|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructor: Julia Scherba
de Valenzuela, Ph.D.
Office: UNM, Education
Office Building, rm. 203
Contact Information: 277-1406
(phone) 255-6658 (fax) devalenz@unm.edu
Office Hours: TBA
Course Description:
de Valenzuela, J. S. (1998). Language acquisition and the bilingual exceptional child. In L. Baca & H. Cervantes (Eds.), The bilingual special education interface (3rd ed., pp. 121-143). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Goodz, N. S. (1994). Interactions between parents and children in bilingual families. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 61-81). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1994). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In B. E. Office (Ed.), Schooling and language-minority students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 47-75). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
Lessow-Hurley, J. (1996). The foundation of dual language instruction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
McKeon, D. (1994). Language, culture, and schooling. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children (pp. 15-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paley, V. G. (1995). Looking for Magpie: Another voice in the classroom. In H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp. 91-99). New York: Teachers College Press.
Pease-Alvarez, C., & Vasquez, O. (1994). Language socialization in ethnic minority communities. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 82-102). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Sánchez, R. (1994). Chicano discourse. Houston, TX: Arte Público Press.
Schiff-Myers, N. B., Djukic, J., McGoven-Lawler, J., & Perez, D. (1993). Assessment considerations in the evaluation of second-language learners: A case study. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 237-248.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity (Research Report 2). Santa Cruz, CA: The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Tharp, R. G. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice (Research Report 1). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991a). Second-language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49-69). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1991b). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323-346.
The objectives of this course are to prepare and develop teachers and other leaders who:
Given the integrated nature of this institute, 70% of your grade in each class will come from projects and activities that span all three of your courses. The remainder for the points (30) for this class will come from the following assignments.
Classroom Language Use Assignment: 10 points
* observation report
* question development
A+ = 98-100
C = 74-77
A = 94-97
C- = 70-73
A- = 90-93
D+ = 68-69
B+ = 88-89
D = 64-67
B = 84-87
D- = 60-63
B- = 80-83
F+ = 58-59
C+ = 78-79
F = below 57
Written directions for all assignments will be provided, along with the criteria for determining point values. All written assignments will be expected to be typed and follow the American Psychological Association Manual (4 th ed.) format.
Late assignments will receive a one (1) point deduction for every day late, with a limit of seven days allowed. If assignments are not turned in within 1 week of the assigned date, they will not be accepted, except in the case of significant illness or family emergency. If you will be not be able to be in class, please arrange for a friend to turn in your assignment during class, have the assignment faxed to me by the time/date due, or hand it in to one of the instructors at the next class session you attend.
DATE/TIME TOPIC READINGS ASSIGNMENTS
|
|
|
|||
|
10:45-1 |
10:45-1 |
|
McKeon,
1994 AND
de Valenzuela, 1998 |
|
|
9-10:50 |
11:10-1 |
|
Pease-Alvarez & Vasquez, 1994 AND Paley, 1995 | begin #1 in class |
|
10:45-1 |
10:45-1 |
|
Lessow-Hurley, 1996, chapters 3 & 4 | |
|
10:45-1 |
10:45-1 |
|
Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, chapter 1 AND Romaine, 1995, pp. 181-187 & 236-240 | begin #2 in class |
|
9-10:50 |
11:10-1 |
|
Goodz, 1994 | |
|
9-10:15 & 12-1 |
9-10:15 & 12-1 |
|
Sánchez, 1994, chapter 5 | begin #3 in class |
|
9-10:15 & 12-1 |
9-10:15 & 12-1 |
|
Schiff-Myers, Djukic, McGoven-Lawler & Perez, 1993 AND Wong Fillmore, 1991b | |
|
10:45-1 |
10:45-1 |
|
Cummins, 1994; Krashen, 1994; OR Wong Fillmore, 1991a | #3 due |
|
10:45-1 |
10:45-1 |
|
Tharp, 1997, pp. 1-15 | |
|
10:45-1 |
10:45-1 |
|
Tharp & Gallimore, 1991 | last date due for #s 1 & 2 |
Assignment #1: Classroom Language Use Activity
Observation report:
You will need to observe at least one teacher-led whole or small group activity. Take detailed notes on how the teacher and students are using language. Pay special attention to the ways that the teacher’s talk differs from "ordinary conversation." Figure out such things as who gets to speak and when, what restrictions there are on what they can say, how they can say it, and so on. Write up your observations using several real examples from your notes (try to take down exact quotes when possible and indicate them in your report using quotation marks and indicating who is saying what).
Question development:
Using Bloom’s taxonomy (copy included and discussed in class), develop 5-10 questions at the upper range for an activity/lesson that you observed in the classroom. You can, but do not have to, develop them for the lesson you discuss above. Describe in less than a page what changes, if any, you anticipate from the use of these questions in a classroom context.
Grading Rubric
1. Observation Report ( out of 4 points)
Description of lesson(s) observed is clear, descriptive, and non- judgmental. (1 pt)
Actual quotes from participants are used to illustrate discussion of observations. (1 pt)
Discussion of ways talk is used in detailed, non-judgmental, and is supported by evidence and ample description. (2 pts)
2. Questions ( out of 3 points)
Questions clearly fell within the highest half of Bloom’s taxonomy. (1 pt)
The questions were clearly worded. (1 pt)
Wording of questions was appropriate for the age and English language abilities of the students. (1 pt)
3. Discussion of Questions ( out of 1 points)
Discussion of possible changes in the classroom context as a result of
using these questions in a
hypothetical lesson was realistic, thoughtful, and clearly reflected topics
discussed in the readings and/or in class. (1 pt)
Discussion was minimal, vague, general and/or unrealistic and was not clearly
based on class readings or
discussions. (0 pts)
4. Writing ( out of 2 points)
Grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors were frequent. (0 pts)
Language was frequently vague, value-laden, and either overly personal or pedantic. (0 pts)
Total: out
of 10 points
BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
Major Categories in the Cognitive
Domain of the Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956)
Knowledge. Knowledge is defined as the remembering of previously learned material. This may involve the recall of a wide range of material, from specific facts to complete theories, but all that is required is the bringing to mind of the appropriate information. Knowledge represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain.
