Re-Gifted Reading

Stephen Krashen finds an easy way to help close the achievement gap in literacy and clean up clutter at the same time

There is overwhelming evidence that those who live in poverty have little access to books at home, in schools, and in public and school libraries, and that the lack of access to books impacts literacy development and also results in less knowledge of the world. Research, in fact, strongly suggests that lack of access to books is the major reason for the literacy “achievement gap,” the difference in reading ability between children coming from higher- and lower-income families.

Someday, e-books might be available at a reasonable cost for everybody. But until this happens, I would like to suggest one way we can help close the access-to-books gap. It requires no special funding from the government or the Gates Foundation, no paperwork, and no sacrifice. In fact, we can do it in a way that benefits everybody.

Most middle-class people have extra books in their homes, books they would like to give away. We often do this by donating to Goodwill-type organizations, but there is a problem: there is no way we can ensure that the books get to those who really need or want them.

An organization called BookMooch, founded by John Buckman, has solved this problem. Bookmooch (BookMooch.com) is a book swap club. You list the books you want to give away. Another BookMooch member can claim one of these books. You then send the book to the person and pay the postage (media mail). When you do this, you get one point. You can then use this point to claim somebody else’s book, and they pay the postage. You can thus get books you want for only the cost of postage. (You get more points for mailing to another country and pay more points when ordering books from another country.) There is no cost to join or use BookMooch.

And now the interesting part: Bookmooch lists charities you can donate your points to if you have some left over. Those of us BookMooch users who have built up huge book collections always have a surplus of points. Bookmooch supplies a list of “worthy causes”: they include school libraries, classroom libraries, public libraries, and prison libraries.

Bookmooch members exchange about 2,000 books a day and donate about 2% of their points to charities, about 10,000 books a year. As of 2012, BookMooch had about 25,000 active members. If BookMooch had 2.5 million active members, this ­­would mean that the charities would get about a million books a year, assuming that 2% of members’ points are donated. If BookMooch members get a little more generous and donate even a mere four points a year, with a million members this would mean ten million books given to libraries and therefore available to those who really need them but cannot get them elsewhere.

The crucial fact is that the BookMooch charity libraries can order precisely the books they want: they can select ANY of the half-million books listed on BookMooch.

There are about 50 million people living at or under the poverty line right now, 50 million people who can’t afford books and who are dependent on libraries. An extra million books a year will not completely close the access-to-books gap, but it will be a big help, especially because they will be the books these libraries need for their members.

And now the advantage to you: you get to clean up your home library. As your children and grandchildren get older, you can give away all those wonderful children’s books to libraries so that children in poverty can enjoy them just as much as the children in your family did. You can give away that extra copy of that Jane Austin novel that has been on your shelf for ten years, or that popular romance or spy novel that you know you don’t want to reread.

You also will have the satisfaction of knowing that your book will go to somebody who wants that particular book and that you have made a donation to a real charity.

Finally, as a BookMooch member, you will have access to many books you might want or need at very, very low cost.

PS: I got on BookMooch because I read light fiction in other languages, mostly in German and French. Other bookswap groups I looked at are not international. Bookmooch keeps me well supplied. This is particularly important for foreign language teachers who are not native speakers of the languages they teach — light fiction is an easy, pleasant way not only to keep their competence but actually improve when native speakers are not around (and even when they are).

Stephen Krashen is professor emeritus at the University of Southern California.

Empowering English Learners as Assets

Johanna Even and Mawi Asgedom help us empower English learners through an
asset-based mindset

A refugee from Ethiopia has just joined your first-grade class. During the first two weeks, you learn the following about him: 1) He does not know a word of English. 2) He has already been in three fights. 3) He wears the same clothes several days a week. 4) His mother has never been to school and his father is legally blind.

What thoughts do you have about this boy? Do you worry about his future?

Now, consider these additional facts: 1) This boy already speaks two languages, his native Tigrinya and Arabic. 2) He can already add and subtract. 3) He is an excellent soccer player (he played every day in the refugee camp). 4) His parents value education and ensure he arrives at school on time every day.

The young boy in this story is Mawi Asgedom. The first set of facts focus on his deficits, the second on his assets. Because Mawi had enough educators who saw his assets that he was able to recognize and build upon them. Mawi went on to graduate from Harvard and become a bestselling author and founder of Mawi Learning.

Where Is Your District on the Scale?

Mawi was an anomaly in his suburban Illinois school. Like most suburban towns in the early ‘80s, Wheaton had few English learners in its schools, and only a handful of educators had the opportunity to work with students like Mawi. Fast-forward 30 years, and the demographics have changed dramatically.

When we work with district leaders, they tell us that they believe English learners bring tremendous value to their school communities and that building an asset-based culture is important. Yet when we ask these same district leaders to rate themselves on a scale of one to ten—one meaning the district views English learners as a burden and ten meaning everyone welcomes them and recognizes their potential—most district leaders rate themselves a three or a four. While these administrators want to cultivate an asset-based culture, they do not believe they have successfully built organizations that embrace what English learners bring to their schools and communities.

In this article, we share strategies that all educators can use to shift their thoughts, words, and actions to move those ratings from a three or four to a nine or ten. Readers may wonder, why are we focusing on all educators? Why do we not emphasize the role of ESL teachers, since they have the most direct impact on English learners?

Consider this scenario. Imagine you go on a family vacation to another country. You arrive at the hotel and all of the signs are in a language you do not understand. At the front desk, the receptionist seems irritated that you do not speak the language. You wait for an assistant to help you with your bags, only to find out that one is not available in this hotel.

When you finally get to your room, you have a completely different experience. The room is comfortable and welcoming. The cleaning staff stops by and welcomes you in their best attempt at English—and they even teach you a few words in their language. Do you ever want to leave your room?

If we rely only on ESL teachers to do this work, our students’ experience will be much like this. They will be reluctant to leave their metaphorical rooms to achieve their full potential.

Start from the Top: Superintendent and District Leadership 

Let us return to our hotel analogy. You may have visited a hotel chain that gives out warm chocolate-chip cookies upon check-in. These cookies communicate a vision for the brand—one of hospitality and welcome. The decision to invest in cookies for every guest did not come from the hundreds of receptionists who greet guests every day. It most likely came from a senior leader who was building a strategy to operationalize a vision. This strategy, however, likely impacts mindsets and actions of employees at all levels of the organization. It is pretty hard to act grouchily when handing someone a delicious, warm chocolate-chip cookie.

As the senior leader in your district, you set the vision and build the strategy. You also create the conditions under which people collaborate. To truly shift your district from a three to a ten, all staff need to contribute to a shared vision of English learner success. No more silos.

You likely already have a vision of what you hope to achieve on behalf of your students. This probably includes academic achievement, career success, and developing happy, healthy, and productive citizens. Your vision may have been developed when circumstances and your student population were different. As a leader, you are faced with a choice—raise your current reality toward your vision, or lower your vision toward your new reality (Senge, 1990). Unfortunately, all too often, leaders lower their vision to adjust to their new reality. The key to raising your reality to meet your vision is to make intentional shifts in mindsets, words, and actions.

As a leader, every word you say and action you take is watched and interpreted by many and can have a tremendous impact. Consider this powerful example: Illinois district 135 has historically had a majority Caucasian population. In recent years, the district has enrolled an increasing number of Arabic-speaking students. On opening day for staff, the school board president and the superintendent acknowledged the changing demographics and highlighted the district’s commitment to helping all students succeed. Their message was clear and unwavering. “Our diversity is an asset.”

This intentional choice to publicly embrace demographic shifts during perhaps the most important speaking event of the year is powerful culture setting. Although this statement may have carried political risks for both the board president and the superintendent, their willingness to take a stand on behalf of students sent a strong message to the entire district community.

The EL Director

District EL directors are uniquely poised to lead the cultural shifts needed to empower all English learners for success. Unfortunately, all too often, EL directors are viewed as monitors of compliance rather than leaders and vision setters. How can EL directors meet the complex requirements of compliance while developing district-wide asset-based practices?

