The Education Access and Success Program
Child Development and English As A Second Language
Educational Access & Success to
Spanish/Chinese Speaker Program
Study sponsored by De Anza College
English-As-A-Second Language and
Child Development and Education Departments
June 2008
Acknowledgements
This report has been made possible with the support of the De Anza College 2007-08 Vocational and Technical Education (VTEA) Title IC funds. Special thanks to the following individuals and organizations for their assistance and support.
De Anza College
§ Lydia Hearn, Dean of Language Arts
§ Marcy Betlach, ESL Department Chair
§ Christine Chai, ESL Department Instructor
§ Iris Thot-Johnson, ESL Department Instructor, Principal Writer
§ Li-Wei Sun, Child Development and Education Department Instructor, Model
D e veloper
§ Nellie Vargas, Child Development and Education Department Instructor, Model Deve l oper
§ Mayra E. Cruz, Child Development and Education Department Chair, Model
D e veloper
Mountain View/Los Altos Adult Education
§ Laura Stefanski, Director
§ Ronald Kirchem, ESL Coordinator
Community in Action Team (Comunidad en Acción)
§ Marilu Delgado, President and Community Member
Table of Contents
Education and Access Program Model Research 4
Education and Access Program Model Research —Spanish 19
Education and Access Program Model Research —Mandarin 20
References 21
Appendixes
Mountain View/Los Altos Adult Education 23
ESL Beginning-High Course Outline- Bridge course
ESL Course Sequence 27
Introduction
De Anza College, located in Northern California, in the greater San Francisco Bay area, is a community college made up of diverse populations. The racial composition of De Anza College students in Fall of 2005 was the following: African American (Non-Latino), 5.3%; Asian, 34.7%; Latino, 13.7%; Native American; 0.6%; Pacific Islander, 0.8%; White, Non-Latino, 25.7%; Other 2.2%; Unrecorded, 11.2%.
The Child Development Department and Education Department(in future referred to as CDE in this paper) at De Anza College has made a very conscious effort to reach out to this diverse population. The department is currently offering classes in Mandarin Chinese and Spanish for some of its core classes (for example, CD 50, CD12, and CD 10G). This enables students to begin acquiring the units needed to become Child Care Teacher Assistants, Teachers, etc. This remarkable program makes education for those with limited English Language skills available immediately, not just after they have acquired enough English to do so, which can take years. However, although this program begins for students in the native language, personnel at the CDE recognize the fact that students will eventually be required to improve and perfect their English in able to be eligible for the full spectrum of jobs in child care in the Bay Area.
Because of this reality, the CDE has in mind the goal to design and then eventually implement a program model from the native language to English. Due to the different needs of the students in the Spanish and Mandarin language groups, the models would be slightly different: for Spanish background students, the beginning Child Development classes would be taken in Spanish, as they already are now, transitional classes in Spanish and English, and then the last and highest level classes in English. For the Mandarin background students, the model would begin with the transitional phase and then move into the only-English phase. These models are based on bilingual school principles, which go back to the 1960s. According to bilingual education, “subject-content material is taught in both languages, with an increasing emphasis on English at each grade level” (Curtain & Pesola, 1988, p. 18).
The belief is that, although subject content material is heavily taught in the native language at the beginning, this content is transferrable across languages. Thus, if a student learns fundamental child care theories in the L1, this material is able to be transferred into English as the student builds upon his or her knowledge base in this language. Studies “have shown that cognitive and academic development in L1 has a strong, positive effect on L2 development for academic purposes” (Ovando, Collier &Combs, 2003, p. 129).
Unfortunately, despite the positive way many researchers see bilingual education, it has suffered many setbacks over the years. “Until 1978 the balance favored a more benign outlook which led to increases in support. After 1978, and particularly after 1980, the balance shifted drastically toward the opposite side” (Padilla & Benavides, 1992, p. 324). In 1998 proposition 227 was voted into law in California. According to Ovando, Collier, and Combs (2003), this initiative mandated “English-only instruction for LEP students--the first since World War I” (p. 49). By pursuing a transitional, bilingual model for its native Mandarin and Spanish speakers, however, the CDD at De Anza College shows initiative and the fact that it puts students first. The next section of this paper discusses the research on the best practices in English language learning to date.
Research on the Best Practices in English Language Learning
Traditional Methods
Researchers have concluded that, while students need “a lot of input which is roughly-tuned, and while there must be an emphasis on communicative activities which improve the students’ ability to communicate, there is also a place for controlled presentation of finely-tuned input and semi-controlled language practice” (Harmer, 1991, p. 43). Educators of all disciplines have long debated exactly how much of any lesson should be teacher-centered, student-centered, etc. As language teaching has evolved, from the Grammar-Translation approach, the Audiolingual and Direct methods, to other methods such as Total Physical Response and the Natural Approach, the role of the teacher has changed from that of omni-present (for example, Grammar-Translation, Silent Way) to more of a teacher-facilitator approach (Natural Approach).
Of the above-mentioned approaches, many are no longer used in U.S. ESL programs. Two of them, Total Physical Response and The Natural Approach are still used in many ESL classrooms today, however. The former, often abbreviated to TPR, is “very useful for the early stages of second-language acquisition” (Ovando, Collier, & Combs, p. 150). This method implies the use of commands given by a teacher for students to carry out such as, “take out a piece of paper,” or, “go to the board.” The punch behind this method is that the kinesthetic element increases the potential for students to store the vocabulary into their long term memory which would not necessarily happen as quickly in a vacuum.
The Natural Approach, along with TPR, is also still used in many ESL as well as foreign language classrooms in the United States. Ovando, Collier, & Combs (2003) give this method high praise, saying that “Natural Approach classes are now generally taught through meaningful thematic academic content” (p. 152). This approach employs a combination of both acquisition and learning as a means of facilitating language development, much like when children learn language. In fact, this method comes the closest to the goals of current diversified approaches to teaching languages.
Another ESL method still used and touted as very important is the Interactive Approach. Central to this approach is that both teachers and students appreciate the “uniqueness of other individuals with their special needs – not manipulating or directing them or deciding how they will learn, but encouraging them and drawing them out (educating), and building up their confidence and enjoyment in what they are doing” (Rivers, 1988, p. 9). Like the Natural Approach, the Interactive Approach requires the teacher to step off of center stage. Students in this kind of classroom can expect to spend a lot of time listening to authentic materials, “with no prohibition or discouragement of spoken response or student-initiated contribution” (Rivers, p. 10). Students are encouraged to speak and respond regardless of errors, at least at the beginning. However, as it is very important for students to be able to communicate in English as they get more advanced in their ESL studies, “their pronunciation should be at least adequate for that purpose” (Harmer, 1991, p. 21).
The Bilingual Approach, already mentioned in the introduction, is primarily an approach which includes these characteristics:
· The continued development of the student’s primary language (L1).
· Acquisition of the second language (L2), which for many language minority students is English.
· Instruction in the content areas utilizing both L1 and L2 (California Department of Education, 1981, p. 215: In Ovando, Collier, & Combs, p. 6).
Ovando, Collier, and Combs caution, however, against assuming that the Bilingual Approach is “a single uniform program” or “a consistent ‘methodology” for teaching language minority students” (p. 5). Rather, it is “an approach that encompasses a variety of program models, each of which may promote a variety of distinct goals” (2003, p. 5). Indeed, the section Bilingual Programs at California Community Colleges, which appears later in the paper, demonstrates this. Regardless of the different approaches taken by different institutions, however, the Bilingual Approach is a methodology which empowers language minority students.
Recommendations from the field
The Center for Adult English Language Acquisition has some very important suggestions as to best practices for ESL programs, in this case, family literacy programs. One of the most important points is that programs “be of sufficient intensity and duration for visible progress to be made” (2002, para. 1). Another salient suggestion made by this organization is to follow a bilingual model of building on individual’s language and literacy. Since many immigrant students may have limited literacy skills in their own language, it is suggested to build on the skills they have in their native language, first, before proceeding to the second language – English.
At the literacy Training Network in Brainerd, Minnesota, held on February 16, 2006, presenters Jan Jarrell and Barbara Pongsrikul called the first three weeks a critical threshold for student retention. As a result, they suggested “intensive support teams, smaller classes, and one-on-one tutoring” (2006, p. 9). For students, safety and community are also very important, according to the presenters. Thus, second language programs should plan accordingly as to location and times of classes, if possible.
