A Tale of Two Directions, Essay Example

English language learners (ELLs) face significant literacy challenges; this much is certain. However, the research is still muddled and often contradictory. To illustrate this point, this section of the module will summarize-and reflect upon- two credible academic articles, both published by the International Reading Association in the last seven years. These two articles are Students Learning English and Their Literacy Instruction in Urban Schools and Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners.

Summary of Article 1

Teale (2009) begins by highlighting the high population of ELLs in urban schools and the spreading immigration which was formerly concentrated on New York, Texas, California, Illinois, Florida, and New Mexico. Thus, coping with the educational needs of ELLs is no longer a regional- or strictly urban- challenge, and the debate rages as to whether native-language (L1), sheltered, bilingual, or English-immersed instruction. Drawing on Goldenberg’s “research knowledge continuum”, Teale organizes the findings into those which you can “bank on”, those which are highly likely, and those which require more information to validate (2009). Goldenberg’s (2006, 2008) research synthesizes his research discoveries concerning curriculum and instruction and sociocultural factors for literacy (as cited by Teale, 2009, p. 700).

As for Teale, his “bank”-worthy characteristics of good ELL instruction are based upon continuity, clarity, and student engagement and emphasize the crucial linguistic components of comprehension, vocabulary, phonological awareness, word recognition, reading fluency, and writing (2009). Additionally, instructional accommodations focus on paying extra attention to developing familiarity and new vocabulary, or as Teale phrases it, “each lesson ends up focusing on three things: literacy skills or strategies; content; and, for English learners, English language development” (p. 701). Teale describes student-centered adjustments to instructional practices highly likely to improve ELL education through engagement and intrinsic motivation; likewise, he expresses his confidence that familial involvement contributes greatly to the success (or failure) of literacy education (p. 701). Still, Teale relates three lingering questions: a) in what ways does culturally-compatible literacy instruction contribute to ELL literacy? b) what instructional accommodations are grade level-specific? c) what familial and linguistic environment contribute to better literacy development?

Reflection on Article 1

Teale (2009) is a very spirited writer, and- while it is clear that he reflected on the research and the implications- it does not seem that he placed any of his research within the proper context. His adaptation of Goldenberg’s research-knowledge continuum is distorted and unimaginative and shows no deep, underlying connection to the developments of his thesis. Learning another language is difficult; learning English is grueling. Putting the difficulty of the English language itself aside, the acquisition and retaining of vocabulary in both L1 and L2 (the second language, English) do require the development of Teale’s linguistic components (comprehension, vocabulary, phonological awareness, word recognition, reading fluency, and writing), but these developments in L1 require less new information. For ELLs, more of these factors will be sustained during the course of the literacy education. Nonetheless, it is advisable to follow the author’s recommendation to use simple, concise language consistent with the previously-covered material.

In his concluding remarks, the author embarks on a tirade which is not directly related to the topic at hand, and, while introducing the emphasis of his ELL research, Teale describes the ever-increasing cultural diversity across the nation, which is highly concentrated on urban centers (2009). However, while discussing instructional accommodations on the next page, he advocates a very individualistic and student-centered approach which is not realistic when such ample linguistic variance and weighty time limitations are likely to be present. Many ELL teachers begin in other areas of education and thus may not even have the recommended level of expertise to perpetually consolidate and review information. Although it is a frightening prospect at first, certain students will invariably thrive with the “sink or swim” approach, which multitudes of instant immersion programs across the globe have demonstrated.

