When Something is Lost in the Translation:
The Top Five Things Mainstream Content Area Teachers Should Know about English Language Learners
 

Dr. Joyce Nutta
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL
813-974-3759 (office)
813-974-3837 (fax)
nutta@tempest.coedu.usf.edu

Dr. Eleni Pappamihiel
Florida State University
209 Carothers Hall
Tallahassee, FL
850-644-2129 (office)
850-644-1880 (fax)
pappamih@coe.fsu.edu
 
 
 

 Introduction

     Increasingly classroom teachers are expected to balance diverse needs in the mainstream classroom, and this trend requires that educators modify instruction for students who are learning English as a new language.   Fortunately, many teacher preparation programs have incorporated English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) strategies instruction into their curricula.  This article synthesizes what we, as teacher educators, believe are the most important principles that teachers should know to support limited English proficient (LEP) students' English language development and mastery of content.
 In a recent poll of our preservice content area teachers, we found that although 91% expect to have LEP students in their classes, more than 51% feel unprepared to teach those students.  Additionally, even though some may feel qualified to teach LEP students, many preservice teachers hold less than accurate beliefs about how languages are learned, hampering their ability to be effective educators of LEP students.
    For example, 86% of our respondents reported believing that children learn languages faster and easier than adults, a contention with little definitive research support.  Also, while 67% believes that some people have a special ability to learn a second language almost that same percentage believes that anyone and everyone can learn a second language, potentially contradictory viewpoints. Finally, 36% of respondents believe that LEP students can become academically functional in English after 1-2 years of English language study for one hour each day, a belief that has been refuted in many studies.
     Everyday, we work with preservice teachers who never before believed that they would have to accommodate LEP students in their classes, having gone into teaching in order to work with native English-speaking students.  Yet, as has been seen in California with the implementation of Proposition 227, more and more mainstream teachers are seeing LEP students in their classes, increasing the certainty that content area teachers will become more responsible for teaching LEP children the academic English they need to be successful.  In fact, in Florida where we work, we are under state mandate to train every teacher in ESL strategies to respond to the demands placed on content area teachers, a lofty goal.  From this perspective, the following paragraphs will describe essential knowledge organized into five principles that all teachers should know concerning LEP students and how to help them be academically successful in US schools.

Number One: LEP students can learn social English in a year or two.  However, to really achieve academic proficiency, many LEP students need anywhere from 5-8 years of English instruction.

    A common misperception is that students learning English as a new language should be expected to complete academic tasks on par with other native English-speaking students once they can communicate in English for social purposes.  Research shows that students develop social language known as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) through interacting with peers in formal and informal settings and that this type of language is distinct from the variety of English required for academic success (Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1984).  In his now classic work, Cummins notes that BICS is typically acquired over a period of one or two years, but academic language, termed Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) can take up to five to eight years to master (Cummins, 1984).
    What this means for the classroom teacher is that appearances can be deceiving.  Although an English language learner may seem fluent, if she experiences difficulty with academic tasks in content areas or language arts, it may be due to a lack of CALP.  In general, developing CALP in a second language takes five to eight years, but this varies according to the students' prior development of CALP in the native language as well as the learning strategies and teaching techniques used.  Numerous studies show that students can transfer their native language CALP and literacy skills to English, shortening the amount of time needed to acquire CALP (Baker & de Kanter, 1981; Cummins, 1994).  Knowing students' educational background can be very valuable in promoting the transfer of these skills to English through native language support provided by bilingual aides and instructional materials.
    For all students who have yet to develop CALP in English, teachers must carefully select tasks that provide the appropriate amount of contextual support and cognitive complexity.  Activities that are cognitively complex require students to possess CALP to complete them.  While English language learners may have the cognitive capacity to grasp material, they may lack the language skills to comprehend explanations of complex concepts and to express their thoughts.  In these situations comprehension of instruction is made possible when teachers use contextual support such as visuals, hands-on learning, gestures, and other non-verbal accompaniments to instruction.  The more instruction is contextualized, the better chance the English language learner has to develop understanding of complex concepts and the language used to explain them (Cummins, 1984).

Number Two: LEP students acquire English skills in a fairly specific order, and they must go through stages of language development that cannot be circumvented.

