Effect of Structured English Immersion Program on Reading Comprehension - Research Paper Example

Effect of Structured English Immersion program on Reading Comprehension of 6th Graders Chapter purpose This chapter reviews the relevant literature on the topic of the study. The contents of the chapter, apart from defining the topic and giving a brief overview of the history of Structured English Immersion program, focus on finding out the positive impact of the structure English Immersion on the Reading Comprehension of the learners. Through references from different studies the researcher has tried to establish the superiority of SEI approach over other approaches that emphasize on improving the linguistic proficiency of Limited Proficiency Learners in the US. Language teaching to students with limited proficiency is a challenging task that invites the ESL (English as a second language) teachers to devise such strategies as may ensure the effective absorption of target language. LEP’s (Limited English Proficiency) are those students who are not born in an English speaking country like the US. They mostly migrate with their parents for the better prospects of livelihood or any other socio-political reason. Their survival in the new location depends on the learning of the new language and they face a lot of difficulties to master the language other than their mother tongue. In order to cater for the educational needs of such students, different states of the United States have devised different programs to equip LEP students with English language. The language education of such students usually takes place under two different approaches, namely, English only approach and bilingual teaching approach. The two models of language teaching to LEP students have been shown in Fig 1: Fig 1: Two models for teaching English to bilingual learners. SEI is the program in which “academic content subjects are taught in English using a specialized materials adapted to the student’s developing proficiency in the language” (Ferguson, 2006, p. 46). It is expected that the teachers engaged in the program have a sufficient knowledge of the learners’ native tongue. The program generally engages the students with English language for a period of a year or two in order to prepare them for mainstream instruction of English. Baker (1998) relates that both bilingual and SEI approaches acknowledge that LEP (Limited English Proficient) learner has to face an extra burden during his academic life. He has not only to cover other components of curricula but also to acquire proficiency in English. For these both the approaches have different solutions. Bilingual approach suggests that non-language subjects can be taught in a language other than English while SEI approach “argues that content and English can be taught together by teaching content through learner – appropriate English” (p. 203). A brief overview of Structured Immersion English It was Baker along with Kanter who proposed the government of Arizona to get benefit from “Canadian methods of second language teaching” (Baker, 1998, p. 199). In Arizona, Structured English Immersion has been made compulsory through legislation. According to “Arizona Proposition 203” ELLs are to be given instruction in English language through a “sheltered or structured immersion” for a period of two years before transferring them to “mainstream English classes” (Jackson, 2008, p. 34). The advocates of this model view that use of English would be beneficial for students and they will be “weaned from their use of native language to avoid the cycle of native dependency that will counter English-only instruction” (p. 35). Clark (2009) reports that the term SEI was coined by Baker and Kanter in 1983 when they suggested a program which for the teaching of “English to non-native speakers” tried to benefit from the Canadian “French immersion programs” (p. 43).Ramirez, Yuen and Ramey (cited in Clark, 2009) foundnd out two main basic components of SEI programs: 1. Maximized instruction in English 2. Level and ability of ELL is taken into account while using and teaching English. Stringham (2005) enumerates the following advantages and disadvantages of SEI (Structured English Immersion) program: Advantages of SEI 1. In SEI classroom the learners get ample instances of the second language. 2. The emphasis is on “content knowledge” which acts as a supporting tool in the “acquisition of the second language”. 3. In order to bring English at the level of the learners, certain medications are made in the language. 4. The teacher of SEI program is well versed in ESOL principles and has a sufficient knowledge of the language and culture of the students. 5. Mainstreaming of the students into the regular English classroom is done gradually. 6. In these ESOL classes, the students are made relaxed and given proper liberty to take risks according to their own free will. Disadvantages 1. This program includes no native speakers of the target language in the pull-out classroom besides teacher. 2. The process of acquisition of second language may be slow and students may “fall behind in grade levels”. 3. There may still be demand on the part of the learner to get further clarification in L1. 4. The main disadvantage of the program is cost-effectiveness as it needs more “qualified teachers” and the additional infrastructural resources in order to modify ESL learners. 5. The process of mainstreaming of the students may come too early. 