CAPÍTULO IX Procedimiento Arbitral
PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA ADQUISICIONES Y CONTRATACIONES POR MONTOS MENORES
The data indicate that the teachers in this study,
tenured and non-tenured, do not believe or refute many of the common myths about ESL. Participants’ responses either
directly stated or through their anecdotal responses indicated that each statement was untrue. There is no noticeable
difference between tenured and non-tenured teacher responses. The participants demonstrated a basic understanding of some of the challenges that ELLs face. However, there was significant emphasis on motivation and not on the challenges immigrant students face: SLIFE, PTSD, literacy in their first language. Their knowledge of ELLs seemed to be based upon empirical observation and experience working in classrooms with ELLs rather than a deep knowledge of the research done of ELLs. That data also demonstrates that professional development is needed in many area of ESL education for teachers working in this district. It cannot be overstated that teachers will teach in the way that they perceive is the most effective and beneficial for their students. Therefore, it should be a
priority for any district with a high population of ELLs to provide teachers with the support needed to effectively teach this population of students.
The only myth showing any discrepancy between the two groups is myth 7 (Effective instruction means non-verbal
support). In this myth, 5 out of 5 or 100% of tenured teachers responded in the affirmative saying that non-verbal support is an effective means of language support, whereas only 2 out of 5 non-tenured teachers affirmed the myth with 3 out of 5
refuting it. The pattern amongst both groups who affirmed this myth points out that using manipulatives or other visual aides as well as hands-on instruction are effective tools in
language learning. Two participants mentioned that non-verbal support is effective only in combination with verbal support. They added that explicit instruction as well as one-on-one help is the more effective approach and that non-verbal
support without explicit instruction is less effective. This result is significant for instructional practice. First, if directions are only communicated verbally without modeling, it is likely that ELLs will not understand and further diminish their chances executed the activity or assignment correctly. Second, as teachers introduce new material, ELLs are more likely to understand the content if is presented in multiple formats. Third, teachers need to be aware of the fact that many of their ELs will not understand the content the first
time it is presented and that strategies need to be in place in order to combat their non-comprehension.
Implications for Teachers
The data collected in this study demonstrates that
teachers from this school have at least some understanding of the ELL population in their classrooms. It is evident by
looking at the participants’ responses that prior professional development concerning or experience working in classrooms
with ELLs has certainly impacted teachers’ beliefs about ELLs. Three main takeaways from this research that should be addressed via professional development are: factors that
influence language acquisition (i.e., SLIFE, PTSD, motivation, time in country, exposures to the target language, prior
education in their L1), the difference between social and academic language, and the use of explicit instruction in the target language. The first two take-aways are based on
participants’ responses in Myths 1, 2, and 3 that specifically deal with language acquisition while the last take away is in response to answers given for myth 7. This myth is concerned with ESL pedagogy.
The first take-away focuses on language acquisition. Teachers must be made aware of the processes as well as the factors that go into language acquisition. As research has
suggested, there are many factors that contribute to a
learner’s ability to acquire a second language. These factors include but are not limited to aptitude, motivation (extrinsic and intrinsic), personality, the curriculum being used, the pedagogy of the teacher, etc. (Lightbrown & Spada, 2013). For example, regarding myths 1 and 2, many participants responded that acquisition was influenced by a student’s motivation and desire to learn the target language. The belief that a student is not progressing in the target language due to his or her motivation diminishes the intricacies of the acquisition process and leaves little room for helping the student apart from using positive or negative reinforcement to motivate him or her. This also appears to put the blame on the student and does not seek to find the explanation in order to truly find out what needs to be done in order to improve student
achievement. Research done on motivation’s impact on language learning suggests that although many successful language
learners display a high level of motivation, it is agreed that their motivation was one of perhaps many factors that led to their achieving a high level of proficiency and not the sole factor (Lightbrown & Spada, 2013, p. 78). The participants’ responses also suggest that teachers may feel that they are not responsible for motivating their ELL students or that
motivating is part of good teaching. Teachers have a great deal of influence when comes to motivating their students. Teachers who provide an environment where a student feels welcomed and where they feel they are being supported often see higher levels of motivation from their students
(Lightbrown & Spada, 2013).
