English-language learner: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:14, 10 May 2024

Latest revision as of 00:28, 18 August 2025

(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 7:

The term "English-language learner" was first used by Mark LaCelle-Peterson and Charlene Rivera in their 1994 study. He defined ELL students as students whose first language is not English, including both limited and higher levels of language proficiency. The term ELL emphasizes that students are mastering another language, something many monolingual students in American schools may never attempt outside of the limited proficiency gained from foreign language class requirements. In adopting the term, LaCelle-Peterson and Rivera gave analogies of other conventional educational terms. The authors believed that just as we refer to advanced teaching candidates as "student teachers" rather than "limited teaching proficient individuals," the term ELL underscores what students are ''learning'' instead of their limitations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lacelle-Peterson |first1=Mark |last2=Rivera |first2=Charlene |title=Is It Real for All Kids? A Framework for Equitable Assessment Policies for English Language Learners |journal=Harvard Educational Review |date=1 April 1994 |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=55–76 |doi=10.17763/haer.64.1.k3387733755817j7 }}</ref>

Since 1872, an English-only instruction law had been in place in the United States. It was not until 1967, that the legislation was overturned by SB53, a policy signed for California public schools to allow other languages in instruction. A year later, after SB53 garnered support by the immigrant community, the [[Bilingual Education Act]] (Title VII) was passed. Nationally, public schools were then provided funding for programs that met the educational needs of ELL.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Horsford |first1=Sonya |last2=Sampson |first2=Carrie |date=2013 |title=High-ELL-Growth States: Expanding Funding Equity and Opportunity for English Language Learners |url=https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1046135.pdf |journal=Voices in Urban Education |volume= |issue=3 |pages=49-52 |doi= |jstor= |s2cid=}}</ref>

Not long after the installment of [[Civil Rights Act of 1964|Title VII]], the "taxpayers revolt" came to fruition and California's Proposition 13 was drafted. It proposed funding cuts for large portions of California's public schools, backed by those who disapproved of immigrant progress. In opposition to this, cases like ''[[Castañeda v. Pickard|Castaneda v Pickard]]'' fought for educational equality and standards focused on developing ELL students, as well as an overall sound plan for school districts.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Sutori|url=https://www.sutori.com/story/sf-cess-historical-timeline-of-public-education-in-the-u-s--R4BQwQWU9qnFGZQk3x1WAbcN|access-date=2021-05-12|website=www.sutori.com|language=en}}</ref> An additional setback occurred in California in 1998 when Proposition 227 passed, banning bilingual education yet again. To combat this, education advocates in the Bay Area began to open all-inclusive schools to promote the acceptance of ELL students.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Small Autonomous Schools as a District Policy: The Oakland Plan {{!}} Coalition of Essential Schools|url=http://essentialschools.org/horace-issues/small-autonomous-schools-as-a-district-policy-the-oakland-plan/|access-date=2021-05-12|language=en-US}}</ref>

Line 14:

There are a wide variety of different program models that may be used to structure the education of English-language learners (ELLs). These program models vary depending on the goals of the program and the resources available. Some researchers describe program models as existing on a spectrum from more monolingual forms to more bilingual forms.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Baker |first1=Colin |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.21832/baker9899 |title=Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism |last2=Wright |first2=Wayne E. |date=2021-03-31 |publisher=Multilingual Matters |doi=10.21832/baker9899 |isbn=978-1-78892-988-2 |s2cid=241801261}}</ref> Others distinguish between English-only program models and bilingual program models.<ref>{{cite book |id={{ERIC|ED517794}} |last1=Moughamian |first1=Ani C. |last2=Rivera |first2=Mabel O. |last3=Francis |first3=David J. |title=Instructional Models and Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners |date=2009 |publisher=Center on Instruction }}{{pn|date=June 2023}}</ref>

[[File:Professional Development SIOP.jpg|thumb|At a professional development seminar, educators learn about the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model, a specific model of sheltered instruction used to accommodate English-language learners in mainstream classrooms.]]

