Successful Models
Successful dual language programs must be guided by participants' personal and professional experiences that build cultural-linguistic capital for both majority and minority language students. The theoretical models of dual language instruction affirm these values and beliefs: (a) becoming bilingual and biliterate is the path to the future; (b) dual language programs, when implemented correctly, are far superior to English immersion programs; and (c) failure rates in programs that do not foster full development of L1 and bilingualism and biliteracy are unacceptable.
Language is acquired best when it is the medium of instruction, not solely as the object of instruction. Students who acquire a language while they are learning content- area information are engaged in meaningful discussions and have a real reason to use and acquire the new language. In a bilingual immersion setting, students communicate with their peers and teacher to make meaning, explain, describe, and problem-solve in both their native and second languages. Their language acquisition has real and relevant purposes for the students (Christian, Montone, Lindholm, Carranza, 1997). In well-implemented dual language programs all students acquire a second language while continuing to develop their first. All students receive instruction in their native language, providing the necessary linguistic foundation for the later acquisition of their L2 and development of full proficiency in both languages (Cummins, 2000). In this way, high expectations for both language groups are maintained as they are challenged and supported in reaching full proficiency and command of content-area knowledge in both languages.
For a description of the characteristics of various models of dual language instruction, see Table 1, adapted from Wink (2000).
| Program | Goals | Students | Teacher Preparation |
Role of L1/L2 | Program Duration |
| Bilingual (dual, 2-way) immersion |
1.) English and another language (bilingualism/ biliteracy) 2.) High academic achievement 3.) Positive cross-cultural relations |
Language Majority and Minority Populations |
Credential | L2 taught using second language methodology L1 and L2 used as a medium of instruction |
K-6 |
| French Canadian Immersion |
1.) English and another language (bilingualism/ biliteracy) 2.) High academic achievement |
Language Majority Population |
Credential | L2 used as a medium of instruction in early grades L1 and L2 used as a medium of instruction in later grades |
K-6 |
| Maintenance/ Enrichment Bilingual Education |
1.) English and a second language (bilingualism/ biliteracy) 2.) High academic achievement 3.) Positive cross-cultural relations |
Language Majority and Minority Populations |
Credential | L2 taught using second language methodology in early grades L1 and L2 used as a medium of instruction |
K-6 |
| Content-based Foreign Language Instruction |
1. Full oral and academic proficiency in a second/foreign language 2. High academic achievement |
Language Majority Population |
Credentialed foreign language teacher specialized in L2 as an academic subject |
L2 used as a medium of instruction |
6-12 and Higher Education toward International Baccalaureate |
| Transitional Bilingual Education |
English Only | Language Minority Population |
Credential and/or support from an aide |
L2 taught using second language methodology L1 used as a medium of instruction, but phased out as L1 proficiency increases L2 becomes the exclusive medium of instruction |
K-3 Usually 3-4 years in "early exit" programs |
| Structured and/or Sheltered English Immersion |
English | Language Minority Population |
English-dominant or English monolingual |
L2 taught using second language methodology L2 used as the exclusive medium of instruction |
9 Months |
Kontra, Phillipson, Skutnabb-Kangas, & Varady (1999) suggest an application to program models of Ruiz' s (1984) description of attitudes toward language that carries us forward in our understanding of the interrelation of social, political and pedagogical factors in program design and implementation. These authors point out how making the "language as right" and the "language as resource" orientations dichotomous or contradictory can mitigate against the view of a language minority group's human right to utilize their linguistic resources as a form of "cultural-linguistic capital." A linguistic-human rights orientation implies that everyone can identify positively with his or her native language and expect to have that identification accepted and respected by others.
At the collective level, a linguistic human rights orientation implies the right of a community of speakers of a common language to use the language as a medium of instruction in public schools and to have control over curricula and teaching in their own language. These collective rights are exercised within a minority community to enhance their children's learning and to allow them to exploit their bilingualism as a social and material resource in reaching their full human potential (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1986). Language as acknowledged as a sentimental resource in sustaining familial bonds and exchanges across international boarders among migrant populations. The importance of bilingualism in social and economic terms in regions with open borders and high levels of transnational exchange and trade is more recognized today than with immigrant groups in the past who virtually severed ties with their homelands (Rumbaut, 1995, Torres, 1998). Conflicts over majority and minority groups' access to cultural-linguistic capital are at the core of dueling models of dual language instruction.