Again, it is important to note that although motivation is an important factor in language acquisition, in must be stressed that it is only one of many factors that play a role in determining the linguistic success of the learner.
The second takeaway, which is based on responses from myth 3, looks at the difference between social language (BICS) and academic language (CALP). The pattern that emerges from the responses to this myth shows that many teachers allude to a distinction between the two types of language but never explicitly state what that difference is. Empirically, many teachers seem to see a disconnect in their students with very high verbal skills and their struggle understanding classroom content. However, no one mentioned the need for an emphasis on teaching academic English in their classroom. As research has shown, academic language takes significantly more time to acquire than social language (Lightbrown & Spada, 2013). This being the case, teachers need to be cognizant that more often
than not the ELLs that are walking into their classrooms
likely do not have the academic language needed to do well in their class. This is especially true at the secondary level where content is much more rigorous and assumes the student has some background knowledge of the content as well as a mental lexicon that will help guide them through new
vocabulary.
These responses strongly suggest that professional development is needed to assist mainstream teachers in
understanding the fact that students will naturally acquire social language before academic language. Therefore, the needed professional development is that which teaches strategies that show teachers how they can bolster the students’ acquisition of academic language.
The third takeaway has to do with the belief that
nonverbal instruction is an effective tool in learning another language. As the responses to myth 7 indicate, two possible conclusions can be drawn. First, teachers believe that
nonverbal support in the target language is an effective strategy and does not need to be accompanied by direct
instruction in the target language. If this is the case, then certainly professional development on this subject is needed. However, participants who responded with an unqualified “yes,”
did so possibly because of the way the statement was read, and felt that either no qualifier was needed or that it was
obvious and did not need to be said. However, if this is not the case, then professional development would be needed to show teachers how on its own, nonverbal support is not as effective as when paired with direct instruction. Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2000) point out that it is important that teachers provide visual support to help with the conceptual complexity of the content. However, this alone is not enough. Explicit language support is also needed to help the students navigate content when visual aids are not available. Nonverbal support is only the start of making the content easier for ELLs to conceptualize. These types of accommodations, however helpful in making content more comprehensible, are only part of what is necessary to helping ELLs fully comprehend academic content. Teachers need to find other ways of reducing the
language demands on their ELL students. This can be done by providing texts and other content material that better suit the student’s linguistic level as well as find ways for their students to develop the language skills needed to succeed in classroom (Harper & De Jong, 2004).
Final Thoughts
Along professional development the district should consider providing the means for at least one teacher from each subject area to receive ESL training from an accredited institution. This training would enable teachers to train and assists their subject area colleagues to better serve their ELL students. Teachers would not only be able to bring a subject area specific perspective to ESL pedagogy, but hopefully use the training to provide uniquely tailored
instruction to their ELL students. The more we can educate our teachers on the populations that they serve the better they can ultimately serve those students academically.
Limitations of the Study
It is important to note that this research has
limitations in generalizing the results to all mainstream classroom teachers’ views of such myths. There are several shortcomings in this study.
First, this study was conducted in only one school
district at one school. In order for this research to be seen as more conclusive, many schools, both primary and secondary, in many districts throughout the country must be surveyed.
Second, other ethnic groups must be included in the research. This study took place in a district where the vast
majority of the ELL students are Somali with a much smaller population of Latino and Karen students. Given that a large number of the students struggle with having no prior academic experiences and/or whose education experience was interrupted due to turmoil in their home country, answers to myths that look at acquisition may be different based on different ELL populations. For example, in many districts ELLs are from Western Europe where students have easy access to education and are literate in their L1, so teachers may see acquisition taking place faster as compared to those who are not literate. Therefore, the response to the myth “ELLs should be able to acquire English within two years” may look much different since we know that literacy in a student’s L1 is certainly a factor in acquiring their L2.
Another limitation in the research is the sample size. This research deals with a relatively small sample size, only 10 participants. In order to get a more accurate picture of teachers’ beliefs about these myths, the sample size must be much larger.
Future Research
Clearly more research needs to be done on this topic in order to obtain more definitive results. Research conducted in different districts with different ELL populations, as well as
a larger sample size, would help to provide more generalizable results. Another suggestion may be to follow each question of the survey with a follow-up question that could be used to glean more anecdotal information, thus providing more overall information to be used in the analysis.
