SUBSCRIBE

Bilingualism Benefits Low-income Children

In a study published in Psychological Science, the journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Pascale Engel de Abreu of the University of Luxembourg and her colleagues examine the effects of bilingualism on the executive functioning of low income
children. “Low-income children represent a vulnerable population,” says Engel de Abreu. “Studying cognitive processes in this population is of great societal importance and represents a significant advancement in our understanding of childhood development.”

Existing research, conducted with older bilingual children and bilingual adults from middle class backgrounds, suggests that knowing two languages may have different effects on different aspects of executive functioning: while being bilingual seems to have a positive influence on the ability to direct and focus attention (control), researchers have found no such benefit for how people encode and structure knowledge in memory (representation).

Engel de Abreu and her colleagues hypothesized that this pattern would also hold for younger bilingual children who were low-income. A total of 80 second graders from low-income families participated in the study. Half of the children were first or second generation immigrants to Luxembourg, originally from Northern Portugal, who spoke
both Luxembourgish and Portuguese on a daily basis. The other half of the children lived in Northern Portugal and spoke only Portuguese.

The researchers first tested the children’s vocabularies. Both groups completed the test in Portuguese and the bilingual children also completed the task in Luxembourgish. The researchers examined how the children represented knowledge in memory, and measured the children’s memory, using two different tasks to see how much visual information the children could keep in mind at a given time.

The children then participated in two tasks that looked at their ability to direct and focus their attention when distractions were present. Although the bilingual children knew fewer words than their monolingual peers, and did not show an advantage for representation
tasks, they performed better on the control tasks than did the monolingual
children, just as the researchers hypothesized.

“This is the first study to show that, although they may face linguistic challenges, minority bilingual children from low-income families demonstrate important strengths in other cognitive domains,” says Engel de Abreu.

The findings could inform efforts to reduce the achievement gap between children of different socioeconomic backgrounds. “Our study suggests that intervention programs that are based on second language teaching are a fruitful avenue for future research,” says Engel de Abreu. “Teaching a foreign language does not involve costly equipment, it widens children’s linguistic and cultural horizons, and it fosters the healthy development of executive control.”

Acetaminophen Usage During Pregnancy May Be Linked to Language Delay

A study recently published in European Psychiatry suggests that mothers who took acetaminophen during their pregnancies had higher rates of language delays in their two-year-old daughters compared to mothers who did not. Delays, however were not seen in boys, who generally develop language at a slower rate than girls.

The study was written by researchers at Karlstad University and Lund University in Sweden, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in the U.S., and the Institute of the Ruhr-University in Germany.

The study included 754 women who enrolled in a Swedish study in allergies during their pregnancies during weeks 8-13. They were interviewed on their use of acetaminophen—an over-the-counter pain reliever and fever relief medication such as Tylenol, which is sold in the U.S. The researchers then followed up with the new mothers when their children were at 30 weeks and administered language development screening along with personal assessments of how the mothers thought their children were developing.

Researchers found that acetaminophen usage during the first trimester was fairly common, as 59% reported taking at least 1 pill during the time, while others reported taking up to 100 pills. Researchers compared mothers who had “high use” (defined as at least 6 pills) to mothers who did not take the medication.

The study defined a language delay as speaking less than 50 words. Delay was found for 64 children (8.5%) and was more common among boys (12.6%) than girls (4.1%). Further details show that girls born to the high use mothers were six times more likely to have language delays than girls whose mothers had not taken the medication at all.

Researchers are unsure as to why language delays were markedly different between girls and boys. One theory is that acetaminophen usage closes the gap between girls and boys development.

La Doppia Vita

Simona Montanari proves how an Italian-English dual-language program in Southern California is improving English literacy

In the public classrooms of Glendale Unified School District, a small part of Los Angeles is being taught language arts, math, and science in Italian nearly all day long.

More than a decade after Proposition 227 mandated that California’s English language learners be taught exclusively in English, Glendale has become one of the nation’s laboratories for dual-language programs in which instruction is delivered in two languages from kindergarten through 12th grade.

At Benjamin Franklin Magnet School, where the Italian immersion program is offered, the standard California curriculum is taught primarily in Italian during the first two years (K-1), while English instruction, initially limited to 10%, increases gradually in the following grades. From 5th grade, half of all instruction is delivered in Italian and the other half in English.

As the city with the fourth highest number of Italian Americans in the U.S. (approximately 95,300 out of a total population of 3.7 million),1 Los Angeles seriously needed this program. Recently-arrived Italians — who, unlike early immigrants, are mostly middle-class professionals working in industry, business, and academia — lamented that their children did not have the opportunity to be educated in Italian along with English like the offspring of their Spanish- or French-speaking colleagues.

At the same time, following the new-found caché in all things Italian, second-, third-, and even fourth-generation Italian Americans have become increasingly interested in reclaiming their Italian heritage and learning, or having their children learn, their ancestors’ language. Aware that Italian immersion — unlike taking Italian in high school or college — will produce high levels of bilingualism in their children, Italian American parents in Southern California have welcomed Glendale’s Italian-English dual language program.

Many were deeply committed to its creation and were a major force behind its launch in 2009. Others, through their involvement, volunteering, and fundraising, have made the program truly unique. A few years after its start, the program features an extensive library of Italian books and media; it hosts Italian-language assistants and visiting teacher-interns from Italy; and it offers a variety of afterschool and summer enrichment activities in Italian.