Here are some examples of what an EL director can say and do to lead the shift to asset-based thinking.

The School Leader 

School leaders, much like superintendents, set the vision and the tone in their buildings. With many competing demands on their time, what they choose to focus on communicates a clear message about what they value.

With limited resources such as professional development hours, physical space, stipend money, and extracurricular funding, allocation decisions communicate values and priorities. The school leader, through words and actions, also sets the tone for whether the school community will view English learners through an asset-based or deficit-based lens.

The Teacher 

Imagine this scenario. You are waiting for your turn in line at the copier. The teacher in front of you says, “I just got a new student today. She is an EL and she only speaks Arabic. I have worked so hard to get my scores up and now they give me the new EL student.” What do you say?

If you respond, “I know. That’s really tough. I have three EL students in my class. I will never have the highest scores in the grade,” you are essentially affirming the deficit-based view shared by your colleague.

What happens if you respond differently? “I felt that way, too, last month when I got a new EL student. But I am so amazed at all the progress she has made in such a short time. And she has taught me how to say a few words in Arabic. I love having her in my class.” With this response, you have shifted the conversation from a level three conversation to a level nine or ten. Teachers have similar opportunity to shift conversations—and, as a result, mindsets—with families and students.

A Mindset Shift with Profound Impact 

In our work with school and district leaders, we have seen the tremendous impact of an asset-based approach to English-learner education. An asset-based mindset provides the foundation for empowering practices that shift school culture and accelerate student growth. By changing our perspectives, adjusting our words, and choosing asset-based actions, we can have a remarkable impact on the culture of our schools and the lives of our English learners.

References: 

Asgedom, Mawi and Johanna Even, Empowering English Learners for Classroom Success: 6 Keys to Academic and Social-Emotional Growth. Chicago: Mawi Learning, 2017.

Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990.

Mawi Asgedom (MawiLearning.com) is a former English learner who graduated from Harvard and has trained over one million students.

Dr. Johanna Even is an experienced educator who has spent over 25 years teaching and leading in schools with high English learner populations. They are the authors of Empowering English Learners for Classroom Success (Mawi Learning, December, 2017; ISBN-10: 0986077216; ISBN-13: 978-0986077210).

Updated Federal Data on English Learners

The U.S. Department of Education launched a new interactive web page dedicated to data on English Learner students (ELs). The site uses colorful maps, bar graphs, and charts to provide a clearer understanding of America’s diverse ELs population in a “data story” format  based on data from the Common Core of Data (CCD). The data story shows nearly every state has at least one school district where the EL population has increased by more than 50% since the 2010 school year and answers three main questions – Who are ELs? Where are ELs? And what languages do ELs speak?

The Data Story Includes:

  • A state by state chart of the most common non-English languages spoken by ELs, highlighting the more than 400 different languages spoken across the country.
  • A district level map that shows current EL populations, as well as changes in the EL populations over time.
  • Graphics highlighting how likely ELs are to attend schools and districts with high concentrations of other ELs

These data elements will serve to dispel commonly held misconceptions about ELs and help educators better understand the needs of this diverse group of learners. “The launch of this site is a worthy investment on behalf of ELs, their families and the entire education community,” said Office of English Language Acquisition Assistant Deputy Secretary Jose A. Viana. “It takes a lot of complex data and makes it accessible and easy to use.”

The site was developed as part of an ongoing collaboration between the Office of English Language Acquisition and the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service.

For more information, visit the Office of English Language Acquisition’s home page.

Cutting to the Common Core: Disrupting Discourse

Kate Kinsella recommends launching an Academic Language Campaign to prepare diverse learners for the Common Core State Standards

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010) rolling out in 46 states aim to graduate all U.S. high school students with 21st century communication and literacy skills, career and college ready. These new national standards signal a pronounced shift in how academic language and literacy instruction must be approached. Four particular competencies are emphasized that represent decidedly new expectations for communication, reading, and writing development: 1) engaging with complex texts, with increased percentage of informational material; 2) conducting research and using evidence from diverse sources to construct verbal and written arguments; 3) participating in collaborative academic discussions and presentations; 4) and developing the advanced language proficiency to accomplish all of the above tasks. In grades K-5, the standards detail competencies for students in the areas of speaking and listening, reading, and writing that apply to all elementary subject areas. In grades 6-12, the standards are divided into two major categories: those specifically addressing English language arts and those intended for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.

The new standards accentuate that career and college readiness entails approaching text with “an appreciation of the norms and conventions of each discipline” (CCSS, p. 60) and writing with understanding of distinct tasks, goals, and audiences (CCSS, p. 63). This shared responsibility for communication and literacy mentoring presents novel opportunities and challenges for educators across the K-12 curriculum. Throughout the school day, students will rely on each and every teacher to adeptly articulate, demonstrate, and coach the foundational language and literacy skills of their discipline.

All Students are Academic English Learners
Teachers serving students from diverse linguistic, social, and economic backgrounds will be particularly challenged to help every learner meet the language demands of rigorous CCSS performance-based assessments, including constructed written responses and formal presentations. When students are already grappling to demonstrate mastery of 20th century academic communication and foundational literacy skills, the prospect of preparing them for 21st century career and college readiness can appear to be a Herculean if not Sisyphean task. English learners and community dialect speakers will indeed require a more informed and concerted school-wide initiative to develop the verbal skills of synthesis, interpretation, explanation, and persuasion they can leverage in academic interaction, reading, and writing. Oral language proficiency underscores advanced academic literacy (August & Shanahan, 2006); Language-minority youths understandably struggle to read and write what they cannot articulate verbally.

With the prospective CCSS assessments 2014 start date looming, school districts across the nation are making initial strides to gear up staff and students alike. Widespread faculty preparations include conducting a standards gap analysis, revisiting Bloom’s Taxonomy, writing depth of knowledge questions, and wedging in informational texts to augment an outdated literature-centric English language arts curriculum. While these curricular-focused preoccupations may serve to introduce more conceptual and textual rigor into conventional lessons, ramping up the level of text and task complexity alone will not ensure positive outcomes for learners lacking academic language proficiency. The CCSS speaking and listening standards call upon students to listen critically and participate in cooperative tasks within all core content classrooms. They must articulate their text comprehension, summarize, make inferences, and justify claims using complex sentences, precise vocabulary, and grammatical accuracy. From kindergarten to high school graduation, English learners and under-resourced classmates will require successful experiences engaging in structured, accountable academic interaction across the school day to meet these performance expectations.

They must also be exposed to an articulate command of English in every class and benefit from consistent school-wide academic language instructional principles and practices.

Ensuring that every student is well equipped with the linguistic resources to tackle grade-level curriculum and assessments in the Common Core era is admittedly daunting. The language of school encompasses “words, grammar, and organizational strategies used to describe complex ideas, higher-order thinking processes, and abstract concepts” (Zwiers, 2008). Academic language proficiency is widely recognized as a pivotal factor in the school success of English learners, and it has been increasingly cited as a major contributor to achievement gaps between language- minority students and English proficient students (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006). Students who use dialects or regional varieties of the English language that differ strikingly from the language of school are similarly disadvantaged from the outset (Craig & Washington, 2004). Every child is AELL, an academic English language learner, including those from a home in which language usage maps more readily onto classroom contexts. However, youths with limited English proficiency, primary language delays, or nonstandard dialects will arguably have more acute and compelling academic oral language priorities as schools embark upon career and college readiness coursework.

