Part 1:



Miccah Dusablon Miller

Research Proposal

Part I: Introduction – The Problems Facing English Language Learners in the Inclusion Classroom

As much as 10% of the population natively speaks a language other than English. In certain areas of the country, particularly in parts of Texas, Florida, and California, this percentage reaches as high as 50% (Seo and Hoover, 2009, pg 59). But as a nation, we are failing to properly serve this significant percentage of our student population. Less than 20% of English Language Learners (ELLs) meet proficiency standards on standardized test of academic achievement (Seo and Hoover, 2009, pg. 59). Nearly 50% of all ELLs receive fewer than 10 hours of specialized services per school year (Harper and de Jong, 2009, pg. 137). Most disturbingly, studies have indicated that the high school drop-out rate for Spanish-speaking students—usually reported in the vicinity of 30%--could actually be as high as 60% nationally due to underreporting of undocumented immigrant students. Approaches to ELL instruction throughout the history of America’s education system have been inconsistent, disorganized, and poorly implemented, often not taking the unique needs of this at-risk population into account. The most common approach is the inclusion model, where ELL students are placed in general education classes for core content. Teachers who find these students in their classrooms are woefully unprepared to address their unique needs; most general education teachers in inclusion classrooms are given little or no training in teaching English as a second language (Seo and Hoover, 2009); however, several programs exist that outline comprehensive methods for general education teachers to maximize the effectiveness of their instruction for ELL students.

A 2009 study by Cho (2009) outlines a list of very basic modifications that have practical application in the general education classroom, to include adjusted rate of speech and clearer enunciation; increased focus on key vocabulary terms; reinforcement of basic learning strategies; and use of heterogeneous groups, striving for groups with one limited English speaker, one advanced ELL, and native English speakers.

Another approach with similar strategies is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model, developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics (2010). This research-based instructional method addresses the academic needs of English language learners using eight interrelated components that address lesson preparation and teaching strategies.. Like the strategies outlined by Cho (2009), the SIOP Model allows general education teachers to design lessons that address the linguistic needs of ELL students without compromising the instruction for the rest of the general population.

Kagan Publishing & Professional Development (2010) offers additional strategies for maximizing the success of ELL students in the general education classroom. Developed in 1968 by Dr. Spencer Kagan, Kagan Publishing & Professional Development offers training in a variety of classroom disciplines; while not exclusively focused on ELLs, they do provide great insight into the methods used in successful inclusion classrooms. Dr. Kagan explains that most classrooms follow either a model where the teachers direct all of the questions and answers, or a model where students work primarily in small groups; in both models, ELL students easily slip through the cracks by sitting quietly and allowing other students to answer the questions. In a Kagan classroom, group work is designed so that every student must be engaged and using language and vocabulary, maximizing the effectiveness of the lesson for English Language Learners (Kagan, 2010).

A History of English Language Learner Programs in America

What happened to create this problem? To answer that question, we must begin with a brief look at the history of immigration in the United States and its affect on education laws. Until the passing of amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965, immigration was controlled by the National Origins System. Enacted in 1921, this legislation carried into law a strong preference for immigrants from northern and western Europe, influencing the trends in bilingual education in schools (Motomura, 2005). Bilingual education first appeared in the American education system in Ohio in 1839 (Sanchez and Sanchez, 2008). Immigrant students in Ohio were given instruction in both their native German and in English. In other areas of the country, such as the New Mexico territory, bilingual education began in the 1850s, with instruction provided in both English and Spanish (Sanchez and Sanchez, 2008). The onset of World War I shifted popular opinion away from non-English instruction; most non-English instruction up until then was in German, and at the beginning of the war this was seen as disloyal to the United States. In the decades since, several pieces of landmark such as the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 have required that ELL students receive education in their native languages (Sanchez and Sanchez, 2008). In many states, this applies to children who are in the country illegally; in the 2007 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush cited a need for legislation that would ensure education for all children, regardless of their immigration status. In Texas, all enrolling students’ parents are asked whether a language other than English is spoken at home. If the student cannot pass a test to demonstrate that they can speak English fluently, the parents are given the choice to enroll their child in either a bilingual education program where both languages are taught, or an English as a Second Language program where students are included in general education classrooms but pulled out for remedial English lessons. If the parent refuses both programs, the students are placed in general education English-only classes, an approach which is shown to be the least effective in meeting the needs of ELL students (Sanchez and Sanchez, 2008).