    Any classroom teacher who has had LEP students knows that special accommodations must be made to provide comprehensible instruction.  However, not all teachers realize that LEP students come to them at very different levels of proficiency and that understanding the stages of second language acquisition can equip the teacher with effective teaching strategies.  Although there are differing opinions on second language acquisition theory and the process of learning a new language, one instructional approach, the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983), provides a practical framework for teachers juggling the needs of native speakers of English and multilevel LEP students.
    The Natural Approach divides the stages into pre-production, early production, speech emergence, and intermediate fluency.  Learners move through these stages at different rates, but they essentially move through every stage in sequential order.  By understanding learner characteristics and teaching strategies for each stage, teachers can easily integrate appropriate support and activities for LEP students into regular instruction.  Table 1, adapted from Krashen and Terrell, provides further information on the stages.
Table 1 here

Number Three: When assessing LEP students, content area teachers should be sure that their tests and other assessments are really assessing content knowledge, not language skill

    Over the past few decades, assessment has become a hugely controversial topic in public schools.  While there is not enough room in this article to adequately discuss LEP assessment issues, especially those involving high stakes standardized testing, there are several issues content area teachers should keep in mind when testing LEP students.
    Above all else, a content area teacher, for example a science teacher, wants to know if the student has grasped certain concepts related to the course goals.  However, often because traditional types of tests (essays, multiple choice, fill in the blank, etc.) are heavily language dependent, these content assessments become English proficiency tests for LEP children (Short, 1993).  LEP students frequently cannot express their mastery of content unless they have a certain level of English proficiency.
For example, if LEP students are having difficulty with sequential vocabulary, they may not be able to write an essay on the water cycle.  However, if given the opportunity to do a hands-on type of assessment through experimentation or pictures these same students may be able to demonstrate knowledge of that content, confirming for the science teacher their knowledge of science, not necessarily their limitations in English.  While some of the following alternative forms of assessment can be time consuming, they are worth the effort when working with children who often have high anxiety levels under traditional testing situations.
Table 2 here

Number Four: Fair is not always equal.

     In the landmark Lau vs. Nichols case (1974) the US Supreme Court established that providing an ‘equal’ education for LEP children did not always mean students were getting a fair education.  In fact, the courts found that Chinese students involved in the suit were being excluded from educational opportunities because, even though they were provided with the same instruction and materials as the English-speaking children, they could not take advantage of those opportunities since they did not have adequate English skills.  Given that many LEP students often need accommodations well after they are mainstreamed (Cummins, 1994), it is not equal or fair to them to use the same instructional strategies as with native English speakers since LEP learners cannot take equal advantage of these opportunities.
     Additionally, in an attempt to be color blind, teachers often do not want to acknowledge cultural and linguistic differences that can affect how LEP children learn (Nieto, 1996).  On the surface, these educators are often trying to be fair and impartial.  However, this disregard for diversity often results in teachers refusing to accept differences and appropriately accommodate LEP students’ needs.  Consequently, we must embrace the differences that all children bring with them in order to educate each according to his/her own needs.

Number Five: Children do not automatically learn language faster and more efficiently than adults.

     While this last concept has taken on the power of an urban myth, second language researchers continue to struggle with this issue with the major question centering on whether or not there is an age after which we cannot learn another language.  The one clear-cut conclusion that can be drawn from the research is that younger children will be able to develop a more native-like accent (Walsh & Diller, 1981).  However, there is little definitive research that can unconditionally support a cut off age for language acquisition (Brown, 2000).  The classroom implications of this myth are varied.  For example, teachers often hear stories of young children who become proficient in English after a year or so.  Yet, we must define proficiency.  In most of these cases, we are seeing the kind of social proficiency discussed earlier that can lead teachers to make incorrect assumptions about how children should perform academically.
    Additionally, the comparison between child and adult learning is often oversimplified because of the different tasks and demands made on children and adults.  We expect older children and adults to be able to be able to manipulate the language at complex levels early on in their learning process.  Yet, younger children are not required to perform at such high levels as soon.  Also, each group brings its own strengths to the language learning task.  Young children are often less self-conscious about taking on a second language, making them more accepting of building another ‘language ego’ (Guiora, 1983).  However, as early as 1964 Ausubel noted that adults and older children often bring with them cognitive skills that make them more efficient language learners.
    This myth can also adversely affect older students who come to this country later in life and believe that they’ve missed the language learning boat, so to speak.  When teachers and administrators support this belief, older LEP students see little advantage to remaining in school and often drop out.

