Dual Language Guiding Principles Edition 3

New Dual Language Guiding Principles Edition 3

New Guidelines have reprioritized our work!

Oral Language Development and Instruction Considerable debate has existed about the importance of explicit second language instruction in the process of second language learning (Larsen-Freeman & Tedick, 2016; Lyster, 2007). Because many foreign language immersion programs were grounded in the Natural Approach, which eschews formal skills instruction in the immersion language, two important but incorrect assumptions were made. The first assumption was that students would learn the language through its use in subject matter instruction, and the second was that students would achieve more native-like proficiency if they received the kind of language exposure that is similar to first language learning. However, as some language education practitioners and researchers have discovered, the fluency and grammar ability of most immersion students is not native-like, and there is a need for formal instruction in the second language. However, this does not mean traditional translation and memorization of grammar and phrases. It is important to use a language arts curriculum that specifies which linguistic structures should be mastered (e.g., conditional verb forms) and how these linguistic structures should be incorporated into the academic content (e.g., including preterit and imperfect forms of verbs in history instruction and conditional and future verb tenses in mathematics and science). National and state policies stipulate the need for English language development instruction for English learners. Saunders, Goldenberg, and Marcelletti (2013) proposed some guidelines on providing this instruction, based on their summary of six major syntheses and meta-analyses of oral language development. Many of these guidelines are likely applicable to second languages other than English as well. Providing instruction in English language development is better than not providing it; that is, research shows that focused second language instruction that is designed to teach a particular aspect of the language is more effective than mere exposure or minimally focused instruction. This is consistent with research mentioned previously (e.g., Ballinger, 2013; Lyster, 2007; Swain & Lapkin, 2013). Instruction needs to explicitly teach forms of linguistic complexity (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, morphology, functions, conventions). Though there is no research with English learners that demonstrates this practice to be effective, it is consistent with other research cited previously. INSTRUCTION 49 Instruction in English language development should continue until learners achieve advanced English language proficiency; that is, English learners should continue to receive instruction after they reach intermediate levels of proficiency so that they develop higher levels of proficiency rather than get stuck at an intermediate level. Saunders, Goldenberg, and Marcelletti (2013) also address two other issues based on typical instruction of English learners in mainstream, English-only, or transitional bilingual programs. They suggest that English language development be provided in a separate block of time to groups of students separated by language proficiency. Because most dual language programs keep native speakers and language learners integrated 100% of the time, this is not always feasible in dual language; instead, dual language teachers typically integrate language development consistently into language arts and other content area lessons. Several studies point out the importance of using metalanguage strategies to promote language and literacy development (e.g., Klingelhofer & Schleppegrell, 2016; Schleppegrell, 2013). Metalanguage strategies provide students the skills to talk about language as a system and help them understand more about how language functions. Schleppegrell (2013) provides an example of a second grade study of understanding how the same speech function (e.g., command) can be realized in three grammatical moods: • Declarative – I’d like you to close the door. • Interrogative – Would you please close the door? • Imperative – Close the door! Students often have difficulty producing native-like speech in the second language. Part of this difficulty stems from a lack of opportunity to speak the language with fluent speakers. According to classroom research, second language learners get few opportunities to produce extended discourse in which they are forced to make their language coherent, accurate, and sociolinguistically appropriate (Lyster, 2007). This is even true when teachers require students to use the language of instruction during group work. Thus, promoting highly developed oral language skills requires providing both structured and unstructured opportunities for oral production (Saunders & O’Brien, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2013; Wright, 2016). 

http://www.cal.org/content/download/4411/67686/file/Guiding%20Principles%20for%20Dual%20Language%20Education%203rd%20edition.pdf