ESOL: Oral Language Development - Essay Example

 ESOL – Oral Language Development Promoting Oral Language Development in Math, Science, and Social Science As part of the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’, it is necessary to promote oral language development in Math, Science, and Social Science. The main purpose of integrating oral skills in these subjects improves the reading comprehension and writing skills of ESOL students.1, 2 Encouraging the ESOL students to speak the English language in Math, Science, and Social Studies both interactional and transactional could support the development as well as the exchange of ideas between the learners.

William (2003) stated that those students who were given the opportunity to brainstorm, plan, discuss, organize, and peer edit during writing could result to a better written products as compared to those students who were not given a chance.3 Considering the fact that Science is seldom taught in elementary schools including the low Science achievement among the English language learning (ELL) students in Florida and in Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS), it is important to promote the teaching of Science related subjects.

4 The ‘Promoting Science among the English Language Learners’ (P-SELL) has been implemented in order to improve the annual Science pilot-testing results of the students. In line with the policy of this program, all the teachers are required to teach Science topic which will be included in the pilot-tests.5, 6, 7 The same promotion should apply in Math and Social Science studies. OMSLE ESOL Standards-Address Standards 5, 6, 7, and 88, 9 Standard 5: Determine and use appropriate instructional methods and strategies for individuals & groups, using knowledge of first & second language acquisition processes In applying standard 5 in classroom activities, the educator should clearly identify the principles, characteristics, and terminology of a current or second language acquisition theories when conducting an interactive teaching.

The educator should apply simple language to ensure that instructional method is well understood by the ESOL learners. Standard 6: Apply current and effective ESOL teaching methodologies in planning and delivering instruction to LEP students First, the educator should know by heart the different cognitive approaches to second language learning, the features of the content-based ESOL for different level of education, the various instructional strategies used in an ESOL classroom, etc. In order to determine the effectiveness of the ESOL teaching methodologies within the classroom setting, it is necessary to assess the method used in the classroom setting.

The result of the assessment will be used for the improvement of ESOL teaching method. Standard 7: Locate and acquire relevant resources in ESOL methodologies It is possible for the educators to locate the relevant resources in ESOL methodologies through an intensive research. Once the educator has located the ESOL methodologies, the educator should demonstrate the knowledge of historical development and/or major professional publication related of ESOL in teaching. Standard 8: Select and develop appropriate ESOL content according to student levels of proficiency in listen, speaking, reading, and writing, taking into account: (1) basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), and (2) cognitive academic language proficiency skills (CALP) as they apply to the ESOL curriculum Once the educator has gathered all ESOL teaching methodologies, the educator must select the best method that works effective in his/her ESOL class.

There are a lot of ESOL teaching methodologies available. However, not all of these teaching methods are applicable to the personality of the educator or the type of students within a class. *** End *** References: 1 Applebee A.N., Langer J.A., Nystrand M. & Gamoran A. (2003) ‘Discussion-Based Approaches to Developing Understanding: Classroom Instruction and Student Performance in Middle and High School English’ American Educational Research Journal;40(3):685 – 730.

2 Wilkinson, L.C. & Silliman, E.R. (2000) ‘Classroom Language and Literacy Learning’ in Kamil, M.L. et al. (eds) ‘Handbook of Reading Research’ Vol. 3:337 – 360. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 3 William, J.D. (2003) ‘Preparing to Teach Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice’ Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. in Meltzer J. and Haman, E.T. (eds) ‘Part Two: Focus on Classroom Teaching and Learning Strategies’ The Education Alliance Brown University. 4 ‘Promoting Science Among English Language Learners (P-SELL) in a High-Stakes Testing Policy Context’ pp. 1 – 24. 5 Jones, B.D. & Jonston, A.F. (2002) ‘The Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Instructional Practices’ Paper presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

6 Borko, H. & Elliot, R. (1999) ‘Hands-on Pedagogy vs. Hands-off Accountability: Tensions Between Competing Commitments for Exemplary Math Teachers in Kentucky’ Phi Delta Kappan.80:392 – 400. 7 Bridge C.A., Compton-Hall M., & Cantrell S.C. (1997) ‘Classroom Writing Practices Revisited: The Effects of Statewide Reform on Writing Instruction’ The Elementary School Journal. 98(2):151 – 170. 8 ‘Florida Performance Standards for Teachers of English for Speakers of Other Languages’ Saint Leo University.

9 ‘Research Based Successful Strategies’ Region XIV Comprehensive Center.