Language Support Programs for Limited English Proficiency Students
in English-Speaking Schools
Mark D. Offner
Aichi Insitute of Technology (Toyota, Japan)
offner [at] ge.aitech.ac.jp
http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~offner/
Originally published in
Bulletin of Aichi Institute of Technology
Vol. 45A, pages 53-65
March 2010
*Contains minor capitalization revisions
Abstract: One of the more difficult
challenges faced by English-speaking schools throughout the world is
the successful integration of limited English proficiency (LEP)
students into the mainstream class ensuring the successful learning of
grade-level content while limiting stress to the students. Currently
the field is obscured by a variety of models and terminologies that are
described and used in different and conflicting ways making it
difficult to determine which programs are most practical for a given
situation. This paper introduces a unique organizational structure to
establish clarity and uniformity in describing the common programs
noting strengths and weaknesses to identify suitable models for a
variety of academic settings.
1. Establish Premises
It is vital for any reputable system to be based on a set of underlying
principles that provide the systematic framework for what follows.
Without a strong foundation the system would lack cohesion and
stability. Likewise all good English language support systems should
establish foundational premises to build on. These premises are at the
heart of the pedagogy underpinning the systems. They may be stated as
“non-negotiable beliefs” that an institution or group of individuals
holds to be true. Perhaps some of the more important ones regarding
English language programs are:
1. all students are capable of learning another
language;
2. success can be achieved by applying the proper
methods tailored to the students’ needs;
3. learning is on-going;
4. students learn better when their unique self,
background, and cultural heritage is appreciated, valued, and respected.
These premises are core beliefs represented by a few simple statements
that all others can be distilled down to or from which others can be
derived. The number of possible premises presented here have been
reduced to a minimum and stated simply in an attempt to be
all-inclusive and widely relevant, although other “truths” are
certainly applicable. All viable programs must be anchored in the
premises. Building on these premises a successful program must address
related issues in a timely manner while instilling in the students the
necessary skills for acquisition of the language(s) as they grow and
develop on an on-going basis.
2. Determine Objectives
A good quality program should have objectives that in practical terms
represent the reason for being. The objectives provide the focus for
the development of programs to support the system based on concrete
premises and helps shape them. The effectiveness of the emerging models
can better be assessed by clearly stating objectives against which they
can be measured. Some common objectives might be for the LEP student to:
1. become
fluent English proficient (FEP);
2. maintain
grade-level in the core subjects;
3. maintain
native language proficiency.
As with the premises, program objectives will vary depending upon the
school and its constituencies. The objectives stated here in a very
basic form are fundamental to most any English support program.
Although the circumstances and goals will vary from student to student
these three objectives are generally prioritized in importance in the
order presented. Essentially the programs must enable LEP students to
achieve a sufficient level of proficiency in the English language to be
mainstreamed into the classroom to continue the learning of the core
subjects without falling behind in their formal education. Neither
should LEP students fail to maintain their first language as it is
arguably a crucial component for them to fully benefit from their
learning experience.
2.1 Objective 1: English Language Proficiency
Learning English is the first and foremost important objective,
especially for students living in an English-speaking country where
English is necessary not only for academic studies but for effectively
functioning in the society. For students living in their native country
and attending an English-speaking school, maintaining proficiency in
the native tongue may continue to be a top priority. However, because
of the fact that LEP students are enrolled in an English-speaking
school, it is a natural part of the educational process that the
learning of English supersedes, but does not necessarily need to
replace, native language proficiency as they strive to be successful in
their studies.
2.2 Objective 2: Maintaining Grade-Level
One of the biggest obstacles facing LEP students is the initial
emphasis, and resulting investment of time and energy, placed on the
mastering of the English language leaves little time for the learning
of the core subjects. This is usually not intentional, however with the
enormous amount of time devoted to the learning of English and time
spent in special instruction either within the class or in a pullout
situation, it is often difficult for the student to keep up with the
mainstream class. This especially applies to subjects where a good
command of English is necessary for understanding the content of the
course. To address this problem the language support program needs to
ensure that LEP students do not fall too far behind making it
impossible for them to succeed in the core subjects.
2.3 Objective 3: Native Language Proficiency
In many cases, as in the past when immigrants arrived in the United
States, the urgent desire to be accepted and assimilated into the new
culture relegated maintaining one’s native tongue and culture to
secondary importance and in some cases was considered undesirable.
However, as the world becomes increasingly international in character
and global in outlook, bilingualism and biculturalism are generally
accepted as a distinct advantage. In education, retaining fluency in
one’s native language is valued not only as a good indicator of future
success, but is arguably a necessary prerequisite for successful
acquisition of the second language. Nevertheless, despite how desirable
and advantageous retaining native language fluency is, emphasis is
naturally placed on English language acquisition to enable the students
to comfortably adapt to their new language environment and to keep up
with their studies in the English-based or bilingual curriculum.
3. New Organizational Structure
There are many terms commonly used to describe the various models and
methods, and although they are used with frequency as immutable
nomenclature, the reality is they are often defined and perceived in
very different ways. For example, “sheltered immersion” and “structured
immersion” are often used interchangeably, but in other instances they
are used to describe methodologies with significant differences. An
added complication occurs from the lack of consistency in the methods
employed and even in the proposed objectives. To clear up this
confusion resulting from differences in terminology, usage, and the
blending of methods where it is difficult to know whether a method does
or does not include a specific component or how to delineate one from
another, this paper proposes to rearrange and organize the programs and
models in a simple, easy- to-understand structure.
Approaches (e.g. Cognitive vs. Behaviorists) and techniques (e.g.
audiovisual and audio-lingual) in language teaching are considered
outside the scope of this paper. Although adherence to a specific
approach or use of a particular technique will influence the teaching
style, the tools employed, and how the lessons are actually conducted
in the classroom, for the purposes here they are not considered
pertinent as they do not directly affect description, categorization,
nor the purported objectives of the methods and models. Therefore, to
avoid fragmenting models and methods into a variety of splinter groups
according to minor variations as is commonly done, many of the systems
have been consolidated under a single model or method because the
differences separating them actually represent discrepancies in style
and technique rather than profound philosophical differences. This
organizational structure arranges the following categories in
hierarchical sequence from top to bottom (followed by the number of
categories in parenthesis): programs (2), models (4), and methods (8).
It may be useful to remember as a 2-4-8 Organizational Structure
(scroll down for outline).
3.1 The Programs
A program refers to the part of the school curriculum that deals with
English language support for the LEP student. It provides the
foundation and parameters and encompasses the models, methods,
approaches, techniques, plans and anything else that is used to
describe, guide and conduct the English support system adopted by the
school. Therefore the top most category consists of programs of which
there are just two: Additive and Subtractive. These programs can be
described by their objectives.
The objective of an Additive Program is to have all students in the
school achieve fluency in two (or more) languages. It teaches and
develops both the first language (L1) and the target language (L2), in
this case English, together. On the other hand, the objective of a
Subtractive Program is to have the LEP student achieve fluency in the
English language as quickly and completely as possible. It transitions
the LEP student into English-speaking where English becomes the
dominant language and the LEP student’s native tongue is either lost or
becomes the second language, especially with regard to academic
studies. Referring to a program as “additive” aptly describes the
school-wide curriculum of a truly bilingual program as it applies to
the courses offered throughout the entire school. Referring to a
program as “subtractive” more narrowly applies to an independent part
of the school curriculum that offers support designed specifically for
LEP students.
3.2 The Models
The next category consists of models. Models refer to the framework and
design of the English language program. It characterizes the
philosophical and pedagogical base of the methods. A model is not only
defined by its objectives (additive or subtractive), but also describes
the manner in which a program is integrated into the school curriculum.
Models represent certain beliefs about how language is learned
subscribing to a specific set of research-based dogma. Generally,
models are difficult to change and often a school district or a state
in the U.S. will require the use of a specific model in public schools.
As research continues new models may eventually emerge that might be
categorized under a neutral program providing more educational options,
although currently none exist.
It is inevitable that each of the four models is further divided into
methods that determine application muddying the waters somewhat,
however this organizational structure should help with
conceptualization as it narrows the field down to a small number of
basic models and their methodologies. A simple way to represent an
additive model is: L1 + L2. A simple way to represent a subtractive
model is: (L1) ---> L2.
3.3 The Methods
In the hierarchy of this organizational structure, methods fall under
the models and all varieties of methods for supporting LEP students are
consolidated under the four models. The methods provide more detail on
the practical aspects concerning implementation of the models. They
describe the way the models perform and how the class is conducted.
Methods are dynamic and flexible. They can be adjusted to suit the
needs of the LEP students, not only as an individual student’s needs
change, but may also be altered to accommodate changes in the
demographics of the student body and the greater school community.
Methods can be divided and subdivided almost endlessly when approaches
and teaching techniques are factored in. To maintain simplicity and
clarity in this structure, the eight methods are based on the more
obvious and distinctive components pertaining to where the English
language support takes place and the medium used. Methods describe
components of the models such as pullout language support, in-class ESL
instruction, and the language and to the degree it is used in the
mainstream or ESL class (also influencing teacher language
qualifications).
Methods are often subdivided by describing in more detail the finer
elements such as: how long students receive English language support
(early-exit or late-exit), composition of the class (ratio of native
English speakers to LEP students), focus of instruction (content-based
or language centered), age group (for use in elementary, middle or high
school), etc. Although these differences are important for a detailed
analysis, they tend to be highly variable. For example it is not always
clear when exactly early-exit ends and late-exit begins, or when
early-exit morphs into late-exit due to special circumstances, or when
content-based is mixed with a more traditional language-centered
approach, blurring the distinctions. Because these distinctions remain
fluid, they are grouped together under a more general method type and
therefore do not affect the overall organizational structure. This
allows different aspects of these elements to be recombined and
reworked without the need to create numerous elusive minor categories.
To better understand the pros and cons of each model it is necessary to
understand the methods employed by each. To prevent confusion in the
following discussion, it should be kept in mind that common labels for
describing types of English language support systems often use the term
“model” and this paper adheres to this standard usage for clarity when
referencing them - although these “models” are actually considered to
be methods in this paper.
4. Additive Program
Currently there is just one model under the Additive Program. As
previously stated, additive models are limited to programs where
English is added to the L1 of the student without dominating it. A
model is considered to be additive when both the L1 and L2 are valued,
taught, and developed together. Not all bilingual models have this as
their stated objective and therefore they are not classified together
under the umbrella term “bilingual model” as is the accepted practice.
One of the features of a developmental or maintenance bilingual model
as defined here is that it must be additive.
4.1 The Developmental Bilingual Model
The main defining factor of this model is that the English language
learner (ELL) retains fluency in his or her native language. The ELL
will also be able to keep up with the core subjects without language
presenting an obstacle. This model is based on the belief that content
knowledge will pass more easily between languages (native language and
target language) when it has first been comprehended and fully digested
in the first language. The Developmental Bilingual Model fully adheres
to and complies with the premises and objectives as described above by
respecting each student’s linguistic and cultural influences without
relegating any single one to second place.
The developmental model may at first appear to be the ideal system, but
it is important to note that strictly speaking a school where the
curriculum is based on this model does not categorically qualify as an
English-speaking school. It is in the best sense a bilingual school
where the objective is to preserve and develop the minority group’s
native language along with the goal of achieving English language
fluency. However, it has an important role in this organizational
structure as it effectively promotes English language acquisition and
serves as a comparison for and helps to inform and influence other
models and their methods.
4.1.1 The Pullout Bilingual Method
This method respects and supports the ELL’s native language and culture
but does so separately from the mainstream class and therefore there is
no exchange of languages, although use of the minority language is not
necessarily prohibited in the mainstream. The ELLs receive “tutoring”
or similar support outside the grade-level class using content material
and are normally not introduced into the mainstream class until they
have thoroughly learned their academic studies in their native tongue.
Integration into the mainstream class is usually done slowly while
receiving ESL assistance and at the same time native language support
is on-going for the purpose of maintaining age/grade level fluency.
This model is sometimes referred to as Structural Home Language
Immersion or a Maintenance Bilingual Model.
The greatest disadvantage with this method is the motivation to learn
English may not be adequate resulting in the ELLs never fully becoming
fluent in the target language because of the relative ease of relying
on their native tongue for comprehending their lessons. A level of
basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) may be achieved,
however achievement of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)
is usually more elusive. Also, because of the large amount of time
spent separated from the mainstream class, the ELLs may not be able to
fully assimilate into the school environment contributing to a kind of
maladjustment with the potential to negatively affect overall academic
performance. As with the other bilingual models, this model is not
practical for highly multilingual schools as it necessarily fragments
the school into language groups potentially creating a culture of
exclusiveness.
4.1.2 In-Class Bilingual Method
In this method the ELL attends the regular class with no special
intensive English instruction and is encouraged to learn in his or her
native language. The success of this method requires that only a single
language group be schooled through the languages (mother tongue and
English) in the regular mainstream classroom with a bilingual teacher.
The ELL is naturally exposed to English during the class session as
much of the lesson is conducted in English and normally the majority of
students are conversant in English. The ELLs learn English through
manipulation of content material and subject matter and continue to
learn the core subjects at grade level without the difficulty of
dealing with a language barrier because both languages are used to
understand the content. A distinct advantage for any open-minded
individual is that all cultures and respective idiosyncrasies and
ideologies are equally respected and allowed to coexist without one
taking precedence over or overshadowing the others.
When the focus of the class is for the ELLs to achieve English language
proficiency (ELP) together with the native language, the approach is
commonly referred to as a One-way Dual Language Model. This term is
used to distinguish this approach from what is commonly called a
Two-way Dual Language or Dual Enrichment Model where there is a two-way
exchange of both languages between the students in the class. The
English-speaking group learns the minority group’s language and the
minority group learns English while students in each group retain and
develop fluency in their own native tongue. Often the ratio of ELL to
native English speaker is as high as 50/50, but is usually lower and
can be as low as 30/70.
The In-class Bilingual Method is appropriate only for schools where the
ELLs have a single shared language and cannot be employed in
international schools where it is common to have multiple language
groups. This method is also difficult to implement in a large
educational institution due to the necessity of securing impartial and
all-inclusive resources that are not readily available. It is difficult
to obtain unbiased textbooks that present and accept all views equally
in all subjects. Teachers must not only be bilingual themselves, but
must also be bicultural with a deep enough understanding of the ELL’s
native culture to avoid unintentionally offending the culture when
presenting class material. It is also difficult for a teacher to
maintain an even balance in language use so as not to favor one
language over the other. Schools will need to provide library books,
textbooks, and other learning material in the student’s native language
as well as in English. These requirements place an extraordinary burden
on the school’s board and finances.
5. Subtractive Program
All models that seek to transition the LEP student to English speaking
are considered to be subtractive. This includes models that may not
have this transition as a stated objective, but provided that a model
does not actively grow and develop the native language of the
individual, it is considered to be non-supporting and therefore
subtractive. It may be argued that the ultimate goal of some of these
models is not necessarily to replace the L1 of the student with English
and therefore should be considered “neutral” programs. However it is
revealing that the major focus (sooner or later) is almost exclusively
on the English language to the detriment of the mother tongue,
especially in the area of CALP. For models under this program,
maintaining fluency in the native language is typically the
responsibility of the individual and when or if native language support
is provided it is to a much lesser degree than that of the English
language. Normally any initial intensive native language support is
gradually phased out.
A subtractive model may add a component where the LEP student has the
option of choosing an elective class that develops fluency in the
native language, but this is not an inherent part of the model and is
therefore not considered additive. Instead this would be a kind of
“subtractive plus” program model where optional native language support
is added on. Adding to an existing model or mixing parts of different
methods to form a unique hybrid may be appropriate for better
addressing the special needs of individual students and institutions.
However the resulting menagerie of methods is not easy to pin down or
accurately categorize and initially must simply be acknowledged as new
hybrids that are usually applicable in narrowly defined,
school-specific environments - although it is possible that they may
eventually evolve into new, universally-recognized models.
5.1 The Submersion Model
Submersion is by definition an in-class model. It may be viewed as the
diametric opposite of bilingual education. Methods using this model
submerse the ELLs in English by immediately mainstreaming them in the
hopes that they will naturally “absorb” the language. ELLs are placed
in the regular English-speaking classroom and given no, or very
limited, special language assistance. The expectation is that by
hearing English all day every day in school the ELL will naturally come
to understand the language using visual clues and will learn to speak
and understand English through trial and error. This model focuses
almost entirely on the first objective of achieving English language
proficiency, but does little to support objective two and completely
disregards objective three as outlined above.
Submersion is commonly accepted as a bona fide educational model
although there is ample justification against recognizing it as such
because it does not require any special technique or strategy to
implement. Instead, it is often simply the default process of
accommodating ELLs enrolled in a school that offers no dedicated or
formal ESL services or support. Arguments supporting submersion as an
effective language teaching/learning method are tenuous at best.
5.1.1 The Simple Submersion Method
This is sometimes referred to as the “sink or swim” method. Students
are given no formal instruction to help them learn the English language
and are provided with no explanations in their native tongue to assist
with comprehension. Theoretically the need to keep up with the rest of
the class provides the motivation for the ELL to decipher the language
used in class to make sense of the content material.
Although students are presented with the concentrated opportunity to
hear natural English in a normal setting, being surrounded by English
does not necessarily guarantee success in mastering the language. It is
generally accepted that a certain period of formal language instruction
is needed for transference from the native language to the target
language to occur. Even a limited amount of ESL instruction is
predicated to enable the ELL to at least gain a foothold in the target
language before being completely submersed in it. It has been
demonstrated that natural absorption of the language can take place in
everyday life contributing to BICS, but it has not proven very
effective in an educational setting where CALP is needed and especially
when time is of essence for language learners to proceed with their
education in the core subjects.
Some schools, depending on the location and make up of the student
body, are not actually able to provide a complete submersion
environment as there may be a large number of English speakers of other
languages (ESOL) in the school who prefer to use languages other than
English outside the classroom. With this method there is the
possibility that ELLs become wrongly labeled as intellectually inferior
if they are unable to comprehend the material, although it is simply
due to the obstacle that language presents. ELLS may also be
stigmatized as slow learners because they do not always master
speaking, reading, and/or writing in the target language as quickly as
expected. The result is that the student may experience low self-esteem
and motivation and this often translates into becoming a problem
student due to the negative psychological impact of unrealistic demands
being placed on him or her. Furthermore, no attempt is made to maintain
the student’s mother tongue resulting in the danger that the student
will not attain native level fluency in any language at all.
5.1.2 The Sheltered Submersion Method
This method can be summed up by “sink or swim with a life line.” The
teacher uses simplified language and attempts to provide the ELL with
explanations adjusted to the student’s comprehension level and offers
extra help as much as possible without disruption to the rest of the
class. The student is provided with pictures, artifacts and other
material to assist in language acquisition in the mainstream classroom.
The ELL is likely to feel more comfortable in this type of class
compared with the Simple Submersion Method, and therefore may be
willing to take more risks and participate more fully enhancing his or
her learning experience.
Although the ELL receives some extra help under this method,
realistically the extra help and attention given to the student may be
quite limited due to the many other obligations the teacher faces in
providing for the class as a whole. Also, the teacher is typically not
trained in ESL. As with the Simple Submersion Method, the student may
not understand the language enough, or learn it quickly enough, to be
able to construct content knowledge in the core subjects to keep up
with the rest of the class. As this gap widens, the student is often
branded a slow learner. As motivation ebbs, the student may be prone to
engage in disruptive or bad behavior. No native language instruction is
provided leaving the responsibility of native language retention and
development entirely up to the student and his or her family or
caretaker. As with the previous method, the result may be that the
student is unable to achieve fluency in either language.
Many researchers would categorize this method as immersion and equate
it with the In-Class ESL Method listed below, but instead calling it
“Sheltered Immersion.” However, because the help actually provided is
really rather limited it is a better fit for the submersion category.
More extensive language assistance (predicating ESL training) is
considered to be immersion in this paper.
5.2 The Immersion Model
The methods using the Immersion Model may be viewed as a more
sympathetic approach when compared to submersion. In immersion the ELLs
receive special language support and mainstreaming is either immediate
or delayed, however the students eventually integrate into the regular
class where the content material is learned entirely through the medium
of the English language. The teachers are trained especially in the
teaching of ESL and the student can feel a high degree of comfort in an
ESL environment. These models are often referred to as “structured” or
“sheltered,” however this paper maintains that a defining feature of
these models is that they are structured and considers the terms
“structured immersion” or “sheltered immersion” to be redundant.
Immersion without structure is quite simply submersion. This model
addresses the first two objectives presented above, but does not
formally address objective three because no long-term support is
provided for maintaining the ELL’s native tongue.
5.2.1 The Pullout ESL Method
The pullout method requires the student to spend a given amount of time
learning the English language with a trained ESL teacher away from the
rest of the class. The student may feel most comfortable in this type
of classroom and is able to learn in a relaxed environment without the
fear of making mistakes and therefore may be more open to taking risks.
The mainstreaming into the regular class is often incremental where the
student initially participates only for short periods and only during
the learning of certain subject matter with the amount of time spent in
the mainstream classroom gradually increasing as language proficiency
progresses.
When the students receive instruction in the ESL class that does not
coordinate with or use content material from the regular class lessons,
it is usually referred to as an ESL model. This is the style typically
used in the teaching of a second language at a language school.
Sometimes this method is applied as what is generally called Intensive
English where students spend the entire school day studying the English
language until they achieve a level of proficiency that allows them to
participate in the mainstream class. Another application of the pullout
method is regularly referred to as Content-Based ESL and entails the
teaching of the English language through the use of the same material
as taught in the mainstream class. This requires that lessons be
coordinated between the ESL and mainstream teacher and acts as a safety
net to prevent ESL students from falling behind in the core subjects
while also ensuring that they achieve CALP. The student is under less
intense pressure to learn the target language as the risk of falling
behind in their core curriculum studies is reduced contributing to a
much lower level of stress.
The pullout method usually varies somewhat depending upon the age
group. These approaches are often classified as early-exit or
late-exit. This distinction is made according to how long an ESL
student is kept in a special ESL learning environment and provided with
ESL support. Early-exit is more common in early elementary school and
the student is normally mainstreamed into the lower grades often after
a single year of ESL instruction. Although care is taken to ensure that
new content material or subject matter is not introduced to the
mainstream class during ESL pullout sessions, typically a pullout
method is early-exit as the more time spent in the ESL classroom the
more likely the student will fall behind in the core subjects.
Late-exit provides the student with as much help and on-going support
as necessary to ensure complete assimilation and competency in the
English language. Normally when a late-exit approach is implemented,
content-based ESL instruction is used to ensure that the student does
not fall too far behind in the core curriculum. A late-exit approach
may provide the ESL student with continued ESL support throughout
elementary school and may eventually transform into an in-class method.
In middle school, and sometimes high school, the pullout method takes
the form of a designated ESL class where the students are divided into
groups according to their English language ability and attend the class
during certain periods of the day often scheduled against elective
classes. Although late-exit classes are designed to allow the student
plenty of time to completely assimilate the language and content
material, there still remains a strong incentive to exit the student as
quickly as possible as the more time spent away from the mainstream
class the further behind the ELL is likely to fall, especially where
socialization is concerned.
One disadvantage of this method is that the ELL misses a large part of
the core subjects in the beginning and may fall far enough behind that
he or she finds it difficult to catch up. When the ESL class is content
based this is not as great a problem however the risk still exists when
the ESL teacher does not have enough time to cover all the material to
the extent and depth of the mainstream class. Another problem is the
ELL is overly “protected” in the ESL environment where the student
finds the grade level class much more stressful than the comfort of the
ESL classroom and resists the attempt to be incorporated into the
mainstream. A student will often need to be pushed into making the
switch into the target language and this transition is not always
smooth. It is difficult to know how much or far to push, and in turn
could be met with not only resistance, but even belligerence on the
part of the student. As a solution, sometimes a decision is made to
make a clear cut away from reliance on the native tongue and this could
be detrimental to the student with profound consequences. The ELL may
be ostracized and ridiculed by other students as they are treated
differently and are not able to spend time sharing in the same
experiences as their peers to strengthen friendships. If this situation
continues for any length of time, ELLs could find themselves in a kind
of limbo that becomes increasingly difficult to break out of as they
fail to fit into the educational program of the school. As a result, if
the conditions of premise number four (students learn better when their
unique self and cultural background are valued and respected) are not
met, the student is disadvantaged and could inadvertently be set up for
failure.
5.2.2 The In-Class ESL Method
As a way to address the pitfalls of the Submersion Model and the
Pullout Immersion Method, the In-Class ESL Method allows the ELL to
remain in the regular class with his or her peers but at the same time
receives specialized English language instruction. In this method the
classroom teacher provides extra explanations and clarification when
necessary to assist the ELL in comprehension of content material. This
method is commonly referred to as “Structured Immersion” or even
“Sheltered Immersion,” although it is more narrowly defined here since
many would consider the pullout method and approaches described in the
previous section to fall under this category as well. The In-Class ESL
Method is similar to the Sheltered Submersion Method previously
presented, but differs mainly in the training of the teacher. The
classroom teacher in a Submersion Model does not necessarily have ESL
training and attempts to deal with the language deficiency by
simplifying and providing (limited) extra help with gestures and other
visual clues. However, in the In-Class ESL Method the classroom teacher
must be fully trained in the teaching of ESL as this is the main
determining factor in the success of the method. This is sometimes
labeled as a “direct method” where the student is provided with
modeling of the second language in a context that is guided and geared
toward their individual level. The direct method is purportedly a more
“natural” approach to language learning. This method is often referred
to as ESL in the Mainstream.
The In-Class ESL Method, when compared to submersion, can be demanding
in that an extensive amount of time and expense needs to be invested by
the school for it to really be effective. Ideally all teachers in the
school should be trained in ESL and the school will need to ensure that
teachers’ ESL qualifications are kept current. Additionally the school
should employ ESL experts whose job is to fine-tune the method when
necessary and to train new teachers in ESL as well as keep teachers
abreast of new methodology. There is the possibility that the influence
of ESL in the classroom may cause the non-ESL students, as well as the
more advanced ESL students, to be less challenged and they may tend to
underachieve by indolently “piggybacking” on the ESL assistance
provided to the class. If this continues for any length of time where
there is either a high turnover of ESL students or large numbers at a
variety of levels within a single class, this piggybacking, however
unintentional, may become habitual and impede progress.
5.3 The Transitional Bilingual Model
ESL students are taught English in this model through the use and
support of their native language. The ESL student is provided with
instruction in his or her native tongue as a way to assist second
language acquisition. Although age-level native language competency may
not be maintained in the long run, native language retention and
development is initially encouraged and built on as a means to achieve
better success in second language acquisition and to prevent the
student from falling behind in his or her studies. The teacher must be
bilingual as the student’s native language is used to aid comprehension
and to assist in transitioning to English.
Although traditionally classified as a Bilingual Model, this model uses
the ELL’s native tongue only as a quick and effective way to move the
student toward embracing English as the preferred language. It is
similar to the Developmental Bilingual Model with one very important
difference in the main objective. The Transitional Model seeks to
ultimately transition the non-English speaker to an English-only
speaker or to “predominately English speaking.” On the other hand, the
Developmental Model seeks to add English in the sense that the
non-English speaker becomes an English speaker while at the same time
retaining fluency in the heritage language. The methodology, too, is
very similar for both models as the ELL studies English with a
bilingual teacher teaching content material in the student’s native
tongue, but again the difference is that in the Transitional Model
native language support is phased out and the focus is eventually on
English only and the student mainstreamed as quickly as possible. Thus
the former is subtractive while the later is additive. As a result,
this model meets only the first two objectives, but does not fulfill
the third.
5.3.1 The Pullout Transitional Method
The ELL receives instruction outside the mainstream class by a teacher
who is bilingual. For the same reasons as Content-Based ESL, the ELL
students are taught content material in their native tongue to prevent
them from falling behind in their academic studies. This method is
based on the principle that transfer of content material to the target
English language occurs more easily and completely when the subject is
first learned in the native language. In this way the Pullout
Transitional Method is significantly different from the Pullout ESL
Method which does not teach in and support the native language.
Eventually, however, the overwhelming emphasis is placed on acquisition
of the English language relegating the L1 of the student to second
place.
The biggest challenge facing this method is the smooth and successful
transitioning of the student into the English-only mainstream class.
This method has all the same pitfalls as with the Pullout ESL Method:
falling behind, inability to fully assimilate, ostracism, and
stress-related inability to succeed creating a downward spiral.
Although a strong native language component is desirable and
recommended, it is often not practical to incorporate as a formal part
of the curriculum in many English-speaking schools, and in particular
international English-speaking schools, where the student body consists
of native language speakers from a diversity of countries. The school
may find itself in the financially draining position of needing to
provide a broad range of native language class levels in a variety of
languages for ELLs with only a small number of students in each class.
5.3.2 The In-Class Transitional Method
In the In-Class Transitional Method students participate in the
mainstream class and a bilingual classroom teacher or designated
interpreter translates English instructions and explanations into the
ELL’s first language. This ensures that the ELL’s progress is not
impeded by the opacity of a foreign or second language when
constructing content knowledge in the core subjects. ELLs may
participate more fully in the class in an inclusive and nurturing
environment. This is commonly called Concurrent Translation and is
usually considered to be a kind of Bilingual Model.
This method has been extensively used for many years in the teaching of
English conversation in language schools characterized by traditional
grammar translation although it has been in steady decline due to
mediocre results. The major problem is that ELLs tend to tune out the
English when they know that a native language translation will soon
follow. Also, teacher translation can be inaccurate and incomplete
hindering language learning. Constant translation often results in
slow-moving lessons sometimes causing the English speakers to lose
focus and become inattentive. Most notably, though, this method would
simply be too time-consuming and cumbersome to work in a classroom that
includes a mix of ELLs from diverse language backgrounds requiring a
multilingual teacher or interpreter.
6. Transitioning
Transitioning is a critical component of all successful models but
unfortunately is often not emphasized or constructively implemented.
Regardless of whether the ESL student is in a pullout situation and
needs to be integrated into the regular class as in the Pullout ESL
Method, or is already attending the mainstream class in a Bilingual or
Submersion Model, there is a very distinct period of time, often
lasting for a number of years, where the ESL student is in a period of
transition from relying on his or her mother tongue to make sense of
the material presented in the class to understanding the information
entirely through the medium of the second language (English). Many
programs fail in this because the extent and duration of the transition
is not properly addressed. It is vital that ESL students receive enough
long-term support to help transition completely into the mainstream
English-speaking class, and this requires that the methods take into
account the developmental needs of the students as they mature and are
confronted with increasingly complex subject matter. Obviously in a
bilingual setting mainstreaming into an English-speaking class is not
an issue, nevertheless the concept of transitioning is germane to
achieving CALP in English in all models including the bilingual class.
Transitioning applies to all areas of second language development where
the tendency is to focus on speaking and listening comprehension
without providing the necessary on-going support in the language arts
of reading and writing. When done too quickly, and if the educators are
not vigilant in diagnosing problems or difficulties as they arise, the
student does not receive the support needed to successfully transition
and many times the blame is placed on the student compounding the
problem.
7. Best Practices
Regardless of the method used, some basic factors that play a critical
role in the success of most programs have been identified and are
commonly accepted to constitute good practice. These factors are almost
universally acknowledged as necessary for a language support program to
succeed in most any school. These would include the following more
obvious ones:
1. active involvement of ESL
parents in their child’s education and a consistent and open line of
communication between the parents and classroom teacher(s) and
administration;
2. supportive school
administrators committed to the professional development of staff,
particularly in ESL;
3. good vertical and horizontal
alignment of the curriculum to facilitate student interaction across
grades and to promote collaborative learning serving to provide clear
goals and expectations for the ESL student;
4. qualified staff and
administrators trained in the programs and models used by the school
with ESL experts who stay abreast of current trends and can provide the
leadership to inform and train the staff.
These factors broadly apply to educational institutions with a coherent
English language program for ELLs and are not dependant on special
situations or circumstances.
Two less obvious factors have also proven to have a positive influence
on the success of the various educational programs employed by schools.
First, the school should provide an academically challenging
environment and have high expectations for the success of the ELLs.
This may seem counterintuitive but experience has shown that students
perform better and achieve more when they are consistently challenged
and encouraged to excel. Secondly, schools are able to achieve a higher
rate of success when they remain flexible and can easily adjust and
adapt to the changing needs of their students as they fine-tune systems
to promote learning. This may seem obvious, but many institutions are
encumbered by policies and entrenched practices that cannot be easily
altered. Furthermore, teachers and administrators are often prevented
by the rules enacted by the school district restricting their ability
to adopt new methods or models and change programs that would help them
perform in the best ways possible to effectively address the ever
changing needs of the students and the community at large.
8. Conclusion
The case for the Developmental Bilingual Model is most compelling for
use in English-speaking schools if the following condition is met: the
ELLs consist of a single common language group. It will perform best
when a school has abundant resources with an expertly trained and
experienced staff. The Submersion Model is not recommended for students
with little or no English especially when the school is in a
non-English-speaking country. The Immersion Model is the most versatile
and is recommended for most English-speaking schools. To address the
lack of native language maintenance and development, it is recommended
that a native language component be added where feasible. The
Transitional Bilingual Model, being a kind of hybrid between the
Developmental Bilingual Model and the Immersion Model, tends to be
inferior to both as it does not fully develop bilingualism nor does it
transition as effectively as immersion. Ultimately all schools should
be open and flexible to modify models or methods in unorthodox ways to
better meet the needs of the ELL and effectively address the demands of
their unique circumstances.
Bibliography
Adams, Margaret and Jones, Kellie M. “Unmasking the myths of structured
English Immersion: why we still need bilingual educators, native
language instruction, and incorporation of home culture.” Radical
Teacher Winter 2005. 22 Dec. 2009 <http://findarticles.com/
p/articles/mi_m0JVP/ is_75/ai_n16439994/>
“Bilingual Education: Different types of bi- or multilingual
education.” University of Michigan. 16 Dec. 2009
<http://sitemaker.umich.edu/370blinged/
different_types_of_bilingual_education>
“Bilingual Education Vs. English Only.” FreeEssays.cc 2003. 19 Feb.
2010 <http://www.freeessays.cc/db/ 16/ems24.shtml>
“A glossary of English-language learner (ELL) program models.”
Phoenixworks.org.19 Jan. 2010 <http://74. 125.153.132/search?
q=cache:79D1OBlpKcJ:
www.phoenixworks.org/NCWLSG/Glossary.doc+concurrent+translation+method+immersion+model&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari>
Greenberg, Lowell J. “Language Acquisition, Glossary of Second and
Primary Language Acquisition Terms.” Earthrenewal.org. 13 Mar. 2010. 19
Jan. 2010 <http://earthrenewal.org/secondlang.htm>
Hunemorder, Rebecca. “ELL in Elementary Schools.” University of
Michigan. 27 Nov. 2005. 19 Feb. 2010 <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/
356.hunemorder/home>
McKeon, Denise. “Different Types of ESL Programs.” ERIC Digest. Dec.
1987. 19 Jan. 2010 <http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-927/types.htm>
“Migrant and Bilingual Education: Description of Bilingual Education
Instructional Models.” Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
(OSPI), State of Washington. 24 Feb. 2010
<http://www.k12.wa.us/MigrantBilingual/ instructionalmodels.aspx>
Montague, Nicole S. “Critical Components for Dual Language Programs.”
Bilingual Research Journal 21:4. Fall 1997. 15 Dec. 2009
<http://brj.asu.edu/ pdf/ar5.pdf>
Rennie, Jeanne. “ESL and Bilingual Program Models.” Center for Applied
Linguistics (CAL). Sep. 1993. 3 Dec. 2009
<http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/ rennie01.html>
Rossell, Christine.“Teaching English Through English.” Educational
Leadership #9. Dec. 2004/Jan. 2005. 3 Dec. 2009
<http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/
Marriott/eesl4340lmTeachingEnglishThroughFall08.pdf>
Saville-Troike, Muriel. Inroducing Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
“Types of Bilingual Programs.” Northern Arizona University. 7 Jan.
2010. 3 Dec. 2009 <http://74. 125.153.132/search?q=cache:
ymaocaTkJ3sJ: jan.ucc.nau.edu/>
Vandergriff, Jim. “Bilingual Education.” EDUC 201 School & Society.
June 2002. 24 Feb. 2010
<http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/mitc/vandergr/
201%20Web%20site/Bilingual%20Education.htm>
“What is Dual Language?” National Dual Language Consortium. 14 Oct.
2009. 19 Jan. 2010 <http://www.dual-language.org/index.htm>
Outline of a 2-4-8 Organizational Structure
I. Additive Program
I. Subtractive Program
Develops both native language and English language
Transitions
to and develops English language only
A. Developmental Bilingual Model
A. Submersion Model
ELL is provided with native language and English
ELL is immediately mainstreamed and "naturally"
support in or outside the class
absorbs English
1. Pullout Bilingual Method
1. Simple Submersion Method
ELLs maintain native language separate from the
ELL is mainstreamed with no English
language
mainstream class
assistance
2. In-Class Bilingual Method
2. Sheltered Submersion Method
Native language and English taught together in the
ELL is mainstreamed and provided with limited
mainstream class
English language assistance
B.
Immersion Model
ELL is provided with special ESL support in or
outside the mainstream class
1. Pullout ESL Method
ELL is provided with English
support in ESL class
prior to
mainstreaming
2. In-Class ESL Method
ESL-trained teacher teaches English and content in
the mainstream class
C. Transitional Bilingual Model
ELLs are transitioned to
English-speaking initially
using their native language
1. Pullout
Transitional Method
ELL receives bilingual instruction outside the
mainstream class to assist transitioning to English
2. In-Class
Transitional Method
Bilingual mainstream teacher translates class
content
into ELL's native language to assist transitioning
to English
End Note: To prevent exceeding the maximum number of pages allowed in
the publication of this paper, the author was not able to include
research references and footnotes, barring this from being a proper
research paper. Although there exists much research supporting the
assertions made in the paper, all of the points raised have been
experience first hand by the author who graduated from an international
school with bilingual, bicultural children who also attended an
international school, and as an ESL teacher and education committee
member at an international school charged with establishing ESL policy.
References to current "methods" and "models" do not come from any one
source and are found as general terms in the public domain.