References
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). English language
learners with special education needs. McHenry, IL:
Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co.
Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers' perceptions of ELL education:
Potential solutions to overcome the greatest challenges.
Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39-43.
Calderón M. E., & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2011). Preventing long-term English Language Learners: Transforming schools to meet core standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cortada, J., Austin, M., Keppler, L., & Morales, L. (2015, May). WIDA focus on SLIFE: Students with limited or
interrupted formal education. WIDA Consortium, Wisconsin
Center for Educational Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for
empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California
Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2002). Language and the human spirit. TESOL
Matters. Retrieved September 9, 2005, from
http://iteachilearn.com/cummins/langhuman02.htm. Dale, T. & Cuevas, G. (1987). Integrating language and
content-area instruction (pp. 9-52). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2000). Making
content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP®
model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gil, L., & Bardack, S. (2010). Common assumptions vs. the
evidence: English Language Learners in the United States: A reference guide. PsycEXTRA Dataset.
doi:10.1037/e537552012-001
Gonzalez, J. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). New concepts
for new challenges: Professional development for teachers of immigrant youth. McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC:
Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000, January). How
long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?
Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/
Publications/%282000%29%20-20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT% 20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdf.
Harper, C., & De Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about
teaching English-Language Learners. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.
ilanguages.com. (2016). ilanguages. Retrieved February, 27, 2017, from http://ilanguages.org/bilingual.php.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. M. (2013). How languages are
learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What every teacher needs to unlearn.
Educational Practice Report 5.
Mechelli, A., Crinion, J. T., Noppeney, U., O’Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R., & Price, C. J. (2004). Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature,
431, 757.
Mind/Shift. (2016, August 29). Why multilingual people have
healthier, more engaged brains. Retrieved from https://
ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2016/08/29/why-multilingual- people-have-healthier-more-engaged-brains/.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2016). The condition of education 2016. Retrieved from https:// nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cgf.pdf.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English
Language Learners: A policy research brief. Urbana, IL:
Author.
O'Day, J. (2009). Good instruction is good for everyone—or is it? English Language Learners in a balanced literacy approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward
including English-Language Learners in mainstream
classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131- 142.
Sparks, S. (2009). Teacher ambassador urges more ELL parent involvement. Education Daily, 42(101), 1.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Appendix A: Interview Questions Procedure
Tell the informants that they will be read a list of
statements about EL students and their education, and that they should tell you both what they think of the statements and if they could give examples that would support or refute these statements.
1. ELL students can and will acquire their L2 solely through interaction and exposure to the target language.
2. ELLs should be able to acquire English within two years.
3. ELLs with high levels of verbal proficiency are ready for grade level mainstream classes.
4. ELLs learn at the same rate and in the same manner. 5. Learning two or more languages will impede a child’s
fluency in both languages.
6. Many children from non-English speaking backgrounds have learning disabilities rather than problems with language acquisition.
7. Effective instruction means nonverbal support.
8. Parents of ELL students do not want to be involved in their children’s education.
Appendix B: Demographic Information
1. What is your gender? Male/Female 2. What is your licensure area?
Appendix C: Consent to Participate in Interview
You are invited to participate in a research study about mainstream teachers’ knowledge of ESL.
If you agree to be part of the research study, you will be asked to answer questions pertaining to your knowledge of ESL. Your responses will be recorded and used in my master’s thesis. The benefit of the research is that the information received in this study will help the district provide more adequate professional development for mainstream teachers who teach ELLs. Data collected will remain anonymous. Responses will be kept strictly confidential, your name will not be disclosed nor will identified direct quotes be used. During the interview you may refuse to answer any questions. After the completion of the interviews, you will receive your transcribed interview if requested. Upon completion of the study all raw data will be erased.
Participating in this study is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with St. Cloud State University, or the
researcher. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without penalty. If you have questions about this research study, you may contact Nickolas Castiglione at [email protected]. Or from my faculty sponsor Dr. James H. Robinson at
[email protected]
or 320-308-4956. Results of the study can be requested from the researcher or the St. Cloud State University Repository.Your signature indicates that you are at least 18 years of age, you have read the information provided above, and you consent to participate.
__________________