This is a program with few equals in the United States. As a matter of fact, despite being the fifth most studied language in higher education settings (college and graduate school) (Furman, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2007), Italian is rarely offered in elementary school and Italian immersion public programs are almost non-existent (with the exception of one in Wisconsin and one in the state of New York).

One might ask, why educate children in Italian since they will probably grow up and end up living and working in the U.S.? Today’s Italian immigrants are well aware of the reasons. Research all over the world has shown that children in long-term bilingual programs not only develop higher competence in English than children in English-only programs but they reach higher academic achievement than children educated in only one language (Lindholm-Leary, 2001).

This is because the high levels of bilingualism brought about by bilingual education produce a variety of cognitive benefits, aiding memory, problem solving, decision-making, and other brain functions (Bialystok, 2001). For instance, early bilingualism helps the child develop creative thinking — the ability to think and solve problems in ways that are original, flexible, and creative (Kharkhurin, 2010).

High proficiency in two languages also fosters metalinguistic awareness — knowledge and understanding of language(s) and its elements (Cummins, 1978). Bilingual education also leads the child to develop a deeper understanding and retention of academic content, because learning such content in two languages requires more attention and cognitive effort than learning it in just one (Hakuta & Gould, 1987).

For these reasons, dual language or immersion programs like the Italian one at Benjamin Franklin are growing in popularity. These programs constitute, in California, the new face of bilingual education without the stigma that has been traditionally associated with this type of schooling. Before 1998, when Proposition 227 was approved in California, bilingual education was often seen — and resented by some — as a form of public assistance for the sole benefit of immigrants’ children.

English language learners — or children who spoke another language upon school entry — were placed in special classrooms with similar-background children and instructed in both their home language and English. These programs, however, were segregating because they did not include native speakers of English.

In 1998, voter-approved Proposition 227 outlawed bilingual education and mandated that all English learners be placed in English-only programs. Since then, many of California’s English language learners, now almost 1.6 million or 25% of California’s school-age population, have been educated exclusively in English.

Although parents may still request that their children receive some sort of bilingual instruction, as in the case of dual-language or immersion programs, less than one-third of the state’s English language learners are enrolled in such programs, either because such bilingual resources do not exist or because English immersion is believed to be the most successful path to English language development.

Unfortunately for these children, a vast body of research (see August & Shanahan, 2006, and Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006, for a summary) has now shown that English immersion is not more successful than bilingual education in teaching English language learners. State standardized test scores from 2003 to 2010 show that the gap between English language learners and all students has widened, with their performance in English and language arts being considerably lower than all other students.

In a review of more than 500 studies on English-language learners, Goldberg (2008, p.14) concludes that “teaching children to read in their first language promotes reading achievement in English.” This is because literacy, knowledge, and skills transfer across languages (Cummins, 1979). For example, when a child learns to read from left to right in one language, he can easily transfer this knowledge to other languages with similar writing systems.

The same goes when learning to pair the letter ‘b’ with the /b/ sound (equally applicable in Italian and English, for example) or perform mathematical additions. In Goldberg’s words (2008, p. 15) “if you learn something in one language, you either already know it in (i.e., transfer it to) another language or can more easily learn it in another language.”

Therefore, although it might seem counter-intuitive, learning in one language boosts learning in the other language. Learning Italian helps children develop a better grasp of English grammar, just as learning how to play the piano enhances many other musical skills. For this reason, Goldberg (2008, pp. 42-43) concludes, “local or state policies, such as in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, that block use of primary language … are simply not based on the best scientific evidence available.”

Student data from Glendale’s Italian immersion program confirm Goldberg’s conclusion. S.C., an Italian-speaking child who started kindergarten in Fall 2009 barely speaking English, not only developed English literacy after two years of Italian immersion but, by the end of first grade, scored higher in English reading tests than her English-speaking peers.

This was not initially the case. At the end of kindergarten, thanks to the 90% instruction in her first language, S.C. could read at grade level in Italian but scored at 0.0 in the standardized STAR Reading test in English, a language that she heard little in school and at home. Over the summer, S.C.’s decoding (pairing a ‘t’ with the /t/ sound) became more automatic in Italian, making her ready to start learning to decode in another language.

By the second month of 1st grade (September 2010), she was assessed in English reading with the same standardized STAR Reading test and scored at 1.3 (3rd month of 1st grade). By November 2010, she scored at 1.6 (6th month of 1st grade). In March 2011, she scored at 2.2 (2nd month of 2nd grade).

In May 2011, her English reading score soared to 3.3 (3rd month of 3rd grade). This means that in just one year, S.C.’s English reading skills advanced of more than three years, surpassing most native English-speaking children at the same age. These results were produced while the child was being instructed in Italian 90% of the time and in English only 10%.

While it usually takes two or three years for children in dual language programs to catch up with and surpass children in English-only programs in English-language assessments (Lindholm-Leary, 2001), it is clear that all children — English speakers and learners alike — can benefit tremendously from the opportunities and challenges brought about by a bilingual education.

The Italian American community in Southern California is fortunate to have this program and should not miss the opportunity to raise its children bilingually and bi-literally. It is hoped that other language communities will follow this example and make bilingualism and bi-literacy the norm in monolingual America.