Immersion Confusion
There is immersion, and then there is immersion (Wink, 1991). The simultaneous and contradictory meanings assigned to immersion result in misinformation and myths which language researchers and educators are challenging (Flood, Lapp, Tinajero, & Hurley, 1997). Bilingual education is a general term for a complex array of programs, each with different goals and objectives for different student populations (Rubin, 1977; Trueba, 1980). Any discussion of bilingual education programs must be understood within a broader social, political, and educational context.
It is often difficult for well-meaning educators and community members to understand the confusion surrounding immersion. When we think about these various program models and realize that there are individual differences in each program depending on the unique needs of a community, it is fairly easy to understand why we are experiencing immersion confusion. In our experience, an effective maintenance bilingual education classroom looks very much like a bilingual immersion classroom in that they are joined with parallel goals of bilingualism and biliteracy for all students. However, they often differ in the population served based on the demographics of the community. The relative success and measurable outcomes in students' academic achievement of different models of bilingual programs have been the subject of research studies (see for example, RamÃrez , Yuen, & Ramey, 1991).
International language education scholars decry how terms used in formulating just and equitable language policy are usurped in the United States to inculcate Euro-centric values and language and to maintain the hegemony of English speakers (Wren, 1997). In their volume on international immersion education, Johnson and Swain (1997) state the following:
Given the core features we have proposed, we would argue that there are some programs labeled immersion that have overextended the use of this term to the point at which a discussion of common issues and problems become difficult, if not impossible. A good example of inappropriate over-extension is the labeling of English-only programs for Spanish-speaking minorities in the United States as "immersion education." Such English-only education leads to replacive or subtractive bilingualism in the academic domain, the wide use of the L2 in public domains leads to the development of interpersonal and social proficiency that immersion students do not have the opportunity to acquire. (p. 12) |
In this article we attempt to make clear the differences between what we will call the "popular parlance" and the definitions used by language educators to identify program models. By popular parlance we mean the casual way in which language model labels are expanded and reduced according to the particular purposes of the user of the terminology. The term "immersion" has many simultaneous, and even contradictory, meanings when used in different educational and political contexts. However, as language educators we need to acknowledge common understandings of programmatic models because our lack of attention to clear and accurate discourse has contributed to distortions of our philosophy and misuse of research findings (Edelsky, 1996).
Proposition 227 provides an example of the imprecise use of program descriptors, which leads to ambiguity in school districts' attempts to implement programs in compliance with the law (Zehr, 2000). Proposition 227's Article 2:D provides this definition of the mandated program for limited English proficient students into the education code (California Secretary of State, 1998).
|
"Sheltered English immersion" or "structured English immersion" means an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language. |
This definition of SEI is ambiguous. Is structured English immersion a language acquisition process, a program, a technique, a method, a curriculum, a presentation, or a class? The law provides no clear guidance to school district administrators and teachers, implying only that there are curricular modifications and different methods required for teaching English language learners.
A highly controversial aspect of this model of language minority education is the duration of the program, since SEI is considered a remedial program, with the goal being rapid exit into regular curriculum or "mainstream" classes (Rossell, 2000). Studies of the patterns of acquisition of the level of academic language proficiency to perform more cognitively demanding literacy and critical thinking tasks suggest that an average of five to seven years is required to attain parity with native speakers (Collier, 1995; Hakuta, Butler & Witt, 2000; Cummins, 1981). This body of research calls into question the validity of a theoretical model of language education that fails to make provisions for normal rates of learning L2 and academic skills and content simultaneously. Nomenclature meant to describe additive dual language instruction programs is erroneously applied to second language teaching from a language-deficit position, as in the case of structured English immersion mandated by Proposition 227 (see Table 2).
