LinksCoursesResourcesSummer Institute |
BIL ED 493: First and Second Language DevelopmentSummer ESL Endorsement Institute, 1999 (3 credit hours) East San José Elementary School
Course Description: The purpose of this course is to provide a framework for considering how language development in bilingual individuals is different from that of monolinguals. This course is designed to assist educators in understanding how the multiple realities of bilingualism interact with the educational context and therefore may influence the academic performance and assessment of bilingual students. This knowledge should lead to more considered instructional decision making on the part of course participants. Rationale: The mission of the College of Education is to advance the quality of the educational experience for all learners and to educate professionals who can facilitate human growth in schools, homes, communities, and workplaces. In carrying out this mission, the College explicitly values diversity in people and perspectives. This course supports the College of Education framework by addressing student abilities within the context of a diverse society, recognizing the need to support all individuals in life-long learning, and validating all individuals as valuable members of their communities, including their communities of learners. Readings: Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language minority students. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language-minority students: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., pp. 3-46). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. 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. Course Objectives: The objectives of this course are to prepare and develop teachers and other leaders who:
Course Design: This course is designed so that students will interact actively
with the course material -- small group projects, discussion of readings,
and in-class activities, rather than instructor lecture, will make up the
bulk of in-class sessions. Therefore, it is imperative that students
arrive at each class having read all of the assigned readings. Graded assignments
are designed to be instructional as well as providing a means of arriving
at a final grade for each student. Therefore, little emphasis will be placed
on quizzes and exams and most will rest on graded out-of-class assignments
that rely on interpretation of course materials and development of research
skills and critical thinking. Students who require special accommodations
or instructional modifications need to notify the instructor by the
beginning of the semester with appropriate documentation from the Learning
Support Services Center (277-6670). Specific Course Requirements: 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. 1. Classroom Language Use Assignment: 10 points * observation report * question development 2. Interview with an ESL Student: 10 points 3. Attitude Survey: 10 points
|
| DATE/TIME | TOPIC | READINGS | ASSIGNMENTS |
| Cohort A June 10 (Thurs)10:45-1 Cohort B June 11 (Friday)10:45-1 |
Folk theories of language & defining language | McKeon, 1994 AND de Valenzuela, 1998 | |
| Cohort A June 14 (Mon)9-10:50 Cohort B June 14 (Mon)11:10-1 |
Language socialization | Pease-Alvarez & Vasquez, 1994 AND Paley, 1995 | begin #1 in class |
| Cohort A June 15 (Tues)10:45-1 Cohort B June 16 (Weds)10:45-1 |
General processes in language development Lessow-Hurley, 1996, chapters 3 & 4 | ||
| Cohort A Cohort B |
|||
| Cohort A Cohort B |
|||
| Cohort A Cohort B |
|||
| Cohort A Cohort B |
|||
| Cohort A Cohort B |
|||
| Cohort A Cohort B |
|||
| Cohort A Cohort B |
|||
| Cohort A |
June 23 (Weds)
9-10:15 & 12-1 June 22 (Tues)
9-10:15 & 12-1 Patterns of second and bilingual language development Valdés & Figueroa, 1994, chapter 1 AND Romaine, 1995, pp. 181-187 & 236-240 begin #2 in class
June 25 (Friday)
9-10:15 & 12-1 June 24 (Thurs)
9-10:15 & 12-1 Patterns of second and bilingual language development, cont. Goodz, 1994
June 28
9-10:50 June 28
11:10-1 Controversial issues in second language development: Semilingualism & code switching Sánchez, 1994, chapter 5 begin #3 in class
July 1 (Thurs)
10:45-1 July 2 (Friday)
10:45-1 Controversial issues in second language development: First language attrition Schiff-Myers, Djukic, McGoven-Lawler & Perez, 1993 AND Wong Fillmore, 1991b
July 6 (Tues)
10:45-1 July 7 (Weds)
10:45-1 Models of second language development: Cummins, Krashen and Wong Fillmore Cummins, 1994; Krashen, 1994; OR Wong Fillmore, 1991a #3 due
July 12 (Mon)
9-10:50 July 12 (Mon)
11:10-1 Contexts for learning in the classroom: Tharp's five principles Tharp, 1997, pp. 1-15
July 13 (Tues)
10:45-1 July 14 (Weds)
10:45-1 Contexts for learning in the classroom: Instructional conversations Tharp & Gallimore, 1991 last date due for #s 1 & 2
Julia's Personal Vision and Mission Statement for Teaching
Vision: A classroom climate that fosters thoughtful and respectful consideration of alternative viewpoints and ideas, personal ownership of learning, and individual construction of personally meaningful knowledge.
Mission: To facilitate the collaborative construction of the above learning environment via attention to the following:
whole and small group dynamics;
increased literacy in academic discourse (comprehension and production, oral and written); and
opportunities for active engagement with course content and materials.
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 this 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)
Mechanics (1 point):
Grammar, spelling and punctuation errors were minimal and did not distract from readability. (1 pt)
Grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors were frequent. (0 pts)
Language (1 points):
Language was consistently descriptive, objective, and professional. (1 pt)
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)
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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:
1) Your understanding of your informant's pattern of second language development, based on the questions you asked; and
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.
Grading Rubric
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 OF QUESTIONS ( 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)
Mechanics (1 point):
Grammar, spelling and punctuation errors were minimal and did not distract from readability. (1 pt)
Grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors were frequent. (0 pts)
Language (1 points):
Language was consistently descriptive, objective, and professional. (1 pt)
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.) Anything that was a surprise or interest to you;
2.) Direct quotes from your informants to illustrate any important points;
3.) Any concerns you have regarding your questions or how you carried out the interviews;
4.) Any insight you have gathered regarding attitudes regarding the use of languages other than English in the U.S.; and
5.) How the information you gathered may reflect on the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Grading Rubric
1. DESCRIPTION OF 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 OF QUESTIONS ( 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)
Mechanics (1 point):
Grammar, spelling and punctuation errors were minimal and did not distract from readability. (1 pt)
Grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors were frequent. (0 pts)
Language (1 points):
Language was consistently descriptive, objective, and professional. (1 pt)
Language was frequently vague, value-laden, and either overly personal or pedantic. (0 pts)
Total: out of 10 points