Promoting Literacy Development in Bilingual Contexts

Promoting Literacy Development in Bilingual Contexts Written by: Penny Collins, Ph.D., Department of Education, University of California, Irvine Introduction Although the definition of bilingualism is a complex issue (for an in-depth discussion, please see http://literacyencyclopedia.ca/index.php?fa=items.show&topicId=236), it is an issue that has sparked tremendous interest and debate among policymakers, researchers and parents (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006; Bailey, 2007; Cummins, 1993; Gersten et al., 2007). One hotly debated issue centers on whether bilingualism is additive or subtractive. Here researchers and educators ask whether literacy instruction should be provided using an additive approach, whereby children’s first languages are valued and maintained as they acquire an additional language (Cummins, 1983; Lee & Oxelson, 2006), or within a subtractive framework, in which children acquire the dominant language of the community in a learning setting in which they often lose or fail to develop proficiency in their home language (Wong-Fillmore, 2000). For example, English-only instruction may reflect a subtractive framework. Advocates of English-only instruction have expressed concerns that bilingual instruction would limit instructional time in English, thereby impeding English reading and language development (Genesee, 1987; Porter, 1990; Rossell & Baker, 1996). In contrast, proponents of additive approaches, such as bilingual education, believe that bilingualism itself does not interfere with literacy development in either language (Yeung, Marsh, & Suliman, 2000). Instead, bilingual instruction may facilitate reading development in the dominant language of the community (see Francis, Lesaux, & August, 2006; Slavin & Cheung, 2005). Key Research Questions 1. What are the different models for providing literacy and language instruction for bilingual children? 2. What language skills must be promoted for bilingual students? 3. What do we know about instructional techniques/best practices for teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) and French as a Second Language (FSL) students? Recent Research Results What are the different models for providing literacy and language instruction for bilingual children? There are several models through which school programs can promote bilingualism among its students. However, before considering the programs themselves, one must first consider broad categories of providing bilingual education. First, there are Collins, P.

Page 1 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca

programs that are designed to promote language and literacy skills exclusively in the dominant language of the community, such as English or French, for language minority children. The second broad category includes programs designed to promote children’s proficiency in a language other than English, such as immersion or heritage language programs. The following program promotes English language proficiency and literacy skills exclusively for minority language speakers: Majority Language Immersion Majority language immersion programs are those in which language minority students are expected to learn the majority language once they enter school, receiving little or no instruction in their home language (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). Indeed, these programs provide literacy instruction exclusively in the dominant language. Although some immersion programs provide no formalized supports to facilitate learning English, structured English immersion programs phase in English instruction systematically with a heavy emphasis on initially building vocabulary (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). In Canada, the structure of English or French immersion varies province by province, yet they often involve placing minority language speakers immediately in general education classes with monolingual speakers of English or French with separate classes to build oral language skills in English or French as a second language. The following programs promote language proficiency and literacy skills in a language other than the majority language: Immersion Programs Immersion programs are those in which children receive at least half of their instruction in a language other than their home language, such as French or Spanish. Because the primary goal of immersion programs is to enable native English speaking children to achieve full academic proficiency in another language, they receive both explicit language/literacy instruction and content-area instruction in that second language (Genesee, 1985). There are two main ways in which immersion programs may vary. The first reflects the quantity of instruction in the second language. Full immersion programs are those in which children receive all their instruction in the second language, whereas children receive a combination of both English and second language instruction in partial immersion programs (Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison & Lacroix, 1999). Although partial immersion programs may maintain a 50:50 ratio of English to second language throughout Kindergarten to Grade 12, immersion programs may also vary the ratio as a function of grade level. That is, children may initially receive all of their instruction in the second language in the primary grades, with English reading instruction introduced in third grade and gradually increased until half the instructional time is in English and half is in the second language (Comeau et al., 1999; Genessee, 1985). The second way in which immersion programs vary reflects the time when instruction in the second language begins. In early immersion programs, instruction in the second Collins, P.