Structured immersion, or as it has more recently been called in California, sheltered English immersion or structured English immersion, is the opposite of the Canadian model. It is designed to serve only language minority students. The current goal is English dominance sufficient for students to participate in mainstream classes within one year. Teachers or paraprofessionals need not speak the language of the students, and the language of instruction is overwhelmingly in English (Krashen, 1998).
French Canadian Immersion |
Structured English Immersion (SEI) |
| Is considered a form of bilingual education | Is considered a form of English-only education |
| Program objective is full bilingualism and biliteracy based on an additive model of bilingualism. | Program objective is proficiency in English based on a subtractive model. L1 literacy is not developed. |
| L1 and L2 are equally prestigious and recognized as valuable by the community as a resource. | L1 is a minority language. L2 is the majority language. L1 is denigrated and relegated to inferior status. The message is conveyed that only English is valid or important. |
| Minimum of four to six years to acquire "receptive" skills of listening and reading; higher levels of oral and literacy skills acquired gradually and reinforced through cross-linguistic instruction | Students expected to gain proficiency enough to enter mainstream classes in one year. |
| Uses L2 as the medium of instruction. Focuses on learning the target language through content teaching rather than on teaching the language. | Uses L2 as the medium of instruction. Focus depends on L2 proficiency, with L2 teaching the focus at the beginning levels and shifts to learning the target language through content teaching as students acquire L2 oral language proficiency. |
| The curriculum is designed to have coherence, balance, breadth, relevance, progression and continuity. Students at all points receive a curriculum parallel to non-immersion students. Initial focus is on understanding L2, and later on speaking L2 in a natural and gradual progression. | One-year of immersion is seen as "normal." Students may be re-enrolled for longer with parental consent. Students transfer into mainstream classes that may or may not be connected in terms of curriculum content. Students must be provided "appropriate services to overcome language barriers" until they attain academic achievement equivalent to average native English speakers. |
| Initial literacy developed in the second language. L1 language arts instruction often delayed, but phased in over time until biliteracy is achieved. | Initial literacy developed in the second language. L1 literacy not developed as a part of the program. |
| Approximately 6% of total school population enrolled in immersion. | 25% of total school population are enrolled, unless students are granted "parental exception waivers." |
| Parents of students place them voluntarily. Programs are promoted and supported by parents. Parents are generally middle-class or upper-class. | Sheltered immersion is the "default mode" for limited English proficient students. Under special circumstances, parents may opt out of the program; otherwise, it is mandatory. Parents are generally lower socioeconomic class and are non-to-beginning English speakers themselves. |
| Students are all at the same academic level--usually progress as a cohort group beginning with no L2 proficiency. | Students grouped by English proficiency levels, but multi-grade level grouping permitted. |
| Presumes a homogeneous language classroom--most students are native speakers of the same L1 | Encourages heterogeneous classrooms--students are expected to speak a variety of native languages. |
| Teachers are highly skilled bilinguals with a strong commitment to bilingualism and multiculturalism as educational aims. Teachers serve as linguistic role models. Teachers use L2 methodology systematically. Teachers are trained to provide comprehensible input through the use of their L1 skills and appropriate methodology. | Teachers may be monolingual English speakers with or without specialized training in L2 methodology (CLAD credential). Teachers may or may not value bilingualism. Bilingual teachers assigned to SEI are restricted by law in the use of L1 as a medium of instruction. Only non-instructional uses of L1 are permitted. |
| Students expressive skills in L2 often lag behind the native-speaker norm, although listening and reading skills may be nearly equivalent. | There is no research evidence to demonstrate what levels of competency in the four language skills are attainable in a one-year program. |
| Predicted rates of L2 acquisition are based on the distinction between basic oral and conversational abilities, ranging from 3-5 years and cognitive academic proficiency to meet the demands of higher level thinking and literacy tasks, ranging from 5-7 years average. | Assumptions are made that classroom language will be comprehensible when students acquire "a good working knowledge of English" so that students can transfer into a "mainstream English" program and out of remedial classes. |