DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 296 582 FL 017 462

AUTHOR Garcia, Eugene E.TITLE Effective Schooling for Language Minority Students.

New Focus, NCBE Occasional Papers in BilingualEducation, No. 1.

INSTITUTION National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,Wheaton, MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Bilingual Education and Minority LanguagesAffairs (ED), Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 87CONTRACT 300860069NOTE 13p.PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *English (Second Language); *Institutional

Characteristics; *Instructional Effectiveness;Language Skills; *Limited English Speaking; LiteracyEducation; Minority Groups; Oral Language; *ProgramDesign; Program Effectiveness; *School Effectiveness;Student Needs

ABSTRACTLanguage minority students can be served effectively

by schools that are organized to develop educational structures andprocesses that take into consideration both the broader attributes ofeffective schooling practices and the specific attributes relevant tolanguage minority students. Effective classrooms exemplifyinstructional strategies that build on socialization factors in thepopulation. In some cases, this instruction is characterized bystudent-to-student communication about academic material, building onculturally relevant interaction strategies and promoting higher-orderlinguistic and cognitive functioning. Specific effective programsreviewed in this paper include three Phonenix, Arizona elementaryschool curricula and the J. Calvin Lauderbach School program in ChulaVista, California. A serious body of literature addressinginstructional practices, organization, and effects is emerging.(MSE)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

ta-' rrtm

NEW

ifFOCUSthe national clearinghouse for bilingual education

Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education

Number 1

Winter 1987/1988

Effective Schooling for Language Minority Students"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

6A/Letb2

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

INTRODUCTION

Eugene E. GarciaUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Educational programs for language minoritystudents have taken on various forms (see Ovandoand Collier, 1985, and Ramirez, 1985, for detaileddescriptions). Findings from evaluations oflanguage minority education programs suggest that,at the program level, conclusions regardingspecific effectiveness of program type remaindifficult to draw (see Troike, 1981; Baker andDeKanter, 1983; Willig, 1985; and Hakuta andGould, 1987, for comprehensive reviews of languageminority program evaluation). Rather thanemphasizing differences in the effects of variousprograms the following discussion identifiesprogram and instructional characteristics ofeducation programs serving language minority stu-dents.

CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

A considerable body of data on effectiveschool practices has accumulated in the last 20years. Purkey and Smith (1985) reviewed these dataand identified the following five characteristicsof effective schools:

Administrative leadershipEffective principals are actively engaged incurriculum planning, staff development, andinstructional issues.

Teacher expectationsTeachers maintain high achievement ex-pectations for all students.

Emphasis on basic skillsThere is a deliberate focus on reading, writ-

math, and language arts.

2

U DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOffice o EducattOnal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Th,s docoment has been reproduced asrece ied from the POMO', or ganaaboononcanabno it

C Minor changes have been made to improveraprOduCbOn Oualory

Points of vie* or OpiniOnS Stated in thiS dOCU-ment do not necessarily .epresent of c alOERI position or policy

School climateAn orderly, safe environment conducive toteaching and learning is maintained.

Regular FeedbackContinual feedback on academic progress isprovided to students and parents.

Edmunds (1979) contributed to the emergingpicture of effective schools, particularly withregard to minority students. He identified organ-izational and structural characteristics whichfacilitate the development of effective schools.These organizational and structural character-istics include:

School site managementSchool leadership and staff have considerab:eautonomy in determining the exact means bywhich they address the problem of increasingacademic performance;

Instructional leadershipThe principal initiates and maintains proce-dures for improving achievement;

Curriculum planning and organizationin elementary schools, the curriculum has aclear .focus on the acquisition of basicskills. Instruction takes into considerationstudents' linguistic and cultural attributesacross grade levels and throughout the entirecurriculum;

Stall' developmentThis activity is essential to change andconsists of a school-wide program closelyrelated to the instructional program. Thisactivity is crucial in schools serving Ianguage minority students;

Parent support and involvemertThese are essential factors in the success ofany educational program for language minoritystudents;

School-wide recognition of academic successThis feature is reflected in the school'sactivities; and

District supportSupport is fundamental to change and to themaintenance of effective schools.

Edmunds (1979) also identified fourcharacteristics which act to sustain a productiveschool climate:

Collaborative planning and collegial rela-tionshipsTeachers and administrators work together inattempts to implement change;

A sense of communityA feeling of belonging contributes to reducedalienation and increased student achievement;

Clear goals and high expectationsThese are commonly shared. A focus on thosetasks that are deemed most important allowsthe school to direct its resources and shapeits functioning toward the realization ofthese goals; and

Order and disciplineThis characteristic helps to maintain theseriousness and purpose with which the schoolapproaches its task.

