Auerbach, Elsa Roberts. "Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom." TESOL Quarterly 27.1 (Spring 1993): 9-32.
Auerbach’s article argues against the English Only movement, claiming that “it is rooted in a particular ideological perspective, rests on unexamined assumptions, and serves to reinforce inequities in the broader social order” (9). She discusses “evidence indicating that L1 and/or bilingual options are not only effective but necessary for ESL students” and calls for “reconceptualizing the notion of expertise to legitimate the knowledge and experience of nontraditional experts from the communities of the learners” (9).
Auerbach acknowledges the background of language policy, implying that “whether or not we support the use of learners’ L1 is not just a pedagogical matter: it is a political one” (10). She refers to Fairclough’s idea of “unconscious acceptance of institutional practices” in which “practices are unconsciously accepted as the natural and inevitable way of doing things (11). Fairclough relates this idea to his argument that “authority and power are manifested by institutional practices around language use“ (11). Auerbach uses this idea to support her argument that the use of English Only represents “the kind of taken-for-granted and naturalized everyday practice which Fairclough discusses” and that these practices should be reexamined “in light of their often invisible ideological roots, their pedagogical effectiveness, and their implications for the ESL profession as a whole” (12).
Using studies from Klassen, Gillespie, and Ballering, Auerbach writes that “the result of monolingual ESL instruction for students with minimal L1 literacy and schooling is often that, whether or not they drop out, they suffer severe consequences in terms of self-esteem” (18). In examining the use of students’ native language in ESL classes, she states that “practitioners, researchers, and learners consistently report positive results” (18). She argues that using students’ L1 is beneficial, as “it reduces affective barriers to English acquisition, serves as a natural bridge for overcoming problems of vocabulary, sentence structure, and language confidence” (19). Focusing specifically on using students’ L1 in teaching writing, she states that it is a useful technique that “provides a sense of security and validates the learners’ lived experiences, allows for the exploration of ideas and [serves] to enhance students’ ESL writing, and allows for language to be used as a meaning-making tool and for language learning to become a means of communicating ideas rather than an end in itself” (20). Equally important, she refers to Osburne, who claims that use of L1 in ESL writing is beneficial as it “develops metacognitive awareness of the writing process” (22). In closing, Auerbach calls for a reexamination of “commonly accepted everyday classroom practices” in hopes that “unveiling the mechanisms of ideological control can ultimately strengthen the field as a whole” (29).
I would recommend this article to anyone who is interested in examining both sides of the English Only debate. Auerbach clearly argues against the policy, yet gives fair testament to research that sheds positive and negative light on the issue. As she emphasizes research involving the use of L1 in ESL writing, it can be a useful resource for those interested in learning more about this topic.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Blog Entry #4
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Fernsten, Linda. "Discourse and Difference." International Journal of Inclusive Education 9 4 (2005): 371-87. Print.
Fernsten’s article examines the effects of “dominant academic discourses” on students’ identities and perception of their ability as writers and argues that “students whose discourses differ from the dominant academic discourses of school may develop negative writer identities as a result of their language struggles in the academy” (371). To support this argument, Fernsten discusses her study in which she used critical discourse analysis (CDA) and analysis of two of her students. She justifies her stance, referring to herself as “an advocate for change in traditional composition classrooms” (372). She then references Lu, who “clarified the idea that certain students may be in conflict with language policies” and “hypothesizes that the marginalization students feel when writing in the academy comes from the way they believe their own discourses have been received there” (372). She also refers to Weedon’s argument that “language differentiates and informs us about what is socially accepted as normal” and encourages instructors and students to “explore the way different discourses position people in the academy” (372).
She discusses briefly the historical background and development of academic discourses, acknowledging Berlin, stating that theses discourses “with their formality of tone and style and highly structured paragraphs are adopted by many colleges and universities and have been the dominant form of college writing instruction since early in the twentieth century” (373). She argues that these academic discourses combined with “dominant culture” often brand second-language writers as “less able or less intelligent” (373). She expresses that while her stance is “not a rejection of Standard English,” she believes that “by redefining the variety of dialects as different ways to communicate, and by explicitly teaching that use of particular dialects in certain situations represents effective communication, we can help students investigate the nature and politics of language use” (374).
