Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning

Volume 2

Eli Hinkel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2011
• eBook ISBN: 9781136863943
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This landmark volume provides a broad-based, comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of current knowledge and research into second language teaching and learning. All authors are leading authorities in their areas of expertise. The chapters, all completely new for Volume 2, are organized in eight thematic sections:

• Social Contexts in Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning
• Second Language Research Methods
• Second Language Research and Applied Linguistics
• Research in Second Language Processes and Development
• Methods and Instruction in Second Language Teaching
• Second Language Assessment
• Ideology, Identity, Culture, and Critical Pedagogy in Second Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Planning and Policy.

Changes in Volume 2:

• captures new and ongoing developments, research, and trends in the field
• surveys prominent areas of research that were not covered in Volume 1
• includes new authors from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America to broaden the Handbook's international scope.

Volume 2 is an essential resource for researchers, faculty, teachers, and students in MA-TESL and applied linguistics programs, as well as curriculum and material developers.

I
Social Contexts in Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning

1
Dual Language Education

Donna Christian

Introduction

As this handbook clearly demonstrates, the field of second language teaching and learning encompasses diverse goals, contexts, and traditions. New languages are learned in the community or in school, by children and adults, and for primarily oral communication purposes, literacy, or both. In the service of second language teaching and learning that occurs in school, dual language education occupies an important, if currently small, space that attends to the maintenance and development of the native language along with the second. The approach emphasizes bilingualism as an outcome when a new language is learned and fosters “additive bilingualism” (Lambert, 1984) as a foundational concept. Research shows that the model can be effective for second language learning while conveying other benefits as well.

In dual language education programs, the second language is not taught as a subject. Rather, it is used as a medium of instruction in an educational setting, and, with appropriate instructional techniques and materials, students learn curricular content as well as a new language. The native language of the students is also nurtured, and it is expected that the students will move toward bilingualism and biliteracy as a result of participating in this type of program. Thus, dual language education serves the goal of second language teaching and learning, but situates that goal in the broader context of bilingualism.

In this chapter, dual language education refers to programs, primarily for students in preschool, elementary, and secondary levels of schooling, which provide literacy and content area instruction to all students through two languages (their native language and a new language). The programs seek to develop bilingualism and biliteracy in the two languages, grade-level academic achievement, and multicultural competence for all students (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007). Students learn subject matter content such as science and social studies through their second language, they develop oral proficiency and literacy skills in that language, and they gain understanding of its cultural connections. Thus, second language learning is embedded in gradeappropriate academic instruction, and language learning is an important, but not the only, goal for the programs.

Dual language classrooms may be linguistically homogeneous or may include speakers of both languages of instruction. The variations in student populations characterize four major types of dual language programs that will be discussed in later sections:

1. developmental bilingual programs, where all students are native speakers of the minority language that is one of the languages of instruction;
2. foreign language immersion programs, or “one-way” immersion, where all of the students are native speakers of the majority language and are learning another language;
3. heritage language immersion programs, where all of the students are from the language minority community, though they may have little or no actual proficiency in the heritage language; and
4. two-way immersion programs, where approximately half of the students are native speakers of the minority language and half are native speakers of the majority language, and all receive instruction through, and learn, both languages.

The distinctions drawn here follow that of Howard, Olague and Rogers (2003), who use the image of an umbrella to portray dual language education and these four types of programs (see Figure 1.1). This categorization has also been adopted by the National Dual Language Consortium (http://www.dual-language.org/) to define the Consortium’s scope. The programs vary to meet the needs of different student groups but all operate within an additive bilingual paradigm.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of dual language education, an approach to second language learning and teaching that aims for bilingualism and biliteracy for students in diverse sociolinguistic settings. After some discussion of definitions and terms to set the stage, later sections will briefly outline the context and rationale for the approach, the major types of programs (along with the appropriate conditions and necessary resources for their success), and what we know about those programs. The chapter will conclude with some suggestions for future directions in research and practice.

Figure 1.1 Dual language umbrella

Source: Howard, Olague, and Rogers (2003, p. 3).

Definitions

As Brisk (2005) points out, terms such as bilingual and multilingual are often confused, due to a failure to distinguish their meaning when applied to individuals, communities, educational programs, or national societies. Individuals (in our case, students) can be referred to as bilingual (or multilingual) if they know and can use more than one language. Their abilities in two (or more) languages typically vary according to the degree of fluency they have for different purposes in different contexts (or registers). In other words, an individual may be very fluent in one language for conversing with family members, and more able in another language to read a science text. There is also a strong link to identity for individuals whose language knowledge gives them a “sense of belonging that derives from linking one’s own identity to the community of speakers of the language” (Cummins, 2008). At the community or national level, a society may be considered bilingual or multilingual if more than one language is regularly used by its members, but not all individual members may be bilingual.

In education, a bilingual program (simply stated) is one in which two languages are used for instruction. The label should not be used (but often is) for a program that serves language minority students using only their second language, such as a program for native Chinese speakers that uses only English. In such cases, the program is labeled according to the characteristics of its students rather than according to its pedagogy. In the United States, the term bilingual has become highly politicized, particularly in the context of bilingual education and has come to symbolize particular political stances (for or against the practice) rather than simply defining a type of educational programming.

A few other terms will be useful to define for the discussion to follow. Native language refers to the first language learned by a child, the one used in the family and community. A second language is learned after the native language (acknowledging that some children acquire two or more languages from early childhood, so the implied sequence may not apply in all cases). In dual language programs, one language is typically the majority language of the broader society (English in the United States or Japanese in Japan) and the partner language in the program (the other language used in instruction) may be a local community language (such as Spanish or Navajo in some communities in the United States) or another language not used in the students’ home communities (such as English in Japan). Finally, a heritage language is a community language other than the majority language to which community members have a linguistic or cultural connection (for example, Cantonese for the children of immigrants from Hong Kong living in San Francisco) (Valdes, 2001). In some cases, partner languages in dual language programs are heritage languages in the local community.

The Context

Dual language education builds on research, history, and traditions of bilingual, foreign language, and heritage language education, as well as the global reality of multilingualism in education. Tucker (2001, p. 332) reminds us of the pervasiveness of multilingualism around the world and the fact that personal histories involving multiple languages, including at school, are the norm rather than the exception. He observes:

There are many more bilingual or multilingual individuals in the world than there are monolingual … In many parts of the world, … approaches to education that involve the use of two or more languages constitute the normal everyday experience … The use of multiple languages in education may be attributed to, or be a reflection of, numerous factors such as the linguistic heterogeneity of a country or region …; specific social or religious attitudes …; or the desire to promote national identity. In addition, innovative language education programs are often implemented to promote proficiency in international language(s) of wider communication together with proficiency in national and regional languages.

Despite the commonality of multilingualism, however, there is a long history of tension around language issues that spills over into education. Although many nations around the world promote early language learning for speakers of the majority language (Pufahl, Rhodes, & Christian, 2000), indigenous and immigrant language minorities do not typically have access to extended support for their native languages (Dutcher, 2004). Language education policies in various countries are complicated by colonial histories, political changes, and ideological factors (Brisk, 2005).

The tension of language and culture diversity manifests itself in disputes over the value of bilingual forms of education for students from minority (immigrant and indigenous) communities, as well as a general lack of support for learning languages other than the majority language. In the United States, Crawford (2004, p. 287) attributes the opposition to bilingual education to “the fear that it will enhance loyalty to minority tongues and retard the process of linguistic assimilation.” At least partly as a result of this attitude, most programs designed for English language learners in the United States have taken a remedial approach, aiming to develop English skills as quickly as possible so students can join so-called “regular” English-medium classroom instruction. Most programs offer only monolingual English instruction, and, among bilingual offerings, the most common model is transitional bilingual education, where the students’ native language is used to provide access to the subject matter for a limited time while the students learn enough English to transition to all-English instruction. Little or no attention is paid to preserving skills in the native language. The additive approach, developmental bilingual education, provides an enriched, rather than remedial, orientation, but is less common.

Foreign language teaching for majority language speakers has a somewhat different profile. In many places in the world, learning additional languages is required as part of the core curriculum in schooling, from the early years on (Pufahl, Rhodes, & Christian, 2000), but in the United States, the interest in developing competence in additional languages for English speakers is a relatively low priority in education overall. A 2008 survey of foreign language education in the United States found a decrease in the number of elementary schools offering foreign languages over a ten-year period, from 31% of schools to 25% (Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009). There have been occasional peaks of concern when international threats or competition enter the public awareness, but overall, fostering bilingualism in students by adding languages other than English has not been a mainstream education priority.

The third building block for dual language education relates to heritage languages (Brinton, Kagan, & Bauckus, 2008; Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001). Programs in private (religious) schools and communities that support the preservation of heritage languages (of both indigenous and immigrant communities) are not new, but this goal is not widely addressed in schools in general. In the past, it was more common; Fishman (2001) notes the prevalence of heritage language schools in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, stimulated by the vitality of immigrant communities (for example, nearly 4,000 German heritage schools existed at the turn of the twentieth century in the United States). However, the dominant expectation is that immigrant and indigenous community members will transition to the majority language as they assimilate, and maintaining the heritage language would be a private matter. Some communities, however, took the challenge and developed programs to maintain and/or revitalize the heritage language, sometimes involving the local schools. The programs vary greatly in intensity—from weekly language classes such as “Saturday schools” to full immersion in the language for schooling. Immersion pedagogy has been used in efforts to revitalize a declining language by making it the medium of instruction in the classroom, following the foreign language model. Good examples are found in indigenous communities, exemplified by programs for Hawaiian (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001) and Ma¯ori (Benton, 2001).

Finally, the remaining section of the dual language education umbrella is occupied by two-way immersion education (originally known as “two-way bilingual education,” among other labels), which emerged in the late 1980s in the United States as a viable model for educating, and integrating, language minority and majority students (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Two-way immersion programs combine elements of bilingual education with foreign language immersion pedagogy, integrating students from two language backgrounds. At the time they gained recognition, interest in them came from a convergence of factors, including research on effective programs for educating language minority students and the successes being experienced in immersion education for native English speakers. The approach was not new (several schools, including the Coral Way Bilingual Elementary School in Miami, had been using the model for 20 or more years), but the number of programs and diversity of locations grew in the United States (to over 300 programs in 28 states in 2009 (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2009)).

The Rationale for Dual Language Education

As comprehensive educational programs, dual language approaches need a firm footing in educational effectiveness as well as second language learning pedagogy. Thus, overall academic achievement of participating students is relevant along with their second language development, and it has been important to build a literature that demonstrates that academic progress is not impeded (but may in fact be enhanced) by additive bilingualism and other features of a dual language program.

There is considerable evidence that learning through the native language has advantages for language minority students. It facilitates the development of literacy skills in the native language and in English (August & Shanahan, 2006) and it can enhance cognitive and social development (Hakuta, 1986; Cummins, 1995). It allows students to gain important content knowledge that in turn will make instruction in the majority language more comprehensible. Although schools have traditionally viewed the native language of minority students as an obstacle to overcome, findings from schools where an additive approach is taken, where the students’ native languages are highly valued and their knowledge is considered a resource rather than a problem, have demonstrated the benefits of such an approach (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

At the same time, it is important for language majority students to have an opportunity to learn another language. Research has demonstrated that these students, who come to school with proficiency in the majority language of the wider society, benefit from an immersion experience for language learning and do not suffer academically when instruction is provided via a second language, with appropriate supports (Genesee, 1987; Johnson & Swain, 1997; Fortune & Tedick, 2008). Thus, dual language education for academic learning appears to be effective for both minority and majority language speakers.

The dual language approach also incorporates effective language teaching methods. In these classrooms, students learn their second language primarily through content (with support). Teachers shelter content instruction for second language learners, supporting comprehension and incorporating specific strategies to promote language development (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006). They focus on form when appropriate, using meaningful contexts to support language learning and incorporate language objectives into curriculum planning. Evidence from research on various forms of dual language education indicates that second language learning goals are typically met for students in these programs (Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Genesee, 1987; Thomas & Collier, 2002).

Naturally, dual language programs, as with all educational pr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part I Social Contexts in Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning
• Part II Second Language Research Methods
• Part III Second Language Research and Applied Linguistics
• Part IV Research in Second Language Processes and Development
• Part V Methods and Instruction in Second Language Teaching
• Part VI Second Language Assessment
• Part VII Ideology, Identity, Culture, and Critical Pedagogy in Second Language Teaching and Learning
• Part VIII Language Planning and Policy
• List of Contributors
• Index