Summary of Article 2

Harper and Jong (2004) also begin by recognizing the spreading numbers of ELLs in America’s inclusive schoolrooms. Their points for discussion are two assumptions: that ELL instructional needs are not that different from other students and that using a combination of pedagogically effective techniques will produce effectual and diverse learning and four misconceptions. The authors draw upon their own past experiences with professional development to form the claim that these literacy programs are constant contributors to the “It’s not all that different” assumption (p. 152). Because L1 acquisition occurs during the youngest years of a child’s life, one common misconception is that exposure to comprehensible, meaningful English will produce certain automaticity, an effortless acquisition as a response to studying one’s surroundings. Unfortunately, school-age children do not typically possess the same level of curious and intent attentions.  Furthermore, Harper and Jong claim that minimalizing the cognitive development of reasoning in older students does not fully develop their potential (as ELLs) to devote “conscious attention to the grammatical, morphological, and phonological aspects of the English language” (p. 153). The authors suggest a technique called Reciprocal Teaching, which operates in a capacity much like that of a discussion board for online learning. This technique further illustrates inadequacies of the second misconception- that all ELL students learn at the same rate, and Harper and Jong warn that the pacing will set the tone for classroom management and sociocultural relations (pp. 153-4).

The other thematic assumption is one which regards ESL as a pedagogical testing ground. Native English speakers come up with a list of strategies which are effective in mainstream classrooms and which are assumed to apply to those classrooms with a high volume of ELLs. The vignette describes the content area teachers’ resentment of ESL workshops which they considered irrelevant for their practice (Harper & Jong, 2004, pp. 155-156). Thus, the third addressed misconception is that effective instruction for L1 and L2 students is the same. In the fourth misconception, the misconception regarding nonverbal, visual, or “hands-on” approaches being necessary to literacy development in an ELL, instructors often confuse comprehension with language acquisition and vocabulary development. These types of lessons are normally not organized to facilitate multiple purposes.

The authors discuss the implications of these misconceptions. In short, educational professionals often confuse best practice for L1 and L2 students and may overlook the individual aspects which affect ELL. Instead, Harper and Jong advise that they should meld existing techniques with language and content. Therefore, teachers must know the task viability for each ELL and ensure the active participation of all students in cooperative learning. The authors further recommend adjustments to the current thinking regarding ELLs and actions to be taken by teachers and legislators.

Reflection on Article 2

This article did not disappoint. It took some controversial standpoints and defended them well. Still, the evidence in this case is balanced- with examples for and against these approaches stacking up. Harper and Jong blur the black-and-white distinctions with each description of their findings, but it does little to strengthen the evidentiary appeal of their theories. While following the line of reasoning, the article would sometimes skim over potentially dramatic support for the authors’ findings (2004).

Despite these petty little mistakes, Harper and Jong provide some fresh points for consideration, some of which were notably absent in the 2009 work of Teale.  Intriguingly, even one of the most-used teaching techniques, K-W-L (Know, Want-to-Know, Learn) is questioned as a source of critical thinking in the still-developing linguistic repertoire of each ELL. Although this article also emphasizes a student-centered, individualistic approach to English language learning, it does so in a way which can easily be translated for use in the mainstream content areas, proposing that teachers rethink the way they relate the material to the students. Rather than completely overhaul the lesson plans and current methods for effective teaching, the simplest of the authors’ measures require only that every teacher consider how to relate the learning to the students in a more universal way. While this would understandably increase general language acquisition, this suggestion overlooks the contribution which specific terminology makes to different fields of learning. As the authors themselves emphasize, the background, the genre, and the other contextual factors are crucial to the full comprehension of the new information.

Conclusion

Despite the similarity of topic, the articles were polar opposites. Teale (2009) needs to empathize more to perceive the probable realistic implications of his suggestions; Harper and Jong (2004) need to support their realistic attitude with more convincing research and findings. Reflecting upon the full combined effect of the two, it is unsurprising that American literacy seems to be perpetually under attack. If well-educated adults across the hundreds of universities in the nation cannot come to an agreement about whether native Americans and English language learners should have differentiated instructions or classroom offerings, then the future of the school system is bleak indeed. Because, as both articles did manage to agree, the cultural diversification of American schools has just begun, it is urgent. Until all educational professionals get on board the ELL will continue to face the adverse effects.

References

Harper, C. & Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. International Reading Association, 48(2), 152-162.

Teale, W. (2009). Students Learning English and Their Literacy Instruction in Urban Schools. International Reading Association, 62 (8), 699-703.