Fernsten’s study involves the analysis of two students, one who uses Black English Vernacular, and one who is a trilingual Haitian-American student. Through discussion and observation of these students, Fernsten reports that both struggled with writing, as they felt misunderstood and “unsuccessful when people focused on [their] formal construction of language” (382). As a result of this study, Fernsten resolved to incorporate more expressivist genres in her courses and “to include a number of alternative ways of responding” to student writing. She states that “even in formal required academic assignments, [she] allows for hybridity, which blends genres and discourses” and justifies these strategies in that they “help students understand writing expectations” (385). Fernsten ends her article by calling for action to “take up a political discourse that empowers instructors and students to discuss language difference openly,” thus reconstructing the composition classroom to become a “more inclusive, culturally competent environment” (385-386).
This article is useful in providing an alternative way of viewing language policy and ESL writers. By studying how second language writers are affected by academic discourse, instructors can better understand these students’ attitudes toward writing and how to reconstruct the composition classroom in order to help these students feel less marginalized.
Fernsten’s article examines the effects of “dominant academic discourses” on students’ identities and perception of their ability as writers and argues that “students whose discourses differ from the dominant academic discourses of school may develop negative writer identities as a result of their language struggles in the academy” (371). To support this argument, Fernsten discusses her study in which she used critical discourse analysis (CDA) and analysis of two of her students. She justifies her stance, referring to herself as “an advocate for change in traditional composition classrooms” (372). She then references Lu, who “clarified the idea that certain students may be in conflict with language policies” and “hypothesizes that the marginalization students feel when writing in the academy comes from the way they believe their own discourses have been received there” (372). She also refers to Weedon’s argument that “language differentiates and informs us about what is socially accepted as normal” and encourages instructors and students to “explore the way different discourses position people in the academy” (372).
She discusses briefly the historical background and development of academic discourses, acknowledging Berlin, stating that theses discourses “with their formality of tone and style and highly structured paragraphs are adopted by many colleges and universities and have been the dominant form of college writing instruction since early in the twentieth century” (373). She argues that these academic discourses combined with “dominant culture” often brand second-language writers as “less able or less intelligent” (373). She expresses that while her stance is “not a rejection of Standard English,” she believes that “by redefining the variety of dialects as different ways to communicate, and by explicitly teaching that use of particular dialects in certain situations represents effective communication, we can help students investigate the nature and politics of language use” (374).
Fernsten’s study involves the analysis of two students, one who uses Black English Vernacular, and one who is a trilingual Haitian-American student. Through discussion and observation of these students, Fernsten reports that both struggled with writing, as they felt misunderstood and “unsuccessful when people focused on [their] formal construction of language” (382). As a result of this study, Fernsten resolved to incorporate more expressivist genres in her courses and “to include a number of alternative ways of responding” to student writing. She states that “even in formal required academic assignments, [she] allows for hybridity, which blends genres and discourses” and justifies these strategies in that they “help students understand writing expectations” (385). Fernsten ends her article by calling for action to “take up a political discourse that empowers instructors and students to discuss language difference openly,” thus reconstructing the composition classroom to become a “more inclusive, culturally competent environment” (385-386).
This article is useful in providing an alternative way of viewing language policy and ESL writers. By studying how second language writers are affected by academic discourse, instructors can better understand these students’ attitudes toward writing and how to reconstruct the composition classroom in order to help these students feel less marginalized.
0 comments
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Blog Entry #3
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. 2002. “English Only and U.S. College Composition.” College Composition and Communication, 53.4, 594-630.
In their article “English Only and U.S. College Composition,” Horner and Trimbur examine the historical origins of the “tacit policy of English monolingualism” in the university curriculum (594). Their purpose is to question this policy and how it became so firmly rooted within the curriculum. They “argue that a tacit language policy of unidirectional English monolingualism has shaped the historical formation of U.S. writing instruction and continues to influence its theory and practice…” (594). They acknowledge that by neglecting to understand how this policy came into existence, it will “continue to exert a powerful influence on our teaching, writing programs, and our impact on U.S. culture” (595).