Carter and Chatfield (1986) report on similarcharacteristics in effective bilingual elementaryschools serving Mexican-American students in Cali-fornia. Their analyses suggest that processes,rather than structures or pedagogy, administrativearrangements, or classroom organization, are mostclosely linked to effectiveness. Carter andChatfield found effective schools for languageminority students to be characterized as follows:

2

A well-functioning total system producing asocial clima'e in the school which promotespositive outcomes.

Specific characteristics crucial to thedevelopment of effectiveness and thus to apositive school social climate, such as:

- A safe and orderly school environment;

Positive leadership, usually from theformal leaders (administrators, princi-pals, curriculum specialists); and

Common agreement on a strong academicorientation which includes:

Clearly-stated academic goals,objectives, and plans; and

Well-functioning methods to monitorschool input and student outcomes.

A positive school social climate which in-cludes:

High staff expectations for the childrenand the instructional program;

A strong demand far academic perform-ance;

Denial of the argument that the childrenare culturally deprived; and

High staff morale, consisting of:

Strong internal support;

Consensus building;

Job satisfaction;

Sense of personal efficacy;

Sense that the system works;

Sense of ownership;

Well-defined roles and responsi-bilities; and

Belief and practice that resourcesare best expended on people ratherthan on educational software andhardware (Carter and Chatfield,1986).

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF LANGUAGEMINORITY STUDENTS

Instructional Assumptions

Empirical and theoretical research related tolanguage minority education and specific educa-tional initiatives have generated a number ofgeneral assumptions whict have guided programdevelopment and implementation. Among these arc:

3

1. Students who are less than fully proficientin the language used in school will havedifficulty deriving academic benefit fromtheir educational experience, since theinability to understand the language in whichinstruction is given interferes withcomprehension of the content of thatinstruction;

2. It takes limited - English - proficient (LEP)students time to acquire the level ofproficiency in English needed to participateeffectively in all-English classes. Duringthe time required to learn English, they willget little out of [heir school experience ifthey are instructed exclusively through thatlanguage;

3. Instruction in the native language of LEPstudents allows them to participate in schooland to acquire the skills and knowledgecovered in the curriculum while also learningEnglish. In addition it allows students tomake use of the skills, knowledge andexperience they already have and to build onthose assets in school;

4. Knowledge and skills are most easily acquiredby LEP students in their native language, butcomputational skills and many literacy skillsacquired in the native language can be trans-ferred to the new language once it ismastered. Hence, time spent learning in thenative language is not time that is lost withrespect to the subject matter covered inschool;

5. Students need adequate exposure to thelanguage of school in order to acquire it asa second language. This exposure to Englishis best when it takes place in settings inwhich language use is geared to the learners'special linguistic needs. Subject matterinstruction given in English can provide theexposure that LEP students need, as long asit is appropriately tailored for them.Subject matter instruction in the schoollanguage is an essential component ofbilingual education;

6. Formal instruction in English as a sec adlanguage (ESL) can help students beginlearning the language. ESL instruction,whether formal or informal, is an integralpart of all American bilingual educationprograms; and

4

7. Children, including thr,se served by bilingualprograms, have the best chance of realizingtheir full academic potential when theirlanguage skills, social and cultural experi-ence, and knowledge of the world are affirmedin school; these are the foundations ofacademic development (Wong-iillmore andValadez, 1985).

ESL and immersion programs have been particu-larly influenced by recent theoretical develop-ments regarding second language instruction(Krashen, 1982; Chamot & O'Malley, 1986). Thesedevelopments have suggested that effective secondlanguage learning is best accomplished underconditions which simulate natural communicationand which minimize the formal instruction oflinguistic structures (e.g., memorization drills,learning grammatical rules, etc.). AlthoLgh ESLprograms continue to involve "pull -out" sessionsin which students are removed from the regularclassroom to spend time on concentrated languagelearning activities with specially trainededucational staff, the recent theoretical andpractical comensus is that such language learningexperiences should be communicative and centeredaround academic content areas (Chamot & O'Malley,1986).

Comprehensible Input

In immersion programs all the instruction isin English; however, the English utilized by theinstructional staff is directly monitored so as tomaximize the understanding of the non-English-speaking student. In doing so, the intent ofthis English "leveling" is to ensure the use ofEnglish by the instructional staff in authenticinstructional situations while at the same timeemphasizing communicative understanding. Thispractice rests on Krashen's (1982) hypothesis thatsecond language learning is positively related tolinguistic exposure in the target language that isjust beyond the learner's level of comprehension.The degree to which the student comprehends orunderstands linguistic input (the level of "com-prehensibility") determines the rate at which he/she rill acquire the language. Certain attributesof the learner such as anxiety level, motivationto learn and degree of self-confidence mayinfluence his/her degree of understanding.