Fast-track to English programs encourage students to use English as quickly as possible and offer little to no native language support. In [[Transitional bilingual education|transition-bilingual programs]], instruction begins in the student's native language and then switches to English in elementary or middle school. In [[Dual language|dual language programs]] (also known as two-way bilingual or two-way [[Language immersion|immersion]] programs), students become fluent simultaneously in their native language and English.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Learning and Thinking Differences in English Language Learners |date=5 August 2019 |url=https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-services/english-language-learners/understanding-learning-and-thinking-differences-in-ells}}</ref> [[Sheltered instruction]] is another approach in which integrates language and content instruction in the mainstream classroom environment.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hansen-Thomas |first=Holly |date=2012-07-13 |title=Sheltered Instruction: Best Practices for ELLs in the Mainstream |journal=Kappa Delti Pi Record |volume=44 |issue=4 |pages=165–69|doi=10.1080/00228958.2008.10516517 |s2cid=144305523 }}</ref> Program models utilizing sheltered instruction may also be referred to as content-based instruction (CBI) or content language integrated learning (CLIL).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ping |first1=Wang |title=Understanding bilingual education: an overview of key notions in the literature and the implications for Chinese university EFL education |journal=Cambridge Journal of Education |date=2 January 2017 |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=85–102 |doi=10.1080/0305764X.2015.1118439 |s2cid=147483836 }}</ref>

=== "Push-in" programs versus "pull-out" programs ===

Line 30:

[[Scaffolding theory]] was introduced in 1976 by [[Jerome Bruner]], David Wood, and Gail Ross.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pea |first1=Roy D. |title=The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity |journal=Journal of the Learning Sciences |date=July 2004 |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=423–451 |doi=10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 |s2cid=58282805 |url=https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190619/file/A117_Pea_04_JLS_Scaffolding.pdf }}</ref> Bruner adapts [[Lev Vygotsky]]'s [[zone of proximal development]] theory to child development. In the context of aiding ELL students, scaffolding is seen as a way to offer more support to ELL students initially through additional strategies and approaches, which are gradually removed as the student gains independence and proficiency. Different scaffolding strategies include associating English vocabulary to visuals, drawing back to a student's prior knowledge, pre-teaching difficult vocabulary before assigning readings they appear in, and encouraging questions from students, whether they be content-related or to ensure comprehension. All of these additional areas of support are to be gradually removed, so that students become more independent, even if that means no longer needing some of these associations or seeking them out for themselves.

=== Labor-based grading === <!-- [[Labor-based grading]] links here. Please do not change. -->

In Asao Inoue's "Labor-Based Grading Contracts", he proposes an alternative to traditional content-based or quality-based methods of assessment in writing classrooms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Inoue|first=Asao B.|date=2019|title=Labor-Based Grading Contracts|url=https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/labor/contracts.pdf}}</ref> Inoue outlines his own innovative classroom design, which assigns grades based on set standards for how much work is put into each assignment through quantitative methods such as word counts. High marks are earned by students who go above the baseline requirements, which earn students a "B" on the A–F grading scale. The intent behind Inoue's design is that students are rewarded for their efforts rather than deterred, and students who traditionally score poorly when graded on quality (such as ELL students) are equally capable of receiving a certain grade as any other student, despite any educational setbacks or challenges they endure. A unique aspect to the labor-based grading design is that students collaborate as a class to decide what the terms on conditions of grading scales are. This way, all student's voices are heard and considered when developing a method of evaluation for their work.

Line 84:

== Future ==

While there have been several advancements in both the rights and the strategies and support offered in the United States and Canada for English-language learning students, there is still much work to be done. Despite International students (who often make up the bulk of ELL students in higher education, in addition to immigrants) being sought out as sources of profit and their boosts of collegiate diversity statistics, there are not always additional funding and resources curated to support these students at their respective institutions. With efforts like former U.S. president [[Donald Trump|Donald J. Trump's]] proposed deportation of international students as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ongoing debate whether to continue to support pathways to citizenship and achievement by the children of undocumented immigrants, such as [[Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals|DACA]], there are still many hindrances to this group of students occurring today. Adoption of socially-just classroom pedagogies such as those proposed by Asao Inoue, and the re-examination of the privileges inherent in the existence of "[[Academic English|Standard Academic English]]" are current steps towards a trajectory of inclusion and tolerance for these groups of students in both K–12 and higher education.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Inoue |first1=Asao B. |title=Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future |date=2015 |publisher=Parlor Press LLC |isbn=978-1-60235-775-4 |doi=10.37514/PER-B.2015.0698 }}{{pn|date=June 2023}}</ref><ref>[https://www.wallstreet-english.co.il/ Wall Street English] – Award-Winning, Global & ISO-Certified English Learning Platform, Teaching Students Since 1972.</ref>

== References ==