Horner and Trimbur reference the institutionalization of writing instruction in the modern university when the classical curriculum was replaced with “secular education in the vernacular” (595). This movement not only established the “required first-year course in written English,” but also “replaced the bilingualism of the classical curriculum with a unidirectional monolingualism” (595). Harvard played an important role in the movement toward monolingualism by moving away from “the classical curriculum’s predominantly oral and performative pedagogy,“ and replacing it with “an emphasis on such now standard literate practices as lectures and student production of written texts” (599). Evidence of this is seen in the Harvard Reports, which discourage oral practices and call for “[replacement] of the daily oral recitations in all classes with regular written exercises” (600).
Horner and Trimbur sum up “the settlement of the modern curriculum and the roles ascribed to English and other languages” within four beliefs that formed within the first two decades of the Modern Language Association:
“1. Learning the modern languages as living, spoken languages is held to be a nonintellectual, feminine activity.
2. The modern languages are represented not as living languages but as texts in an archive.
3. The study of modern languages figures unidirectionally, not as an end in itself but as a means to mastering English.
4. English in the U.S. is represented in geographical isolation from the other modern languages” (603-606).
They address the debate over the English-Only policy through “identifying the operation of reified notions of language and sociocultural identity [in arguments advocating English-Only], revealing that there are similar notions in arguments made against English-Only the policies and for the rights of first-year composition students,” and considering the arguments‘ implications (608). However, they state that this debate focuses “squarely within the confines of the United States” and they define the task to be completed as “developing an internationalist perspective capable of understanding the study and teaching of written English in relation to other languages and to the dynamics of globalization” (624).
I would recommend this article to anyone interested in understanding how and why the policy of English monolingualism became rooted in the U.S. college composition curriculum. Unless those within the field seek to understand the history, the policy will continue to dominate over writing instruction and the “opportunities for rethinking writing in the academy” will be difficult to achieve.
In their article “English Only and U.S. College Composition,” Horner and Trimbur examine the historical origins of the “tacit policy of English monolingualism” in the university curriculum (594). Their purpose is to question this policy and how it became so firmly rooted within the curriculum. They “argue that a tacit language policy of unidirectional English monolingualism has shaped the historical formation of U.S. writing instruction and continues to influence its theory and practice…” (594). They acknowledge that by neglecting to understand how this policy came into existence, it will “continue to exert a powerful influence on our teaching, writing programs, and our impact on U.S. culture” (595).
Horner and Trimbur reference the institutionalization of writing instruction in the modern university when the classical curriculum was replaced with “secular education in the vernacular” (595). This movement not only established the “required first-year course in written English,” but also “replaced the bilingualism of the classical curriculum with a unidirectional monolingualism” (595). Harvard played an important role in the movement toward monolingualism by moving away from “the classical curriculum’s predominantly oral and performative pedagogy,“ and replacing it with “an emphasis on such now standard literate practices as lectures and student production of written texts” (599). Evidence of this is seen in the Harvard Reports, which discourage oral practices and call for “[replacement] of the daily oral recitations in all classes with regular written exercises” (600).
Horner and Trimbur sum up “the settlement of the modern curriculum and the roles ascribed to English and other languages” within four beliefs that formed within the first two decades of the Modern Language Association:
“1. Learning the modern languages as living, spoken languages is held to be a nonintellectual, feminine activity.
2. The modern languages are represented not as living languages but as texts in an archive.
3. The study of modern languages figures unidirectionally, not as an end in itself but as a means to mastering English.
4. English in the U.S. is represented in geographical isolation from the other modern languages” (603-606).
They address the debate over the English-Only policy through “identifying the operation of reified notions of language and sociocultural identity [in arguments advocating English-Only], revealing that there are similar notions in arguments made against English-Only the policies and for the rights of first-year composition students,” and considering the arguments‘ implications (608). However, they state that this debate focuses “squarely within the confines of the United States” and they define the task to be completed as “developing an internationalist perspective capable of understanding the study and teaching of written English in relation to other languages and to the dynamics of globalization” (624).
I would recommend this article to anyone interested in understanding how and why the policy of English monolingualism became rooted in the U.S. college composition curriculum. Unless those within the field seek to understand the history, the policy will continue to dominate over writing instruction and the “opportunities for rethinking writing in the academy” will be difficult to achieve.
0 comments
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Blog Entry #2
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Costino, K. A. & Hyon, S. "“A Class for Students Like Me”: Reconsidering relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for mainstream or multilingual composition." Journal of Second Language Writing 16.2 (2007): 63-81. Web. 4 Feb 2010.
Costino and Hyon’s article pertaining to ESL students’ feelings regarding identity labels and their choice to enroll in mainstream versus multilingual composition courses was an appropriate article for my next blog entry as last week’s class briefly mentioned this topic. As I read through the introduction, I recalled how we had discussed that some ESL students may take offense to certain “labels” regarding their L2 status. In addition, they may even choose to enroll in mainstream composition courses for this very reason. These issues motivated Costino and Hyon’s study in which they analyzed “possible connections or disconnections among students’ responses to identity labels, their residency statuses, and their composition course preferences” (65). The study centered around two main questions:
1. “How do [students] understand and affiliate with various linguistic identity labels that are often institutionally ascribed to them?”
2. “Why do students prefer one type of composition course (mainstream or multilingual) over another? (65)
As I have chosen to direct my focus toward the effects of language policy within the ESL composition classroom, I was especially interested in the findings pertaining to question #2.
For their study, the authors interviewed nine ESL students taken from both mainstream and multilingual composition courses. They asked the students questions regarding their “experiences in basic writing and [first year composition],” as well as questions in which the students described the preparation, patterns, and methods used in the courses. In addition, the authors also included questions inquiring about the identity labels students encountered while enrolled in their courses and their reasoning for preferring either mainstream or multilingual composition courses (66-67). Their findings concluded that the students who were interviewed “defined the labels in terms of English language ability, though they did not always agree on which labels signified strong or weak ability” (69). More interestingly, most students expressed the desire to enroll in a course with other students with whom they could relate to in terms of “current language ability” (74). These students explained that mainstream courses had an “American context” which would be more difficult for them and that they “felt less comfortable speaking in the mainstream environment” (75). However, the students who preferred mainstream composition courses justified their choice not based on linguistic assistance, but that the courses “spoke to the strong language abilities they already had” (74).
When viewed separately, the two questions presented interesting findings that seemed to be well-justified. However, the authors were unable to find a relationship between “writing course preferences and label affiliations” (76). As my focus for this course will not be specifically analyzing ESL students and identity labels, I was more interested in the results for the second question regarding ESL students and their preference for mainstream or multilingual writing courses. For this purpose I found this article to be very informative and extremely relevant and useful for my focus.
Costino and Hyon’s article pertaining to ESL students’ feelings regarding identity labels and their choice to enroll in mainstream versus multilingual composition courses was an appropriate article for my next blog entry as last week’s class briefly mentioned this topic. As I read through the introduction, I recalled how we had discussed that some ESL students may take offense to certain “labels” regarding their L2 status. In addition, they may even choose to enroll in mainstream composition courses for this very reason. These issues motivated Costino and Hyon’s study in which they analyzed “possible connections or disconnections among students’ responses to identity labels, their residency statuses, and their composition course preferences” (65). The study centered around two main questions:
1. “How do [students] understand and affiliate with various linguistic identity labels that are often institutionally ascribed to them?”
2. “Why do students prefer one type of composition course (mainstream or multilingual) over another? (65)
As I have chosen to direct my focus toward the effects of language policy within the ESL composition classroom, I was especially interested in the findings pertaining to question #2.
For their study, the authors interviewed nine ESL students taken from both mainstream and multilingual composition courses. They asked the students questions regarding their “experiences in basic writing and [first year composition],” as well as questions in which the students described the preparation, patterns, and methods used in the courses. In addition, the authors also included questions inquiring about the identity labels students encountered while enrolled in their courses and their reasoning for preferring either mainstream or multilingual composition courses (66-67). Their findings concluded that the students who were interviewed “defined the labels in terms of English language ability, though they did not always agree on which labels signified strong or weak ability” (69). More interestingly, most students expressed the desire to enroll in a course with other students with whom they could relate to in terms of “current language ability” (74). These students explained that mainstream courses had an “American context” which would be more difficult for them and that they “felt less comfortable speaking in the mainstream environment” (75). However, the students who preferred mainstream composition courses justified their choice not based on linguistic assistance, but that the courses “spoke to the strong language abilities they already had” (74).
When viewed separately, the two questions presented interesting findings that seemed to be well-justified. However, the authors were unable to find a relationship between “writing course preferences and label affiliations” (76). As my focus for this course will not be specifically analyzing ESL students and identity labels, I was more interested in the results for the second question regarding ESL students and their preference for mainstream or multilingual writing courses. For this purpose I found this article to be very informative and extremely relevant and useful for my focus.
0 comments
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Blog Entry #1
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Rossell, Christine H., and Keith Baker. "The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education." Research in the Teaching of English 30.1 (1996): 7-74. Web. 27 Jan 2010.
Following the theme and discussion of last week’s class, “Language & Ideology,” I couldn’t stop thinking about the articles written by Garcia and Gonzalez and the concept of “English-only” instruction within the ESL classroom. I have so many questions about this concept and want to learn as much as possible about it and therefore, have chosen this topic had to be the focus of my blog for this course.
After spending a great deal of time researching different articles in several journals, I finally settled on Rossell and Baker’s article as posted above. Though the article was published over ten years ago, I felt that I should start my research on this topic further back in time in order to gain a better understanding of its development. Additionally, Rossell and Baker direct their focus on the question that I am most interested in, which is “whether bilingual education is the most effective instructional approach for LEP (Limited English Proficient) [students]” (8). The authors first establish what they call “transitional bilingual education” or TBE, a method in which “the student is taught to read and write in the native tongue, and subject matter is taught in the native tongue…[and] as the child progresses in English, the amount of instructional time in the native tongue is reduced and English increased” (10). The method of TBE is then studied in comparison with three other educational programs: submersion, English as a Second Languge, structured immersion. Of the 300 studies that the Rossell and Baker began with, only 72 proved to be “methodologically acceptable,” and they provide the quantitative data from these studies in an easy-to-read table format (19-20). The data was surprisingly very different than what I had anticipated, as a majority of the studies showed that the method of TBE had little or no effect on students’ academic success in comparison to the three other educational programs. In several instances, TBE actually proved to do more harm than English-only instruction (43). I was discouraged after reviewing the quantitative results as I had expected that TBE would prove to be extremely successful over the other methods. However, Rossell and Baker spend the rest of the article explaining that there can really be no “methodologically sound” studies in measuring this specific question and that it is near impossible to produce accurate quantitative data regarding the success rate of TBE. They conclude the article with an air of perseverance, as they offer two new hypotheses for testing in which (1) native tongue is used very minimally in LEP instruction, and (2) instructors are used for LEP students who are “familiar with, but not fluent in, the child’s native tongue” (40).
While this article did not provide the evidence that I had anticipated (or hoped for), I would still recommend it to anyone who is interested in bilingual education. The educational programs were interesting to learn about and the quantitative data provided some interesting findings.
Following the theme and discussion of last week’s class, “Language & Ideology,” I couldn’t stop thinking about the articles written by Garcia and Gonzalez and the concept of “English-only” instruction within the ESL classroom. I have so many questions about this concept and want to learn as much as possible about it and therefore, have chosen this topic had to be the focus of my blog for this course.
After spending a great deal of time researching different articles in several journals, I finally settled on Rossell and Baker’s article as posted above. Though the article was published over ten years ago, I felt that I should start my research on this topic further back in time in order to gain a better understanding of its development. Additionally, Rossell and Baker direct their focus on the question that I am most interested in, which is “whether bilingual education is the most effective instructional approach for LEP (Limited English Proficient) [students]” (8). The authors first establish what they call “transitional bilingual education” or TBE, a method in which “the student is taught to read and write in the native tongue, and subject matter is taught in the native tongue…[and] as the child progresses in English, the amount of instructional time in the native tongue is reduced and English increased” (10). The method of TBE is then studied in comparison with three other educational programs: submersion, English as a Second Languge, structured immersion. Of the 300 studies that the Rossell and Baker began with, only 72 proved to be “methodologically acceptable,” and they provide the quantitative data from these studies in an easy-to-read table format (19-20). The data was surprisingly very different than what I had anticipated, as a majority of the studies showed that the method of TBE had little or no effect on students’ academic success in comparison to the three other educational programs. In several instances, TBE actually proved to do more harm than English-only instruction (43). I was discouraged after reviewing the quantitative results as I had expected that TBE would prove to be extremely successful over the other methods. However, Rossell and Baker spend the rest of the article explaining that there can really be no “methodologically sound” studies in measuring this specific question and that it is near impossible to produce accurate quantitative data regarding the success rate of TBE. They conclude the article with an air of perseverance, as they offer two new hypotheses for testing in which (1) native tongue is used very minimally in LEP instruction, and (2) instructors are used for LEP students who are “familiar with, but not fluent in, the child’s native tongue” (40).
While this article did not provide the evidence that I had anticipated (or hoped for), I would still recommend it to anyone who is interested in bilingual education. The educational programs were interesting to learn about and the quantitative data provided some interesting findings.
0 comments
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Initial Entry: Framingham Adult ESL Plus Website
Sunday, January 24, 2010Framingham Adult ESL was first established in 1984 by a small group within a Massachusetts community. Their primary goal was to assist international students in transitioning to life within the United States by offering academic courses leading to a GED, as well as assistance in obtaining citizenship, employment, and a better understanding and knowledge of the culture. FAESL now assists thousands of international students each year from 33 countries and ranging from ages 18-92 (Faesl.org).
While browsing FAESL’s website, I noticed many aspects of their organization that echoed the thoughts expressed in week’s readings. Gonzalez’s studies produced valuable findings in analyzing which strategies work best and prove to be most successful in teaching ESL students and FAESL has put into practice many of these strategies. For example, Gonzalez found that “immigrants who complete a course to learn English are about 9 to 13 percent more likely to be proficient at reading and writing, and about 14 to 20 percent more likely to be proficient at understanding and speaking English than [those] who never enrolled in English-language classes” (Gonzalez 217). FAESL offers a wide range of English-language classes for both children and adults, focusing on reading, writing, and communication skills. Additionally, in order to reduce frustration or a “lost” feeling among ESL students, FAESL offers six levels of English as Second Language instruction and three levels of Basic Adult Education. McLeod’s studies prove this strategy to be effective, as she noted that the most successful schools “grouped [students] more flexibly and on a continuous basis to meet the changing needs of their native- and second-language development” (Garcia 96-97).
FAESL exhibits a commitment to ESL students by taking into consideration the varying schedules that each may have. Gonzalez emphasizes the importance of this aspect, stating “given the demands of attending ESL courses, plus the need to provide for a family by working one or more jobs…it is necessary to structure courses which are flexible enough to meet the needs of immigrants” (Gonzalez 218-219). FAESL strives to accommodate every type of schedule that a student may have by offering classes at many different times and locations several days of the week. In recognizing the importance of family life, FAESL incorporates courses such as Family Literacy which Garcia refers to as a key component of successful ESL education (Garcia 98). FAESL also offers field trips and community involvement activities, which supports the idea that “learning is enhance when it occurs in contexts that are both socioculturally and linguistically meaningful for the learner” (Garcia 99).
While FAESL is an organization that only reaches a small percentage of ESL students in the United States, their work is commendable and they seem to be putting into practice many of the strategies that have proven to be successful in other instances. I believe that many of the authors of this week’s readings would agree with their methods and support what they are doing.
0 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