Conclusions

     Teaching is a challenging profession, made even more so by the increasing demands placed on teachers in light of such trends as high stakes testing.  As teachers are being held more and more accountable for what they do, their student population is becoming even more diverse.  Hence, often teachers are now responsible for the education of students they were not originally trained to teach (Henley & Young, 1989), and the old adage of ‘good teaching will work for everyone is too simplistic to address the very real challenges that these teachers face.
    In these few pages, we have outlined some of the most basic concepts that content teachers should understand including issues of English academic proficiency, linguistic skills acquisition, assessment, equality and importance of age.  While these brief descriptions may not provide all the answers content area teachers seek, we hope that we have provided enough information to impart a bit of comfort and hope.
    Limited English proficient students can bring a wealth of information, culture and resources with them.  Yet, they need us in order to be able to contribute to our society and classrooms.  By understanding some of the basic concepts that English as a second language specialists have known for years, content area teachers can tap into the resources that LEP students bring with them, making the transition to the mainstream classroom not only easier for the ESL student but also the content area teacher as well.

 Table 1

Preproduction
 Characteristics

     1. Listening
     2. Student responds non-verbally
     3. 10 hours to 6 months exposure to English

Teaching Strategies

     1. 90% teacher talk
     2. Total Physical Response (TPR)
     3. Modeling
     4. Active student involvement
     5. Yes/no questions
     6. Use of pictures
     7. Use of props & hands-on
     8. Simplified language

Early Production
Characteristics

     1. Continued Listening
     2. Student responds with 1 or 2 words and non-verbally
     3. 3-6 months to 1 year of English

Teaching Strategies

     1. 50-60% teacher talk
     2. TPR with responses--verbal and non-verbal
     3. Who, what, where, and either/or questions – 1 word answers
     4. Role playing
     5. Completing sentences
     6. Questions to be answered with phrases (Where…?  In the house.)
     7. Labeling (older learners)

Speech Emergence
Characteristics

     1. Sight vocabulary (older learners)
     2. Students speak in phrases and sentences
     3. 1-3 years of English

Teaching Strategies

     1. 40% teacher talk
     2. Scaffolding and expansion
     3. Poetry, songs and chants
     4. Predicting
     5. Comparing
     6. Describing
     7. Social interaction (cooperative learning with information gaps)
     8. How and why questions
     9. Language Experience Approach
     10. Problem solving
     11. Group discussion
     12. Labeling
     13. Listing, charting, graphing

Intermediate Fluency
Characteristics

     1. May seem fluent but needs to expand vocabulary and CALP
     2. Engages in dialogue
     3. 3-4 years of English

 Teaching Strategies

     1. 10% teacher talk
     2. Essay writing
     3. Analyzing charts and graphs
     4. More complex problem solving and evaluating
     5. Continuing with how and why questions - research and support answers
     6. Pre-writing activities - writing process, peer critiquing, etc.
     7. Literary analysis
(Adapted from Krashen and Terrell, 1983)

Table 2

Alternative Assessments for LEP students (Fradd, McGee & Willen, 1994; O’Malley & Valdez-Pierce, 1996)

 References

Ausubel, D. (1964).  Adults vs children in second language learning: Psychological considerations. Modern Language Journal,  48, 420-424.

Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. (1981).  Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of the literature.  Washington, DC: Office of Planning and Budget, U.S. Department of Education.

Brown, D.H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.) White Plains, NY: Longman.

Collier, V. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, (4), 617-641).

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill.

Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power and identity in teaching ESL. In F. Genessee (Ed.). Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. Cambridge University Press.

Fradd, S.H., McGee, P.L. & Wilen, D.K. (1994). Instructional assessment: An integrative approach to evaluating student performance. Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Guiora, A.Z. (1983). Introduction: An epistemology for the language sciences. Language Learning, 33,(1), 6-11.

Henley, R. & Young, J. (1989). Multicultural teacher education, Part 4: Revitalizing faculties of education. Multiculturalism, 12, (3), 40-41.

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

O’Malley, M.J. & Valdez-Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Short, D.J. (1993). Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27, (4), 627-656.

Walsh, T.M. & Diller, K.C. (1981). Neurolinguistic considerations on the optimum age for second language acquisition.  In K.C. Diller (Ed.) Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.