a language. They speak neither English nor Spanish.” The “lack of language” myth historically originated from the assumption that children who do not speak English do not have a way to function in academic settings and therefore will not succeed. Based on this assumption, generations of Latino children have experienced an education that has subtracted their language and culture and has focused on assimilation or a process in which they closely resemble the dominant group’s language and culture. The truth is, as Ofelia Garcia (2014) has argued, many Latino students do not have a “single” language or even two, easy to identify languages that are used separately as if a switch was turned off and on. Instead, bilingual learners often arrive in our classrooms with languages that can be classified under many labels. These languages are used dynamically as children communicate. Gloria Anzaldúa (1999) a Chicana writer and intellectual proposed that some of the languages that children speak may include: 1. standard English 2. working class and slang English 3. standard Spanish 4. standard Mexican Spanish 5. North Mexican Spanish dialect 6. Chicano Spanish 7. Tex-Mex, and 8. Pachuco (p. 77) With this in mind, an initial step in releasing teacher control is the conceptualization that all students arrive in classrooms with one, two, and possibly more languages. These languages are often used flexibly as Javier and Gilberto did in the above scenario. Gilberto, for example, speaks Tex-Mex at home, Standard English at school, and understands working class and slang English, each one of them at different proficiency levels. As his teacher, Ms. Gutiérrez is in a crucial position to establish an environment where students continue acquiring standard academic English and standard academic Spanish while maintaining or enhancing the languages they already speak. As a teacher, she is to take the role of facilitator, exposing children to enriching experiences in which they read, speak, listen, and write in meaningful contexts. The use of pairs will be one of those powerful strategies that will foster language development while allowing the teacher to release control. The “lack of language” myth historically originated from the assumption that children who do not speak English do not have a way to function in academic settings and therefore will not succeed. Based on this assumption, generations of Latino children have experienced an education that has subtracted their language and culture and has focused on assimilation or a process in which they closely resemble the dominant group’s language and culture. The truth is, as Ofelia Garcia (2014) has argued, many Latino students do not have a “single” language or even two, easy to identify languages that are used separately as if a switch was turned off and on. Instead, bilingual learners often arrive in our classrooms with languages that can be classified under many labels. N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 58
  • 9. A Closer Look: An Inventory of Languages Spoken in your Classroom What languages do your children speak? You can begin by using Gloria Anzaldúa’s classification of languages as a starting point to develop a language inventory of each one of your students’ linguistic abilities. You may notice that additional categories or languages may need to be added. For example, you may have students who speak Hindi, Guatemalan Spanish, Russian, etc. Once you have identified the languages by each child add a general language proficiency descriptor. Based on your own perception, do children seem comfortable expressing themselves orally in Hindi for example? Finally, associate this description with a particular language skill (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). A child’s inventory may look like Figure 1. At the conclusion of the school year, you could revisit this inventory. How has it changed? Children who spend most of the day listening to the teacher are likely to have very few opportunities to develop oral skills in a given language. What do you notice? Recognizing that Bilingual Children Make Valuable Contributions Relinquishing control is difficult, especially when our own schooling experience may have left us with memories of passive learning. Therefore, we are often tempted to replicate what we know, that is, we speak to children, provide and grade assignments, and tell them when something is right or when something is wrong. We also share our knowledge and our experience. On the other hand, when we transform our views of children and allow ourselves to hear their voices we also acknowledge that they have much to contribute. Contributions will reflect children’s funds of knowledge (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). What children know and who they are, culturally, is expressed in a variety of ways: a) the games they play, b) the language they use, c) the activities they engage in, d) the food they eat, etc. In the classroom, it is difficult to draw from this wealth of knowledge when the teacher is in control all the time, that is, when the teacher is the one who speaks and tells children what they need to know and how they should learn it. A Closer Look: An Inventory of Children’s Funds of Knowledge What hobbies, activities, and cultural celebrations do your students engage in when not in class? At the beginning, and throughout the school year, document activities that are significant in the lives of your students. Interview children’s caretakers including a few simple questions: ◗◗ What are your children’s favorite activities when at home? ◗◗ What hobbies, pastimes, and activities do you engage in with your child? (at any point of the week?) ◗◗ What type of hobbies, pastimes, and activities do you and your child engage in at any point of the week? ◗◗ To what degree is your child involved in these activities? It is important to design collaborative structures that allow children to share their personal experiences when they wish to do so. How many times for example, have you conducted whole group discussions that spark children’s interest motivating them to raise their hand or plainly inspiring them to shout out or narrate their experience? These are critical moments in which you realize that as important as children’s stories are, you perhaps, only have time to listen to one or maybe two. The power of pairs lies in the collaborative structure that allows all children to share, all of the time. For the teacher, the realization that children don’t have to share with “her/him” is an important step. After all, when Laura is paired with Joel and finds out that she can share her experience gardening with her grandmother and Joel has an opportunity to share that his father took him fishing last weekend and that he caught a catfish, we have children whose sense of community gradually evolves out of knowing each other on a personal basis. Figure 1 Listening Reading Speaking Writing Mexican Spanish Advanced fluency Intermediate fluency Advanced fluency Early production Standard Academic English Intermediate fluency Intermediate fluency Early production Early production J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 9
  • 10. Releasing Control by Facilitating Learning: We are Designed for Dialogue An inventory of children’s interests and activities will allow you to become a better facilitator. As a facilitator, you will be equipped with crucial information to make important decisions on a daily basis. When you consider Laura’s case, for example, you will realize that her language(s) and cultural background make her an ideal partner for Roberto during a science lesson that focuses on states of matter. As a monolingual Spanish-speaker who is unfamiliar with the American school system, Roberto is not only in need of a space in which to safely ask questions, but in need of interactive structures in which he can continue to grow linguistically. This safe space allows him to contribute not only to class discussions in general, but to the growth of his classmates as evident in each child’s identified characteristics (see Figure 2). How Do You Distribute your Instructional Time? Classrooms in which children encounter clear opportunities to collaboratively use language while mastering content, generally reflect an intentional distribution of time in which the teacher opens spaces for student participation throughout the entire instructional day. In these classrooms, teachers know when they have lectured excessively, or when they have allowed direct instruction to prevail. We have noticed that often, teachers use interactive learning only during learning center time or perhaps during guided reading lessons. To counter this tendency, Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec (1998) recommend that teachers break direct teaching periods into “short processing times” (p. 3-10) or checkpoints so that students have opportunities to think about the big ideas of the lesson. During those purposely infused processing times, or stops, the teacher can verify children’s comprehension of the explained concept and assess children’s ability to “produce language to communicate”. Receptive language development and expressive language development, Otto (2014) argues is closely related to each child’s developmental level, each aspect of language knowledge, and learning environment” (p. 3). Figure 3 shows a direct instruction routine in which the teacher includes three checkpoints and two five-minute lecture segments. A Closer Look: How do you Distribute your Instructional Time? In your classroom you often have visitors, parent volunteers, observers, and student teachers among others. As part of your self- reflection and analysis of your own practices, ask one of these individuals or a colleague to shadow you for a day. Preferably, ask this individual to select a random day. During this day, this person’s job will be to keep track of a) the amount of time you lecture speak for each instructional segment of your day along with the general purpose. Purpose may include: explain, Prior Knowledge Question 5 minute lecture Discussion pair #1 5 minute lectureDiscussion pair #2 2 minute closure Summarization pair Figure 3: Direct instruction routine Figure 2 Laura Roberto Languages Tex-Mex, North Mexican Spanish, Academic English Monolingual Spanish speaker Hobbies Collects rocks Loves to watch cartoons Favorite subject Science Mathematics Personality Extrovert Introvert Funds of Knowledge Construction, baking, gardening Wrestling Extracurricular activities None Soccer N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 510
  • 11. read to students, provide instructions, etc. Don’t make any changes, just conduct teaching ‘as usual’. Additionally, ask this person to record the questions that you ask and the tasks that you assign. A recording log would include the following fields for example (See figure 4). Awareness of the way we distribute time and the types of question that we ask will serve as data for our personal needs assessment. What do we need to change? Observational data is a valuable source of information as we embark on an intentional shift of teaching paradigm. Conclusions The shift from teacher-centered to student-centered pedagogy requires that teachers know their students’ linguistic and cultural background. A classroom in which students’ languages and cultures are celebrated is a classroom in which children are inevitably empowered to take control of their own learning. Small interactive structures, such as pairs, allow children to teach and learn from each other. The role of the teacher is to purposefully and deliberately assign students to pairs based on strengths, academic level, language proficiency, cultural background and other factors so that they benefit from a partnership in ways that transform their lives. ★ References Anzaldua, G. (1999). Borderlands, La Frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. Bass, J. E., Contant, T. L., & Carin, A. A. (2009). Methods for teaching science as inquiry. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Diaz, Z., Whitacre, M., Esquierdo, J. J., & Ruiz-Escalante, J. A. (2013). Why did I ask that question? Bilingual/ESL preservice teachers’insights. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 163-176. Garcia, O. (2014). Countering the dual: Transglossia, dynamic bilingualism, and translanguaging in education. In R. R. L. Alsagoff (Ed.), The global-local interface, language choice and hybridity (pp. 100-118). Bristol: Multiligual Matters. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. (2008). Asking the right questions: Teachers’questions can build students’English language skills. Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 46-52. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson Holubec, E. (1998). Advanced Cooperative Learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., & Whiren, A. P. (2011). Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood. Boston, MA: Pearson. Otto, B. (2014). Language development in early childhood. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D., Mack, C. E., et al. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 29-34. Dr. María G. Arreguín-Anderson is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood and Elementary Education at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her areas of expertise include dual language education, elementary science education in dual language environments, and cooperative learning in dyads. Contact information: arreguinma@aol.com Dr. Iliana Alanis is an Associate Professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio who prepares preservice and inservice teachers for their work in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. Dr. Alanis been in the field of dual language and early childhood education for over 20 years. Contact information: iliana.alanis1@gmail.com Mathematics 8:00-9:00 a.m. 8:00-8:10 Explain instructions (Teacher) 8:10-8:15 Give one example (Teacher) 8:30-8:40 Read to students (Teacher) 8:40-8:50 Teacher guided activity (three students were called to participate) (Questions asked to the entire class as a whole group included: How many of you are finished?) Total= 55 minutes Figure 4 J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 11
  • 12. James Cummins (1979) hace una distinción entre el lenguaje que se utiliza comúnmente en la conversación (Habilidades Básicas de Comunicación Interpersonal o BICS por sus siglas en inglés) y el lenguaje que se utiliza en contextos académicos (Capacidad Cognitiva de Lenguaje Académico o CALP por sus siglas en inglés). El vocabulario cognitivo académico es el “lenguaje” utilizado en la literatura y en las pruebas académicas del ámbito escolar. El nivel bajo o la ausencia de este vocabulario ha sido identificado como un factor que pudiese evitar el avance académico en ciertas poblaciones de inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos. En específico, la investigación de Carlo et al. (2004), sugieren que el avance en la competencia lectora de los niños, anglos y latinos, están relacionadas al conocimiento del vocabulario. Se ha identificado que la enseñanza del vocabulario es crucial para los estudiantes bilingües (August & Shanahan, 2006; Kinsella, 2005). No solamente se espera que estos estudiantes desarrollen la parte lingüística, si no también, el contenido curricular para así obtener el éxito académico. Sin embargo, se observa, que es baja o nula la frecuencia de la enseñanza del vocabulario de una manera explícita y sistemática (Gamez & Lesaux, 2012; Faller, Kieffer, Kelley &, Lesaux 2010). La legislación federal actual del país requiere que todos los estudiantes obtengan niveles de rendimiento aceptables (básico, proficiente, o avanzado) en los exámenes de habilidades estatales; esto con el fin de confirmar la igualdad de educación para todos los alumnos y a la vez mantener altos estándares académicos (acta “Ningún Niño Se Quede Atrás” del 2001-“No Child Left Behind” NCLB). Por esta razón, los docentes están abocados a abordar el rendimiento de poblaciones clasificadas de acuerdo a: su condición étnica, ser aprendientes del inglés como segundo idioma, ser aprendientes del idioma inglés como tercer idioma, estrato económico, y/o por ser estudiantes con problemas de aprendizaje (dislexia, déficit de atención, trastornos del habla, etc.). Los inmigrantes internacionales por lo tanto están incluidos en algunos de estos grupos; evidentemente las necesidades académicas de estas poblaciones han cambiando con el paso del tiempo de acuerdo a segundas y terceras generaciones de inmigrantes, las cuales exhiben nuevas características y redefinen las pautas en cuanto al tratamiento y la enseñanza del idioma. De ahí que el desafío en el campo investigativo sea identificar los vacíos en el conocimiento o habilidades que cognitivamente pudiesen impedir a estas poblaciones lograr el éxito académico dentro del sistema escolar público estadounidense. El crecimiento de la población inmigrante en los Estados Unidos y en especial, el grupo hispano o latino ha generado en las aulas una serie de situaciones que exigen cambios en la forma de enseñar. Fenómenos lingüísticos como el Espanglish, el préstamo léxico (tochar, guachar, etc.), la extensión semántica (carpeta, yarda, troca, etc.), y programas de educación bilingüe enfocados más a la adquisición del inglés que a el mantenimiento de la lengua nativa, son factores que, probablemente, pudiesen contribuir a una baja disponibilidad léxica y al uso cada vez menos frecuente del lenguaje formal del idioma español (López Morales, 1999). Esta investigación de la influencia del vocabulario en la comprensión lectora surge a partir de los recurrentes niveles bajos de un grupo de estudiantes en educación primaria/ bilingüe de segunda generación del Influencia del vocabulario académico en la competencia lectora de estudiantes con español como lengua de herencia Ana R. Carlton, Universidad Nebrija N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 512
  • 13. español como lengua heredada, hijos de inmigrantes hispanos—latinos. La carencia del conocimiento del vocabulario, siempre evidente durante el monitoreo de lectura, sobresale como un factor que constantemente genera dificultades durante la comprensión de literatura de no ficción. La población participante en esta intervención, proveniente de familias de padres con poca o ninguna educación académica a nivel superior formal, tiene reducidas las oportunidades de aprender/ usar el vocabulario cognitivo en el ámbito familiar; quedando así marginadas principalmente al aula. Ahora bien, se observa que el énfasis dado a la enseñanza del vocabulario CALP en el plan de estudios académicos diseñado para este grado elemental, no es amplio y que el mayor enfoque se da a las palabras de alta frecuencia. Por ende se infiere que la comprensión lectora de textos escolares, los cuales presentan una cantidad elevada de vocabulario cognitivo, conlleva un grado de dificultad y demanda cognitiva más alta a este grupo de estudiantes. Marco Conceptual El conocimiento del vocabulario es una habilidad crítica que influye en los procesos de competencia lectora y específicamente a los procesos superiores del lenguaje como el procesamiento gramatical, la construcción de esquemas, y de estructuras textuales (Chall, 1987). Así, el lector puede manejar una cantidad mínima de palabras desconocidas durante la lectura de un texto sin que ello afecte su comprensión debido a que generalmente obtiene su significado a partir del contexto, pero si esa cantidad de palabras desconocidas es considerablemente alta entonces la comprensión del texto se entorpece (Carver, 1994). Investigaciones Las siguientes investigaciones han analizado la relación entre la escasez de vocabulario y el desarrollo de las áreas académicas de lectura y escritura: Beck, McKeown y Perfetti (1982), analizan las implicaciones de los resultados de la enseñanza de vocabulario y su significado individual en la comprensión. Examinan la relación entre el conocimiento del significado de las palabras y los procesos semánticos. Durante un periodo de 5 meses, un grupo de 27 niños de cuarto grado de primaria y de bajo estrato económico recibieron una intervención de enseñanza de 104 palabras. Se incluyeron pruebas para aprender el significado de palabras y desarrollar la capacidad de procesar palabras de manera más eficiente en las tareas de comprensión. Los sujetos del grupo experimental se desempeñaron de una manera más eficiente en las tareas de comprensión y a un nivel significativamente más alto que los sujetos del grupo de control con respecto al conocimiento del vocabulario y la comprensión lectora. Carpenter y Just (1987), plantean que la decodificación de palabras y el acceso léxico se llevan a cabo por medio de los procesos de análisis de letras y sílabas que son transparentes para el lector, lo que da inicio a un ciclo accediendo al significado de las palabras en la memoria semántica. Cuando el significado es activado, éste se ubica en la memoria operativa, esta activación tiende a decaer paulatinamente. El acceso al significado de una palabra es más rápido cuando ésta es frecuente o familiar al sujeto. Defior (1996) analiza que las ortografías profundas por lo general representan la morfología y la fonología de manera simultánea ya que ambos recursos son necesarios para la ortografía. En ortografías poco profundas, como la del español, la fonología sería suficiente para explicar la mayoría de las palabras. Sin embargo, el conocimiento morfológico también puede participar en la ortografía. Este estudio examinó cómo niños nativos del español, 48 de primer grado, 155 de segundo grado y 155 de tercer grado de primaria utilizan la información morfológica para codificar nombres plurales y verbos. Los resultados muestran que, aunque la ortografía del español está influenciada por la fonología, también se utiliza la información morfológica. Por lo tanto, al proporcionar capacitación en estas dos áreas se facilita el reconocimiento de palabras y de esta manera si el enfoque a la decodificación de estas palabras es bajo y se realiza de forma automática, la atención va dirigida mayormente a la comprensión. Carlo, et al., (2004), aluden que los bajos niveles del léxico de estudiantes en grados primarios, contribuyen a las dificultades en la lectura de textos escolares. En su estudio incluyó a 142 estudiantes bilingües de quinto grado de primaria, de escuelas que sirven a la clase trabajadora de las áreas de California, Massachusetts y Virginia. Se administró una intervención de vocabulario durante 15 semanas continuas, en base a la enseñanza explícita de 10-12 palabras semanales. El 90% de los participantes que recibieron pruebas de pre test y post test obtuvieron resultados significativos en la comprensión lectora. Así que, el bajo nivel del conocimiento y dominio del vocabulario cognitivo es identificado como un factor que influye en el desarrollo de la habilidad lectora tanto en estudiantes monolingües como en estudiantes bilingües. Las investigaciones de Beck, McKeown y Perfetti (1982), Carpenter y Just (1987), Defior (1996), y Carlo, et al., (2004), han medido el conocimiento del léxico de la población participante y su relación directa con la mejora de la competencia lectora. Por lo tanto, el estudio a describirse en este artículo, ha tomado en cuenta los parámetros y los hallazgos de aquellos cuatro estudios previos e interviene a un grupo experimental con un tratamiento de enseñanza explícita y directa del vocabulario CALP con el propósito de enriquecer el léxico y a su vez el desarrollo de la comprensión lectora. No se intenta, replicar ninguna de estas investigaciones primarias ya que estas han analizado, principalmente, el comportamiento lingüístico en el aprendizaje de la segunda lengua. El objeto meta de esta investigación El conocimiento del vocabulario es una habilidad crítica que influye en los procesos de competencia lectora y específicamente a los procesos superiores del lenguaje como el procesamiento gramatical, la construcción de esquemas, y de estructuras textuales (Chall, 1987). J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 13
  • 14. en particular ha sido el análisis del desarrollo del vocabulario en la lengua heredada y el efecto en áreas dentro de la misma lengua. En comparación, es posible consultar una cantidad considerable de estudios realizados a poblaciones infantiles aprendientes de inglés como segundo idioma, o en adultos/jóvenes de español como lengua de herencia que tienen el idioma inglés como lengua dominante pero muy pocos, a la fecha, en población infantil hispano-latino de segunda generación, inmersa en una comunidad de lenguas en contacto, en este caso, español e inglés. Este estudio, entonces, desea vislumbrar algunos de los beneficios de fortalecer las habilidades cognitivo-lingüísticas de segundas generaciones con el fin de mantener un bilingüismo balanceado. Se aporta así una investigación de observación ceñida al impacto del vocabulario en la lengua de herencia para el desarrollo de otras competencias de alfabetización. Metodología Este trabajo de investigación tiene un objetivo exploratorio y una metodología cuantitativa, con un grupo de control y un grupo experimental, y con mediciones anteriores y posteriores (pre test y post test); la información obtenida se tradujo a números para la elaboración de tablas estadísticas. Se diseña un tratamiento de vocabulario para ser administrado en un lapso de seis semanas a un grupo de 42 estudiantes. Para el análisis de la incidencia del vocabulario en la competencia lectora este estudio parte del siguiente objetivo general: Determinar si la enseñanza del vocabulario, por medio de la instrucción diferenciada, mejora el nivel de la comprensión lectora en textos escolares en estudiantes de primer grado de primaria, que tienen el español como lengua heredada en el estado de Texas (consulta Tabla 1). Informantes Todos los participantes en esta investigación son residentes de la ciudad de Houston, Texas y están matriculados en el mismo plantel educativo de un distrito escolar público. La muestra válida estuvo formada por 42 alumnos pertenecientes al 1er grado de primaria, con una edad media de 6 años: 8 meses (rango 6:5–7:7), distribuidos en dos grupos: un Grupo Experimental (N = 14) y un Grupo de Control (N = 28). Las características generales de estos alumnos son: ◗◗ Edad (entre 6 y 7 años) ◗◗ Nivel socioeconómico desfavorecido. ◗◗ Cursan 1er grado de primaria (Ninguno repite grado) ◗◗ Poseen el español como lengua de herencia. ◗◗ Inmigrantes de segunda generación nacidos en los Estados Unidos De América, y que no han vivido en un país de habla hispana. ◗◗ Reciben educación formal en inglés (40%) y en español (60%) Los informantes de cada grupo (control y experimental) se compararon antes de iniciar la intervención para determinar que no existiesen diferencias significativas entre los dos. Resultados y Conclusiones Se han analizado las medias por medio de la prueba T (T-test). En la prueba previa al tratamiento seguido en el grupo experimental, las diferencias observadas (grupo de control 12,71; grupo experimental 14,36 en una escala de 30 puntos) no son estadísticamente significativas (p > 0,05). Son, por lo tanto, grupos equivalentes que no parten de ninguna ventaja significativa previa. Sin embargo, las diferencias observadas en la prueba posterior al tratamiento en el grupo experimental (grupo de control 17,32 y grupo experimental 23,50 ambos en una escala de 28 puntos) sí son estadísticamente significativas. La prueba de Levene indica que debe asumirse la igualdad de las varianzas. (F = 0,088; p = 0,768). Por lo tanto el valor del nivel de significación para la prueba T es de p = 0,006 (T = 2,891; grados de libertad 40; p > 0,05) y se afirma que las diferencias observadas son estadísticamente significativas y en este caso atribuibles al tratamiento. Es decir, la enseñanza específica del vocabulario cognitivo por medio de una instrucción diferenciada a grupos pequeños con características similares contribuye de una manera positiva en la competencia lectora, con lo cual se cumple el objetivo general y la hipótesis de este estudio (consulta Tabla 2). Esta investigación se propuso encontrar respuesta a la pregunta inicialmente formulada y observar si la hipótesis establecida se confirmaba o no después de la intervención al grupo experimental. Las siguientes son las conclusiones a las que se ha llegado después del análisis de los resultados obtenidos: ◗◗ La enseñanza específica del vocabulario, por medio de una instrucción diferenciada a grupos pequeños con características similares, contribuye positivamente a la comprensión lectora de textos escolares de los estudiantes de 1er Tabla 1: Correlación de los Elementos de Investigación Pregunta de Investigación Hipótesis Instrumento ¿Cómo un tipo de instrucción diferenciada del vocabulario cognitivo promueve una mayor comprensión lectora de los textos escolares de 1er grado de primaria? La comprensión lectora de textos escolares en español mejora si se enseña el vocabulario cognitivo por medio de una instrucción diferenciada a grupos pequeños Exámenes de pre test y post test para valorar los niveles de comprensión lectora. Kit de evaluación de lectura nivelada de la edición Rigby PM de Harcourt Achieve Tabla 2 Grupos Lectura (Pre test) Lectura (Post test) Grupo Experimental 14,36 23,50 Grupo de Control 12,71 17,32 Prueba T (t test) de las variables de pre test y post test con respecto a la variable dependiente nivel de lectura. N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 514
  • 15. grado de primaria en una población que tiene el español como lengua de herencia. ◗◗ Un tratamiento específico en la adquisición del vocabulario influye de manera significativa en la mejora de la prueba de pre test del vocabulario cognitivo, de igual manera las diferencias son significativas respecto al desempeño de la competencia lectora, o sea que a mayor input de vocabulario mayor comprensión lectora. El aporte de esta investigación al campo de la lingüística en poblaciones de segunda generación brinda una pauta dentro del área de conocimiento de la didáctica de lenguas extranjeras. Propone estudiar los procesos enseñanza-aprendizaje en el desarrollo de la competencia en la comprensión lectora teniendo en cuenta las deficiencias y necesidades de los estudiantes de 1er grado de primaria con español como lengua de herencia. Aunque en estudios anteriores se observa que la falta de vocabulario es un predicamento en el bajo desarrollo de la habilidad lectora, esta investigación contribuye con el análisis de una intervención académica por medio de una enseñanza diferenciada a grupos pequeños, con niveles similares; aplicando estrategias enfocadas al aprendizaje del vocabulario por medio de una instrucción explícita y descontextualizada. Aunque en los currículos escolares se incluyen los bancos de vocabulario de acuerdo al grado y a la materia, es evidente que incluirlo sólo para utilizarlo en contexto no es suficiente. El acercamiento del estudiante a la parte semántica y la apropiación del mismo por medio de una instrucción directa y explícita crea conexiones auténticas que apoyan el éxito escolar. Así es que la competencia lectora mejora de acuerdo al dominio del vocabulario cognitivo en estudiantes norteamericanos de español como lengua de herencia, (Carlton, 2012). Por ende, se aspira que este estudio sea una contribución a las guías de enseñanza del vocabulario español a la población infantil de segunda generación, especialmente cuando su español tiende al deterioro. Que este trabajo permita la continuación de otros estudios enfocados a las necesidades específicas de estudiantes que crecen inmersos en comunidades con lenguas en contacto. La conservación del español en la comunidad Anglosajona amerita el esfuerzo unificado de padres, docentes, investigadores y los programas de lenguaje dual. ★ Referencias Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., ... & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2),188-215. Recuperado de: http://www.reading.org/publications/ journals/rrq/v39/i2/abstracts/RRQ-39-2-Carlo.html August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Perfetti, C. (1982). Effects of long term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506-521. Carlton, A. (2012). La Influencia del nivel del conocimiento del lenguaje académico español en el desempeño de la destreza lectora. Análisis de las producciones de estudiantes norteamericanos con español como lengua heredada. (Tesis inédita). Universidad Nebrija. Madrid, España. Carpenter, P., & Just, M., (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon. Carver, R.P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26. Chall, Jeanne S. (1987). Two Vocabularies for Reading: Recognition and Meaning, The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chall, Jeanne S. (1996). Stages of Reading Development. (2ª ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129. Defior, S. (1996). Las dificultades de aprendizaje: un enfoque cognitivo. Málaga: Aljibe. Faller, S.E., Kieffer, M.J., Kelley, J.G., & Lesaux, N.K. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196-228. Gamez, P., & Lesaux, N.K. (2012). The Relation between Exposure to Sophisticated and Complex Language and Early-Adolescent English-Only and Language-Minority Learners’Vocabulary. Child Development, 83(4), 1316- 1331. Kinsella, K. (2005). Preparing for Effective Vocabulary Instruction. A SCOE Aiming High brief. Recuperado de: http://www.scoe.org/docs/ah/AH_kinsella1.pdf López, H. (1999). Léxico disponible de Puerto Rico. Madrid, Arco Libros. Ana R. Carlton posee 11 años de experiencia como docente bilingüe e intervencionista académica en las escuelas primarias de Texas. Su crecimiento profesional lo atribuye a los distritos escolares de Cypress Fairbanks ISD y Klein ISD. Actualmente vinculada a Spring ISD; brinda capacitación y asesoría a los maestros de aula, especialistas de instrucción, y administradores con el propósito de fortalecer la enseñanza y aumentar el aprendizaje para el éxito académico estudiantil. Es miembro activo y presentador en TABE y NABE. Sus áreas de investigación e interés incluyen la lingüística aplicada en español, lengua de herencia y programas bilingües-duales. Dirección electronica: argac07@gmail.com. El acercamiento del estudiante a la parte semántica y la apropiación del mismo por medio de una instrucción directa y explícita crea conexiones auténticas que apoyan el éxito escolar. Así es que la competencia lectora mejora de acuerdo al dominio del vocabulario cognitivo en estudiantes norteamericanos de español como lengua de herencia, (Carlton, 2012). J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 15
  • 16. Facilitators’ Perspectives: Strategies that Work in Higher Education Dual Language Immersion Settings Ángel A. Toledo López, SUAGM - Universidad del Este Luis Javier Pentón Herrera, Concordia University Chicago Introduction Teaching is the art of promoting the retrieval of prior knowledge, however much that may be, and providing the tools to integrate such knowledge to a new base of information with which to expand our understanding of the world around us (Ausubel, 1968; Meyer, 2004). Learning occurs through informal and formal experience. That is, individuals learn as they walk through life. People learn about nature, family, pain, perceptions, and preferences as they live different experiences that may be unexpected or unplanned. Other more formal experiences, like the ones that teachers plan, prepare, and include in their lesson plans, provide a space for learning that is problem or inquiry-based. These formal learning experiences allow students to make meaningful connections with knowledge that they have previously acquired (Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005). In the end, the art of teaching requires that educators use techniques and strategies that promote effective, life-long learning. The process of teaching, however, is not one-size-fits-all. No single teaching technique or strategy works for all students mainly because they learn in their “own ways, using different methods, different styles, and at different speeds” (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008, p.1). What is consistent in classrooms across the nation is the diversity of learners with which teachers must work. This means that teachers must adopt and use teaching strategies that cater to the different needs and interests of their students. In an ever- changing learning environment, it also means that professional development is necessary to help teachers evaluate their beliefs, reinforce their professional practices (Guskey, 2002), and understand diversity to create an equitable academic environment. One of the most significant changes that classrooms in the United States are encountering is the dramatic increase of first-generation Hispanic students (Harper & de Jong, 2004) and other non-native English speakers (Honigsfeld, 2009). This trend is expected to continue as the Hispanic population continues to grow, and immigrants and their children seek for opportunities that formal education can provide. This demographic shift has had a dramatic impact in the practices and procedures used in schools and colleges to provide for a diverse population of learners (Toledo López & Pentón Herrera, 2015). While the teaching strategies that help English language learners (ELLs) acquire knowledge of both content and language are also effective for native speakers of English (Tissington & LaCour, 2010), some teaching techniques and strategies clearly work better than others and provide students with different modes of engagement and expression that facilitate the learning and assessment process. After all, there is not one single method of teaching, and the needs of ELLs merit special attention (Harper & de Jong, 2004). Knowing which techniques work and which do not is, thus, key if teachers want to create an equitable environment that motivates young and adult students to learn and participate. This article explores the different learning environments that are suitable for adult ELLs. It also identifies, from the facilitators’ perspective, the teaching techniques that work in an adult setting. Throughout the article, teachers, professors, or educators are referred to as facilitators to highlight their role as guides and mentors of the students’ learning process as opposed to being owners of the shared knowledge (Burden, 2004), and to remain true to the duties and responsibilities that the Discipline Based Dual Language Immersion Model vests upon them. There is some discussion concerning the differences between teacher and facilitators, but this goes beyond the scope of this work. Adult Education: One Side of The Coin Different experiences occur in the lives of individuals that shape how they act, believe, think, and process information. These factors are all important when designing teaching methodologies and lessons that facilitate the learning process for different types of learners. From an early stage in life, individuals develop the ability to extract meaning and significance from their experiences. However, thought processes and patterns, and learning experiences in children differ from those of adults (McLeod, 2015). Adults come to their learning processes with a broader spectrum of ideas and a wider array of experiences. They have more information where to draw from and their schemas have been constructed, adapted, and transformed to accommodate new realities. Andragogical principles are established to help adults learn and focus “on facilitating the acquisition of and critical thinking about the content and its application in real-life practical settings” (Pew, 2007, p. 17). These principles are based on six assumptions that summarize the intentions and motivations that adults in first world settings have to pursue higher levels of education (Chan, 2010). These assumptions include: (a) self concept; (b) role of experience; (c) readiness to learn; (d) orientation to learning; (e) internal motivation; and (f) need to know. N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 516
  • 17. The self-concept assumption refers to the notion that adults are self-directed and self- motivated. It is, thus, the responsibility of the educator not to teach, but to facilitate the learning process. Moreover, the role of experience assumption is consistent with constructivist models of learning that place emphasis on prior knowledge and experience as a base for new knowledge. Thirdly, andragogical principles sustain that adults are ready to learn what they need to know and what they are prepared to know. This is largely associated with the fourth assumption, orientation to learning, which holds that “adults learn for immediate applications rather than for future uses. Their learning is problem- centered, task-oriented, and life-focused” (Chan, 2010, p. 28). In essence, adults must see a purpose behind going back to school to learn, and whatever information is given to them must have a relevant and meaningful application to their real world. The last two assumptions, internal motivation and need to know, relate to the idea that adults’ “learning processes are connected to who students are, what they care about, and how they perceive and know” (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2009, p. 130). When adult learners value the need to learn, they develop an internal motivation to connect to sources of information and acquire the knowledge that they need for immediate application to their everyday life. Adults, like children, have different learning styles and ways of perceiving and processing information (Gardner, 1983). Because of this, teaching and assessment mechanisms must be planned and differentiation techniques must be used. Careful attention must be paid to differentiation to guarantee that activities are interrelated and appropriate for the students’ varied needs (Pappano, 2011). Through modeling, accommodation of new realities, and active experiential participation, teachers can create “interesting and challenging learning environments that encourage the active involvement of students” (Vosniadou, 2001, p. 8). Group work, collaborative learning, scaffolding, and sheltered instruction are techniques that good teachers use to facilitate learning and to clarify content to all students alike (Hansen-Thomas, 2008; Pray & Monhardt, 2009), including adult learners. Adult English Language Learners Vygotsky (1962) argues that learning is a social process, and language is the mechanism through which individuals interact and communicate their thoughts and visions about the world. Speech and language are the means that facilitate the expression of thoughts and ideas. However, language is also used to construct internal visions of the world, perceptions, and thoughts. These constructions must be intelligible to the individual for them to be transformed into verbal expressions. Because social interaction is necessary for learning and language is necessary for social interaction to occur, we must guarantee that our students, particularly the non-native speakers of English, develop language skills in all dimensions to facilitate social interaction and effective learning (See Figure 1). Language learning is, thus, necessary to level the playing field for students who have the ability to learn and succeed, but must acquire linguistic tools with which to materialize their thoughts and express their ideas. Many English language learners come to classrooms in the U.S. with different levels of language proficiency and literacy. Some need to develop language skills in English while others must endure the task of mastering both content and language. It takes longer for students with less formal schooling to acquire and learn a second language than those who have completed more years of formal schooling (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Moreover, research suggests that high level of language proficiency in students’ native language facilitates second language acquisition (Cummins, 1996). However, teachers cannot and do not control who comes into their classrooms or their levels of cognitive and linguistic sophistication. Adult learners have long passed their critical period where language learning occurs naturally and spontaneously (Alghizzi, 2014). It is unlikely that they will acquire language skills like children, but they can learn the mechanics of the language and use them effectively to communicate Language Learning Thought Social Interaction Figure 1: Language and Learning J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 17
  • 18. (Krashen, 1981). An academic environment that promotes equitable learning and that engages adult learners in their educational process must be constructed. One alternative is the dual language enrichment models, which is deemed the best in helping close the achievement gap in second language (Collier & Thomas, 2004). This model helps develop bilingual, bicultural, and biliterate students through a cross- cultural curriculum that engages students in meaningful and relevant learning. Both the 90-10 and the 50-50 two- way immersion models are beneficial for improving literacy and helping students acquire content knowledge while they develop English language skills. The 50-50 model helps “students learn in each language about half the time throughout the program. In many programs, all students learn to read in their primary language and then add the second language (Gómez, Freeman & Freeman, 2005, p. 149). In this model, the instruction time in each language can be divided in different ways as long as it is equal. Translation is not used when moving from one language to the other because students are expected to learn the information in both languages in all classes. Teaching supports and strategies are used to create a sheltered environment where students can use their prior knowledge, make cultural links that facilitate comprehension, and construct their own learning processes guided by clearly laid out objectives and standards. While these models were designed for a K-12 academic setting, the Ana G. Méndez University System developed the Discipline- Based Dual Language Immersion Model® for adult learners. This model resembles the 50-50 two-way immersion model and adapts many of the strategies that have proven effective in the K-12 setting to an adult- learner academic environment. It focuses on the teaching of language skills through content and promotes the acquisition of cognitive academic language proficiency in both English and Spanish. The dual language immersion model for adults takes into account the students’ cultural, linguistic, and experiential backgrounds to create an academic environment that promotes bilingual and bicultural literacy. The model “is founded on seven major elements that determine how education is imparted to promote language learning through content” (Toledo López & Penton Herrera, 2015, p.25). These elements are summarized in the figure below. The Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model® is built on the constructivist notion that learning is best promoted in a student-centered environment that encourages learners to become active participants of their academic process and use prior knowledge to construct a deeper understanding of the world around them. This vision seems reasonable for adult learners who come to school with a wealth of experiences and knowledge, and with readiness to learn what they will need for immediate application in their professional environment. With the constructivist methodology comes the different teaching and assessment techniques that facilitate learning in a dual language environment. Facilitators must be fully bilingual and must create an equitable learning environment through the use of sheltered instruction, differentiation, and cognitive-academic language learning strategies. Scaffolding and technological aids are also used with adult learners who need the additional support to get a better grasp of both language and content skills. However, ELL programs and dual language models are not one-size- fits-all (Honigsfeld, 2009). Some teaching techniques and strategies work better than others. Knowing which teaching techniques help set the stage for learning, and facilitate the development of oracy, reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills is necessary in a demanding academic environment with adult learners who expect the best. Use of both languages in content courses Placement testing E-Lab Language development across the curriculum Systematic distrbution of language arts Development of both languages through coursework Bilingual faculty and staff in a multicultural environment Figure 2: Elements of the Dual Language Immersion N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 518
  • 19. Facilitators’Perceptions: What Works and What Doesn’t With Adult Learners? In-depth interviews were administered to four facilitators who teach at the Ana G. Méndez University System and apply the teaching methodologies of the dual language immersion program tailored for adult learners. Two facilitators of language courses and two of content courses were selected to provide an overview of the teaching techniques and strategies that work best when teaching both language and language-through-content. Facilitators were asked to provide detailed explanations of techniques and strategies that they consider appropriate to develop students’ reading, writing, vocabulary, and oracy skills. They were also asked to explain what works in an adult setting to set the stage for learning, manage time, and close their academic sessions. In general, these in-depth interviews provide an insight of the teaching and assessment strategies that facilitate the management of this adult-based academic environment. The results of these interviews are summarized in the tables below. Table 1: Summary of findings: Language dimension Facilitators of Language Dos Vocabulary Reaching Comprehension Writing Oracy Direct exposure to new words in a relatable environment. Use readings that are relevant to the student both culturally and professionally. Help students identify differences between casual and college writing. Use oral presentations of relevant topics. They can apply their findings to real life. Interactive learning: words are practiced not memorized. Pre-reading activities help students share their thoughts and beliefs. They frame readings in a context. Teach students the steps of the writing process: prewrite, draft, revise, edit, and publish. Engage students in simple oral exercises in every workshop. Use different tasks to assess oracy. Scaffold using visuals and total physical response. Group readings and summaries. Students take turns reading sentences. They will summarize paragraphs in their own words. Scaffold the writing process with sentence starters, transitions, and conclusions. Adult learners want to speak “good English.” They should know that there are different accents in the U.S. Use native language and cognates to make connections. Use Reading and Analyzing Nonfiction Text (RAN) charts. Have students read aloud their written work to identify errors Timely and tactful corrections of pronunciation errors are necessary. Use real world activities to introduce new vocabulary. Use graphic and semantic organizers. Choose a topic. Write simple sentences. Put sentences together in paragraphs. Construct an essay. Follow step-by-step procedures in different workshops. Engage students in the respectful evaluation of other peers’ speech and pronunciation. Work in groups to get meaning from context. Students engage in question and answer sessions after reading. Use group writing. Students take turns writing sentences of a paragraph about a topic of their choice. Model appropriate pronunciation of key words. Select those words carefully. Facilitators of Language Don’ts Do not ask them to look up words in the dictionary. Do not assign long readings for them to read individually. Do not ignore the different types of writing. Ignore differences between narrative, argumentative, and expository writing. Do not force students to speak in public; they will speak in public when they feel ready. Do not provide the meaning of words. Do not select any reading just to get them to read. Do not ask beginner students to write extensively or about topics they dislike and are not interested in. Do not correct them on the spot for every single error to avoid loss of motivation. J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 19
  • 20. Table 2: Summary of findings: Language dimension Facilitators of Language Dos Vocabulary Reaching Comprehension Writing Oracy Use visual and auditory techniques to introduce vocabulary. Use articles or short journal articles related to the students’ areas of interest. Clearly model that we do not write how we speak. Adult students want to speak “American English.” Show them that there is no such thing. Highlight key words in presentations and readings. Have students discuss meaning and content with peers. Show students the difference between colloquial writing and college writing. Help them develop confidence. Having and accent is not equivalent to bad pronunciation. Use activities where students can identify the meanings of key concepts. Choose readings that relate to the course content and that are relevant for students’ professional work. Begin teaching how to write short sentences. Many do not know the basic structure of a simple sentence. Proper and timely correction is useful. Make them feel comfortable. Have students infer meaning from the assigned readings. Have students read in pairs or groups and summarize readings one section at a time. Use explicit examples related to the course content. Make writing meaningful. Be specific and direct in your corrections and suggestions. They expect clear and specific suggestions. Have students write meaningful sentences with key concepts. Provide guidelines or questions to guide reading. Teach step-by-step writing techniques. Let students know exactly what you expect. Provide meaningful opportunities for students to hear themselves speak. Encourage the use of key words in oral presentations and written assignments. Use pre-reading tasks before class. Have them do research on specific topics and come to class ready to read. Provide them with immediate feedback in both content and language use. Promote positive interaction between more proficient and less proficient peers. Students can comment on each other’s work. Facilitators of Language Don’ts Do not ask students to look up words in the dictionary and write sentences with those words. Do not make reading a chore. Many adult learners do not have time to read unless readings are relevant. Do not assign long and burdensome writing assignments. Do make writing important and meaningful. Do not criticize overtly or embarrass them in public. Do not use web dictionaries. Students will not discriminate between different definitions of polysemous words. Do not assign long and uninterrupted reading. There must be a short term, immediate purpose for reading. Do not ask students to write about uninteresting and irrelevant topics. Do not use condescending comments or sound patronizing in your corrections. N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 520
  • 21. Finally, the facilitators agreed that closing the lesson or workshop with summary activities is important to tie the different topics together and to establish expectations for the next meeting. Adult learners want to be guided through their learning process. Other important factors to consider when working with adult learners are: setting the stage, time management, and closing activities. Many adult learners have been out of the academic environment for some time, and returning to school is a big step and challenge. Creating a welcoming and equitable learning environment for adult learners is necessary to help them succeed. To set the stage, the facilitators recommended organizing the classroom in a way that fosters group work, collaboration, and interpersonal communication. This class arrangement helps establish clear and realistic expectations and helps students know from the beginning what they must do, how they will be evaluated, and what they will learn. The facilitators also argued that adult learners expect them to know the time frames for the different activities and to allow some flexible space to accommodate their needs. Informing students about time frames and possible modifications was identified as another convenient strategy for setting the stage in an adult environment. In addition, the facilitators argued that time management is a challenge, especially in content courses. Facilitators of content must juggle between teaching of content and ensuring that students meet the language objectives. Flexibility is the key in time management. One facilitator recommended laying out a blue print of the different activities that will take place during the lesson or workshop. This gives facilitators a clear notion of what to do and when. It also allows them to make necessary changes to adjust to the schedule or to determine which material will be covered in an upcoming workshop if that were necessary. Planning ahead is essential. The secret to keeping adult learners engaged is balance: too many activities will overwhelm the adult learners, and too few activities will turn the class into a lecture. Finally, the facilitators agreed that closing the lesson or workshop with summary activities is important to tie the different topics together and to establish expectations for the next meeting. Adult learners want to be guided through their learning process. They come to class with a wealth of knowledge, but they are somewhat scared about coming back to school and being able to meet the expectations. The facilitators agreed that full disclosure of activities, assignments, expectations, and upcoming work is necessary to lower the students’ affective filter and give them a sense of control of their learning process. Closing activities are, perhaps, one of the most important parts of the workshop. Activities such as exit slips, random questioning, 1-minute reflections, and 1-minute papers all proved effective and adult learners enjoy them. As they think critically about the topics discussed in class, they come to conclusions that definitely show that they were engaged and thinking. The goal is to make sure that students understand and that they feel comfortable with what they learned. J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 21
  • 22. Concluding Arguments Sound teaching practices are essential for the appropriate management of academic settings. Having clear views and ideas of who their students are will give teachers an extra edge that will facilitate their understanding of the academic environment and the development of effective and meaningful lesson plans. Children and adult learners differ in many ways. Their motivations and aspirations are different, and their learning processes vary greatly depending on their age, personalities, and styles. Teachers must be prepared to work with a diverse environment to make it welcoming for all students alike. The United States has experienced a significant increase in adult education and literacy programs during recent years (Sticht, 2002). This increase presents new opportunities and challenges in the educational field and requires that educators understand the individualities of this increasing diverse population. Adult learners must focus on acquiring and learning information they can apply immediately in their work and everyday lives. For immigrant Hispanic adult learners, as a minority within andragogy, pursuing higher education can be a challenge. Hispanic adult learners seek the same educational goals of self-improvement, but language and English literacy can act as barriers to participate in adult literacy programs. The Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model® is a teaching approach that helps Hispanic adult learners overcome those barriers and be successful. This model can be successfully implemented in higher education, but it is important to follow strict guidelines and recommendations to make it feasible and practicable. ★ References Alghizzi, T. (2014). Critical period hypothesis. Language in India, 14(1), 15. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational Psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Burden, P. (2004). The teacher as facilitators: Reducing anxiety in the EFL university classroom. JALT Hokkaido Journal, 8, 3-18. Chan, S. (2010). Applications of andragogy in multi- disciplined teaching and learning. Journal of Adult Education, 39(2), 25-35. Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Collier, V. & Thomas, W. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. Ginsberg, M.B. & Wlodkowski, R.J. (2009). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive teaching in college (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gómez, L., Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2005). Dual language education: A promising 50-50 model. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 145-164. Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381-391. Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered instruction: Best practices for ELLs in the mainstream. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 165-169. Harper, C. & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162. Honigsfeld, A. (2009). ELL programs: Not ‘one size fits all’. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(4), 166-171. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. McLeod, S.A. (2015). Jean Piaget. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/ piaget.html Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers’conceptions of learners’prior knowledge. Science Education, 88(6), 970-983. Pappano, L. (2011). Differentiated instruction reexamined. Harvard Education Letter, 27(3), 1-2. Pew, S. (2007). Andragogy and pedagogy as foundational theory for student motivation in higher education. Insight: A collection of faculty scholarship, 214-25. Pray, L. & Monhardt, R. (2009). Sheltered instruction techniques for ELLs. Science and Children, 26(7), 34-38. Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101. Sticht, T. G. (2002). The rise of adult education and literacy system in the United States: 1600-2000. In Comings, J., Garner, B., & Smith, C. (Eds.) (2002). The annual review of adult learning and literacy: Volume 3. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Thomas, W. P, & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Report presented at the California Association for Bilingual Education Conference, San Diego. Tissington, L. & LaCour, M. (2010). Strategies and content areas for teaching English language learners. Reading Improvement, 47(3), 166-172. Toledo López, A. & Pentón Herrera, L. (2015). Dual language immersion in higher education: An introduction. NABE Perspectives, 37(2), 24-28. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Vosniadou, S. (2001). How children learn. Brussels, Belgium: International Academy of Education. Dr. Angel A. Toledo-López completed his Ph.D. in Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University where he majored in American Politics, Research Methodology, and Comparative Politics. He attended the Institute of Survey Research at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and was co-primary investigator of Puerto Rico’s second wave of the World Values Survey that is conducted from the University of Michigan. After completing his Ph.D., Dr. Toledo-López pursued a law degree from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law, and obtained his Juris Doctor in 2006. He worked both as a full time professor at the Universidad del Este in Carolina, Puerto Rico, and as a litigating attorney, until he relocated to the state of Maryland. He is Associate Professor of Social Science at the Universidad del Este and teachers at the Ana G. Méndez University System, Capital Area Campus in Wheaton, Maryland where innovative teaching methods are used in the implementation of the System’s Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®. He facilitates social sciences, statistics, and criminal justice courses, and trains faculty members in processes and techniques related to the Dual Language Immersion Model. His most recent publications and his research interests run a gamut of topics that include political psychology; perception and conduct of actors in the judicial system; research methodology; and language acquisition among adults. His contact information is lcdotoledo@gmail.com. Professor Luis J. Pentón-Herrera is a Cuban- born United States Marine Corps Veteran. His academic career began in the state of Maryland immediately after completing his military service. He obtained a Master’s of Education in Adult Education from Strayer University and a Graduate Certificate in Teaching of English as a Second Language from the American College of Education. His passion for teaching and languages led him to pursue another Master’s of Science degree in Spanish Education from NOVA Southeastern University that he completed in May of 2016 and a Master’s of Education in Curriculum and Instruction with specialization in Bilingual Education from the American College of Education. Professor Pentón- Herrera is a certified K-12 teacher in the state of Virginia and Maryland where he has both Spanish and ESL endorsements. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the Ana G. Méndez University System-Capital Area Campus where he teaches Spanish, English, and Education courses and trains faculty members in areas related to the System’s Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®. Professor Pentón-Herrera is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Reading, Language, and Literacy at Concordia University Chicago. His current research focuses on language acquisition, bilingual and multicultural education, and teaching techniques and strategies for ELLs. He can be contacted at luis.penton@gmail.com. N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 522
  • 23. Introduction Today’s digital native students are driving their own learning outside the classroom (Prenski, 2001). We know that learning a second language can be enhanced if done in a way that combines necessary learning or life activities and the target language (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Tools such as apps and web resources including interactive lessons, games, and videos are not only fun; they can naturally facilitate language development via platforms, topics and activities that are engaging, motivating and rewarding. Such technology tools can help set the stage for ongoing self- directed learning activities to prompt, enhance and foster biliteracy for life. In addition to facilitating learning outside the classroom in informal home and community settings, apps and websites and videos offer enticing opportunities to develop language in the context of formal school settings, as well. Currently, 38 states in the country (Gil, 2014) and 359 California schools offer dual language programs that teach two languages to students dominant in English and in another target world language (California Association for Bilingual Education, 2015). California in 2011 became the first to begin issuing a state level Seal of Biliteracy (Seal of Biliteracy, 2014) and currently boasts over 800 schools that participate and issue the seals to graduating students. The present review offers insights and tips for boosting fun in Korean language development in both informal and formal settings, using apps and web resources. However, the discussion of guiding principles regarding how to review and use apps may be applicable to other languages including English as well (see Chen, 2015). This article includes three main components. The first component is the presentation of highlights of 22 apps and websites (Table 1), and is based on a review of about 40 apps and 20 websites that aid in learning Korean. A full review of each of all 40 apps and 20 websites is available elsewhere (look for the Wikipedia entry on this topic, coming soon!). The second component is that I will comment in this article on different rubrics available for both evaluating and creating language apps and websites. Finally, in the third component, I will provide an overview of several frameworks, guidelines and standards as additional resources to inform Korean language instructional planning as deemed appropriate by local entities. Overview of Available Korean Language Materials In the popular market, there exist several different types of Korean language materials and resources. There are resources that target adult travelers or business audiences, and address conversational or cultural topics, with typically nonnative Korean speakers targeted. Books and audio CDs (published mostly in the United States) generally comprise the bulk of this first market, although there are online tools such as apps, websites and videos as well in this category. There are also materials targeting younger learners and these typically are Funtastic Apps and Web-based Resources for Korean Language Development Grace McField, California State University, San Marcos Asian and Pacific Islander J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 ★ NABE PER SPE CT IVE S 23
  • 24. for native speaker teachers who would teach a heritage or home language in a home, school or other community setting. For this age group, there exists a relatively small number of resources for nonnative speakers of Korean to develop their language skills. The majority of Korean language books, cartoons, movies and YouTube videos alike typically assume oral language proficiency in Korean, or at least access to a native Korean speaker such as a parent, other family member, or teacher. The majority of these are published in South Korea and available in Korean book stores, though they are increasingly becoming available online (on Korean websites). Favorite Funtastic Korean Language Apps and Websites Korean language apps and websites run the gamut in terms of domains and topics and skills targeted. They cover topics of language skills such as Hangul or the Korean alphabet, phonics, vocabulary, conversation or phrases, pronunciation, reading. There are also apps related to Korean culture ranging from Korean soap operas (a.k.a. Korean dramas), Kpop (e.g., a game based on Psy’s Kangnam Style song), how to cook Korean food or desserts, or a dressup game of Korean dolls and traditional hanbok outfits. Table 1 below focuses on apps and websites related to language skills. Korean dictionaries, translators and typing programs are also included in Table 1 as additional resource. Table 1: Korean Language Apps and Websites Language Level Resources – APPS and Websites / Description Beginner to Intermediate (Rated Five Stars or Four Stars by this author’s test users) 1. Innovative (APP - Apple)Using a lively and engaging radio talk show format, focuses on conversation rather than vocabulary. Organized by category, for each talk show there is an audio lesson, audio review, audio dialog, vocabulary from the audio, line by line audio, expansion, and lesson notes. Categories include, Where did you learn to speak Korean like that! First Impressions, Farewells, Basic Bootcamp, and Korean Culture Class. A free app similar to Rocket Languages, which is fee-based, Innovative has many more features without the monthly cost. 2. Hangul (Korean) (APP - Apple) This app has videos narrated in English, while the characters speak in Korean with English subtitles. Every time there’s a new word, it is spelled out and pronounced slowly for the user to understand it and say it. It provides categories of words, sentences, and the Hangul alphabet. Caveat: there are only a few sections of each category. 3. Hangul (Koean) 101 (APP - Apple) This app first allows the user to learn a letter, vowel, or syllable, and then review what was learned at the ‘table.’ Then, the user can piece together words, take a quiz, and check progress. Uses images, typing and quizzes to teach how to write syllables using the Korean Hangul alphabet. A good beginner-level app. Caveat: has occasional ads. 4. Korean Word Power (APP - Apple) This app is wonderful. It features different levels, Korean word pronunciation using a dictionary, grammar, Hangul alphabet, and more. This app just gets better and better. 5. Learn Korean (APP - Apple) This app is a phrase book and is organized by categories such as medical, romance, transportation, eating out. The app pronounces phrases the user listens to. Allows user to add phrases to a favorites list. 6. Learn and Play (APP – Apple) This app is a 5-in-1. It has different levels. The beginner level, practice 1, has 7 short objectives. There are different forms of greetings, numbers, and different kinds of drinks. Once each of the tasks is completed, a reward is given (e.g., you can win a bronze medal). Caveat: there are some glitches and it crashes once in a while, but hopefully that will be fixed soon. 7. Mango Languages (APP and Website options) www.mangolanguages.com This website provides conversational and grammar goals at the beginning of each lesson. Organized by themes, vocabulary instruction is given using flashcards and the correctly modeled pronunciation. Users can then record their own pronunciation and compare the two. Themes include greetings, discussing the day and the weather, discussing Korea, and food. Grammar notes accompany each lesson and address sentence structure, pronunciation and proper word choice. Each subsequent lesson builds on the vocabulary and knowledge from previous lessons nicely. English is used to scaffold Korean learning. Unlike Memrise (not reviewed here) and other language resources, Mango Languages does not include Hangul instruction. (Note: In Memrise and Quizlet, users search for lessons and quizzes, respectively, designed by other users.) 8. Official Site for Korea Tourism http://english.visitkorea.or.kr This is a free site designed for tourists. The content is divided into three different levels and includes grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, conversations to facilitate activities such as using transportation from the airport, making hotel reservations and hospital visits. Topics are organized as follows: a. Beginning Korean for foreigners living in their home country b. Korean when arriving in Korea c. Korean while living in Korea. N AB E PERSPECTI VES ★ J U LY – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 524