Teaching Academic English by Example
One concrete and manageable way to begin addressing student language needs is to launch a school-wide academic English register campaign. Instead of focusing immediately on faculty discussions of students’ linguistic deficits or attributes, we can turn our attention to teachers’ and administrators’ adept and consistent modeling of academic English language. When classes are comprised of students with differential exposure to advanced English vocabulary and sentence structures, it becomes all the more vital for teachers to serve as proficient and unswerving academic language models. In many schools, English learners and less proficient readers are surrounded by classmates equally challenged by academic language norms and conventions. For these students, the only reliable context for rich and varied exposure to spoken English is the classroom. Teachers can facilitate advanced English acquisition by serving as eloquent and articulate users of both academic and social language. Using complete sentences, precise vocabulary, and a more formal register during lessons will model appropriate classroom language and create a supportive climate for second-language production and experimentation.
In my role as a school consultant and instructional coach on English language development in numerous states, I have become acutely aware of the countless register shifts students experience throughout the course of a school day. Many teachers segue routinely from academic language use to casual vernacular, making it taxing for neophyte academic English speakers to get a handle on school-based language forms. As an illustration of instructional code-switching, consider the linguistic impact when a teacher sets up a collaborative task in this manner: “OK, you guys. I need you to get in your groups right now and make sure you’ve got all your stuff out so you don’t need to go back and get things later and bother anyone. Alright kids, let’s look at your job. I need everyone to read the directions with me: Identify the most convincing evidence provided by the author to support his claim that cyberbullying is not adequately controlled on high school campuses.” Referencing students informally as “you guys” and “kids” cues informality as does use of imprecise terms like “stuff, “things, “bother” and “job.” Transitioning from processing verbal directions posed in familiar social register to digesting written directions and texts framed in sophisticated academic register is tantamount to a linguistic whiplash.

Chronic instructional code-switching serves as a confounding linguistic model; It also inadvertently prompts more informal student language use. When we address students during lessons using a familiar register, we tend to relax our physical stance and communicate nonverbally that we are interacting casually, triggering a reciprocal informal student response. Nonverbal cues often accompany informal instructional register, such as approaching a single student within a lesson and speaking tête-á-tête (one-on-one) or sitting on a table with crossed legs while inviting additional contributions from the unified class.

Launching an Academic Register Campaign
As purveyors of the language of school, teachers across the K-12 spectrum must assume responsibility for exposing their learners to the most articulate and imitable variety of English that will advance their command of academic register. Serving as a viable academic language mentor begins with comprehending and successfully communicating the meaning of register. A register is “the constellation of lexical (vocabulary) and grammatical features that characterizes particular uses of language (Schleppegrell, 2001). In layman’s terms, a register is the word choices, sentence types, and grammar used by speakers and writers in a particular context or for a particular type of presentation or writing. In student-friendly terms, a register is the way we use words and sentences to speak and write in different situations or for different reasons.

Introducing the term register to K-12 students at any age with accessible examples helps to concretize a potentially alien concept. This digitally-savvy generation of secondary school students fairly readily grasps the differences between the language one hastily scribes to send a text message to a friend or family member (abbreviated quotidian words and phrases, incomplete sentences, emoticons) and the more formal tone, complete sentences, and precise vocabulary one deploys in an e-mail message to a strict teacher attempting to communicate a viable excuse for turning in a late high-stakes assignment. Elementary school students easily comprehend the distinctions in the ways we would ask a grandparent, minister, or principal for assistance as opposed to how we might ask a sibling or close friend. Young language scholars in every grade tend to immediately relate to analogies with formal and casual clothing choices. They recognize the inappropriateness of appearing at a family wedding, church service, or formal dance attired in clothing more suitable for weekend chores or playing outside after school with neighborhood friends.

Discussions of register with students should be at once direct, nonjudgmental, and respectful. At no point should an educator ever imply that home use of language is anything less than appropriate. In fact, the term “home language” is best left out of this candid conversation altogether. Students need to rest assured that having an agile command of “everyday English” is absolutely imperative if they wish to have friends and intimate relationships. It is the rare individual who prefers to interact regularly with someone who only utilizes formal academic English. Further, “everyday English” varies from one community to another and moving fluidly within home and school environments warrants being sensitive to language uses in different contexts. Clarifying register distinctions with developmentally-appropriate contrasting terms helps learners at successive language proficiency and age levels continue to grapple with this essential linguistic concept (See Table 1).

Eliciting Academic Responses from Students
After introducing the notion of register, an academic language mentor should clarify for students the essentials of constructing an appropriate academic response. My experiences teaching first generation college freshmen and adolescent English learners have made me keenly aware of the fact that most have progressed in their schooling perplexed by a teacher’s admonition to “respond in a complete sentence.” Consider this commonplace scenario. A social studies teacher poses a discussion question to activate and build background knowledge prior to assigning a chapter on recent U.S. immigration: What are common challenges faced by recent U.S. immigrants? After allowing adequate wait time for individual reflection, the teacher asks a mixed-ability class comprised of native English speakers and English learners “Would anyone like to share?” When no one immediately steps up to the plate to offer a voluntary contribution, the teacher calls on students randomly. Typical responses include “English,” ”New foods,” and “Finding a job.” Probed to rephrase an example in a complete sentence, a flummoxed contributor replies inaudibly “It’s learning English.”

Despite our earnest efforts to elicit detailed and audible responses, few under-prepared students have figured out what we actually mean by “answer in a complete sentence.” What teachers across disciplines anticipate is a complex statement incorporating precise vocabulary from the assigned question, for example, “One common challenge faced by many recent immigrants is learning an entirely different language.” On the first day of my English language development classes, I demystify this process for students while establishing my expectations for active, responsible participation in unified-class and collaborative discussions. I visibly display questions and appropriate complete responses as illustrated in Table 2. The inevitable question arises: “Why didn’t my teachers show me how to do this years ago?” We simply can’t expect language-minority students to be armchair applied linguists successfully deconstructing the nuances of school-based language.

Using Appropriate Terms to Address Students and Teachers
Another practical way to increase the level of language formality in daily classroom interactions is to monitor the ways in which we refer to students throughout a lesson. While coaching English language development teachers in upper-elementary and secondary classrooms, I have observed students immediately sit up and assume a professional demeanor when addressed as young “scholars” or “collaborators,” and revert to a relaxed, disengaged posture when called to attention as “kids” or “you guys.” I make a concerted effort to address my English language apprentices in varied ways depending on the nature of our task. If I am guiding them in writing a brief constructed response, I address them as “co-authors”. If we are analyzing data or evidence-based text, I refer to them as “investigators” or “scientists.” I also make a point to clarify for students the meanings of the terms I am using (See Table 3) and my rationale before encouraging them to demonstrate respect to fellow classmates by following my model and adopting these precise labels for academic and professional peers.

Similarly, students from all backgrounds benefit from learning how to properly address teachers, administrators, and other district employees throughout the school day. An essential component of career and college readiness is recognizing how to address superiors with the appropriate level of formality according to cultural norms. Because I regularly coach instructors on academic English instruction and provide demonstration lessons, language-minority students are often baffled by the proper way to address me. They are apt to hear the principal saying Professor Kinsella, their teacher calling me Dr. Kinsella, and a videographer getting my attention simply using my first name Kate. After spending five days recently teaching adolescent English learners for an instructional DVD, the students ended the week endearingly but inappropriately addressing me as Professor Doctor Ms. Kate Kinsella after I had affectionately admonished a naïve devotee on day three for entering the classroom with the school superintendent present and greeting me with “What’s up, Doc?” I had advised them that it is always prudent to err on the side of formality rather than to address an employer, school administrator, or college professor by their first name.

Utilizing Precise Academic Vocabulary throughout Lessons
An equally significant way to ramp up the register in daily instruction is to make mindful, meaningful word choices when assigning verbal directions or eliciting verbal contributions throughout a lesson. As language role models, we are frequently guilty of employing generic vocabulary with the intent of eliciting precise academic responses from students.

We pose vague questions laden with imprecise terms such as “What’s your idea?” Does anyone else want to share?” or “What answer did your group come up with?” Such generic questions predictably elicit hastily conceptualized and briefly worded responses devoid of adept vocabulary use. Instead, we should be framing our questions very deliberately to focus students’ attention and instill in them a sense of curricular urgency rather than complacency. Consider the lexical precision in the following questions: “What significant observation have you made about the impacts of chronic sleep loss?” or “What is your perspective on this controversial issue?” “Where did you identify the data that led you to draw this conclusion?” Focused questions interlaced with precise terminology support students in comprehending our standards-based focus and implicit expectations. Since the Common Core standards emphasize detailed descriptions, in-depth analysis, evidence-based claims, and well-justified arguments, we should draw from the 21st century literacy skills lexicon (Table 4) as we craft our pivotal lesson questions to guide inquiry and collaboration.