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. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available online at www.cal.org/projects/archive/nlpreports/executive_summary.pdf
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1978). “Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9(2), 131-149.
Cummins, J. (1979). “Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.” Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2007). “Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2006.” Web publication produced by The Modern Language Association of America. Available online at http://www.mla.org/pdf/06enrollmentsurvey_final.pdf
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English Language Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldenberg, C. (2008) “Teaching English Language Learners: What the research does-and does not-say.” American Education, pp. 8 – 44. Available online at www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf
Hakuta, K. & Gould, L. (1987). “Synthesis of research on bilingual education.” Educational Leadership, 44, 39-45.
Kharkhurin, A.V. (2010). “Bilingual verbal and nonverbal creative behavior.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(2), 211-226.
Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2001). Dual language education. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
1 These statistics are drawn from “A Profile of Today’s Italian Americans,” A Report Based on the Year 2000 Census, compiled by the Order Sons of Italy in America, OSIA, http://www.osia.org.

Simona Montanari is Associate Professor in the Department of Child & Family Studies at California State University, Los Angeles, where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on language development and second language acquisition in childhood. She received a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Southern California specializing in language development in monolingual and multilingual children.

Dr. Montanari has published her research in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and she is regularly invited to present on early bilingualism and trilingualism locally and internationally. Dr. Montanari has also been involved in the creation and implementation of an Italian-English dual language program in the Glendale Unified School District, for which she continues to work as a consultant.

Advancing Dual Language Education

Jenny Muñiz summarizes the latest recommendations

Dual-language programs, which provide instruction in both English and a partner language, are rapidly emerging across the country. Yet despite their growing appeal, state and local dual-language implementation policies and practices remain inconsistent.

This makes it difficult for both new and existing dual-language programs to assess the quality of their programs and plan for improvement. The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), Dual Language Education of New Mexico (DLENM), and Santillana USA address this challenge and outline a set of quality benchmarks for dual-language programs in the newest edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education.

For two decades, dual-language teachers and administrators across the country have used this resource to design new dual-language programs and to better evaluate existing ones. (In a new report, Amaya Garcia highlights the Westminster School District, which used the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education as a central resource in the design of two lauded dual-language programs.)

The third edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education was published this year—one decade after the publication of the second edition—and was developed with the support of practitioners, researchers, and administrators. In this revision, the authors—Elizabeth R. Howard, Kathryn J. Lindholm-Leary, David Rogers, Natalie Olague, José Medina, Barbara Kennedy, Julie Sugarman, and Donna Christian—cite up-to-date research and offer recommendations that reflect the most recent developments in the dual-language arena.

Some of the newest developments in the third edition include: 

  • Highlighting the benefit of expanding dual-language programs from pre-K through twelfth grade;
  • Outlining how programs can approach sociocultural competence;
  • Exploring the role of assessments;
  • Promoting the use of technology; and
  • Proposing ways to safeguard access to dual-language programs for English learners.

Pre-K–12 Alignment

While most dual-language programs are still found in elementary schools, dual-language programs in secondary schools have become more common in the last decade. The growth of programs for older students is due in part to the increasing number of students graduating from dual-language elementary programs and research that shows consistency and alignment are critical to the academic success of English learners.

As dual-language programs become more popular in middle schools and high schools, however, the need to carefully plan for quality implementation and strong alignment between “feeder” schools increases.

The new Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education puts more emphasis on pre-K–12 alignment (as opposed to K–8 alignment in the last edition) and recommends that, whenever possible, dual-language programs develop pre-K–12 alignment plans even before implementing their programs.

Sociocultural Competence

Of the three pillars of dual-language education, the third pillar—sociocultural competence—is considered the most overlooked. However, according to David Rogers, one of the authors, it is now gaining more traction: “We often refer to the third pillar as the forgotten goal, and districts would pass over it when they were creating their alignment, but now a lot more schools are adopting dual-language programs because of the sociocultural competence component.”

The third edition defines sociocultural competence as “a term encompassing identity development, cross-cultural competence, and multicultural appreciation.” An emphasis on this concept makes sense because when incorporated successfully it can lead to positive outcomes for the self-esteem, cross-cultural attitudes, second-language attainment, and overall academic achievement of students.

The authors include key descriptors in the third edition that provide more guidance to dual-language educators about how to systematically support the cultural and linguistic diversity of English learners while concurrently providing content instruction in both languages.

Educators seeking to reach the highest level of quality—what the third edition denotes as “exemplary practice”—in sociocultural competence must embed a variety of sociocultural strategies (e.g., identity development, cross-cultural awareness, conflict resolution, perspective taking, empathy development) into content learning at all grade levels, in all subjects, and in both languages.

To support sociocultural competence, the third edition also affirms the first pillar of dual-language education—biliteracy and bilingualism. The authors underscore the need to support “additive bilingualism” (an instructional model in which students can learn a second language while retaining the home language) by implementing cross-linguistic strategies and ensuring both program languages have equal status.

Teachers who go as far as to elevate the status of the partner language and use language as a resource to improve family and community engagement can achieve exemplary practice in this area.

Assessment and Accountability

A recent development in the dual-language arena, and the field of education more broadly, is a collective re-evaluation of assessment practices. Educators are shifting from focusing on test prep to focusing on improving instruction—a shift that has been animated by the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced No Child Left Behind (NCLB) last year.

Such a change is important because the high-stakes standardized testing that NCLB popularized dramatically narrowed educators’ understanding and use of assessments by characterizing assessments only as vehicles for accountability and, often, harsh sanctions.