Social and Cognitive Factors

Other theoretical and empirical researchregarding the social and cognitive influences onsecond language learning are relevant to ESL andimmersion programs. Schumann (1976) found thatchildren are more motivated to learn a second

3

language if they do not perceive this learningprocess as alienation from their own culture. Ifa child belongs to a family which attempts topreserve the native language and culture at home,the child may be less motivated to acquire thesecond language. There may be less impetus for acultural group to assimilate or acculturate ifthat group has its own community in the 'foreigncountry' or if the gaup has lived residence inthe foreign country for only a short time.

Not only is the individual's attitude towardthe target culture important, but also therelationship between the two cultures influencessecond language acquisition. Sclumann (1976)hypothesized that the greater the social distancebetween the cultures, the greater the difficultythe second ianguage learner will have in learn-ing the target language. Conversely, the smallerthe social distance, the bettcr the language-learning situation will be.

Individual Differences

A child motivated to learn a second languagestill needs certain social skills to facilitatehis or her ability to establish and maintaincontact with speakers of the target language.Wong-Fillmore (1976) and Wong-Fillmore, et al.,(1985) suggest that individual differences in thesocial interaction skills of the child influencethe rate of second language acquisition. Secondlanguage learners who seem most successful employspecific social interaction strategies, such asthe following:

1. They tend to join a group and act as if theyunderstand what's go;ng on even if they donot. Learners initiate interactions andpretend to know what is happening. As aresult, they have a better chance of beingincluded in conversations and activities.

2. They give the impression with a few well-chosen words that they can speak thelanguage. They are willing to use whateverlanguage they have, and, as a result, inviteothers to keep trying to communicate withthem.

3. They rely on their friends for help. Theacquisition of language depends on the parti-cipation of both the learner and someone whoalready speaks the language, in this case, afriend. Children's friends help in severalways. They show faith in the learner'sability to learn the language, and byincluding the learner in their activitiesthey make a real effort to understand what

4

the learner is saying. They also providethe learner with natural linguistic inputthat he or she can understand.

Seliger (1977) has 4emonstrated that the mostsuccessful second language (L2) learners are thosewho place themselves in situations in which theyare exposed to the target language and are willingto use it for communication. These learnersreceive the necessary input as well as theopportunity for practice. With an emphasis oncognitive (thinking) skills related to secondlanguage acquisition, Seliger (1984) andMcLaughlin (1985) have proposed tv, differenttypes of processes related to second languagelearning. One such process calls for the learnerto formulate hypotheses and revise thosehypotheses on the basis of language-specificcognitive 'strategies.' McLaughlin (1984) consid-ers these strategies universal and likely based oninnate language-specific cognitive mechanisms(McLaughlin, 1984). These processes include suchstrategies as over-generalization, simplification,and hypothesis testing. A second type of processassists learners in meeting the specific demandsof a particular communication situation. Thesetactics are chosen deliberately to overcometemporary and immediate obstacles to learning atask. Second language learners may choose tolearn the grammar, seek out native speakers,memorize vocabulary items, etc. (Seliger, 1984).In each case, strategies and tactics are viewed ascognitive mechanisms which assist the learner inthe acquisition of the second language. Same-agepeers have been particularly identified as impor-tant in assuring English development in schoolingcontexts.

Hakuta (1986) likens second language learningto a problem-solving task. The learner will usenumerous strategies, hunches, hypotheses, andrelated cognitive devices to solve the problem.This might include such symbolic devices as therepresentation of knowledge, organization and theutilization of such knowledge under differentcircumstances to achieve different goals. Signif-icantly, according to Hakuta (1986) and Hude !son(1987), the learner can transfer all the cognitiveknowledge related to the first language (L1) tosolving his second language (L2) learning"problem." The learner, having determined thatlanguage is symbolic, that it is made up ofphonology, morphology, and syntax, that it must becommunicative, and that it must be structuredaround certain discourse rules, can rely on suchinformation and related cognitive mechanisms forsuccessfully addressing second language learning.In addition, instructional staff can assist secondlanguage learning by focusing on children's

5

overall second language learning strategies and bynot concentrating on the development of specificlinguistic skills.

From the above review of second languageacquisition theory and research, second languagelearning seems most effective under Instructionalconditions which:

Emphasize authentic communicative learningsituations;

Take into consideration the "comprehensibil-ity" of English interaction;

Minimize anxiety and frustration and allowsecond language learners to take risks;

Minimize linguistic and cultural segregationof second language learners; and

Maximize the utilization of basic cognitivemechanisms.

Unfortunately, no large-scale body ofresearch is presently available regarding effec-tive instruction in ESL or immersion programs.Baker and deKanter (1983), