English Language Learners - Research Paper Example

? and number English Language Learners submitted English Language Learners Introduction When one viewed the wealth of materials regarding the topic ‘English Language Learners’ from the online search medium, one would be awed at the magnanimity of results amounting to more than 16 million in various informational categories. The fact signifies the extensive interest on the topic manifested by an array of practitioners and users, especially in the field of education. This area of education would thereby be more explored in the current research to proffer pertinent details that led to the development and continued focus on English Language Learners (EELs) in the contemporary academic setting. This area is chosen to enhance one’s awareness on the subject of interest and thereby enable one to share the knowledge, including crucial information to assist and guide other ELLs that one would potentially interact with in the near future, specifically in terms of improving learning outcomes. The discourse would initially present the definition of key terms, evolution, historical development and continued growth within this area of academic discipline. Likewise, one would determine current legislation that shapes it in contemporary times; in conjunction with expounding on the best practices related to curriculum and instruction utilized in English as the Second Language (ESL) setting. In addition, one would also identify and describe specific technological applications and future trends that influence and affect English Language Learners (ELLs). Finally, improvements, challenges, and controversial issues facing this area of education would be analyzed, prior to presenting a concluding portion which would summarize and highlight the rationale for choosing this field of interest, how it coincides with one’s philosophy of education, and one’s future professional goals. Definition of Terms The Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (CEEE) defined the term ‘English Language Learners’ (ELLs) as “students whose first language is not English, and encompasses both students who are just beginning to learn English (often referred to in federal legislation as "limited English proficient" or "LEP") and those who have already developed considerable proficiency” (La Celle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994; cited in CEEE, 2005, par. 1). On the other hand, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) differentiated analogous terms such as ELL, ESL (English as Second Language), LEP (Limited English Proficiency) and EFL (English as Foreign Lanuage), as summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1: Definitions of Key Terms KEY TERMS DEFINITIONS ELL (English Language Learner): an active learner of the English language who may benefit from various types of language support programs. This term is used mainly in the U.S. to describe K–12 students. ESL (English as a Second Language): formerly used to designate ELL students; this term increasingly refers to a program of instruction designed to support the ELL. It is still used to refer to multilingual students in higher education. LEP (Limited English Proficiency): employed by the U.S. Department of Education to refer to ELLs who lack sufficient mastery of English to meet state standards and excel in an English- language classroom. Increasingly, English Language Learner (ELL) is used to describe this population, because it highlights learning, rather than suggesting that non-native-English-speaking students are deficient. EFL (English as a Foreign Language)Students:nonnative- English-speaking students who are learning English in a country where English is not the primary language. Source: (National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 2008, p. 2) Historical Development The origin of instruction to ELL was actually traced as early as the 1600s and 1700s when some states were reported to establish private and public schools with bilingual education regulations during the European colonization of the United States (University of Michigan School of Education , 2007). In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provided equal rights to education and other privileges to citizens, born or naturalized in the U.S. Although during these times, it was reported that children from other cultural orientations (Chinese, Mexican) were required to be educated in segregated schools, in 1954, the “Brown v. Board of Education established the principal of equal educational opportunity for all public school students” (University of Michigan School of Education , 2007, par. 8). It was during the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that any discrimination was eliminated in any program, including education, and thereby institutionalized equal rights and privileges, as enacted. In 1967, the first regulation encompassing ELL was passed through the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (which) was amended to create the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII). The Bilingual Education Act provided discretionary, supplemental funding (federal aid) for school districts that established programs to meet the “special educational needs” of children with limited English speaking ability” (University of Michigan School of Education , 2007, par. 13). Other relevant dates pertinent to ELLs are cited and quoted as Appendix 1. Current Legislation Shaping ELLs Current legislations shaping ELLs were stipulated in the Education Law Center that classified the laws into federal and state laws and regulations. In brief, the governing laws under federal jurisdiction are: “Federal regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of nationality in federally-assisted programs, 34 C.F.R. Part 100. No Child Left Behind Act, with regulations issued under the Act. 20 USC § 6301 et seq., 34 CFR Part 200. (Includes various provisions concerning English Language Learners, such as assessment requirements and provisions for notice to parents.) Equal Education Opportunity Act, 20 USC § 1703(f) : No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, by ... (f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs” (Education Law Center, 2012) Concurrently, the state regulations include the “Pennsylvania regulation on English as a Second Language and bilingual instruction (22 Pa. Code § 4.26); and the Pennsylvania regulation prohibiting schools from requiring immigration information as part of school enrollment process, and requiring administration of home language survey. 