The third edition challenges this dominant narrative and defines assessments as what they actually are: tools for evaluating and improving instruction. One recommendation, for example, asks educators to incorporate more formative assessments in addition to summative assessments. (The purpose of the former is to continuously gather feedback and adjust instruction, and the purpose of the latter is to measure success at the end of a unit or year, such as in end-of-term standardized tests.)

The new edition also emphasizes the importance of assessing students in both languages and suggests using multiple measures in both languages when making decisions about placement for special programs (e.g., special education and gifted education).

 

Technology

Opportunities for incorporating technology in the classroom have increased with the development of new digital tools (e.g., online learning, game-based learning, interactive whiteboards). In response to this shift, the authors encourage the regular use of technology in the classroom.

Educators seeking to reach exemplary practice in this area need to develop “new, innovative, technology-based lessons” that can help students “meet content, language, and literacy standards in both program languages at all grade levels.” The authors also emphasize the need to share digital tools within and between schools.

This is an important change because evidence suggests some low-income students may not have access to technology at home. Without regular access to technology, these students can be at a disadvantage when participating in technology-rich lessons or new computer-based assessments.

Access and Advocacy

One of the drivers behind the rapid expansion of dual-language programs is their rising popularity among the parents of native English speakers who recognize the benefits of bilingualism in a globalized world.

And while dual-language programs can serve as quality enrichment opportunities for native English speakers, they are especially beneficial for English learners. Dual-language advocates are now concerned that students who need dual-language programs the most will be left behind.

José Medina, another contributor to the third edition, recognizes this risk and notes, “One of the things we [the authors] target in this new edition is the idea of privilege in dual-language programs.”

This objective is important because, as he correctly observes, “Dual-language programs cater to parents that are most vocal, which most often are English-speaking parents.”

To address this concern, the third edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education contains specific language that underscores the importance of working with parents and communities to secure access to these programs for English learners. As Medina explains, “In this third edition the focus is not just parent involvement, but parent advocacy.”

The publication of the third edition of the Guiding Principles of Dual Language Education comes at an opportune time—as bilingual programs are expanding rapidly across the nation, in some places for the first time. The growing popularity of these programs among native-English-speaking parents and nonnative-English-speaking parents alike makes it necessary to support dual-language policymakers, administrators, and teachers in quality program implementation.

The authors of this resource hope it will do just that—and have even made the resource available for free online download. According to David Rogers, the authors have “high hopes that this document will help guide people who are implementing a dual-language program to go back with a microscope and analyze the key components of their programs to ensure they are improving.” Indeed, with the help of this resource and the hard work of dual-language educators, more dual-language students will benefit from exemplary practice.

Jenny Muñiz is a Millennial Public Policy Fellow for New America’s Education Policy program. A native of Compton, CA, Muñiz has most recently spent time working as a bilingual teacher in San Antonio Public Schools as a Teach for America corps member. This article was originally published by New America (www.newamerica.org).

References:

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications/guiding-principles-3

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/educating-californias-english-learners/

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications/guiding-principles

http://www.lindholm-leary.com/resources/review_research.pdf

http://www.cal.org/cal-susa/online/dle-intro/

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-explainers/early-ed-prek-12/dual-language-learners/instructional-models-dlls/additive-bilingual-program-models/

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications/guiding-principles-3rd-edition-pdf-download 

Iran Bans English From Primary Schools, Citing “Cultural Invasion”


Iran has announced that English would no longer be taught in primary schools after Islamic leaders warned that early exposure to English would help facilitate a “cultural invasion.” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has previously expressed concern over speaking English.

The ban comes as a particular surprise, as many Iranians study and speak English. Proficiency levels, however, have been on the decline. According to the EF English Proficiency Index, Iran has fallen from 28th place (of 54) in 2012, to 65th place (of 80) in 2017.

“Teaching English in government and nongovernment primary schools in the official curriculum is against laws and regulations,” said head of the state-run High Education Council, Mehdi Navid-Adham. “This is because the assumption is that, in primary education, the groundwork for the Iranian culture of the students is laid,” adding that extracurricular English classes may also be blocked.

Ayatollah Khamenei said in that speech directed to teachers, “That does not mean opposition to learning a foreign language, but (this is the) promotion of a foreign culture in the country and among children, young adults and youths.”

“Western thinkers have time and again said that instead of colonialist expansionism … the best and the least costly way would have been inculcation of thought and culture to the younger generation of countries,” Ayatollah Khamenei said, according to the text of the speech posted on Leader.ir, a website run by his office.

In a previous speech directed at teachers, Khamenei criticized English in nursery schools, stating that it was part of a greater Western move of instilling “thought and culture to the younger generation of countries.”

“These remarks do not mean terminating English language teaching at schools, but the main issue is to know our rival and how precisely the opposite party has made planning to influence the country’s future generation,” he said.

The announcement comes amid anti-government protests in Iran that began in December. The protests, which have voiced concert over Iran’s standard of living, have resulted in at least 21 deaths have 1,000 arrests.

Protection for Turkey’s ‘Bird Language’

The whistled “bird language” used by small groups of Black Sea villagers in remote northern Turkey has joined a UNESCO list of endangered languages in need of “urgent safeguarding.”

Around 10,000 people, mostly from the district of Çanakçı in the province of Giresun, currently use and understand the language, according to UNESCO.

Initially developed to allow people to communicate across steep mountain valleys, the language’s decline began to accelerate with the advent of mobile phones, which provide an easy communication alternative.

Welcoming efforts to preserve the language, Turkey’s culture minister Numan Kurtulmuş tweeted: “Whistled language, also known as bird language, which has echoed in the eastern Black Sea region for centuries, has entered the list of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding of UNESCO.”

“I congratulate my fellow Black Sea locals who have kept this culture alive,” he said.
The whistled language is commonly used in the village of Kuşköy, which translates as “bird village.” Until 50 years ago, it was widely spoken in the areas of Trabzon, Rize, Ordu, Artvin, and Bayburt, but has since either disappeared entirely or been reduced to a few words spoken by shepherds.

According to UNESCO, although the people of Çanakçı understand the importance of the language, technological developments and emigration have resulted in a “decline both in the number of people using the whistled language and the areas where it is spoken.”
“It is also clear that the new generations’ interest in whistled language has considerably diminished,” the organization said. As a consequence, the practice risks being gradually separated from its fundamental sphere of use, to become “an entertainment-oriented, artificial practice.”

The organization also lauded the language as a “strong indicator of human creativity,” as whistling sounds modulated by the fingers, tongue, teeth, lips, and cheeks are able to simulate and articulate words.

Dozens of whistled languages are found across the world, primarily in areas where steep terrain or dense forests make communication difficult over distances, such as the Atlas Mountains of North Africa, the highlands of northern Laos, or the Amazon basin in Brazil.
Since 1997, Kuşköy has held the Bird Language Festival to promote the language’s use. The district has also provided training programs to primary school pupils for the last three years.

Despite these efforts, UNESCO found that “the whistled language may soon totally disappear, unless essential safeguarding measures are undertaken using an integrated approach.”

Busting Myths, Telling Truths

Matt Renwick recommends a grounded approach when it comes to technology in the classroom

In a first-grade classroom, two teachers co-facilitated a literacy lesson. It was a shared reading experience that transitioned into a shared writing activity. One of the teachers read aloud a book written in both English and Spanish. This activity was followed by writing a text together that had a similar structure to the original book. As a class, they wrote this first draft on an easel.

Several of these students were English learners. Spanish was their first language; many had already made gains in their acquisition of English. This lesson positioned these kids as experts in the classroom. For example, when the teacher read aloud “piñata,” one of the students, Jesus, responded with a more accurate pronunciation. “Why, thank you, Jesus,” responded the teacher. “Your Spanish is excellent. I appreciate your help on that” (Routman, 2008).

There were many resources available in the classroom to support responsive and differentiated instruction: comfortable seating for both whole-group and small-group learning; high-interest, authentic literature; writing materials for students; easel paper and markers. All students were feeling successful as the teachers thoughtfully played to their strengths. What one would not have found, at least during the lesson, was technology.
Imagine if technology had been a part of this lesson, such as laptops or tablets.

What would the students have gained from this inclusion? How might the teachers’ instruction have been enhanced? A reasonable conclusion would be that technology would not have supported student learning in this lesson. In fact, it could have hampered it. For example, if the teacher projected her computer screen to students’ tablets as she wrote on a digital document, a few students might have lost connection to the wireless. Maybe another student would have tried to pull up a web browser instead of attending to the lesson. Certainly, everyone would have been staring at a screen instead of focusing on each other in this community-enhancing, literacy-rich lesson.

Technology has its place in schools and learning, yet only in specific situations is it necessary. Sometimes the benefits are merely nice. Technology can even have a negative impact on instruction. Try this quick exercise: Think about the past week of instruction. Then mentally remove the technological component(s) of it. Now imagine teaching the same lessons without the technology. Were the students able to learn just as well? Except for a few situations, my guess is the answer to this exercise is yes.

As teachers and school leaders, we need to take a critical approach when considering the inclusion of digital tools in our instruction. Technology providers will promote their products as essential to student learning outcomes. The problem with this approach is most of these providers work for businesses. They likely are not educators; their bottom line is dollars but not always sense. We as professionals are obligated to exercise our professional judgment when determining how to integrate technology into the classroom. The rest of this article describes five myths regarding technology for learning, countered by five truths, along with explanations for these misconceptions.

Myth: Technology is easy to learn and use.
Truth: Teachers need a reason, time, and support to successfully integrate technology.

Any time I see stacks of laptops or tablets being readied for student or staff distribution, the first thing I wonder is, “What preparations have been made to ensure that these computers will be used effectively and seamlessly in instruction?” Too often, no plans have been made other than a brief overview of the basic functions. This can be a recipe for wasted resources and no improvement in learning.

Technology is not necessarily easy to learn or use. Asking a teacher to implement digital tools with success can be a daunting request without a rationale for the technology, the proper training and time to practice, and accessible support. Yet with these elements in place, bringing technology into classrooms and schools can be a worthwhile effort.
A strong rationale for implementing technology is a prerequisite for its implementation.

This type of initiative cannot be about “keeping up with the Jones’s,” such as citing that a neighboring district has gone 1:1. Any purpose for implementing technology in schools has to be about improving teaching and learning. The goal does not have to be broad. In fact, smaller initiatives can increase the likelihood of teachers and students feeling successful.
One possible idea for a strong purpose is having students publish a classroom or school newsletter using Smore, WordPress, or Adobe InDesign. Students can create web-based, content-rich media that closely resembles the real work of the world.

