English Acquisition Programs

Immersion, Transition, or Bilingual?

By: Dawn Bodinski, Elizabeth Szczypka, & Kimberly O’Connor

Bonjour!

Buenos Dias!

Hallo!

Jambo!Guten Tag!

Hello!

Introduction In 2010, there were an

estimated 5.5 million children with unauthorized immigrant parents – the majority of whom spoke a different language at home (Chaundry et al., 2010)

Estimates that within 2 years 30% of children will come from a home where English is not the first language

In 2050, 1/5 of Americans will be foreign born

Children of immigrants have a right to a free and appropriate education

Overview of Positions Position 1: Students should be fully immersed

in English to accomplish a quick transition and allow them to more fully participate in society.

Position 2: Students should be placed in transitional programs to help ease their way into learning a new language.

Position 3: Students should continue to learn their native language, while simultaneously learning English as a second language with the goal of becoming bilingual.

Position 1: Immersion One strategy is English-only immersion, in which

all instruction occurs with English-speaking students in the general education classroom (Ochoa & Rhodes, 2005).

It is also known as: push-in model or mainstreaming

The goal of the English-only immersion program is to help students become fluent in English as well as keeping the student exposed to the mainstream curriculum (DeCapua, Smathers, Tang, 2007).

Using Full Immersion

This approach is advocated by educators and school-based personnel who believe for ELL students to learn English, they need to hear it and use it in an immersed, academic environment.

Mainstreaming or full-immersion programs can help integrate ELL students into the student body, and does not isolate them as in pull-out programs (DeCapua et al., 2007).

Growing research shows full immersion programs may be best used when ELL students are young.

This model is most common in content-classes such as math, science, and social studies where team-teaching is utilized.

Pro’s & Con’s of Immersion

Pro’s

Immersion keeps students in the mainstream classroom so that they do not fall behind on content knowledge they need to graduate

Students do not feel isolated by being pulled out of the general education classroom

Con’s

Not all ELL students get the formal and informal support they need to help them cope in an all-English classroom (Slavin et al., 2011).

In order for immersion to be successful it requires ongoing communication between ELL staff members and regular education teachers (Pascopella, 2011).

Position 2: Transition Students arrive from many different countries

speaking many different languages

Schools must meet the needs of these students

Transition programs allow students to use their knowledge of their native language while English is learned

End goal of transitional programs is fluency in English (DeCapua et. Al., 2007)

Pull-Out ESL Students are “pulled” from their main

classroom to attend English as a second language classes.

Amount of time in ESL class ranges from a few times a week to several hours each day.

Students work in small groups and focus solely on learning English (Pascopella, 2011).

Students may miss content information from class, and learning can be disjointed together (Jama, 1992) unless teachers work together to build a strong curriculum that can be delivered in multiple languages (Varela, 2010).

Newcomers Program

Self-contained classrooms with newly arrived immigrants

Provides a safe, sheltered environment for learning English while providing native language support (Wilkinson, 1992)

Small class size with intensive reading, writing, listening, grammar and vocabulary

May include an introduction to US culture and history

Children generally are moved to mainstream classroom after a year, but sometimes may stay in the program for 3 years.

Pro’s & Con’s of Transitions

Pro’s

Transitions allow for students to use their native language knowledge to continue learning content knowledge and English

Students are given support in and out of the classroom to become fluent in English

Support is tailored to student’s needs and English learning is intense

Con’s

Transitional programs can be difficult to maintain in a diverse environment with multiple languages (Munuz & Clavijo, 2000).

Amount of time needed in a transitional program may vary and it can be difficult to meet each child’s needs

Various transitional programs are helpful in different situations and are not always chosen appropriately

Position 3: Bilingual

Allows the student to learn in their native language while learning English as a ‘foreign’ language.

These programs are known as transitional bilingual education (TBE).

This will result in students who are bilingual by the end of the program.

This program is best utilized during elementary school years and only for 2-3 years (Ochoa & Rhodes, 2005).

Native language decreases while English increases, over time (Ochoa & Rhodes, 2005).

teachingjobsportal.com

Transitional Bilingual Education

“Transitional bilingual programs have been organized to introduce students to English while teaching subject matter in the native language until the student knows enough language to fit into the mainstream.” (Jama, 1992, p. 5)

Students who are conversational in English may not be able to understand the content-specific information they are learning in class

Students can learn English in a main classroom while not falling behind on content knowledge.

Pro’s & Con’s of TBE

Pros

Students will learn in their native language

Students learn English while learning in the language they understand

Students do not miss valuable seat time as with pull out programs

Cons

According to the 2008 census there are over 311 languages (including dialects) spoken in the United States

Finding teachers to cover all the potential needs could be difficult

Program is not suited for older students

Conclusion

There are many ways to educate English language learners, as discussed in this presentation.

Regardless of the method chosen our educational system needs to be more inclusive of the foreign student.

The way schools deal with their ESL students is no longer up to par for the variety of languages now spoken throughout the United States (Garcia, 2011).

The program used, needs to be the best fit for the student and that student’s ability.

leavechartersalone.com

Resources:Chaudry, A., Capps, R., Pedroza, J., Castaneda, R., Santos, R., Scott, M.

M., & Urban, I. (2010). Facing our future: Children in the aftermath of immigration enforcement. Urban Institute, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., & Tang, L. (2007). Schooling, interrupted. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 40-46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

García, O. (2011). Educating New York's bilingual children: Constructing a future from the past. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14:2, 133-153. Retrieved from the EBSCOhost.

Munoz, M. A., & Clavijo, C. (2000). Working with limited English proficient students: Input from the field on a high school newcomer

program. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Ochoa, S., & Rhodes, R.L. (2005). Assisting parents of bilingual students to achieve equality in public schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16(1-2), 75-94. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Resources Continued…

Pascopella, A. (2011). Successful strategies for English language learners. District Administration, 47(2), 29-3. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Slavin, R.E., Madden, N., Calderon, M., Chamberlin, A., & Hennessy, M. (2011). Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47-58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Varela, E. (2010). Mainstreaming ELLs into grade-level classes. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76(2), 39-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Wilkinson, L. (1992). Newcomers: Different language, different culture, big challenge. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011 (130th Edition) Washington, DC, 2010; <http://www.census.gov/statab/www/>.