The negative effects of total English immersion become most apparent in secondary school, when students begin to navigate more complex English grammar, vocabulary, and syntax (Sanchez and Sanchez, 2005). The cumulative shortcomings in the students’ English Language instruction are compounded by the increasingly difficult material in all content areas, as well as the lack of training given to general education teachers who find these English Language Learners in their classrooms. When we take into consideration the high drop-out rate among the U.S.’s most common ELL, the Hispanic students, the end result is a large number of students who leave our schools without a complete education and with an inadequate grasp of the language.

What is the Problem in Today’s Classrooms?

As evidenced by the disjointed history and approaches just outlined, the problem can be stated very simply: there is no unified, national approach to addressing the needs of English Language Learners in our schools, particularly in the inclusion classroom environment where most of them end up. In fact, not only is there no consistent approach, most general education teachers who teach in inclusion classrooms aren’t expected to have any background or training in English Language instruction; Seo and Hoover (2009) puts the percentage of teachers who don’t receive any sort of specialized training before being assigned to ELL inclusion classrooms at almost 70%. A 2006 study by Reeves also estimates that only 12.5% of the teachers who do receive training are given eight hours or more of this type of professional development. The methods suggested by Cho (2009), Kagan Publishing & Professional Development, and the SIOP Model are all available to teachers, and if applied could assist general education teachers in more effectively accommodating their English Language Learners.

The Purpose and Significance of the Study

The purpose of this review and study is to identify the gaps in ELL education and propose improvements on current techniques and accommodations. The significance of this study is evident in the statistics; the drop-out rate among Hispanic students alone tells us that we are not addressing the needs of students who are learning English as a second language, and that we are failing a considerable portion of our student population. The most immediate step to addressing this problem is to determine the best method of addressing the needs of ELL students in the inclusion classroom, and begin using this approach in a more consistent, nationalized manner. An investigation into the best practices for instructing ELL students would help to identify where we are failing our students, so that we can begin addressing the problem through professional development and teacher training.

Research Questions

Q: Which model of ELL education produces the most successful student outcomes?

Q: How does bilingual education programs compare to immersion or inclusion models?

Q: How can different approaches to the inclusion model produce different results in student outcomes?

Q: Which accommodations in the general education classroom are most effective in addressing the needs of inclusion ELL students?

Part II: Literature Review – Approaches to English Language Learner Inclusion in the General Education Classroom.

A Growing Problem

We live in an increasingly multicultural society. Despite the ever-growing presence of an English-Language Learner (ELL) population, a 2003 study revealed that in the United States, nearly 50% of all ELLs receive fewer than 10 hours of specialized services per school year (Harper and de Jong, 2009, pg. 137). Studies have indicated that the high school drop-out rate for Spanish-speaking students—usually reported in the vicinity of 30%--could actually be as high as 60% nationally. In addition, less than 20% of ELL students meet proficiency standards on standardized test of academic achievement (Seo and Hoover, 2009, pg. 59). Superficial “fixes” such as the No Child Left Behind Act address the requirements of middle class American society but do not account for the unique needs of students from micro-social systems such as ELLs (Sanchez and Sanchez, 2005). These disturbing statistics point to one clear conclusion: as a country, we must develop an effective, standardized method for educating our ELL students.

Current Models of Inclusion

The most common approach to integrating ELLs into the education system is the inclusion model. In the inclusion model, ELLs may receive ESL (English as a Second Language) courses throughout the day, but for most class periods they are mainstreamed with general education students. The theory behind this model is that ELL students who are segregated from the general population will not have access to the same curriculum and will not be as successful academically (Reeves, 2006, pg. 132). Separating ELL students from the general population violates the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling against creating a “separate but equal” curriculum. Additionally, inclusion classrooms lead to increased interaction and socialization with general education students, promoting a diverse classroom culture (Arundel, 2004 and Purdue, 2009).