22 Pa. Code § 11.11 (d) and (e)” (Education Law Center, 2012, pars. 4 & 5). Best Practices From the experience and research-based recommendations noted by the NCTL, there are relevant practices and suggested guiding principles for effective ELL instruction both for the teachers, as well as for schools and policymakers. Table 2 below summarizes these recommendations, to wit: Table 2: Research Based-Recommendations for Effective ELL Instruction EDUCATORS RECOMMENDATIONS Teachers * Present ELLs with challenging curricular content * Set high expectations for ELLs * Use technology effectively * Recognize socio-cultural factors * Position native languages and home environments as resources * Teach ELLs in grades K–8 the basics of academic literacy * Teach ELLs in secondary school, like their K–8 peers, to simultaneously develop their skill with academic English and learn content in a variety of disciplines. * Recognize the difference between ELLs and under- prepared students in higher education. Schools and Policymakers * Delineate explicit expectations for ELLs. * Provide research-based professional development for teachers of ELLs. * Attend to processes and consequences of assessment of ELLs: * Recognize ELLs’ heterogeneity * Avoid testing in English exclusively * Use multiple assessments for varying purposes * Adhere to ethical principles of testing Source: (National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 2008, pp. 4-6). From the research-based recommendations, it could be deduced that for effective instructions to ELLs, a variety of contemporary instructional approaches, methods, and materials must be applied. These factors include assessment of the applicability and level of innovativeness of the curriculum content; setting high expectations to enable educators to design strategic instructional approaches; incorporating technological applications such as the use of social networking sites and audio-video instructional materials; discernment and integration of socio-cultural factors in the instructional media; the use of local languages as alternative instructional sources; and teaching in identified grade levels with aptitude and appropriate design of conducive learning environments that would motivate and enhance learning outcomes. In another significant discourse, Rivera (2009) revealed that there are organizational and institutional strategies that were found to work for ELL students, as quoted in Appendix 2. Similar factors such as incorporating cultural diversity, use of effective instructional and multidisciplinary media, the effectiveness of heterogenous grouping to facilitate learning, and the creation of a conducive and safe learning environment were confirmed. Specific Technological Applications Various studies on ELL have identified the use of technology, particularly the use of social networking sites and other innovative technological applications to facilitate learning within the ELLs environment (Taranto, Dalbon, & Gaetano, 2011; Mayora, n.d.;Porcaro, 2008). Mayora studied the effect of using YouTube to encourage the development of writing skills in the EFL classroom setting. On the other hand, Taranto, Dalbon and Gaetano (2011) determined the impact and effects of implementing Web 2.0 technologies through the use of wikis in the classroom setting in Canonsburg Middle School in Pennsylvania. Finally, Porcaro (2008) utilized court cases as a means of fostering communication and the development of critical thinking in university students of Japan. The findings revealed by Taranto, et al. (2011) emphasize that “by incorporating an academic social network as part of the classroom experience, collaboration and active learning take on new forms, and a transformation from passive learning to active learning may occur” (p. 18). Future Trends The Global Partnerships Schools sponsored a study written by Rivera (2009) which identified essential points pertinent to the future of ELL. Accordingly, “there are instructional strategies that ‘do work’ and are effective for ELL, but too many schools and teachers do not have access to the knowledge and training necessary to effectively teach ELL students” (Rivera, 2009, p. 2). The study noted the continued growth in the population of ELL students where educational needs have not been appropriately addressed (Rivera, 2009, p. 5). In this regard, through the efforts for the education reform promulgated by President Barack Obama, the following implications and call for transformations and change were appropriately cited, as Table 3: Table 3: Improvements, Challenges, and Controversial Issues Require federal and state funding be linked to effective strategies for ELLs and improved student outcomes for English language learners Teacher preparation and teacher certification requirements must be reviewed and improved Examine and change federal and state regulations that can hinder the implementation of more effective teaching and learning practice for English language learners Make certain that ELL students are not excluded from new schooling opportunities Re-examine how schools and classrooms are structured and organized to create better learning environments Districts, schools, and classrooms must move towards adopting globally benchmarked standards Celebrate diversity and actively work to create a true multicultural learning environment within schools Source: Rivera, 2009, p. 8 The information and recommendations noted by the NCTE (2008) and Rivera (2011) corroborate the need by policymakers and school administrators to address the distinct academic needs of ELLs by focusing on the competencies and qualifications of teachers to cater to their diverse requirements. Further, since the population of ELL students continues to increase, through the research-based recommendations noted, in conjunction with the organizational and institutional strategies revealed by Rivera (2009), educators could slowly progress towards addressing and catering to the distinct needs of ELLs. Conclusion The current research effectively achieved the defined objective of presenting crucial information that led to the development and continued focus on English Language Learners (EELs) in the contemporary academic setting. The contents discussed were instrumental in enhancing one’s awareness on the subject of interest and thereby enabling one to eventually share the knowledge, including crucial information to assist and guide other ELLs that one would interact with in the near future, specifically in terms of improving learning outcomes through the suggested research-based recommendations and through the organizational and institutional strategies learned in the discourse. One’s future professional goal is to become a duly competent and qualified educator in the field of ELLs to address the performance and academic gap that is currently being exemplified. Hopefully, through continued learning and being apprised of current and future trends in ELL, one would develop holistic skills, knowledge and abilities need to meet the academic challenges posed within the ELL environment. References Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. (2005, May 10). English Language Learners. Retrieved March 25, 2012, from The George Washington University: http://ceee.gwu.edu/ELLs/ELLs.html Education Law Center. (2012). Law & Policy: English Language Learners. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from http://www.elc-pa.org/law/law_english.html La Celle-Peterson, M., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it Real for All Kids? A Framework for Equitable Assessment Policies for English Language Learners. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, 55-75. Mayora, C. (n.d.). Using YouTube to Encourate Authentic Writing in EFL Classrooms. TESL Reporter, Vol. 42, No. 1, 1-12. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008). English Language Learners. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from The James R. Squire Office for Policy Research: http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearchBrief.pdf Porcaro, J. (2008). Using Court Cases to Foster Communication and Critical Thinking. TESL Reporter, Vol. 41, No. 2, 28-42. Rivera, M. (2009, May 21). Immigrants, English Language Learners and the Future of Education Reform. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from Global Partnership Schools: http://www.gps.us.com/docs/ELL.pdf Taranto, G., Dalbon, M., & Gaetano, J. (2011). Academic Social Networking Brings Web 2.0 Technologies to the Middle Grades. Middle School Journal, 12-18. University of Michigan School of Education . (2007). Time Line of Instruction to English Language Learners (ELLs). Retrieved March 17, 2012, from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/educationalequity/english_language_learners_timeline Appendix 1: Timeline For Instruction to English Language Learners (ELLs), 1970s – 2000s 1970 - May 25, 1970 Memorandum states: “Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in educational programs offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional programs to these students.” This Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) regulation also covered unequal access, segregation by tracking, ability grouping, assignment to special education, and exclusion of parents from school information. It instructed the Office for Civil Rights to implement, review, and enforce compliance procedures. 1970's - The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) was involved in key education lawsuits. 1973 - In Keys v. School District Number One, Denver Colorado, the U.S. Supreme court recognized Mexican Americans as having the constitutional right to be recognized as an identifiable minority. 1974 – Lau v. Nichols. Some 1800 Chinese students in San Francisco School District had been instructed only in English (immersion without supplemental services). The Supreme Court said “there is no equality of treatment by merely providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.” In Lau v. Nichols the U.S . Supreme Court ruled that the civil rights of non-English speaking children were being violated in schools that did not address their linguistic/educational needs. 1974 – The Equal Educational Opportunity Act extended the Lau decision to all school: "No state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin,… [or] (f) failure by an educational agency to overcome language barriers that impede participation by its students in its instructional programs.” 1975 - NABE, National Association for Bilingual Education, the main professional and advocacy group for bilingual education, was founded. 1975 - A Texas school district passed a law denying state school funds to schools that permitted undocumented children into their classrooms. This law was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where, in the Plyler V. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982) decision, states were prohibited from denying education to undocumented immigrant children. 1980 – Civil Rights Language Minority Regulations were enacted and required four basic components: identification, assessment, services, and exits and required that bilingual instruction be given by qualified staff. 1981 - Castaneda v. Pickard required that “appropriate action to overcome language barriers” be taken and that the programs be well documented. It also set the standards for courts in examining programs for LEP students: sound pedagogically theory, implemented effectively with adequate resources and personnel, and after a trial period, evaluation of effectiveness in overcoming language handicaps. 1981 – Idaho v. Migrant Council established the legal responsibility of State Departments of Education to monitor and implement programs for LEP students. 1982 - The Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982) decision prohibited states from denying education to undocumented immigrant children. 1987 – Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education established state education agencies as responsible for ensuring that language minority students' educational needs are met. 1994 - President Clinton signed an executive order: "Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans." 1998 – Proposition 227 eliminated most forms of bilingual education in California's public schools. 1999 – 43 states and the district of Columbia had laws providing for bilingual education & English-as-a-second-language (ESL) instruction. 2000 – Arizona eliminated bilingual education. 2000s 2001 – No Child Left Behind Act - Bilingual education was folded into NCLB and references to “bilingual education” were changed to “language instruction education program.” Bilingual Education was turned into a state-administered formula-grant program. NCLB required states and districts “to help ensure that children who are limited English proficient, …attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging State academic standards as all children are expected to meet.” 2002 - The Bilingual Education Act was allowed to expire. It was reauthorized in a modified form in NCLB, 2001. Source: (University of Michigan School of Education , 2007) Appendix 2: Organizational and Institutional Strategies that Work for ELL Students Schools organized with teams of teachers who know their students and remain with them for a period of years Students working collaboratively in groups Heterogeneous grouping, in lieu of isolating students Ample opportunities for interdisciplinary, project based learning Create a “safe environment” for students to explore and actively use their linguistic skills, without fear of ridicule or embarrassment Celebrate diversity and create a truly multicultural learning environment All teachers need to become language teachers, as well as content experts Teachers must implement effective instructional practices that build on the students’ existing linguistic, cultural, and cognitive knowledge Interaction with families is essential Source: (Rivera, 2009, p. 7) Read More