These digital applications have a learning curve, which demands time and support for learners to be successful. The school library media specialist can be a key staff member for this work. In our elementary school, this person visits each classroom once a week to lead a lesson on a specific tool and activity. Library media specialists can also offer monthly after-school sessions for teachers to try out these new technologies in a low-risk environment and plan for how to implement them in the classroom.

Myth: Technology is expensive.
Truth: When upgrading outdated resources, technology can be cost-effective.

The Latin root of the word innovate (innovare) means “to renew or change.” If something new is introduced to a classroom, the assumption is it is replacing an outdated practice or resource. Yet in many schools, technology is instead layered over existing practices, a digital veneer that does not really change instruction.

If technology is purchased for classrooms without forethought as to what it is improving and replacing, this can impair a limited budget at the expense of other essential resources and staff. Something has to give if we believe that the inclusion of digital learning will improve student learning in a way not possible without it.

Some low-hanging fruit in traditional schools that is ripe for being replaced is textbooks. In the 21st century, these compendia of information are immediately outdated the moment they are printed. Today’s technologies can position students and teachers as co-creators of their own knowledge sources.

For example, middle-level teachers can guide students to create Google Sites around important points in history. Open educational resources (OER) such as the National Archives and Smarthistory can be linked into the site as pertinent content to study. Teachers can also develop curriculum with open educational resources using the OER Commons website. If the adage is true that the best way to learn something is to teach it, then having students co-develop learning materials with teachers seems like a smart and cost-effective approach.

Myth: Technology should be in the hands of every student.
Truth: Sometimes less technology can lead to greater student achievement.

For all of the gains students may experience with the addition of technology—for example, a constant connection to a world of information—what might they lose? Quite a bit. As an example, studies have shown that when students have unlimited internet access through their smartphones via social media, their relationships with people in their immediate lives can start to deteriorate (Turkle, 2015).

Additional effects of increased access to the internet include a decrease in school performance and an exacerbation of the achievement gap (Toyama, 2015). This is not to suggest that social media is an absolute negative in students’ lives. Another study which analyzed English learners’ activity on Facebook found the experience to be very positive when they were engaged in conversation and media consumption with people and resources from their countries of origin (Stewart, 2014).

The key here is how students are engaged in learning with technology. This is where a teacher’s expertise is so important. Educators need to understand not only pedagogy and content but also how technology might enhance or distract from the process of learning. Some of the best technology-enhanced lessons I have observed do not feature computers in the hands of every learner.

For example, in my last school, students in groups of three were provided one tablet with the task of creating an original digital nonfiction text. Using the app Book Creator, students were expected to incorporate audio, images, and text to communicate their learning regarding the culture of another country.

They knew their work would be published for an authentic audience through FreshGrade, a digital portfolio application. Students spent lots of time getting their audio recordings right as they read and reread the text. This audio would be embedded in the digital text to ensure that all readers could access their book. The limited access to technology brought students together instead of dividing them. Their deliberate practice with speaking was authentic and improved their fluency. The focus was on content and cooperation instead of the technology.

Myth: Technology improves student learning.
Truth: Without an expert teacher, technology’s impact on learning is minimal.

One type of classroom technology becoming more prominent in schools is intelligent tutoring systems, or ITS. These applications provide feedback for students in real time as they work through math problems or respond to questions about a given text. The idea is that students can learn important concepts and skills without the immediate guidance of a teacher.

The problem with this premise is it does not necessarily work. Technology-enhanced instruction has had mixed results in studies, with enough evidence to encourage caution among educators. However, many studies have shown that when a teacher’s instruction is thoughtfully incorporated with technology, learning can be improved.

In one research study conducted by Filament Games and Sennett Middle School in Madison, WI, the use of video games to teach social-emotional skills in the classroom without teacher guidance only resulted in a 1% improvement in student learning. Teacher-only instruction resulted in a 6% increase in learning, while a combination of the application and teacher instruction resulted in a 10% improvement in student learning (Clardy and Pittser, 2017).

The good news here is that, in the age of technology, teachers are more important than ever. What is critical for the teacher is to become familiar with digital tools and how best to utilize them in the classroom.

Myth: Technology is a distraction.
Truth: Technology is a thing. People are distractible.

A recent trend with technology in education is the banning of smartphones in schools. Whole districts are prohibiting these mini-computers from coming into classrooms due to the perception that they are distracting students from their learning. The thinking goes, kids cannot help themselves from checking their feeds on Snapchat and Instagram if their phones are in their pockets.

I think educators are going to look back on these policies with embarrassment—not because these concerns are unreasonable, but because we avoided having a critical conversation with our students and staff about the influx of mobile technology and the inherent challenges it brings. These problems exist beyond K–12 education. Instead of banning smartphones outright, what if teachers engaged in conversation around these issues, just as they would with any other current event or topic of interest? These discussions could lead to smarter policies that are student-owned regarding how best to regulate and self-monitor the usage of mobile technology.

As an example, teachers can provide choice boards when guiding students to study relevant concepts and themes in depth, such as “solitude.” Links to online content, such as articles, videos, and music, can be represented by QR codes that students scan with their smartphones to watch or listen. They can curate favorite resources using productivity tools such as Evernote and Google Keep to use for research when they later compose essays or presentations on these topics. These studies can conclude with deep discussions about the importance of finding balance in our overly connected lives.

