Week 3 discussion post - CLDE 5030
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Denver *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5030
Subject
Linguistics
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by marisol321
Last week we read about early language acquisition; this week we are reading about literacy for (mostly elementary) multi-lingual students with the debate about “reading wars” centering on how to teach reading and writing instruction. Most of the texts seem to say that the strategies most educators use for literacy instruction is good for mono-lingual as well as multilingual students, and although there seems to be a lot of disagreement on the finer points, no
new revolutionary data was revealed (at least not in these readings). All of the articles reference socioeconomics and cultural differences influences and impacts not only emerging multi-lingual students’ literacy development but educational experience generally. Obviously we need to recognize not only linguistic barriers and linguistic structures (alphabetic orthography, morphemes, phonetics, graphemes, syntax, phonology, etc). to reading and writing during instruction with multi-lingual students, but also Goldenberg (2020) notes that we need to remember that “ELs come from different cultural backgrounds, so instruction should take into account challenges and opportunities of students’ cultural resources” (p. 133). Not just the structural, phonemics of linguistics, but also the cultural connections and look for opportunities to capitalize on their strengths in their home / heart language when learning a new language. That said Mallikarjun, Newman, & Novick (2017) as cited by Goldenberg stated that “the sound–symbol mapping system does not connect to already- present familiarity with speech sounds and known words of the language in which they are learning to read. ELs have a great deal of linguistic (and general) knowledge in their L1, which can be used to bootstrap learning in
English” (p. 135). All of this I found encouraging, but discouraging about the distinction between general reading comprehension and focusing on academic language since I personally see non-native English speaking students struggle to move past learning the basics of reading, writing, speaking in English to really understand and use academic language. Menyuk and Brisk also focused mostly on reading and writing for younger children. Like Goldenberg, Menyuk and Brisk agreed that cultural awareness was important but not more important than focusing on oral language development in English, but that there are advantages for bilingual students when learning to read and write, including their heightened, metacognitive correlation and recognition of structures and language features as they switch between languages. I think this means bilingual students are able to correlate linguistically beyond a semiology (a la Ferdinand de Saussure) relationship between signifier and signified, and to creating broader schema between multiple sign vehicles (from what I think I remember from my classes on semiotics and language theory). Menyuk and Brisk’s explanation of the various phases of second language acquisition “use, silent period, telegraphic and formulaic use, and productive language use” (p. 85-86) is something I can clearly see in my classroom in the way some students seem shy in the classroom, rarely talking to the teacher or classmates, but being super social with their peers outside of the classroom, espically for those students with bilingual friends and when they are able to engage in code-switching, which is something I try to do with students when possible based on my limited Spanish, since that is often the way my predominantly Spanish-speaking family communicates. Finally, Guilamo (2021) brings it back full circle to the reading wars. I found the conclusion most helpful in that she stated the “only way to attain biliteracy and bilingualism is to
leave the typical formula for reading as decoding and linguistic comprehension, or D x C = R, for the formula for developing biliteracy as oracy + decoding + linguistic comprehension + transfer, or O x C x D x T = R2” (p. 4). This is again the literacy connection doing more than
connecting signifier and signified – doing more the decoding orthography and syntax; bilingual students do more than connect the sounds they hear or symbols they see (signifier) to an object (signified), they are connecting multiple signifiers in their phonetic manifestations (one from each langue they speak) back to a single, shared signified (like a chair). All of which means that – according to Guilamo (2021) in order for students to be successful in speaking and understanding English, which is such an irregular language and an amalgam of multiple parent languages, requires “explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness is needed” (p. 3). We cannot just have students hear use speaking and read along, but they need direct instruction in phonics and what I have seen in my teaching career is that direct instruction is often glossed over while the focus is predominantly on just practice to gain skills and not specific instruction on the unique abnormalities of the English language. We need more foundational instruction in reading, even at the high school level.
As I finish up the reading I notice that, as always, we are focusing on English immersion or English only programs, like the one most of us are teaching in. I wonder about dual immersion programs and how the results of that differ from our model. I wrote a paper about that long ago as an undergrad, but I am sure there has been much research about it in the 500 years since then. I wonder what we can learn from dual-immersion programs and how that could
inform our instructional practices. My questions for my peers: Goldenburg emphasized the importance of “sheltered instruction” and academic vocabulary, graphic organizers, student talk in groups and pairs, and scaffolded discussions. Simultaneously, we also know from the reading about the silent stages and from experience about non-native English speakers and how reluctant they are to speak in class. This is a constant area of focus and despair for me since it is something I believe is important for multi-lingual and mono-lingual students alike, but which I struggle to successfully implement at a high school level. What do you do in your classroom for student discussions (JPA’s, instructional conversations, and student-lead dialogue) that was supportive of your multi-
lingual students and in which they could fully engage while still focusing on academic content? I want to celebrate differences, not ostracize or alienate multi-lingual students, but they are often fearful of speaking to others in English. I encourage code-switching and translanguageing when possible, but I worry about the level of embarrassment my multi-lingual students express when “forced” to engage in these activities with their English-speaking peers. Also, do you see your students accessing academic vocabulary, or struggling with basic comprehension, and how do you bridge that gap? References
Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading wars, Reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly
, 55
(S1), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340
Guilamo, A. (2021, Apr 20). The science of reading in dual language. Language Magazine.
Retrieved September 7, 2021, from https://www.languagemagazine.com/2021/04/20/the-
science-of-reading-in-dual-language/. Menyuk, P., & Brisk, M. (2005). Language Development and Education Children with Varying Language Experiences
. Palgrave Macmillan.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help