Comprehension. Comprehension is defined as the ability to grasp the meaning of material. This may be shown by translating material from one form to another (word to numbers), by interpreting material (explaining or summarizing), and by estimating future trends (predicting consequences or effects). These learning outcomes go one step beyond the simple remembering of material, and represent the lowest level of understanding.
Application. Application refers to the ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations. This may include the application of such things as rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws and theories. Learning outcomes in the area require a higher level of understanding than those under comprehension.
Analysis. Analysis refers to the ability to break down material into its component parts so that its organizational structure may be understood. This may include the identification of the parts, analysis of the relationships between parts, and recognition of the organizational principles involved. Learning outcomes here represent a higher intellectual level than comprehension and application because they require an understanding of both the content and structural form of the material.
Synthesis. Synthesis refers to the ability to put parts together to form a new whole. This may involve the production of a unique communication (theme or speech), a plan of operations (research proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for clarifying information). Learning outcomes in this area stress creative behaviors, with major emphasis on the formulation of new patterns or structures.
Evaluation. Evaluation is concerned with the ability to judge the value of the material (statement, novel, poem, research report) for a given purpose. The judgments are to be based on definite criteria. These may be internal criteria (organization) or external criteria (relevance to the purpose), and the student may determine the criteria or be given them. Learning outcomes in this area are highest in the cognitive hierarchy because they contain elements of all of the other categories, plus conscious value judgments based on clearly defined criteria.
Assignment #2: Interview with an ESL student
In a small group, you will begin to develop a short list of questions to ask a second language learner (adult or child) that will allow you to describe his/her pattern of second language development. Use the readings, particularly Romaine, to think about different patterns of second/bilingual language development and to help you with your question development. After you have your set of questions developed (you may alter them individually if you want), ask a student in either the elementary or adult ESL class if you may interview them. Then, write up the results of your interview, using as many direct quotes as possible and appropriate.
The total length of your report on this activity should be between 3-5 pages, including the interview questions. Please include a copy of your questions as an appendix. You should include a brief description of the interview, including the setting and some minimal descriptive information on your informant. Please use a pseudonym to protect his/her identity. Then, you need to include a discussion of the interview. Your discussion should include:
2) A brief critique
of your questions, including what you might have liked to ask but didn’t
or what questions did not give you the information you anticipated and
how you might re-word them next time.
1. Description of Interview ( out of 2 points)
Description of the interview and informant is clear and objective, with
sufficient information
to understand the context of the interview. (2 pts)
2. Questions ( out of 3 points)
The questions were clearly worded. (1 pt)
Wording of questions was appropriate for the age and English language abilities of your informant. (1 pt)
The questions were appropriate for gathering the information you were asked to obtain. (1 pt)
3. Discussion ( out of 3 points)
Your analysis of the informant’s pattern of second language development
was reasonable and plausible,
based on the questions asked and the responses gathered. (1 pt)
Actual quotes from your informant were used to illustrate your discussion and analysis. (1 pt)
Your analysis and discussion was consistent with the frameworks presented in the readings.
4. Writing ( out of 2 points)
Grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors were frequent. (0 pts)
Language was frequently vague, value-laden, and either overly personal or pedantic. (0 pts)
Total: out of 10
points
Assignment #3: Mini-survey on Language Attitudes
In a small group, you will develop a set of questions eliciting attitudes toward the use of languages other than English by children and/or adults living in the United States. Ideally, your questions will get at attitudes regarding the use of non-English languages with young children in the home, as well as other issues, such as English as the official language and the use of other languages for schooling purposes (i.e. bilingual education versus foreign language instruction in secondary school). You will need to interview 3-5 people for this assignment. Please do NOT interview strangers or fellow classmates. Please do not discuss any of your participants using identifiable information -- it is important that their identities be protected, as this is a controversial topic.
Your write-up should include a brief description of who was interviewed, when, where and how, excluding any clearly identifiable information. Pseudonyms should be used throughout. Your questions should be included as an appendix. The total page length should be between 3-5 pages. Your discussion of language attitudes should include the following:
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEW ( OUT OF 2 POINTS)
Description of the interviews and informants is clear and objective, with
sufficient information
to understand the context of the interview AND without compromising the
identity of your
participants. (2 pts)
2. QUESTIONS ( OUT OF 3 POINTS)
The questions were clearly worded. (1 pt)
The questions were appropriate for gathering the information you were asked to obtain. (1 pt)
The questions were not judgmental or leading. (1 pt)
3. DISCUSSION ( OUT OF 3 POINTS)
Your analysis of attitudes toward the use of languages other than English
was reasonable and plausible,
based on the questions asked and the responses gathered. (1 pt)
Actual quotes from your informants were used to illustrate your discussion and analysis. (1 pt)
Your analysis was discussed with reference to the readings and/or class discussion. (1 pt)
4. WRITING ( OUT OF 2 POINTS)
Grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors were frequent. (0 pts)
Language was frequently vague, value-laden, and either overly personal or pedantic. (0 pts)
Total: out of 10 points
|
|
Last updated: July 31, 1999