Conclusion: The Future Belongs to the Learner

Education is experiencing growing pains brought on by the influx of technology in classrooms. We are not sure yet what works, which makes us susceptible to fads and initiatives without any evidence of their effectiveness. Educators should not wait for a litany of studies to support the inclusion of digital tools to support student learning. Instead, let us adopt a learner’s mindset and work with our students to discover what is possible with education today. These skills and dispositions will only serve to build our students’ capacities to discern what are and what are not the best approaches for bringing technologies into our lives.

References

Clardy, T., and Pittser, B. “Measuring the Socioemotional Benefits of Game-Based Learning.” Session presented at School Leaders Advancing Technology in Education (SLATE) Convention, Dec. 5, 2017.
Routman, R. Regie Routman in Residence: The Reading-Writing Connection. Online professional development series. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2008.
Stewart, M. A. “Social Networking, Workplace, and Entertainment Literacies: The Out-of-School Literate Lives of Newcomer Latina/o Adolescents.” Reading Research Quarterly 49, no. 4 (2014): 365–369.
Toyama, K. “Why Technology Alone Won’t Fix Schools.” Atlantic, June 3, 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/why-technology-alone-wont-fix-schools/394727/.
Turkle, S. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. London: Penguin Press, 2015.

Matt Renwick is the author of Five Myths About Classroom Technology: How Do We Integrate Digital Tools to Truly Enhance Learning?, and his latest book is Digital Portfolios in the Classroom: Showcasing and Assessing Student Work (ASCD, August 2017), available at www.ascd.org/Publications/ascd-authors/matt-renwick.aspx. He started as a fifth- and sixth-grade teacher in a country school outside of Wisconsin Rapids, WI, 18 years ago. He then served as a dean of students at a junior high, which developed into an assistant principalship along with athletic director duties. As an elementary principal for the Mineral Point Unified School District, he enjoys the curriculum, instruction, and assessment sides of education. He also teaches online graduate courses in curriculum design and instructional leadership for the University of Wisconsin-Superior.

Accelerator Aims to Close Global Literacy Gap with Project Literacy

Literacy rates have not improved in over 15 years, costing the world $1.19 trillion a year and leaving over 750 million people worldwide unable to read this sentence, so Project Literacy Lab, a partnership between Pearson and Unreasonable Group, part of the broader Project Literacy campaign, is bringing a new group of problem solvers to the table: entrepreneurs. This first-of-its-kind international accelerator focuses on scaling up ventures that are positioned to help close the global literacy gap by 2030.

In July 2016, the inaugural Project Literacy Lab brought together 16 ventures from across five continents for a two-week accelerator outside of San Francisco, California. Over the course of this program, the entrepreneurs were matched with the resources, mentorship, access to financing, and global network of support to help them scale more rapidly across multiple regions and countries. To date, the first cohort of companies operates in over 50 countries, has collectively raised over $70 million in financing, and has reached over ten million people around the world. Within just one year after the program, the cohort’s total revenue has increased by over 80%, and total funding has increased by approximately 185%.

Last month, the second Project Literacy Lab accelerator officially launched with a new group of 13 companies at a venue near New York City. The participating mentors included Aleem Walji, CEO of the Aga Khan Foundation and former chief innovation officer at the World Bank, and Tom Chi, founding team member of Google X and expert in rapid prototyping.

Each venture in the 2017 cohort is tackling one of the foundational issues that underpins the problem of illiteracy worldwide.

For example:
BeeLine Reader makes reading on screen more efficient and accessible for readers at all levels—especially for those with dyslexia, ADD, and vision problems. Instead of displaying text in monochrome, BeeLine Reader uses a subtle color gradient that draws the reader’s eyes from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. This technique can dramatically improve reading fluency and reading comprehension. To date, BeeLine Reader has been used to read over 250 million pages worldwide.

Cell-Ed brings essential literacy, language, and job skills to adults who need it most. They deliver skills training in three-minute lessons on any mobile phone, where adult learners simply call, text, or click to access a world of learning. To date, more than 10,000 Cell-Ed users have logged over 1,000,000 minutes of learning in reading and numeracy skills, vocational ESL, and more.

Kodable makes computer science education accessible to every child in the world, regardless of race, gender, or socioeconomic background. They develop computer science curriculum for elementary schools, with a grab-and-go lesson plan option for teachers and fun, engaging labs for students. To date, Kodable is used by over 50% of elementary schools in the U.S. and in over 200 countries around the world.

Pearson and Unreasonable Group share the belief that rapid-growth, for-profit companies have the potential to drive solutions into the hands of millions who remain illiterate today. This is where Project Literacy Lab comes into focus: connecting brilliant innovators and entrepreneurs with what they need to achieve greater scale faster.

“Project Literacy Lab aims to spark a conversation around how business investors and entrepreneurs can put a positive dent on history,” says Daniel Epstein, founder and CEO of Unreasonable Group. “Many of these entrepreneurs are already measurably closing the global literacy gap with technologies we didn’t know existed—profitably. Unlike most accelerator programs, we are choosing to align with solutions that have already proven to be effective in market. Now, we’re helping these entrepreneurs scale their ventures across countries and continents to impact hundreds of millions of lives.”

