برچسب: language

  • The science of reading also applies to students learning English as a second language

    The science of reading also applies to students learning English as a second language


    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    As California pushes schools to adopt research-based approaches to teaching children how to read, often called the “science of reading,” some teachers and advocates for English learners have expressed concerns that techniques used to teach reading in English to native speakers may not work for students who are learning English as a second language.

    But an in-depth look at the science behind how language is developed reveals an interesting parallel between the science of reading and second language learning. In fact, the science of reading can actually provide support when it comes to teaching students whose native language is not English.

    The science of reading and the science of language learning both require an explicit and structured approach to literacy that can actually help answer the longstanding question of: How can I teach English academic skills to a student who has no English oral ones?

    A key strength of the science of reading approach is its focus on the development on both language (speaking) and literacy (reading) within the same instructional space. Gone are the days of encouraging separate subject blocks within English language arts, where literacy and oral fluency are taught as separate entities. Science-based approaches encourage teaching language and literacy hand-in-hand, complementing and building off one another based on each child’s development and progression. This focus is effective for all students, but especially for English learners who must learn oral skills at the same time as they are learning academic ones. As they are sounding out the word, they are also learning what that word means.

    The traditional separation of oral language and literacy skills in English leads to an increase of “scaffolding” support for native English speakers — and even more so for non-native English speakers. Already pressed for time, teachers often find themselves supporting needed oral skills within literacy instruction, only to turn around and add needed literacy skills within oral language instruction. By teaching the two skills separately, teachers end up taking more time for each skill that is developmentally intertwined with the other.

    The science of reading approaches these skills as interwoven, giving equal importance to both oral language and literacy instruction within the same space. This immediately reduces the need for scaffolds and emphasizes looking at language and literacy through a lens of cognition and development, instead of repetition and memorization.

    Teaching oral, comprehension and vocabulary skills alongside language structure and syntax is something that has been much-needed for teaching English learners. Take Marco, an English learner, for example. Marco might sound out the word “net” correctly and might recognize a sight word (a commonly used word such as “she,” “be” or “had”) when reading. But does he know what those words mean, or how to apply them in context? Is he even given the opportunity to find out? Too often, Marco has no idea. He simply gets a “high five” for decoding one word correctly and recognizing another with no comprehension because that was the skill focus for that lesson. Marco continues in his learning process, only learning certain skills in a limited sense and not a fully comprehensive and applicable one.

    This not only limits Marco’s literacy skills in the other language, but his language proficiency skills as well. He misses out on the opportunity for comprehension, vocabulary expansion, and active skill application of the language being learned because of this compartmentalized approach.

    Marco needs both the functional application and the comprehensive skills to be taught purposefully and in combination. He also needs this done within the same learning period while the concepts are still fresh and relatable.

    It’s an important step forward that this combined approach of language and literacy is now encouraged in whole-group and small-group instructional settings through the science of reading.

    Looking at reading and the science behind it from a cognitive standpoint can provide us with a more equitable approach to teaching because it is based on what constitutes — and makes sense functionally — in the brain’s processing of information, something that is universal. How vocabulary is developed, alongside its symbols and sounds in reading and writing, is simultaneously developed in all language and literacy learning.

     The science of reading challenges teachers to look beyond the surface of the language spoken and more deeply into how it functions. On the surface, it is easy for teachers to fear they cannot help or support English learners if they do not speak the student’s language. However, by applying the science of reading’s explicit language and literacy approach, teachers will be reminded of how they themselves made meaning and developed English literacy. Yes, they spoke English, but they still had to learn the structure and written form and how to read English in the classroom, just as their English learner students will. A key difference is that the English learner may not have any pre-existing English oral skills, but these skills, now more than ever, are encouraged and can be taught as they are developed, alongside literacy instruction.         

    Simply applying the science of reading won’t provide all the solutions to the complexities of teaching English learners, but it can provide teachers with a purposeful starting point through its explicit focus on, and the equal importance given, to both language and literacy development.

    ●●●

    Rachel Hawthorne has a background in linguistics and taught for several years as a bilingual teacher for grades preK-5. She now works as an English learner product developer for Really Great Reading, a company that provides literacy instruction support to educators. 