I train my academic English learners to pay careful attention to the words I utilize in my lesson questions and demonstrate how to respond incorporating the focus task word. For example, when asked “From what source did you select this citation?,” “I expect more advanced students to respond in a complete sentence: “I selected this citation from…” Minimally, I coach students with nascent academic English skills to listen attentively as I pose a lesson question, tune in to the target vocabulary (e.g., example, experience, prediction), and respond beginning with the key term instead of the generic response My idea is…: e.g., My prediction is that…My example is…

Moving Toward Accurate Fluency
Advanced, if not native-like proficiency in English, is imperative for language-minority youths whose educational and professional aspirations hinge upon communicative competence in the language of school and the professional workplace. Being able to converse in English with relative ease is not a bold enough instructional goal. The Common Core State Standards, their assessments, and an increasingly sophisticated workplace exert tremendous pressures on language-minority and economically disadvantaged youth to develop accurate fluency, the ability to effortlessly produce error-free, contextually-appropriate language (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010). To actualize the goal of 21st century literacy skills for our increasingly diverse student population, every K-12 educator will need to simultaneously teach rigorous content while modeling and coaching adept academic English register with integrity and tenacity.

References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Center for Applied Linguistics.
Common Core State Standards (2010). “Applications of Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.” Retrieved from www.corestandards.org
Craig, H.K. & Washington, J.A. (2004). “Grade-related changes in the production of African American English.” Journal of Speech, Hearing, and Language Research, 47(3): 450-463.
Dutro, S., & Kinsella, K. (2010). “English language development: Issues and implementation in grades 6-12.” In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. California Department of Education.
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.­
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2001). “Linguistic features of the language of schooling.” Linguistics and education. 12(4): 431-459.
Zwier, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, grades 5-12. Jossey-Bass.

Kate Kinsella, Ed.D. ([email protected]) is an adjunct faculty member in San Francisco State University’s Center for Teacher Efficacy. She provides consultancy to state departments of education throughout the U.S., school districts, and publishers on evidence-based instructional principles and practices to accelerate academic English acquisition for language-minority youths. Her professional development institutes, publications, and instructional programs focus on career and college readiness for English learners, with an emphasis on high-utility vocabulary development, informational text reading, and writing.

Taiwan to Offer Mother-Tongue K–12 Education

Raohe Street Night Market in Taipei – Taiwan.

Taiwan’s government has approved a national language-development bill to protect linguistic diversity, which requires national language courses throughout preschool, elementary, and high school education.

At the moment, mother-tongue education is only mandatory in elementary schools, while it is an elective course for high school students.
The bill also requires elementary and high school students to learn at least one national language as part of their compulsory education. Under the bill, local governments are authorized to designate a national language as a local official language to increase its usage and to allocate funds to hire language instructors and purchase learning materials.
Many believe in order to promote national languages, a language-proficiency certification system should be introduced and integrated into the civil service reward mechanism to motivate workers to learn national languages to improve government services.

The bill recognizes as national languages local languages used in Taiwan and its outlying islands, such as Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese), Hakka, and other aboriginal languages, as well as Taiwanese sign language.

It is the latest legal effort to preserve and develop Taiwanese and aboriginal languages following the passage of the Aboriginal Language Development Act (原住民族語言發展法) in May last year and the designation of Hakka as a national language last month.

The bill requires special efforts to be made to preserve languages that are endangered and that the revival, transmission, and development of those languages should be prioritized.
A national language research mechanism would be established to develop and standardize writing systems to document and promote languages.

Under the bill, the government would establish a national language database and periodically publish a national language development report.

The Ministry of Culture said the bill was drafted to preserve languages whose development has been hindered due to historical reasons, namely the exclusive language policies of the Japanese colonial era and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) one-party rule.

“The passage of the bill would provide an adequate legal foundation for [the establishment of a Hoklo-language television service]. The government should ensure language equality and establish a Hoklo television station, as there are already Taiwan Indigenous TV and Hakka TV stations,” minister of culture Cheng Li-chiun (鄭麗君) said.

The ministry has a budget for the Public Television Service Foundation to make Hoklo-language programs this year, Cheng added.

Language and culture advocates have called for the establishment of a Hoklo-language television station to boost the visibility of the language, which, although a mother tongue of many Taiwanese, might have lost its relevance due to the lasting consequence of the language policies of the former regimes.

“Language is a carrier of culture and is essential to cultural development. From the point of view of language preservation and development, the bill is an important declaration of the government’s efforts to promote national languages,” the ministry said.

Transitioning Adult ESL Students to College

Lijun Shen demonstrates strategies to address the different needs of college-bound adult English learners

Many adult learners who study English as a Second Language (ESL) stay in adult literacy programs for years without moving on to college programs. Transitioning these ESL learners from the non-credit ESL program to the credit-bearing college academic and vocational/technical programs is a challenge that many instructors and administrators of adult literacy programs face. This article introduces some of the effective strategies, both programmatic and instructional, that Highline Community College in Washington State has adopted to successfully transition ESL students into credit-bearing college programs.

Our Students
Highline Community College is in Des Moines, Washington, which has one of the highest immigration rates in the county, state, and nation. According to census data, over 100 languages are spoken among limited English proficiency (LEP) students in local schools and 90.2 percent (56,810) of the LEP population are between 18 and 65 years of age. Over a quarter of the LEP households are below the poverty level: 12.3 percent are on public assistance and 26.7 percent are below the poverty level. Most of them are unemployed and are at the low literacy level. Those who manage to come to school oftentimes drop out of school because of some common barriers such as lack of financial aid support, childcare support, and language and study skills.

Between 2003 and 2006, Highline Community College served about 6,000 adult ESL students. Out of these ESL students who attended ESL classes, only 100 (1.7 percent) students moved on to credit-bearing college courses. Among the 100 students, only four of them earned associate degrees (1 AAS, 1AS, 2AA) and only one earned a one-year certificate.

Barriers
There are many barriers faced by ESL students in accessing and transitioning to college. Among the most commonly stated barriers are: (1) lack of goals, motivations and belief in self-worth; (2) lack of financial support and childcare support; (3) failure to provide transportation; (4) inability of working students to attend due to schedule conflicts and fatigue resulting from long work days; (5) cultural differences and expectations; and (6) lack of knowledge of the U.S. college system including application and registration process. Due to the nature of the ESL program at Highline and in order to serve more students in our community, many of our ESL classes are offered at various off-campus community sties. This has led to an extreme disconnection between the ESL population and the rest of the college. Hence, most student support services are unavailable to the ESL students.

Response
Data on the educational requirements needed for the fastest-growing jobs in our economy provides a convincing argument for enhancing adult basic education services to include transition to postsecondary education. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2002)1, the majority of jobs require postsecondary education. It is clear that men and women over age 25 can have high income benefits from further education—any education beyond a high school diploma. In order to help our ESL students, an ESL-to-Credit task force made up of administrators, instructors, college support services, and community partners was formed with the vision to create a sustainable, innovative, and effective set of services to help ESL learners succeed in pursuing the educational and training options of their choice. The ESL-to-Credit task force took up the following initiatives:

• Research: Determine who our populations are, where they live, what they need, and the degree to which they are successful in our current programs; use this information to inform program planning and decision making.
• Recruiting materials: Develop culturally appropriate outreach materials and activities that reach ESL audiences and respond to their needs, interests, and questions.
• Student services: Create a flexible menu of support services that can reach out to ESL populations, assisting them with
• Admissions
• Advising
• College cost information and financial aid
• Transcript evaluation and credit transfer
• Financial aid support: Search for financial aid options, develop seamless referral mechanisms that match students with those sources, and develop new funding sources.
• Professional development: Provide ongoing training and updating to ESL faculty about Highline’s educational opportunities so that they can be effective in informing their students and answering student inquiries.
• Curriculum and instruction: Offer transition courses that integrate career development, college preparation, and basic skills.

Transition Program
Course Development

Based on the initiatives conducted by the ESL-to-Credit task force, as a member and the only ESL instructor from the task force, I developed Highline’s first transitional course: Transition to College. The course was designed for the advanced ESL students before entering a vocational or academic program. Students received an orientation to the college as well as academic skills and English language skills needed for successful transition and participation in higher education. Upon successful completion of the class, students would be able to:
• Believe in self-worth to face the challenges of academic demands and administrative systems;
• Understand the norms of the academic community;
• Develop conceptual/critical thinking skills such as synthesis, analysis, and evaluation;
• Apply different reading strategies depending on purpose;
• Develop basic academic writing skills and technology skills;
• Communicate effectively both in oral and in written forms based on purpose and needs;
• Develop effective learning strategies and study skills.

The class covered the following topics and contents:
1. Surviving college: Things you need to know
• Understanding the quarterly and class schedule;
• Identifying campus resources;
• Interviewing faculty and students from the honor program.

2. Planning your education
• Applying for admission;
• Assessing skills (through placement test);
• Meeting with an advisor;
• Registering for classes.

3. Getting help financially for college expenses
• Understanding types of financial aid;
• Applying for financial aid;
• Tips for streamlining financial aid.

4. Getting help from career and employment services
• Job search and career exploration;
• Self-assessment;
• Developing skills in cover letter writing, resume writing and job interview techniques.

5. Setting goals and priorities
• What does it take to make you happy?
• Why should you have goals?
• What are the elements of a useful goal?
• What are your goals?

6. Developing time management strategies
• Keeping a schedule;
• Prioritizing tasks;
• Combining tasks;
• Keeping and maintaining good health.

7. Determining learning styles and identifying learning strategies
• What are learning styles?
• What kind of learner are you?
• Will understanding your learning style help you become a better student?
• What are the learning strategies for different types of learners?

8. Developing important academic study skills
• Highlighting and annotating;
• Outlining, mapping and summarizing;
• Note-taking and test-taking strategies.

9. Developing reading skills
• Guessing vocabulary from context;
• Previewing, scanning and skimming;
• Reading for main ideas and details;
• Recognizing basic patterns of organization;
• Reading critically and applying what has been read.

10. Building basic writing skills
• Paragraph writing;
• Summarizing;
• Knowledge of grammar.

11. Using a computer as an aid to becoming a better student
• Obtaining an e-mail account;
• Learning the basics of working on computers;
• Learning how to do research on the Internet and checking the quality of online resources;
• Learning how to use online learning system.

Implementation
Recruitment for the Transition to College class was done through the distribution of the class flyer, in-class promotion, student’s current instructor recommendations and interviewing with the transition instructor.
Students were encouraged to talk to their current ESL instructors about their interest in the transition class. I also talked to the students’ instructors about their potential students. Then, with the recommendation of the ESL instructors, students who were interested in signing up for the transition class scheduled an interview to determine whether they were qualified for the class. Students were required to bring in an in-class writing sample for the interview. After the interview, qualified students were instructed to sign up for the transition class.

Outcomes
In spring 2006, the first Transition to College class was offered to advanced ESL students. Twenty students were enrolled in the class and all of them had the goal of attending credit-bearing college academic and vocational/technical programs. Students attended classes for two and a half hours every day, Monday through Thursday. They went through the transition course curriculum and the outcome was outstanding.
To keep track of student work, each student was required to build a Student Learning Portfolio. The portfolio was used as an alternative form of assessment which was an evaluation of a collected, organized, annotated body of work, produced throughout the quarter by the learner. It provided evidence of growth in many dimensions of the student’s learning.
At the end of spring quarter 2006, students were also required to take the COMPASS test—a computer-adaptive college entrance exam. The result of the COMPASS test showed that all 20 students (100 percent) were qualified to be admitted into credit-bearing college courses. Among the 20 students, 13 (65 percent) students enrolled in the credit-bearing college programs immediately after the transition class.

Best Practices
The end-of-quarter student evaluation indicated that students really loved the approach of the transition class. The curriculum, the instruction, and the extra support (both academically and emotionally) helped students get started with their pursuit of the educational and training options of their choice.

As the result of the successful transition class in spring 2006, many ESL students expressed their interest in transitioning to college credit programs. A recent focus-group survey indicated that 95 percent of Highline’s High Intermediate-Advanced ESL students want to enroll in degree or certificate programs.
Since the first transition class in spring 2006, Highline community College has been developing strategies to address different needs of the ESL student population. So far, the ESL Department has developed three categories of elective courses: transition, pathways, and target skills. These courses are designed for current high-intermediate and advanced level ESL students. The Transition to College class helps prepare advanced ESL students to transition into academic programs. Pathways courses are designed to prepare students for a specific career pathway. We currently offer healthcare, business, and early childhood education pathways courses. Targeted Skills courses focus on specific skills identified by student need. According to the data given by the Instructional Research Office at Highline Community College, 30 percent (versus 1.7 percent) of the ESL students have transitioned to the credit-bearing college programs since spring 2006.
While establishing and maintaining successful transitions for ESL students to enter college academic programs requires tremendous effort and hard work from the instructors, administrators, and college support services, the rewards are incredible. It is gratifying to know that our ESL students are better prepared to handle the social and academic challenges upon entering college.

Notes
1 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Tomorrow’s Jobs. Bulletin 2540-1.

Dr. Lijun Shen ([email protected]), professor of TESOL and Read­­ing at Highline Community College and adjunct faculty member of the TESOL program at Seattle University, has over 20 years of experience teaching adult ESL and EFL students and training teachers.

Comparing Child Languages

Clifton Pye suggests a comprehensive approach to crosslinguistic research

At the dawn of the modern linguistic era, Noam Chomsky stated that the central problem for linguistic theory “is essentially the problem of constructing a theory of language acquisition” (1965, 27). Today, we know more than ever about how children acquire different languages. Two-year-old children acquiring the Mayan language K’iche’ produce transitive and intransitive inflections on verbs (Pye, 1983); two-year-old children acquiring Spanish produce verb suffixes for person and tense (Gathercole, Sebastián, and Soto, 1999); two-year-old children acquiring the Bantu language Sesotho produce passive verbs (Demuth, 1990); and two-year-old children acquiring the Inuit language Inuktitut produce polysynthetic verb complexes (Allen, 2017).

Altogether, this would appear to be a golden age of language-acquisition research, and yet we lack a framework for assembling this rich dataset into a comprehensive picture of how children acquire language. For the most part, we publish the results of language-acquisition research on one language at a time. We train our students to investigate how children acquire a single language. Our analytic techniques work best when we can isolate one or two factors such as vocabulary size or sentence length in a single language.

Comparing the course of language development in different languages forces investigators to ignore most of the differences that distinguish the languages. While English contrasts the /p/ in pit and the /b/ in bit, the Mayan language K’iche’ contrasts the /p/ in pa ‘on’ and the voiced, implosive sound /ɓ/ in ɓa ‘gopher’. (Implosive sounds are produced by breathing in air rather than by breathing out.) The differences between English and K’iche’ involve not just sounds but every aspect of the grammar, up to and including when to say “I’m sorry.” English has a double object construction (“give me the box”) that K’iche’ lacks. K’iche’ has two “antipassive” constructions that English lacks. Subjects and direct objects are obligatory in English and optional in K’iche’. A single verb complex in K’iche’, e.g., Katenwila’, requires a whole sentence for its translation in English: “I’m going to see you.”

Comparing language acquisition in different languages brings us face to face with the problem of defining a unit of comparison that is not influenced by the differences between all of the other linguistic features in languages. Languages have different numbers and types of consonants, pronouns, verb inflections, passive voices, and locative expressions. We cannot compare how children acquire pronouns in different languages if the pronouns have different sounds, mark different semantic contrasts, and have different grammatical restrictions.

In my book, The Comparative Method of Language Acquisition Research (University of Chicago Press, 2017), I make the case for borrowing the comparative method from historical linguistics. Historical linguists have been refining the comparative method for over a century and a half to understand how entire families of languages change over time (Rankin, 2003). Historical linguistic research has produced a comprehensive analysis of the world’s languages that is unequaled in other branches of linguistics. This empirical base provides the foundation for the success of the comparative method.

While the comparative method is best known for its use in reconstructing linguistic features for prehistoric stages in families of languages, key aspects of the comparative method can help researchers compare language acquisition in languages belonging to the same family. A central element of the comparative method is its restriction to languages that share a common historical ancestor. This restriction means that it is best to compare the acquisition of English with the acquisition of other Germanic languages and to compare the acquisition of K’iche’ with the acquisition of other Mayan languages. This restriction may be viewed as a major limitation of the comparative method, but it has profound implications. One implication is that comparing acquisition results for English and K’iche’ produces spurious conclusions with no empirical basis. Another way to state this implication is that theories that account for the acquisition of English do not predict the acquisition of K’iche’.

The obverse side to the common ancestor restriction of the comparative method is that it compels investigators to initiate comprehensive acquisition studies for all of the languages within a language family. This requirement leads to the idea of comparing how children acquire every aspect of English with the way that children acquire similar features in the other Germanic languages, such as Dutch, Frisian, German, and Swedish. Despite decades of acquisition research on the individual Germanic languages, we do not have detailed studies that compare acquisition across the Germanic languages.

The comparative method begins by looking for corresponding linguistic features in related languages. Languages with a common ancestor retain many traits that betray their ancestry, such as similar sounds, words, and phrases. The fundamental advantage of analyzing corresponding linguistic features is that they have corresponding contexts of use. The focus on contexts of use gives the comparative method its ability to control for a variety of extraneous factors that obscure the study of particular linguistic features. For example, we do not understand whether the sounds that children can produce limit their production of pronouns.

The acquisition of negation illustrates how the comparative method controls extraneous factors in language-acquisition research. English has two forms of syntactic negation. The form not is used in contexts of predicate negation, e.g., “It cannot wait.” The form no is used in discourse contexts as a response to questions and commands, e.g., Adult: “Do you want to go out?” Child: “No.” No is also used for term negation to negate noun phrases, e.g., “We have no bananas today.”

Children acquiring English have to learn the proper contexts for using these different forms of negation. Amazingly, children often produce no in contexts of predicate negation, e.g., Kathryn’s “no zip” (Bloom, 1970, 150). This overextension is so widespread in the acquisition of English that we might be tempted to predict that all children will extend forms for discourse negation to contexts of predicate negation. There are sporadic examples of this overextension in German, but not in Danish and Swedish (Plunkett and Strömqvist, 1992). The difference in the development of negation between Swedish and English suggests that the link between predicate negation and auxiliary verbs in English accounts for the difference between negative acquisition in English and other Germanic languages.

We cannot extend this account of Germanic negation to the acquisition of negation in Mayan languages because the contexts of use in Germanic languages do not correspond to the negation contexts in Mayan languages. English does not have a word that expresses existence that is analogous to the existential predicates in Mayan languages. The English verb to be is marked for tense, unlike the existential predicates in Mayan languages. The Mayan language Mam uses the form miti’ to express the negation of nonhuman entities in existential contexts, e.g., Miti’ jal, “There isn’t one.” Mam extends miti’ to mark the negation of predicates in the present tense but not to predicates in the future tense or to discourse contexts, which use the form mii’n (England, 1983). Children acquiring Mam occasionally substitute the existential form miti’ for mii’n in discourse contexts.

Negation illustrates the way in which contexts of use provide the key to comparing the acquisition of related languages. The forms and uses of negation in English resemble the forms and uses of negation in other Germanic languages due to their shared history, just as the forms and uses of negation in Mam resemble the forms and uses of negation in other Mayan languages (Pye, 2016). Comparing how children acquire negation in genetically related languages avoids a fruitless search for a universal developmental path for negation.

Research on the acquisition of English has become the standard for all language-acquisition research and creates a lens that distorts research on other languages. The comparative method encourages the investigation of children learning other languages by rejecting the need to tie their results to English. The accelerating loss of endangered languages requires the use of a research framework like the comparative method that promotes the investigation of under-studied languages.

The act of documenting how children acquire an endangered language can lead parents to reassess the value of their cultural heritage and form the basis for language-revitalization efforts. Documenting the acquisition of under-studied languages is the only way to meet Chomsky’s goal of constructing a theory of language acquisition.

References

Allen, S. E. M. “Polysynthesis in the Acquisition of Inuit Languages.” In M. Fortescue, M. Mithun, and N. Evans (eds.), Handbook of Polysynthesis, 449–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Bloom, L. Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970.

Chomsky, N. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965.

Demuth, K. “Subject, Topic and Sesotho Passive.” Journal of Child Language 17 (1990): 67–84.

Gathercole, V. C. M., E. Sebastián, and P. Soto. “The Early Acquisition of Spanish Verbal Morphology: Across-the-Board or Piecemeal Knowledge?” International Journal of Bilingualism 2 and 3 (1999): 133–182.

Plunkett, K., and S. Strömqvist. “The Acquisition of Scandinavian Languages.” In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, vol. 3, 457–56. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992.

Pye, C. “Mayan Telegraphese: Intonational Determinants of Inflectional Development in Quiché Mayan.” Language 59 (1983): 583–604.

—. “Mayan Negation Cycles.” In E. van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued, 219–47. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. 2016.

—. The Comparative Method of Language Acquisition Research. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2017.

Rankin, R. L. “The Comparative Method.” In B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 183–212. Oxford: Blackwell (2003).

Clifton Pye is an associate professor of linguistics at the University of Kansas who specializes in documenting the acquisition of indigenous languages of the Americas, with a primary focus on the acquisition of the

Mayan languages spoken in Mexico and Guatemala. His book, The Comparative Method of Language Acquisition Research (University of Chicago Press, 2017), is available now.

Making Hindi Official at the UN

Over half a billion people speak Hindi

The Indian government is prepared to spend up to four billion rupees ($63 million) to make Hindi one of the official languages of the UN, according to the country’s external affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj.
Speaking in the Lok Sabha (India’s lower house of parliament) last month, Swaraj said that the only hindrance to making Hindi an official UN language was procedural, not financial. Hindi is India’s most widely spoken language, with an estimated total of over half a billion speakers (400 million mother-tongue speakers plus 130 million Indians who have learned it), or 53% of the country’s population, but India has 29 languages with over a million speakers (including 125 million English speakers) when second and third languages are taken into account.
Less than 15% of speakers of southern languages know Hindi. With such a variety of languages, the promotion of Hindi as a national language is controversial and often meets with protest.
Shashi Tharoor, member of parliament for Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, in India’s south, criticized the government’s efforts: “If tomorrow someone from Tamil Nadu or from West Bengal becomes the prime minister, why should we force him to speak in Hindi at the UN?” Adding that India is the only country where Hindi has official status, he said, “Seeking to promote Hindi raises an important question. Arabic does not have more speakers than Hindi, but Arabic is spoken by 22 countries, whereas Hindi is only used as an official language by one country—us. I understand the pride of Hindi-speaking people, but people of this country who do not speak in Hindi also take pride in being Indian.”
His criticisms were dismissed by Swaraj, who told the Times of India, “Saying Hindi is spoken only in India shows your ignorance.”
According to India’s Ministry of External Affairs, there are over 30 million members of the Indian diaspora living overseas, of which it is estimated about 50% speak Hindi. It is also an official language in Fiji, and versions of Hindi are also used in Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, and Suriname.
India first campaigned for recognition of Hindi at the UN in 2007, and in 2015, Parmanand Jha, the vice president of India’s neighboring country Nepal, confirmed his country’s support for the move.
According to UN regulations, two-thirds of the 193 member countries must vote in favor to approve a new official language. Swaraj said that the main obstacle among members, especially smaller nations, was the additional expense of adding a new official language.

Cutting to the Common Core: Fostering Academic Interaction

Kate Kinsella offers an action plan to encourage second language learners to participate in constructive classroom discussion

A primary goal of English language development and world-language coursework is to ensure that students develop the verbal and written language skills to communicate effectively in social and academic settings. To develop communicative competence, students at all grade levels and proficiency levels need daily supported opportunities using their second languages for diverse purposes. Simply providing provocative questions and exhortations to “share with a neighbor” will not yield impressive linguistic results. In this frequent classroom scenario, students are likely to respond inefficiently and inaudibly, using brief phrases punctuated by everyday vocabulary, without being able to recall their lesson partners’ contributions.

To make second-language strides, all students benefit from lessons that increase the quantity and quality of their verbal and written responses. Integrating routine classroom interactions that significantly improve students’ language and literacy skills is both a science and an art. In heterogeneous classes including a wide range of attitudes and abilities, it makes sense to structure routine partner interactions as a platform for more confident and competent lesson contribution. Drawing on years of experience teaching English learners and world-language students, I have compiled some instructional imperatives for orchestrating promising academic interactions with lesson partners that bolster engagement in subsequent unified-class discussions.

1. Gather Data on Student Work-Style Preferences
Experience as a second-language educator and classroom research illustrate how anxiety-provoking it can be for neophyte English speakers and world-language students to be directed to “get with someone” to complete a lesson task. In fact, my earliest forays into structuring collaborative tasks in high school French and English language development courses were met with such resistance that I eventually designed a survey to allow my language scholars to voice their lesson work-style preferences (Kinsella, 1996; 1997; 2011).

This qualitative classroom-research tool enables students to clarify whether they appreciate more routine opportunities to work on lesson tasks independently, with a partner, or with a group, and under what circumstances. It isn’t intended to serve as a justification for omitting lesson collaboration or independent tasks, but rather, as a practical vehicle to launch a candid discussion regarding the diversity in preferences voiced by classmates and the value in being self-aware, flexible, and mindful of others’ strengths and needs to successfully navigate school and the workplace. One consistent finding in secondary- and higher-education classrooms has been that most students are not inherently opposed to working with others but prefer to do so with a focused and collegial partner far more frequently than a group. Another reliable collective preference is for the teacher to assign partners rather than leave it to students’ initiative or fate.

An additional efficient and engaging method to gather data about students’ classroom collaboration experiences and preferences is to assign a brief, focused writing prompt, followed by a unified class discussion. The following academic discussion and writing prompts have served as curricular mainstays in my beginning-of-the-year endeavors to solicit formative input from my second-language students, particularly English learners. Students gain insights and validation as they voice perspectives regarding the attributes of a productive lesson partner and the ways in which a teacher can facilitate more democratic lesson discussions. Providing a sentence frame and precise word bank decreases interaction anxiety for less confident students while increasing accurate oral fluency and listening comprehension.

2. Arrange Classroom Seating
For students to interact efficiently and effectively, they need to be seated in close proximity to a productive classmate while also being able to easily establish eye contact with their teacher and reference any visual lesson displays. Apprehensive contributors may consciously avoid interaction by sitting on the periphery of the classroom, while others may artfully dodge participation by retreating within a social cohort and relying on more loquacious or risk-taking peers.

Prepare your classroom for routine partner and group interactions by first making optimal use of your space and furniture.

• For partner interactions, arrange desks in paired rows approximately one foot apart, leaving an aisle for you to easily maneuver, monitor interactions, redirect idle or off-task students, coach language use, and offer supportive feedback.

• If you are using small tables, assign students to work with an elbow partner (adjacent) or face-to-face partner (across).

• For group interactions, use tables or arrange desks in groups of four, with students facing each other. Make sure the tables or clus-
tered desks are positioned perpendicular to the front of the room so no students have their backs to their teacher or lesson references.

3. Assign Appropriate Lesson Partners
Years of teaching English learners and world language students across the K–12 and college spectrum have helped me grasp the complexities of structuring productive student interactions in a language they have yet to master.

• Assign letters (A/B) for partners in order to easily reference who should speak or complete a particular task first. For example, use rows of desks to assign partners. All students in row one are partner A, row two are partner B, row three are partner A, row four are partner B, and so on. You can also use students’ proximity to areas or items in the classroom. Partner As are seated closer to the clock. Partner Bs are closer to the door.

• Assign numbers (one to four) for group members. Tell students the order to number off and who starts. Number off one to four going clockwise. The group member seated closer to the clock is number one.

• Ask students to confirm their numbers or letters. So where are my partner As? Raise your hands? Partner Bs?

• Keep students working with assigned partners or group members for an adequate amount of time to develop a comfortable and promising working relationship but not so long as to become tedious or exclusive (e.g., two weeks, one month, one entire unit vs. an entire semester).

• Consider student needs when assigning partners, particularly early in the year when they are less familiar with their classmates and teacher expectations for dynamic interaction throughout a lesson. Factors to take into consideration include: second-language proficiency, reading proficiency, maturity level, ability to focus, gender, personality, confidence, and attendance.

• Pair or group compatible classmates within a reasonable range of language and literacy proficiency. Avoid partnering students with extreme skill inequities (e.g., highest performing with least confident and prepared) or students with similar challenges (e.g., extremely inhibited; struggling readers; easily distracted). Don’t rely on your most advanced students to largely serve in a tutorial capacity during lesson interactions. They need to stretch their cognitive and linguistic muscles as much as less proficient or engaged classmates. If a student is exceptionally underprepared and unable to function as an equal partner on lesson tasks, assign that individual to work as an additional partner B with a pair capable of demonstrating both social and academic skills. When partner Bs share ideas, direct both Bs to take a turn. The less confident scholar is better poised to benefit from the linguistic and behavioral models than in a one-on-one collaboration.

4. Justify Daily Integration of Interactive Tasks
Teachers serving English learners have a dual responsibility to advance their students’ content knowledge and English language proficiency. Similarly, world-language teachers are charged with advancing their scholars’ confidence and competence in a language many have few opportunities to hear and use outside the classroom.
Second-language educators might reasonably assume that their acolytes perceive the inherent value in daily lesson interactions. However, few students have difficulty recalling less than rewarding experiences collaborating with classmates across grade levels and subject areas. One predictable source of frustration is being thrust into an interactive and graded lesson task without clear justification, process, evaluation criteria, and monitoring.

• Provide a compelling rationale for including partner and group tasks and interactions in your lessons. My course objective is to ensure that you develop a deeper understanding of your second language and that you can comfortably use a greater range of words and sentences to speak, listen, read, and write. You won’t become a powerful communicator sitting quietly filling in blanks on worksheets or passively watching videos. From my perspective, your partner and group interactions are the most important parts of our lessons. This is where you will apply newly taught language in creative contexts, learn with and from your peers, and gain greater insight into your capabilities and areas in need of improvement.

• Make connections to career and college readiness. Knowing how to interact with a classmate, coworker, teacher, manager, club director, or community member is essential to academic, professional, and social success. Just as in the workplace, college coursework, and community organizations, this collaboration and sharing of ideas will help you refine your understandings and improve your communication. All of you noted in your class surveys that you had great aspirations after graduation. You are interested in careers as diverse as architecture, nursing, and programming. Any and every job description in these professions specifies an individual eager to work and capable of working with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

• Establish your active coaching and monitoring role during structured interaction. Don’t utilize collaboration time as an opportunity to accomplish grading, clerical tasks, or lesson preparation. As you work together, I will be actively monitoring to see if you are having difficulty with any aspect of this assignment. I will be listening to your contributions and reading what you have written. I may ask you to elaborate on a response, clarify what you mean, or restate audibly if you have spoken too softly. I may also ask you to launch our unified-class discussion with a particular response or invite you to contribute a specific idea when I open the discussion to volunteers.