Texas LEARNS, an adult education and family literacy project in Texas, has several recommendations in terms of curriculum, content, and the merit of a bilingual approach. In terms of curriculum, the organization suggests providing “English language learners with opportunities for vocational and technical training while their English language skills are still developing” (2008, para. 3).
Texas LEARNS touts a modular approach to curriculum development. As a result, the people behind this program believe that “high intensity, short duration courses are needed” (para. 1). As far as content and bilingual education are concerned, it is suggested that the learners’ first language “be used to teach the difficult content that they need to know in order to do a task. Then the English vocabulary and structures they need to listen, read, write, and talk about the tasks should be taught” (para. 2). Texas LEARNS borrows an excellent bilingual model from Ana Huerta-Macías (2003). Specifically modeled to workplace instruction, it is as follows:
· The topic is introduced in the native language
· Key English vocabulary items are taught
· Hands-on activities (such as those involving workplace machines) are carried out in English and assessed in English
· Technology activities follow, with discussion in the native language
· Final discussion and question/answer activities are carried out in whichever language each individual student prefers
· If a class has speakers of several different languages, Huerta-Macías suggests dividing the group into same-language small groups for discussion of the workplace issues in the native language
· Each group then, in English, frames questions about the workplace issues for the teacher
Finally, two more suggestions from the Center for Adult English Language Acquisition (or CAELA) help round off this section. CAELA promotes project-based learning. This kind of learning “functions as a bridge between using English in class and using English in real life situations outside of class” (1998, para. 1). According to CAELA, project learning works by putting English language learners in “situations that require authentic use of language in order to communicate (e.g., being part of a team or interviewing others)” (para. 1). This kind of learning involves having students working in teams to develop the skills needed to plan, organize, negotiate, arrive at a consensus, etc., all skills which learners consider important for their daily lives in the U.S.
Problem-Based learning, also promoted by CAELA, has actually been around since the late 1960s. According to the organization, in this kind of learning, which is true to its name, the teacher provides students with some appropriate problems to work on and helps them identify and access the materials and required equipment needed to solve these particular problems. The teacher also “gives necessary feedback and support during the problem solving process, and evaluates students’ participation and products, with the goal of helping them develop the problem-solving as well as their language and literacy skills” (Matthews-Aydinili, p.1). It is suggested that four steps be used to implement problem-based learning; these are:
· Preteach
· Introduce the problem and the language needed to work on it
· Group students and provide resources
· Observe and support
Bilingual Programs in Child Development at California Community Colleges
There are a number of community colleges in the state already engaged in the type of bilingual programs which the Child Development and Education Department at De Anza is aiming to launch. In Northern California there is Cabrillo College in Aptos. There are a total of three stages in Cabrillo’s Early Childhood Education program. In each stage, there are a number of core courses and support courses (ESL) taught. The first stage, detailing the beginning courses, includes a significant amount of material taught in Spanish, along with scaffolding of English terminology. Visual aids are used extensively throughout this phase. The next stage, the transitional phase, includes “a greater proportion of material taught in English with use of Spanish to ensure comprehension as needed” (2008, para. 2). Finally, in the last stage, material for the advanced CD courses is taught entirely in English with support and guidance in Spanish. Upon completion of the entire program, students earn a certificate in Spanish-English Bili n gual Teaching.
Santa Rosa Junior College, also in Northern California, has a bilingual program in its Child Development Department as well. In this program students can take the first 12 units entirely in Spanish, although the taking of a concurrent ESL class is highly encouraged: “Without English you can take only the first 12 units of ECE (Early Childhood Education). We encourage you to enroll in ESL classes while you are taking the Spanish ECE classes” (2008, para. 3). The transitional classes involve a mixture of English and Spanish, including the ever-important ESL class, while the third phase involves classes taught solely in English. Students are enrolled in ESL classes throughout this phase. Once the students have completed the 12 semester units on the Spanish speaker’s career track they will have earned the Child Development Ass ociate Teacher Certificate and P ermit.