Not all inclusion models are created equal; approaches to educating ELLs can vary from district to district, and from school to school. The Miami-Dade County Public School district (M-DCPS) serves as a useful model for the implementation of inclusion, due to its high percentage of students who do not natively speak English. A 2006 study by Watnick and Sacks gives us an overview of the three popular approaches to inclusion implemented by schools in the M-DCPS district:

The External Support Model: In this approach, accommodations are provided to the special populations but not directly provided to individual students. Student progress is monitored and discussed through on-going teacher-to-teacher consultation.

The In-Class Support Model: This is a co-teaching approach; general education teachers and ESL co-teachers work cooperatively in the general education classroom. This model is used where approximately one-third of the students in the classroom require ESL assistance. Teachers surveyed at M-DCPS felt this was the most effective model (Watnick and Sacks, 2006).

The Specialized Support Model: This model involves “pulling out” ELL students from the general education classroom to receive specialized services in a designated resource room.

While M-DCPS has had the benefit of ample experience in working with ELL students, many schools across the country have no standardized approach for inclusion. As a result, less-than-perfect practices have arisen. For example, as a result of low performance on English standardized tests, many ELL students are simply placed on low-achieving academic tracks or in remedial classes with general education students who are identified as having learning difficulties (Harper and de Jong, 2009). In these situations, the ELL students find themselves marginalized and largely ignored, unable to successfully interact with their peers or teachers (Cho, 2008, pg. 236).

A great deal of individual variation also exists in the modifications made by general education teachers in their inclusion classrooms. Largely, the accommodations made by teachers involve modifications that do not require much time or effort, such as adjusted speech rate and clearer enunciation; this is most likely due to the lack of training that general education teachers receive before ELLs are placed in their classrooms (Cho, 2008).

Finally, some schools support full-immersion English-only classes, separate from the general education population. These ELL students receive all instruction in English, but are segregated from their English-speaking classmates. In addition to violating Brown vs. Board of Education, this approach is not shown to be effective; ELLs learn English more efficiently while also learning academic content, because the language is presented in a more meaningful context (Cho, 2008).

Benefits of Inclusion

However it may be implemented, inclusion is the most popular model for educating ELL students. The increased interaction between special populations and general education students leads to greater socialization (Arundel, 2004), and promotes a multicultural environment in the classroom (Purdue, 2009). Additionally, accommodations can easily be made for general education inclusion classrooms when instructors are given simple yet highly important training. Cho (2009) recommends a list of very basic modifications that have practical application in the general education classroom:

• Adjusted rate of speech and clearer enunciation;

• Increased focus on key vocabulary terms, with visual aids to reinforce the connection between the English word and it’s application to the material;

• Providing directions in oral and written forms, with visuals if practicable;

• Reinforcement of basic learning strategies, such as text features, summarization, etc;

• Use of heterogeneous groups, striving for groups with one limited English speaker, one advanced ELL, and native English speakers.

These modifications require little additional time and effort on the part of the general education instructor, yet greatly impact the effectiveness of the inclusion lesson. A similar approach is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model, developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics (2010). Like Cho’s suggestions, these modifications improve the effectiveness of the lesson not only for ELL students, but for general education students as well. This research-based method addresses the academic needs of English language learners using eight interrelated components:

• Lesson Preparation

• Building Background

• Comprehensible Input

• Strategies

• Interaction

• Practice/Application

• Lesson Delivery

• Review/Assessment

Kagan Publishing & Professional Development (2010) offers additional strategies for maximizing the success of ELL students in the general education classroom. Kagan Publishing & Professional Development offers training in a variety of classroom disciplines. Developed in 1968 by Dr. Spencer Kagan, they provide insight into the methods used in successful inclusion classrooms. Dr. Kagan explains that most classrooms follow one of two models: Model A, in which the teacher lectures to the class, and then calls on students to answer questions, or Model B, in which students are placed in cooperative groups and come up with answers to questions together. Model A fails because ELLs are too shy or embarrassed by their lack of English skills to raise their hands and speak in class. Model B fails because ELL students will inevitably sit back and allow their group mates to answer the questions because they cannot work quickly enough to keep up with the native English speakers. In a Kagan classroom, group work is structured so that each student must take a turn at participating or answering a question. The small group environment provides a safer setting for the ELL student to speak up, and the taking-turns structure ensures that each student will be using the vocabulary and practicing the language. This structure aids not only ELL students, but is beneficial to the rest of the general population as well. The Kagan structure implements Dr. Kagan’s four principles of cooperative learning: Positive Interdependence, Individual Accountability, Equal Participation, and Simultaneous Interaction (Kagan 2010).