“Ensuring universal literacy means bringing new problem solvers to the table,” said Kate James, chief corporate affairs and global marketing officer for Pearson and chief spokesperson for Project Literacy. “We need everyone to work together to tackle this global crisis. With their innovative and scalable solutions, these entrepreneurs are key to how we help reach the low-income communities where illiteracy is most severe.”
www.projectliteracy.com/lab/

Diglossia Releases Mubakkir Arabic Early Reading Assessment

Diglossia has announced the release of Mubakkir, an Arabic early-reading assessment designed for native and nonnative learners at beginning and intermediate proficiency levels. Experts agree that early and frequent measurement of young learners’ progress toward the acquisition of early literacy skills is an essential element for developing successful readers and writers, and the test addresses a need in the MENA region for a standards-based Arabic early-literacy assessment.

Mubakkir gives teachers and administrators a powerful and easy-to-use tool for the systematic gathering of student data to inform effective instruction and intervention. The mobile app is a suite of individually administered tests designed to help schools and teachers determine how early readers are performing on critical preliteracy and early-literacy skills. The test is administered up to six times per year in a one-to-one setting, where the teacher uses the mobile app while the student reads from printed phonics or story sheets. Student performance is audibly recorded while the teacher is tracking fluency and identifying miscues to monitor and record progress.

The assessment makes it easy to maintain a running record of student progress toward meeting the benchmark requirements for six to ten prereading and early-reading skills identified by experts as essential to the development of reading fluency in young learners. As a formative assessment tool, the detailed data gives teachers diagnostic information to provide every child with meaningful feedback and to develop personalized, evidence-based remediation and intervention strategies.

Mubakkir consists of a mobile application available on Apple or Android devices that captures responses and keeps a running record of progress, and printed test sheets to elicit oral responses from students in a one-to-one test administration. A full range of individual, class, and school reports are available on a customizable dashboard. The two- to three-minute tests are designed to be administered frequently, approximately once every four to six weeks. Mubakkir is available to download from the Apple App or Google Play stores.
Mimi Jett, Diglossia co-founder and CEO, is excited about the release.

“We are honored to partner with the Arab Thought Foundation on Mubakkir, the first online test to measure literacy development in Arabic language learners. Early literacy skills are critical in preparing children for success in school and in life, and Mubakkir gives educators the data necessary to ensure achievement for early Arabic readers. The test furthers our commitment to partner with MENA educational organizations in realizing our shared goal of supporting Arabic language literacy throughout the world.”

Mubakkir was created in partnership with the Arab Thought Foundation to promote early-literacy skills in young learners and is part of the foundation’s efforts to improve the teaching and learning of Arabic language with standards, materials, tools, and support, throughout the Arab world. The development of Mubakkir was funded by the Arabi 21 Project under the guidance of Dr. Hanada Taha and the Arab Thought Foundation.
www.diglossia.net

www.arabthought.org

The Future of Spanish and Hispanic Media in the U.S.

Does one have to speak Spanish to be considered Hispanic or Latino in the U.S.? What is the role of Hispanic media in the country which elected Donald Trump a year ago? How important is the Spanish language to Hispanic media? How does such media affect the use of Spanish in a country with 58 million Spanish speakers?

These were some of the questions asked during the II Jornada de Medios de Comunicación y Cultura en Español, which was recently hosted by the Instituto Cervantes at its headquarters in Madrid.

Organized by the Institute’s press department, the conference culminated with a session by Univisión presenter Jorge Ramos on Hispanic media under the Trump administration.
Other speakers included Alberto Vourvoulias-Bush, a professor in the Spanish journalism program at City University New York, who said that in the U.S. there was “a desperate shortage of bilingual journalists.” He argued that for recent immigrants, the Spanish-language media is a “lifesaver which helps them navigate a new world” in such basic areas as finding work, health care, or school for their children.

Frances Negrón-Muntaner, director of the Media and Idea Lab at Columbia University, shared his belief that “the Hispanic community doesn’t exist as such and the term Hispanic is being used less every day.” For the Puerto Rican journalist, the English-language media “is a place where Latinos are marginalized,” by the continued casting of stereotypes like gardeners and maids, while the traditional “Latin lover” has virtually disappeared—the last one being Antonio Banderas.

The moderator of the first debate, Ángel Badillo, lead researcher at the Real Instituto Elcano, argued that Spanish is no longer a factor of identity, as 80% of Latinos believe that one does not have to speak Spanish to be considered Latino.

During the second debate on the future of Spanish-language media in the U.S., Alberto Avendaño, ex-director of El Tiempo Latino/Washington Post, claimed that “Hispanic-American” news coverage in the English-language media was “absolutely pathetic,” but he was optimistic, since every month, 50,000 Latinos come of age (more than young “Anglos”), so a social and demographic shift is inevitable.

Armando Trull, NPR’s chief correspondent on race and identity, questioned the policies of Republicans in the White House and Congress who were ready to “do away with Hispanic immigration.” He argued that the Spanish-speaking media “tell their audience what they want to hear” and that talking about the “quality of Spanish” spoken in the U.S. ignores the fact that “Spanish has many qualities.”

1...216217218...340Page 217 of 340

Subscribe for exclusive content

Language Magazine is a monthly print and online publication that provides cutting-edge information for language learners, educators, and professionals around the world.

Subscribe

LanguageMagazine 2023

Language Magazine