• Provide students with clear guidance on how to request instructional assistance. Reticent or underprepared second-language students will be more inclined to solicit help from a teacher if they have a clear protocol and language tools. Visibly display an array of statements and questions to ask for assistance such as those included in Table 1. As you work together, feel free to call me over to assist you if you have specific questions or needs. Simply raise your pen and make eye contact to attract my attention, and I will come to your table right away. Please don’t simply surrender your assignment to me. Be prepared to explain what you are struggling with and how I might be of assistance. Ask a specific question, like those I have posted to appropriately ask for assistance.

5. Develop Familiar Phrases to Launch an Academic Discussion
By the time students have reached upper-elementary coursework, foundational years of conditioning have taught all too many that when the teacher throws a question or prompt to the classroom stratosphere, they are rarely obliged to contribute or listen attentively. Many have figured out that if they wait but a few seconds, either a “professional participant” or the teacher will eventually respond, letting them off the proverbial hook. Even imploring requests from the teacher such as “Does anyone else want to share?” can do little to engender enthusiastic or competent contributions from apprehensive lesson spectators. In second-language classrooms, every student needs daily and equitable opportunities to engage with the teacher and fellow classmates to make linguistic strides.

Because so many students approach second-language interaction with trepidation and strategies for evading engagement, it warrants retooling our phrasing for launching a discussion. As a teacher and instructional coach, I have observed that the discussion facilitator’s body language and verbal cues can signal either accountable academic interaction or informal voluntary responses. To illustrate, if the teacher sits cross-legged on a stool or desk and directs students to “Do a quick think-pair-share” in response to a question delivered verbally, few will immediately segue into a scholarly and democratic exchange of ideas. In contrast, standing and pointing out a visibly displayed question, after specifying that you will be facilitating a discussion preceded by partner brainstorming, is far more likely to set the tone that this is a lesson responsibility, not a response option. In my experience, certain widely used questions and requests act as discussion enders and are best avoided if the goal is democratic reflection, thoughtful contribution, and attentive listening. Table 2 includes a number of expressions I have found to elicit informal, unaccountable interaction as opposed to setting the tone for a more formal and inclusive lesson discussion. Using consistent and familiar phrasing to launch an essential discussion improves lesson pacing and student engagement.

6. Establish Procedures for Productive Partnering
When students are assigned a brief partner discussion task, many engage in inaudible “speed mumbling,” completing the interaction as hastily as possible without demonstrating authentic listening. Before the teacher has even had time to break away from the board to monitor student output, most have wrapped up efficiently and are visibly idle, anxiously awaiting the next lesson phase.

To reach higher proficiency levels, second-language students need abundant practice speaking, listening, and receiving timely and productive feedback from the teacher and peers. To maximize language production and improve listening during partner interactions, students benefit from clear, consistent protocols for lesson exchanges. In mixed-ability classes including striving readers and less proficient language users, one reasonable accommodation is to require sharing a response more than once to build both reading and oral fluency. If students have written a response, reading it twice, then saying it with expression primes them for more confident discussion delivery in the event that they are asked to report. Typically, after a hasty partner idea exchange with no feedback loop, a student is no better poised to contribute confidently in a unified-class format.

The sample procedures for partnering in Table 3 have dramatically increased language production in second-language classrooms while affording the teacher adequate time to monitor responses, provide feedback, and preselect a few habitually reticent contributors for the subsequent unified-class reporting.

7. Diversify Strategies to Elicit Participation
Every language teacher dreads ulcer-inducing classroom scenarios, trying in vain to elicit a range of responses from overzealous and habitually passive alike, reducing the lesson to a glacial pace. There are a number of practical strategies language educators can utilize to reduce student anxiety about contributing in a second language while broadening the customary response pool.

A structured partner exchange with a linguistic scaffold such as a response frame serves as a productive means of rehearsal for unified-class discussion. An opportunity to articulate a response and receive immediate partner feedback goes a long way toward bolstering confidence for contributing in a larger, more intimidating forum. As partners exchange ideas, the teacher can assess the range of responses and enlist the few habitually reticent reporters. Table 4 outlines an eclectic array of strategies second-language educators have utilized from primary grades to adult-education contexts to facilitate more animated and varied class discussions.

Conclusion
Pairing or grouping underprepared English speakers and world-language scholars for productive lesson interactions clearly involves far more than a modified seating arrangement and informal invitations to talk. Increasing miles on the tongue of every aspiring second-language student cannot be left to chance. Our increasingly high-stakes educational standards and assessments in tandem with a competitive global workplace place greater demands on students to be agile, competent communicators, ideally in more than one language. Devoting greater time and attention to structuring supported and accountable interactions in every lesson will increase the odds that the majority of our students, not simply an elite minority, leave our classrooms with the language tools to realize their aspirations.

References
Kinsella, K. (2011, 2014). English 3D: Course I & II. Scholastic.
Kinsella, K. (1997) “Developing ESL Classroom Collaboration to Accommodate Diverse Work Styles.” In Reid, J. (Ed.) Understanding learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Prentice Hall.
Kinsella, K. (1996). “Designing Groupwork that Supports and Enables Diverse Classroom Work Styles.” TESOL Journal, 6 (1), 24-30.

Kate Kinsella, EdD ([email protected]), is an adjunct faculty member in San Francisco State University’s Center for Teacher Efficacy. She provides consultancy to state departments of education throughout the U.S., school districts, and publishers on evidence-based instructional principles and practices to accelerate academic English acquisition for language-minority youths. Her numerous publications and programs focus on career and college readiness for academic-English learners and under-resourced students, with an emphasis on high-utility vocabulary development, informational text reading, and constructed written response.

Bilingualism May Counteract Autism

According to a new study published in Child Development, bilingual children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are better at switching from one task to another than their monolingual peers.

“This is a novel and surprising finding,” says Prof. Aparna Nadig, the senior author of the paper, from the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Canada’s McGill University. “Over the past 15 years there has been a significant debate in the field about whether there is a ‘bilingual advantage’ in terms of executive functions. Some researchers have argued convincingly that living as a bilingual person and having to switch languages unconsciously to respond to the linguistic context in which the communication is taking place increases cognitive flexibility. But no one has yet published research that clearly demonstrates that this advantage may also extend to children on the autism spectrum. And so it’s very exciting to find that it does.”

The researchers arrived at this conclusion after comparing how easily 40 children between the ages of six and nine, with or without ASD, who were either monolingual or bilingual, were able to shift tasks in a computer-generated test. There were ten children in each category.

Blue rabbits or red boats

The children were initially asked to sort a single object appearing on a computer screen by color (i.e. sort blue rabbits and red boats as being either red or blue) and were then asked to switch and sort the same objects instead by their shape (i.e. sort blue rabbits and red boats by shape regardless of their color).

The researchers found that bilingual children with ASD performed significantly better when it came to the more complex part of the task-shifting test relative to children with ASD who were monolingual. It is a finding which has potentially far-reaching implications for the families of children with ASD.

“It is critical to have more sound evidence for families to use when making important educational and child-rearing decisions, since they are often advised that exposing a child with ASD to more than one language will just worsen their language difficulties,” says Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero, the paper’s first author, and a recent McGill PhD graduate. “But there are an increasing number of families with children with ASD for whom using two or more languages is a common and valued practice and, as we know, in bilingual societies such as ours in Montreal, speaking only one language can be a significant obstacle in adulthood for employment, educational, and community opportunities.”

Despite the small sample size, the researchers believe that the ‘bilingual advantage’ that they saw in children with ASD has highly significant implications and should be studied further. They plan to follow the children with ASD that they tested in this study over the next three-five years to see how they develop. The researchers want to see whether the bilingual advantage they observed in the lab may also be observed in daily life as the children age.

The research was funded by: the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et Culture and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

“Can Bilingualism Mitigate Set-Shifting Difficulties in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders?” by Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero and Aparna S. Nadig in Child Development: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12979/full

 

Language Magazine