6. There may be stigmatization of the students who go to ESOL classes in the Pull-out model” (Srtingham, 2005). Studies on effectiveness of SEI on academic achievement Russell Gersten and his colleagues found SEI superior to bilingual education for Vietnamese immigrants in California and for Hispanics in Texas. An SEI program for Hispanics in Uvalade, Texas, was found to have improved high school graduation rates and lowered retention throughout the grades compared to prior, ill-defined program (Baker, 1998, p. 200). Another study done in California claims that “75% of LEP children” taught through structured immersion showed better performance “at or above grade level” in grade two class. The sample used for the study comprised twenty children (cited in Krashen, n. d.). Gray (cited in Gersten, 1985) indicated that “immersion approaches appear to be more effective than conventional approaches in teaching Spanish or French to English speaking minority students in the United State” (p. 187). Baker also quotes a longitudinal study conducted by Raimerz et al. The researchers tried to compare SEI to two types of bilingual education (i.e. early exit program and late exit program). The study showed a clear difference of achievement among the different approaches to teach English and established the superiority of SEI over other programs. TABLE 1. Comparison of Raw Score Achievement Gains Through Grade 3 for Three Programs Mathematics Language Reading Immersion program 44.0 72.9 63.7 Early-exit program 47.1 68.3 60.4 Late-exit program 33.3 43.9 51.4 Source: Baker (1998). Baker (1998) presents another success story of SEI program in Seattle, where the Newcomers program is. In this program students are kept for a year and then mainstreamed. Table Two shows the comparative performance of (i) the LEP (Limited English proficient) students in ESL/native language support program, (ii) LEP students in mainstream and those Non-LEP learners whose percentile score in mainstream was below 35. Table 2: NCE gains over three years (1991-1993) for LEP and Non-LEP Students in Seattle Reading Ave.NCE Gain N LEP Students in the program 7.7 1223 LEP Students in mainstream 3.1 84 Non-LEP Students below 35th percentile in mainstream 4.4 3894 Source: Baker (1998) Arizona Department Of Education (2004) conducted an inquiry in order to ascertain the effectiveness of immersion programs and their comparative superiority to other bilingual programs. The data showed that SEI students outperformed other students in reading in regard to mean scale scores. SEI group mean scale score was 633, while bilingual scored 627. The other side of the picture Structured English Immersion is not an exclusively successful program that guarantees the learning of English in the stipulated time period as there are certain studies that show the other side of the picture and point to the weaknesses of the approach. A study conducted by Ramirez et all. (cited in Lindholm-Leary, 2001, p. 18) showed that the SEI students “scored lowest in almost every academic subject”. Similarly, Sievert’s (2007) conclusion of the experimental study also showed no significant difference between the reading comprehension of SEI and bilingual students. Starting from Arizona, the Structured English Immersion has become a popular program for the instruction of language learners whose level of proficiency is far below the native speakers. SEI takes into accounts this limited proficiency and through a rigorous content learning of English language according to the appropriate level of the learners tries to improve the language ability including the reading comprehension of the learner. The focus on content makes the learners more familiar with the target language and they easily comprehend the target language text. References Arizona Department of Education. (2004). The Effects of Bilingual Education Programs and Structured English Immersion Programs on Student Achievement: A Large-Scale Comparison. Arizona Department of Education. Retrieved from http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/articles/EPRU-0408-66-OWI.pdf Baker, K. (1998). Structured English immersion: breakthrough in teaching limited-English- proficient students. PHI DELT KAPPAN. Retrieved from http://faculty.weber.edu/mtungmala/Hybrid4270/Articles/SEI.pdf Clark,K.(2009). The Case for Structured English Immersion. Educational Leadership. 66 (7), pp. 42-46. Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gersten, R. (1985). Structured Immersion for Language Minority Students: Results of a Longitudinal Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 7 (3), pp. 187-196 Jackson, F. J. (2008). The Comparsion of Reading Comprehension Using Dual Language, Full Immersion, and Sheltered English Immersion Instructional Programs for Navajo Students. Arizona: Arizona State University. Krashen, S. (n. d.). Is 180 Days Enough? Retrieved from: http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/UW-180.htm Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England [u.a.: Multilingual Matters]. Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., and Ramey, D. R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Retrieved from http://www.nabe.org/files/Ramirez.pdf Sievert, J.(2007). Evaluation of Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education on the Reading Skills of Limited English Proficient Students in California and Texas (Master thesis). Texas State University. Retrieved from https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3655/fulltext.pdf Stringham, L. M. (2005). Structured English Immersion. Retrieved from http://mset.rst2.edu/portfolios/s/stringham_l/thesis/41appsei.htm Read More