Page 2 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca

language begins once students initially enter school. In contrast, in late immersion programs, children receive several years of instruction in English before instruction in that second language begins (Comeau et al., 1999). To illustrate, Canadian children typically begin early French immersion programs in kindergarten or first grade, but late French immersion programs typically begin in sixth or seventh grade. A unique model of immersion instruction is the dual-immersion, or two-way immersion model, in which instruction is provided in two languages. Within each dual-immersion class, there are approximately equal numbers of students who speak English and the second instructional language at home. Thus, dual-immersion programs provide students with peer models of native speakers of both languages (Giacchino-Baker & Piller, 2006; Valdés, 1997). Although educators and researchers were initially concerned that immersion programs would impede the participating children’s development of their English literacy skills (see Genesee, 1987), current research has found that initial lags in English reading development disappear within two years once English instruction is introduced to students enrolled in early French immersion programs (Genesee & Jared, 2008; Obadia, 1996). Heritage Language Programs Heritage languages are typically defined as languages other than a country’s official language. For example, in Canada, languages other than Aboriginal languages, English and French, are often considered heritage languages. In heritage language programs, students receive the majority of their instruction in English and some additional classes in their heritage language. These classes may be offered during regular school hours or outside regular school hours. Heritage language programming is a form of additive bilingualism, in that a children’s home language (the heritage language) continues to be developed and the first culture continues to be valued while the second language (English or French) is added (Cummins, 1983; Lee & Oxelson, 2006). Indeed, although the primary purpose of heritage language programs is the promotion of students’ self-esteem and appreciation of their cultural backgrounds (Feuerverger, 1997; Lee, 2002), children’s proficiency in their heritage languages has been found to facilitate their acquisition of English (Cummins, 1983) and may contribute to higher academic achievement (Kennedy & Park, 1994; Rumberger & Larson, 1998; Slavin & Cheung, 2005). What language skills must be promoted for bilingual students? Scholars have long recognized the distinction between the social use of language and the language of the classroom (please see Cummins, 1980). Academic language differs from conversational language in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and discourse patterns. For example, its vocabulary is broader and consists of abstract words that are complex and include roots, prefixes, and suffixes (Scarcella, 2003). Similarly, academic language relies more heavily on the use of complex grammatical structures, such as the use of the passive voice or relative and conditional clauses (Bailey, 2007; Scarcella, 2003). Whereas bilingual children often acquire conversational language through everyday Collins, P.

Page 3 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca

interactions (Bailey, 2007), the complexity of academic language requires that it be taught as early as the primary grades and consistently across content areas (August & Hakuta, 1997; Bailey, 2007; Gersten et al., 2007; Goldenberg, 2006; Scarcella, 2003; Schleppegrell, 2001, 2004; Snow & Fillmore, 2000). What do we know about instructional techniques/best practices for teaching minority language students? As general education classrooms grow more diverse and teachers are expected to meet the varied needs of their students, there is increasing demand for understanding how best to differentiate instruction to teach and support students who are minority language speakers (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006; Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006; Gersten et al., 2007). Recent research suggests that the best instructional practices for native English speakers identified by the National Panel Review (2000) may also be effective for students who are English learners (Francis, Rivera et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2007; Shanahan & Beck, 2006). In general, English language learners tend to show similar growth as their native English speaking peers when they receive explicit instruction in phonological awareness, word recognition, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, spelling and writing (Kemp & Chiappe, 2006; Shanahan & Beck, 2006; Smith, 2008). Whereas English learners may show equivalent performance to their native English speaking peers on word-level measures such as word recognition and spelling by the end of first grade, English learners need greater support to develop text-level literacy skills, particularly in the domains of vocabulary and reading comprehension (Francis, Rivera et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2007; Lesaux, Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 2006). To close the achievement gap between minority- and majority-language speakers, educators must address differences in vocabulary and language proficiency (Carlo et al., 2004). Minority-language speakers require intensive, high quality vocabulary instruction that provides comprehensible (or “student-friendly”) definitions coupled with the rich use of examples, involves students in the meaningful use of new vocabulary both orally and in writing, and provides multiple opportunities to review the target words (Feldman & Kinsella, 2008; Francis, Rivera et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2007; Townsend & Collins, 2009). The regular use of cooperative learning groups and peer-assisted learning strategies can be particularly effective in promoting proficiency in the language of instruction, as they provide minority-language students with many meaningful and structured opportunities to both practice and master new vocabulary and the use of academic language (Calderón, Hertz-Lazavowitz, & Slavin, 1998; Klingner & Vaughn, 1996). Thus, although best practices for literacy instruction appear to be beneficial for language-minority students, they are likely to show greater success if they are given rich systematic vocabulary instruction and regular opportunities to use academic language in pairs and small groups. Conclusions and Future Directions Numerous models have been used to promote literacy skills that vary in the extent to which they promote biliteracy and proficiency in academic language in both languages among bilingual children. Although current research suggests that best practices for Collins, P.

Page 4 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca

reading instruction seem to have similar benefits for all students, whether they are majority or minority language speakers, there have been relatively few studies that have explicitly examined this issue (Shanahan & Beck, 2006). Thus, there is a clear need for further research to replicate initial findings and determine best practices, as well as to promote proficiency in academic language and literacy skills for bilingual students. Date Posted Online: 2008-11-27 16:00:13

Collins, P.

Page 5 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca

References August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy. 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. Bailey, A. L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Calderón, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students transitioning from Spanish to English reading. Elementary School Journal, 99, 153–165 Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188-215. Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Gradmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29-43. Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of proficiency in bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics: Current issues in bilingual education, 1980 (pp. 81-103). Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Cummins, J. (1983). Heritage language education: A literature review. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education. Cummins, J. (1993). Bilingualism and second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 51-70. Feldman, K., & Kinsella, K. (2008). Narrowing the language gap: The case for explicit vocabulary instruction in secondary classrooms. In L. Denti & G. Guerin (Eds.), Effective practice for adolescents with reading and literacy challenges (pp. 3-23). New York: Routledge. Feuerverger, G. (1997). “On the edges of the map”: A study of heritage language teachers in Toronto. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 39-53. Francis, D. J., Lesaux, N., & August, D. (2006). Language of instruction. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 365-413). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Houston, TX: Center on Instruction. Genesee, F. (1985). Second-language learning through immersion: A review of U.S. programs. Review of Educational Research, 55, 541-561. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology, 49, 140-147.

Collins, P.

Page 6 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades, An IES practice guide. Washington, DC: IES, Department of Education. Giacchino-Baker, R., & Piller, B. (2006). Parental motivation, attitudes, support, and commitment in a Southern California two-way immersion program. Journal of Latinos & Education, 5, 5-28. Goldenberg, C. (2006). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from 2 research reviews. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/12918. Kemp, S., & Chiappe, P. (2006). Teaching to read naturally: Examination of a fluency training program for third grade students. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Kennedy, E., & Park, H. S. (1994). Home language as a predictor of academic achievement: A comparative study of Mexican- and Asian-American youth. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 188-194. Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293. Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15, 117-133. Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It’s not my job”: K-12 teacher attitude toward students’ heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 453-477. Lesaux, N., Koda, K., Siegel, L. S., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Development of literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 75-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Obadia, A. A. (1996). La formation du professeur d’immersion francaise: Une perpective historique (The development of the French immersion teacher: An historical perspective). Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 271-284. Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic Books. Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 7–69 Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of Education, 71, 68-92. Scarcella, R. C. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on English Language Learners. Oakland, CA: Regents of the University of California Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12, 431–459. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, P.

Page 7 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca

Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. L. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in secondlanguage learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 415-488). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Slavin, R., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247-284. Smith, K. A. (2008). Reading writers and writing readers: The impact of the Step Up to Writing literacy program on diverse 6th grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Snow, C. E., & Fillmore, L. W. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/jthompson/Resources/FillmoreSnow2000.pdf. Townsend, D. R., & Collins, P. (2009). Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: An intervention study. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 993-1019. Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 391-429. Wong-Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39, 203-210. Yeung, A. S., Marsh, H. W., & Suliman, R. (2000). Can two tongues live in harmony: Analysis of the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88) longitudinal data on the maintenance of home language. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 1001-1026. To cite this document: Collins, P. (2008). Promoting literacy development in bilingual contexts. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development (pp. 1-8). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Retrieved from http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=258

Collins, P.

Page 8 of 8

http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca