DOCUMENT RESUME FL 023 204 ED 386 927 Burkart, Grace Stovall; Sheppard, Ken AUTHOR Content-ESL across.the USA. Volume III: A Training TITLE Packet. A Descriptive Study of Content-ESL Practices. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. INSTITUTION Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages SPONS AGENCY Affairs (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE 95 CONTRACT T291004001 140p.; For Volumes I, A Technical Report, and II, A NOTE Practical Guide, see FL 023 202 and FL 023 203, respectively. Teaching Guides (For Guides Classroom Use PUB TYPE Tests/Evaluation Instruments (160) Teacher) (052) MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE *Curriculum Development; Elementary Secondary DESCRIPTORS Education; *English (Second Language); *Instructional - Materials; *Lesson Plans; Limited English Speaking; Second Language Instruction; State Surveys; *Teaching Methods *Content Area Teaching; Sheltered English IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT The 15 guides included in this training packet were compiled from data gathered during a 3-year study of content-English-as-a-Second-Language (content-ESL) programs across the United States. These 15 guides are intended as stepping stones and idea-generators and include information on curriculum development, material selection and adaptation, and lesson planning. Guidance is also offered on choosing techniques, learning cooperatively, and teaching thematically. Sample surveys, checklists, assessment protocols, and student profiles are included along with program profiles and additional resources. The guides include: (1) (2) "What Is Sheltered "When Is a Content-ESL Program a Good Idea?"; Content Instruction?"; (3) "Where Can You Go for Additional Help?"; (4) "What Should You Read if You Want To Know More about this Approach?"; (5) "What Does a Content-ESL Program Look Like?"; (6) "How Do You Decide Who Should Be in Content-ESL"; (7) "How Will Your Curriculum Change?"; (8) "How Are You Going To Access These Students?"; (9) "How Can You Identify Good Content-ESL Material"; (10) "How Can You Adapt the Material You're Using Now?"; (11) "What Are You Going To Do if You Can't Speak the Students' Language?"; (12) "What Can You Do When You Have a Linguistically Diverse Group in One Classroom?"; (13) "How Can You Make Your Program Fit Your School's and District's Goals?"; and (14 and 15) "How Do You Write a Lesson Plan for Students with Limited English Proficiency?" Contains a substantial refereneA list. (NAV) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office Of Educattonal Research and improyereni "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRAN TED BY CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality Points of view or opinions staled in this TO THE EDUCATIONAL document do not necessarily represent RESOUFICES official OERI position INFORMATION CENTER or policy (ERIC).- Submitted to Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF CORTEXT-ESL PRACTICES Contract Number T291004001 Training Packet Material Task 19.3 Volume III Submitted to Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs Comiteant-MIL barons ths 712,05.2 2sainainag Pocket Grace Stovall Burkart Ken Sheppard Center for Applied Linguistics 1118 22nd Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 3 Acknowledgements training modules. Many people contributed to the development of these administrators across the country who participated in the First and foremost are the many students, teachers, and their development. The study could not have OBEMLA-funded study of content-ESL practices that led up to been produced, without their active collaboration. taken place, nor would these modules would ever have getting the the project under way, and his colleague In addition, Tim D'Emilio (OBEMLA) was instrumental in draft. Milagros Lanauze provided helpful feedback on an earlier of inspiration and support throughout. In On the CAL side, Jodi Crandall and Donna Christian were sources study and a prominent content-ESL teacher educator, addition, Deborah Short, a key research associate on the made substantive contributions, as did Ann Galloway. their fine professional support: dotti kauffman Finally, by() other CAL staff members should be mentioned for general efficiency are much appreciated. and Margaret Crandall. Their organizational skills and MY STUDENTS? GOING TO HELP ME TEACH HOW ARE THESE MATERIALS undertaken during a three-year study of content-ESL programs These guides were compiled from data gathered Education's Office of Bilingual funding from the U.S. Department of by the Center for Applied Linguistics with interviews, The information is a distillation of countless Education and Minority Languages Affairs. Every U.S. public schools housing such instructional programs. questionnaires, surveys, and visits to twenty that is, anywhere from limited English proficient (LEP) population, school we looked at closely had a significant LEP students content-ESL (C-ESL) programs, meaning that tbe 98 to over 500 students. All of these had social studies, or instruction in ESL and a content areamath, received instruction in classes that combined such classes and were either an entire school day or part of one in science, for example. LEP students spent for other classes. then mainstreamed modular, and adaptable: and idea-generators. They are malleable, The guides arc intended as stepping stones tbe guides, teachers with one or more of the (abets. In using each can be used individually or in combination content-ESL in their who have already successfully established and administrators will learn from their peers consult the wealth information on the subject, leaden arc advised to schools. For more theoretical and detailed assembled with bibliographies that are provided. They were of literature refetred to throughout, or the You may, for elementary and secondary teacherb in mind. experienced and novice, ESL and subject matter, don't speak classes are suddenly filled with students that example, be a high school physics teacher whose Or you may preparing for a career as a special educator. English very well. Or you may be an undergraduate point of view, what you Greek-English bilingual program. Whatever your be working as a math teacher in a their other subjects? The students learn English without falling behind in want to know is: How can I help my question. Here are some more specific questions. content-ESL approach was devised to answer that C-ESL Guide 1) When is a content-ESL program a good idea? (see Guide 2) What is sheltered content instruction? (see C-ESL Guide 3) Where can you go for additional help? (see C-ESL this approach? (see C-ESL Guide 4) What should you read if you want to know more about C-ESL Guide 5) What does a content-ESL program look like? (see (see C-ESL Guide 6) How do you decide who should I:c in content-ESL? Guide 7) How will your curriculum change? (see C-ESL C-ESL Guide 8) How are you going to assess these students? (see (see C-ESL Guide 9) How can you identify good content-ESL material? (see C-ESL Guide 10) How can you adapt tbe material you're using now? students' language? (see C-ESL Guide 11) What are you going to do if you can't speak the N.. SP in one classroom? (see C-ESL Guide What can you do when you have a linguistically diverse group 12) and district's goals? (see C-ESL Guide 13) How Caff you make your program fit your school's 14, limited English proficiency? (see C-ESL Guides How do you write a lesson plan for students with 15) 5 For The packet's aim is to provide ideas that work for designing, implementing, and sustaining such programs. should example, the lesson plans included (C-ESL Guide 15) can be used inunediately; in the process, a teacher have gain a better understanding of what this approach is all about. They will show you bow other educators It is our hope that the experience and met the same challenges you face in your linguistically diverse classroom. instruction wisdom teachers, students, and administrators shared with us will help make this effective method of work for you. Here is the list of guides. C-ESL Guides Content-ESL: General Background 1 Designing, Implementing. and Sustaining Content-ESL Programs 2 Additinnal Resources 3 Annotated Bibliography 4 Program Prufiles 5 Sample Surveys, Checklists, Assessment Protocols, and Student Profiles Guidelines: Developing Curricula 7 Guidelines: Evaluating Assessment Guidelines: Selecting Materials Guidelines: Adapting Material 10 Guidelines: Choosing Techniques 11 Guidelines: Learning Cooperatively 12 Guidelines: Teaching Thematically 13 Guidelines: Planning Lessons 14 Sample Lesson Plans 15 2 C-ESL Guide No. 1 a., Content-ESL: General Background , i 7 C-ESL Guide No. 1 Content-ESL: General Background Introduction occurred in the last few demographics of the school-age population has As we all know, a dramatic shift in the proficiency in English, and they minority students now enter school with limited years: many more language challenge, districts are mastering new subject matter. To meet Ihic must learn a new language while and cultural redirecting staff development toward linguistic restructuring schools, reinventing curricula, and integrate experimenting with content-ESL approaches that awareness. On the classroom level, many are then at follows, we take a look first at these new learners, instruction in language and content. In what is to provide general trends in content instruction. The aim language and language teaching, and finally at instruction. and implement a program of integrated background information that you can use to plan I. The Learner and that is cultural predispositions with them into the classroom, Learners carry cognitive, affective, social, and diversity now apparent in our than of language majority students. The ethnic no less true of language minority look. complexities than ever before. Let's take a closer classrooms requires us to be more aware of these level of languages, learn how to talk and therefore, at some To begin with, children, regardless of their native with schooling if they have not mastered the code associated consciousness, how to make language work. Even in their intentions to family, friends, and strangers when they start school, they have still learned how to convey differences can influence their formative linguistic various social settings (Lindfors, 1987). Cultural who may their discourse rules along such dimensions as development, however. For example, cultures differ in volume, and pitch 1983); there are also differences in pace, pauses, talk when az.d for how long (Philips, 1970, Similarly, in some cultures but of passivity in others. (Tannen, 1986). Speaking softly is a sign of respect cultures and as excessive in others. shifts in pitch are perceived as normal in some of literacy that equips them for subsequent Pre-schoolers raised in print-oriented societies also acquire a sense labels, stop signs, fast food logos, and the like, development (Heath, 1983; Hudelson, 1989). Once exposed to understand that print as well in books and magazines, they gradually come to as well as to connected discourse distinguish writing from early as the age of three, for example, they can as speech conveys merling. As how to language looks and works. Even before they know drawing and begin to hypothesize about how written Even in and 'read' such texts to themselves and others. form actual letters, they create texts that carry meaning have an effect rarely see anyone reading or writing, which can such print-rich societies, however, some children readers and writers (Hudelson. 1989). on their view of themselves as child's conception of school, and conflicts sometimes Culturally induced predispositions can also determme a student expectations and actual classroom practices. If a arise from a mismatch between culturally determined her teacher as for example, she may have a hard time accepting otapects teachers to be remote and authoritarian, universally accepted corpus, as Similarly, routines that ruess rote memorization of a a counselor or facilitator. for the uncertainty around the world, do not always prepare students well are common in many schools the inductive activities associated with U.S. education. On associated with the problem-solving, inquiry, and than ours does, and many teachers find it easier to other hand, many societies accord educators more respect students than with language majority students. form a productive relationship with language minority lead to a dissonance that Krashen (1985) calls the In short, unfamiliar approaches, roles, and language can stemming from the learners' attitudes toward the 'affective filter.' Such factors as anxiety, poor motivation target language, and low self-confidence can keep them from using language input to promote their general development. Teachers should be particularly alert to that potential threat to the learning process. Learning styles (idiosyncratic approaches people take in learning new subjects or tackling new problems) are also at least partly determined by culture (Oxford, 1990a, 1991; Oxford, Ehrman, and Lavine, 1991). These styles are configurations of cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements that pervade all aspects of formal and informal learning, and more than twenty dimensions of learning style have been identified (Parry, 1984; Shipman and Shipman, 1985). These include preferences for global (cf. analytic) or visual (cf. auditory) presentation. In principle, learners seek learning situations compatible with their established preferences. Dunn (1991) suggests that what appears to be underachievement among minority groups in U.S. schools is at least in part attributable to these culturally determined differences in style. She points to a variety of studies that pinpoint culturally related style differences. In one, mean scores on one learning style inventory for African-American and Chinese-American children differed significantly on 15 of the 22 possible style variables examined. As a group, Chinese Americans wanted, among other things, to wNrk alone, while African Americans preferred working with peers. This is noteworthy because of the popularity of cooperative learning techniques. In another comparison, Dunn found that Chinese-American and Mexican-American children differed on only eight major style traits. Again, a preference among Chinese-American students for working alone emerged, while the Mexican-American students preferred group work. Compared with the Mexican- American students, the Chinese Americans preferred less tangible sensory intake, more variety, and morning work. In still other studies, Dunn noted widely discrepant differences in Greek Americans, members of various subcultures in the United States, and the general population. There is evidence that learners do better in classes where the teaching matches their learning style preferences (Hatch, 1983), though at least one model, Kolb's (1984), seeks to accommodate four principal styles in a single lesson. These he identifies as learning through immediate experience, through reflection, through abstract conceptualization, and through action. While playing to the differing style preferences of students, the model also helps learners develop a facility in other styles they do not commonly use. In Kolb's view, the ideal is to adopt that style that best serves the learning task. Still another aspect of diversity is language: the students' proficiencies in the native language and in English. Cummins (1981), for example, distinguishes the social language required for face-to-face communication (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills: BICS) from the academic language required for success in schools (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency: CALP). While social language is highly contextualized via situational cues. gestures, and other extralinguistic features from which the learner can infer meaning, academic language must often be deciphered from the features of a text that obeys conventions of formal discourse. While proficiency in social language can be acquired by interacting with speakers of the target language, watching television, going to the movies, and so on, proficiency in academic language develops more slowly because exposure is less frequent and the language is more complex and abstract. Thus, while fluent in the use of social language, students may lack the academic language proficiency necessary for effective participation in the classroom. Reading and writing tasks required in the classroom draw increasingly on academic language proficiency as students advance through the scbool system. Some researchers maintain that native language literacy can have a facilitating effect in the performance of these cognitively demanding tasks, though they disagree on just how much transfer of skills between languages is possible. According to Cummins (1991), the learner must reach critical thresholds in first language reeding skills and in second language proficiency for such transfer to occur. Those critical thresholds are still poorly defined. however. One final variable, motivation, should also be examined. According to Krashen (1985) and others, a lack of motivation can activate the 'affective filter' (Krashen. 1985) and thus interfere with language acquisition. Gardner and Lambert (1972) distinguish two type: of motivation relevant to language acquisition, integrative 2 and instrumental. A learner who is integratively motivated wants to emulate the speakers of the language and integrate socially. Learners who are instrumentally motivated want to use the language to accomplish goals in the short term (e.g., to pass a qualifying examination) or long term (*.g., to enhance future career opportunities). While an instrumental motivation is not necessarily associated with positive attitudes toward the language, its speakers, and their culture, it can have a facilitating effect on language acquisition if learners perceive the course content and instructional goals V: be consistent with their personal goals. 2. Language and Language Teaching Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual shift in language classrooms. In the 1960s, the objects of study --what was taughtwere the target language system and four major skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Today, by contrast, that system is taught indirectly. Instead of a focus on the language per se, there is a focus on use of the language to learn other things. Instead of attending to grammar and phonology, students attend to messages and content. Several research strands.have contributed to this shift. In the 1960s, the prevailing approach was the Audio lingual Method (ALM). Its underlying theory of language was structuralism, and its underlying theory of learning was behavioral psychology. Under these theories, the learner's brain (cf. mind) was considered an empty vessel that had to be filled through limited exposure and In ALM, therefore, classtime was devoted primarily to developing skills by means of habit controlled practice. that had been isolated by the structuralists. formation drills in which students practiced those language "patterns In 1965, .Chomsky proposed a different view: in contrast to the behaviorists and their stimulus-response model, he argued that a biological mechanism governs the process of language acquisition and that the learning of language is different from the learning other things, a distinctly mentalistic concept. Since, in his view, stimulus-response was inadequate to account for a child's ability to generate unheard utterances, Chomsky explained such utterances as the natural outcome of a process in which linguistic input triggers the child's innate predisposition to experiment with the forms of a language and discover its structure. The result is an abstract mental representation of the grammar of the language, and Chomsky's research program has as its aim the discovery of those rules that characterize that grammar. Since they are highly abstract, Chomsky and his disciples do not claim that those niles possess 'psychological reality" or that they can be transformed easily into pedagogically useful material. Although Chomsky's theories were much debated, they did not immediately serve as the basis for a new approach to the teaching of language. But the time was ripe for a paradigmatic shift away from behaviorism, though the direction it would take was determined more by psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic research than linguistic theory. One theory to emerge was Krashen's Monitor Theory (Krashen, 1985), which is essentially a series of untested 'hypotheses' and metaphors that collectively promote a view of how proficiency in a second language is optimally achieved. There are five principal hypotheses. One has to do with the 'affective filter" discussed above. Another claims that speakers develop second language proficiency in two distinct ways: they "acquire" language in a naturalistic way, unconsciously and without formal instruction, or they "learn" language through formal instruction, with attentioo given to the rules of grammar and the detection and correction of errors. The linguistic knowledge developed in these two ways plays two different roles in communication. While the acquired system is responsible for the initiation of utterances, the rules of the learned system serve only to monitor or edit utterances before, during, or after production (a third hypothesis). Moreover, for the monitor to operate, the speaker must have enough time, attend to the form of the language (as opposed to the meaning), and know the appropriate rule. Krashen secs acquisition as the more important of the two means of developing language. People acquire 3 0