DOCUMENT RESUME RC 008 616 95 ED 108 811 Orvik, James M. AUTHOR Four Years of, Bilingual Education: The Yupik Language TITLE Program in Southwestern Alaska. Alaska Univ., Fairbanks. Center for Northern INSTITUTION Educational Research. National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, SPONS AGENCY D.C. PUB DATE Feb 75 NE-G-00-3-4006 GRANT NOTE 113p. MF-$0.76 HC-$5.70 PLUS POSTAGE EDES PRICE *Academic Achievement; *American Indians; *Bilingual DESCRIPTORS Education; Cultural Awareness; Cu iculum; kimos; Language Definitions; Educational Theories; ducation; 1- Skills; Material Development; *Primary *Program Evaluation 1 *Alaska; Yupik Language IDENTIFIERS -ABSTRACT In Fall, 1971, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) Bethel Agency implemented an experimental Yupik bilingual program-into the primary grades of 3 lower Kuskokwim village day schools. Simultaneously the Alaska State-Operated School System (ASOSS) introduced Yupik bilingual programming in a kindergarten classfoom at Bethel Elementary School. Both agencies shared certain program components (mainly in the areas of staff and materials development), and many of the concepts generated'by the BIA were subsequently incorporated by the ASOS bilingual program. This report presents the evaluation and research\findings of the first 3 years of both the BIA and ASOSS programs. In some cases, data are given for only one of the agency programs; however, where program similarity justifies, data are generalized to estimate conditions and outcomes for both agencies. Data range from formal language test data to impressionistic data where staff and community members were informally interviewed. An overview of bilingual education is given, defining its spectrum and listing. the BIA and ASOSS programs and where on the spectrum they exist./ The main program components (instruction, staff development, materials development, and community involvement) are analyzed by addressing prominent operational and theoretical questions which arose during the programs' first 3 years. (Author/NQ) *********************************************************************** DOcuments acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished , materials, not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. * *********************************************************************** Four Years of Bilingual Education: The Yupik Language program in Southwestern Alaska US IMPARTMENT OP HEALTH, EDUCATION& WELFARE NATIONAL Restrnme Or EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS Receive° FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN ATtN0 IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE James M. Orvik SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY Center for Northern Educational Research University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 The research reported herein was performed under National Institute of Education Grant No. 3-4006, U. S. Department Contractors undertaking of Health, Education, and Welfare. such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment in the con i Points of view or opinions stated do duct of the project. not, therefore, necessarily represent official National Institute of Education position or policy. e February, 1975 (10,0,2 Table of Contents page ... ,,.,,,, , . . Chapter I Introduction . ... ... ... .... ... ,, . .,,.. , , ..... . ... Organization of the Report ... 2 . .... uf Filingual Schooling .. ... , , 3 , . , ..., , Chapter II Research Methods .... .. , .. ... . , 10 .. . General Method 11 First Ye r Evaluation 'Design 12 19 Methods of Data Analysis 20 ., Initial comparability , , , , , . . , ... .. .... , . 21 Relative gains ~ .- , 21 , ,,.. .. .... Second Year Evaluation Design .. .... 22 . . Third Year Evaluation Design 24 Instruments 25 ,,,, ... ,,. .. Testing Procedures .... ... ..... , 29 . . .. . ...... Data Analysis ......... .... ... 30 .. Chapter III Evaluation Findings 32 ,., .. ..... First Year Results .. ... ... Initial Comparability ..... 32 , . . .. ,. , , , E,-idence for Gains ... , .. ... ... ... .... 36 ., , ,, .. .. ... . , .... ,,, ... Discussion .... , , 38 .. .. N .,,,, Second Year Results 41 100G,to t . page Ch(-pt(' iii c(y: Third Year Rt.!,u1t5; 44 Literacy SkilIF- 45 Numerical Skills .... ... ,,.,,,,, ... ... ... 48 Linguistic Skills 31 General Discussion , ... , ... 53 Chapter IV Issues in Bilingual Programs 56 Instruction Component ,,, , 57 ,, . ,,,. , Instructional Objectives .. , 57 .. .. Instructional Process .............. ... , . 69 .. , .. .... Curriculum Content ... .... 73 . . Staff Development .. , .... .. .... .... . , ...... ,. , . , 17 Materials Development ... ... .. .. ... .. ... 83 Community Involvement 88 , Chapter V Theory and Research for Bilingual Education in Alaska. 90 ... , . . ,., .. .. ....... .. Theory Issues , .. , .. .. ..... . . 91 Bilingual Education and Cultural Identity ........ ..... 91 Compound-coordinate bilingualism 91 Cultural identity 94 ... The language situation in Alaska .. .. ... 97 . ..... .... Formal and Informal Education Systems .. ...... 100 ... , , Research Directions .. , .... .......... ... .. 103 References 107 iii oO \ List of Tables page Summary of Evaluation Tests by Grade Level, Table 1 28 Evaluation Questions, Relevant Data and Analyses, and Table 2 Relation of Analyses to Questions, for First Year External Evaluation of 3ilingual Program., 33 Comparability of Experimental (E) and Comparison (C) Table 3 , and Yupik Receptive (YRV) Groups on Ravens (RCPM) , English Receptive (ERV) Vocabulary Pretests, 34 . Results of t-tests for differences between r,re and posttest Table 4 scores within Experimental and Comparison groups, on Yupik Receptive (YRV) , and English Receptive (ERV.) Vocabulary tests. 37 Results of t-tests for posttest comparability of Experi- Table 5 mental and Comparison groups on Yupik Receptive and English Receptive-(ERV) Vocabulary tests. 37 (YRV) , Results of t-tests of difference between means of gain Table 6 scores (post minus pretest) for Experimental and Com- parison groups on Yupik Receptive (YRV) and English Receptive (ERV) vocabulary tests. 39 Literacy Skills in Yupik. Table 7 46 Comparative Number Skills. Table 8 49 Comparative Linguistic Scores . Table 9 52 Summary of objectives for which performance was below Table 10 criterion in the First or Second Quarter. 61 iv ddo5 t Four Years of Bilingual Education: The Yupik Language Program in Southwestern Alaska James M. Orvik Center for Northern Educational Research CHAPTER I Introduction Bilingual education is established as a permanent force in rural Alaska. In the fall of 1971, the Bethel Agency of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs put an experimental Yupik bilingual program into operation in the primary grades of three lower Kuskokwim village day schools.. Simultaneously the Alaska State- Operated School System introduced Yupik bilingual programming in a kindergarten classroom in the Bethel Elementary School. These dates marked the operational beginning of a movement which had already seen a year of formal preparation preceded by extensive linguistic ground work which established the necessary orthography leading to literacy training and the development of materials to support the new curriculum. Both agencies shared certain program components, mainly in the areas of staff development and materials development, and many of the concepts generated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were subsequently incorporated by the Alaska State-Operated School System (ASOSS) bilingual program. However, two different sources of funds supported the programs, ASOSS funds coming from Title VII of ESEA, and BIA funds from the Bureau's Title I allocation. ::143906 develop- The following is an account of the first three years of pioneering comprehensive ment and implementation of Alaska's first and to date most together the bilingual education program, This report is an attempt to draw evaluator evaluation and research findings of the author while he was program for both the BIA and ASOSS bilingual programs and, for the current year, as to (NIE) , recipient of a research grant from the National Institute of Education identity.; In some study relationship between bilingual education and cultural but, where program cases, data exists only for one of the agency programs and outcomes similarity justifies, the data is generalized to estimate conditions generalizable for both agencys' efforts.. Where results and impressions are not data upon which the report is based to both programs, the author so states, The impressionistic data where the author range from formal language test data, to The informally interviewed staff and community to arrive at conclusions. by context, the basis author hopes to make clear either by direct statement or whether on relatively 'sound scientific data, upon which his conclusions rest, observations and impressions, or on the analysis of his own Organization of the Report of the present The report is organized into five chapters. The remader defining its spectrum and chapter gives an overview of bilingual education, the spectrum they exist, listing the programs the report covers, and where on used during the evaluation Chapter two presents the formal research methods evaluated4he BIA and ASOSS period,. Findings for the three years the author 2 00W Yupik bilingual program are presented in chapter three. Chapter four analyzes the main program components; instruction, staff development, materials development, and community involvement, by addressing prominent operational ) and theoretical questions which arose during the first three program years. These questions are drawn together as a group of major themes surrounding the total bilingual effort in Alaska. Finally, chapter five attempts to offer some perspective for evaluating bilingual education as a major sociological force, focusing on its potential for influencing the future survival of indigenous cultures within the dynamics of a changing Alaska. Definitions. of Bilingual Schoolin In the Draft Guidelines to the Bilingual Education Program for preparing program proposals under Title VII Elementary and Secondary Education Act , the following definition appears: (1967 amendment) Bilingual education is instruction in two languages and the use of those two languages as mediums of instruction for any part or all of the school curriculum. Study of the history and culture associated with a student's mother tongue is considered an integral part of bilingual education. (1967, p. 1) Similarly, Gaarder (1967) defined the bilingual school as one "which uses, con- . currently, two languages as mediums of instruction in any portion of the curricu- , lum ," He goes on to say, "teaching of a vernacular solely as a bridge to another, ., nor is ordinary foreign the official language, is not bilingual education . . language teaching:" Both of the definitions make clear the importance of the language-as a medium of instruction not just as subject matter, in order to qualify as bilingual schooling. Stressing the point, Anderson and Boyer (1969) take care to note that English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, and cultural awareness programs are Often mislabeled bilingual education: They make a needed point that "such indiscriminate use of the term renders it meaningless." There are distinctions worth maintaining among types of bilingual programs, all of which may qualify under the above definition. Mackey (1969) , addressed this problem by conceptualizing a typology of bilingual education which accounts for ten basic curriculum patterns for five types of learners. Beginning with the congruence as a key to typing latter, Mackey sees the home and school language bilingual education situations. The five types are: Unilingual home:, where the home language is school language. 1. UnilinguaLhome: where the home language is not school language. 2. both home languages include one school language. Bilingual home: 3. t. Bilingual home: both home languages exclude school languages. 4. both home languages include both school languages. Bilingual home:: 5. identifies, vary according to five. factors: The ten curriculum patterns Mackey The medium of instruction may be one language, two languages, or 1. dual more; in other words, the school may have a single medium or a medium curriculum; The development pattern may be to maintain two or more languages, 2, another; or to transfer from one medium of instruction to 3. The distribution of the languages may be to present different or equal amounts during the day;,' 4, The direction may be toward assimilation into a dominant culture, toward acculturation, or toward reintegration into a resurgent one, or it may be neither, but simply the maintenance of the languages at an equal level; Finally, the change from one medium to another may be complete 5. or gradual. It should be pointed out that Mackey's typology is not consistent with the earlier definition/in that two languages need not be present as mediums of instruction in order to be clasSified. Tie only requirement is for a bilingual context to exist either in the school, or in the interaction between the school and, the learner's home, his community, or his ountry By so doing, Mackey created a comprehensive scheme capable of describing any and all cases of bilingual schooling-.; The bilingual schools in Alaska upon which the present report is based do not literally fit the earlier definitions strictly requiring two languages as mediums of instruction. The first three years of the Alaska programs include ESL Si subject matter while the medium of instruction is carried in the first language Despite the fact the intentions of the program were to raise second that (Yupik) . language proficiency to the point where English could be used as a medium of instruction in the postprimary years, it would be absurd to disqualify the program as bilingual on a simple technicality. In fact, the advantage of Mackey's