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • In teaching, language quirks can be an asset

    In teaching, language quirks can be an asset


    Courtesy Jenine Catudio

    In 2016, 21 special education teachers from the Philippines were hired at a school district in the Bay Area. I was among the Filipino newcomers. The orientation took place in an oversize room, where echoes of Visayan and Tagalog dialects filled the space. As the session neared its end, the administrator asked, “Are there any questions?” The room fell silent, suggesting a collective no. Once he left, we eagerly exchanged queries and sought clarification from one another — in our native language.

    What just happened?

    There’s much to consider in that scenario. While no single explanation suffices, cultural norms likely played a significant role. Filipinos, often indirect communicators, favor subtlety over directness. In the Philippines, questioning authority can be seen as disrespectful. This potentially explains our reluctance to respond to the administrator. Additionally, the fear of speaking, driven by concerns about grammatical errors, mispronunciations and accents, can inhibit us from speaking up.

    While communication is integral to our roles as educators, navigating the nuances of language and cultural expectations has presented unforeseen challenges. For instance, during one of my initial meetings with the principal, I described my class as “an amalgam of different abilities.” He asked me to repeat myself, highlighting the cultural gap in our communication styles.

    After I administered a spelling test to a student who was about to exit special education, the student remarked, “Oh, I got a low score because you were saying each word differently,” referring to my accent. I explained that each word was used in a sentence, so understanding the context was key. Feeling self-conscious, I consulted the school speech-language pathologist about my accent potentially affecting the student’s test score. She responded, “I don’t think so, Jenine. You don’t have a strong accent. What you have, though, is pronoun confusion.” I laughed since I knew exactly what she was talking about. The English use of “he,” “she” and “him,” “her,” in place of the catchall “siya” in Filipino, often confuses me.

    In another class, a student laughed at me when I put the stress on the first syllable instead of the second — the word was “adult.”

    Clearly, there is a language barrier, and Filipinos are well aware of it. Despite English being a medium of instruction in the Philippines, we rarely use it in daily conversations. Vocabulary training encompassed terms like “amalgam” without addressing conversational nuances. Pronunciation differences, such as using the British /a.dult/ instead of the American /uh.dult/, went unclarified. Moreover, mastering gender pronouns demands continuous effort, contrasting with our natural usage in Filipino.

    The following year, the recruitment agency that hired Filipino teachers in another district required English language classes for new hires. While teaching grammar rules enhances understanding of the language according to studies, applying these rules during spontaneous speech is much more challenging. It has less to do with understanding grammar and more to do with the process of language acquisition. For many years, recruiting teachers from the Philippines has been an answer to the worsening teacher shortage in California, resulting in a more diverse teaching workforce.

    Reflecting on my journey, I realize that the benefits of speaking up outweigh my culturally rooted fears. As an educator in an underserved community in California, I needed my voice to advocate for my students. I realized that my colleagues didn’t mind my accent or minor grammar mistakes. It was encouraging. Although it took time, I eventually discovered a newfound confidence in expressing myself authentically. I learned that as long as I could get my point across, the specifics didn’t matter.

    Does this imply that we are not holding Filipino teachers to the same standard as our students? Absolutely not. However, it’s crucial to remember that language proficiency does not correlate with overall cognitive abilities and intelligence. This understanding applies equally to our students.

    Filipinos, as English learners themselves, can empathize deeply with minority students facing similar challenges. Drawing from these shared cultural experiences, they can offer invaluable contributions to culturally responsive classrooms. When students ask why I speak a certain way, I take the chance to share insights about my culture and heritage. It’s important to recognize our perceived weaknesses while harnessing our strengths to our students’ advantage. Rooted in our collective experiences of hardships, our heightened cultural sensitivity cultivates inclusivity and mutual understanding within the classroom. We understand firsthand the challenges, whether in language or culture, and use this empathy to create a culturally responsive learning environment.

    •••

    Jenine Catudio is a special education teacher and autism advocate from the Philippines who taught students with mild to moderate disabilities in West Contra Costa Unified in Richmond.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link