Inclusion is also beneficial from a financial standpoint; schools can apply for grants through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), contingent on required training and increasing the percentage of students who spend 80% or more of their school day in general education classrooms (Watnick and Sacks, 2009).

Challenges that Teachers Face

Despite the arguments in favor of the inclusion model, the approach does have its detractors, and poses many challenges for teachers. There is a commonly-held view that the language and learning challenges faced by ELL students are not necessarily best addressed through monolingual, mainstream programs (Harper and de Jong, 2009). Most significantly, many inclusion programs take a “one-size-fits-all” approach, even though ELL students vary greatly in native language, country of birth, age, cultural and economic background and learning styles. Inclusion guidelines are often too open to interpretation by individual schools and instructors (Watnick and Sacks, 2009). The effort also suffers from the common misconception that ELL students should be fluent—or at least comfortable with English—after two years in the inclusion program; research reveals that this process can take as much as seven years (Reeves, 2006, pg. 139).

The biggest challenge facing teachers in the inclusion classroom is what Reeves (2006) refers to as “the elephant in the room;” the problem that is inescapable, but is seldom acknowledged. That challenge is the overwhelming lack of training and assistance given to general education teachers when they are placed into inclusion classrooms with ELL students. The inclusion model functions effectively only if teachers and co-teachers are well-trained. Frequently, teachers are given nothing more than advice to “show respect for and draw upon ELL’s native languages as resources” (Harper and de Jong, 2009, pg. 130). According to Seo and Hoover (2009), less than a third of teachers receive specialized training before teaching in inclusion classrooms. Less than 15% of teachers in the United States receive eight or more hours of training to teach ELLs (Reeves, 2006). With such a lack of consistent, effective training, it is no wonder that teachers cannot accommodate for the needs of ELL students to the best of their ability.

The Two-Way Bilingual Approach

An interesting alternative to the above-mentioned approaches to ELL inclusion in general education classrooms is outlined in Snowman and Biehler’s Psychology Applied to Teaching (2006, pg. 166-167). Here, the authors cite research that indicates a full-immersion inclusion program might not be the best method for achieving measurable gains in ELL students. Rather, a program known as Two-Way Bilingual Education (TWB) has shown promising results. This program has gained popularity in the Quebec Providence of Canada and Miami-Dade County in Florida, where a large percentage of students speak a language in addition to English (French and Spanish, respectively). Over 270 schools across the United States have begun using this approach, implementing a variety of second languages. In the TWB program, subject material is provided in two languages to all students. Approximately 50% of instruction is dedicated to each language, distinctly separated by class period, day, or even by week. This approach has shown moderate gains in ELL students who take standardized tests in English, and significant gains when those tests are given in the students’ native language. The text cites a 1999 study by Cummins which concludes that increasing the amount of time devoted to English does not necessarily lead to higher achievement in ELL students (Cummins, 1999). The significance of these results cannot be ignored; they suggest that the approach taken by many schools—variations of full-immersion inclusion with general education students—might not be as beneficial to our students as we assumed. The TWB approach is also championed by Harper and de Jong (2009), who believe the program to better meet the needs of ELL’s than mainstream inclusion in an English-only classroom.

There are several major drawbacks to this approach, despite the promising results. The program is intended for schools where at least 50% of the population speaks a language other than English; an easy requirement to meet in Quebec or Miami, but not applicable to many schools across the United States (Snowman and Biehler, 2006, pg. 167). Additionally, more diverse areas such as Washington, DC, may have a large percentage of students whose native language is not English, but those second languages may vary too much for a TWB to be applicable. Finally, as noted by Harper and de Jong (2009), the time and cost of adequately training instructors for this program is prohibitively high, and finding qualified bilingual teachers also poses a challenge.

Where do we go from here?

Far from illuminating a clear plan of action for further research, an in-depth look at the approaches to educating English Language Learners actually serves only to uncover a mess of conflicting theories and opinions. At this time, there is no agreement over whether inclusion is even the best approach, or if it is in fact detrimental to ELL students. A proper plan of action would be one that compared not only individual inclusion models and accommodations within a classroom or school, but rather compared a variety of approaches with inclusion being one viable option. However, such a plan could not be carried out by one solitary researcher.

That leaves limited options in terms of an action research plan; a full-scale investigation into the effectiveness of inclusion models is difficult to perform in one classroom over the course of one semester. But an investigation into the effectiveness of individual accommodations and modification within the inclusion model could potentially be conducted by a single researcher, and could take the form of the question “How can different accommodations contribute to the success of English Language Learners in the inclusion classroom?”

Part 3: Methods – Teaching English Language Learners in the General Education Classroom.

1. The Details: This study will take place in a United States Department of Defense middle school at Yokota Air Base, Japan; the majority of ELL students at this Air Base school speak Japanese or Spanish as a native language. The investigation will occur within a science class that contains at least four to five ELL students in an English-only inclusion environment. The data collection will take place over the course of one complete unit in the year-long curriculum. To conduct this study, the researcher will need pre-tests to assess prior knowledge for all of the students in the class, an overview of the lesson plans for the Unit to develop modified materials to address the needs of the ELL students, and post-tests to determine and compare the level of mastery and improvement between the general population students and the ELL students.

2. The Procedures:

• The researcher will review the lesson plans for the entire Unit, and develop modified materials according to the theories of Cho (2009), the Center for Acquired Language (2010), and Kagan Publishing and Professional Development (2010).

• The researcher will administer a pre-test to determine prior knowledge before the beginning of the Unit. The students will be instructed to take the test seriously, even though they will not be grades. Additionally, the students will be advised that they will not know all of the material on the pre-test, but they should do their best to answer all of the questions.

• During each lesson throughout the Unit, the researcher will implement strategies to maximize the effectiveness of the lesson for language acquisition.

• At the end of the Unit, the researcher will administer a post-test to determine the increase in correct answers. A comparison will be made between improvements in general education students and ELL students.

Works Cited

Arundel, K. (2008). Report: Inclusion Helps Raise Scores for Special Populations. Education Daily

41(153), 4. Retrieved from Education Research Complete on 15 February 2010.

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2010). The SIOP Model. Retrieved 5 November 2010 from

.

Cho, S. and G.A. Reich. (2008). New Immigrants, New Challenges: High School Social Studies Teachers

and English Language Learner Instruction. The Social Studies, November/December 2008.

Retrieved from Education Research Complete on 3 August 2010.

Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research. Educational Research, 28(7),

26-32, 41. Retrieved 3 August 2010 from ERIC.

Harper, C., and E. J. de Jong. (2009). English Language Teacher Expertise: The Elephant in the Room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137-151. Retrieved from Education Research Complete on 4 August 2010.

Kagan Publishing & Professional Development. (2010). Kagan Structures for English Language Learners. Retrieved 4 November from .

Motomura, H. (2005). Brown v. Board of Education, Immigrants and the Meaning of Equality. New York

Law School Review, (49)4, 1145-1153. Retrieved 9 October 2010 from Public Affairs Database.

Purdue, K. (2009). Supporting Inclusion in Early Childhood Settings: Some Possibilities and Problems for Teacher Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 13(8), 805-815. Retrieved from Education Research Complete on 15 February 2010.

Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary Teacher Attitudes Toward Including English-Language Learners in Mainstream Classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131-142. Retrieved from Education Research Complete on 1 August 2010.

Sanchez, H.T., and Sanchez, M.A. (2008). The Politics of Illegal Immigration, Bilingual Education, and

the Commodity of the Post-Technological Society. The Educational Forum, (72), 337. Retrieved

9 October 2010 from Public Affairs Database.

Seo, K. and J. H. Hoover.  (2009). Navigating a Strange Culture: Nurturing New English Learners.  Reclaiming Children and Young, 18(3), 58-61.  Retrieved from Education Research

Complete on February 9, 2010.

Snowman, J., R. Biehler, and R.P. McCown. (2006). Psychology Applied to Teaching, 11th ed. Houghton Mifflin: New York.

Watnick, B. and Sacks, A. (2006). A Snapshot of Teacher Perceptions on Full Inclusion in an International Urban Community: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 7(1), 67-74. Retrieved from Education Research Complete on 15 Februrary 2010.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download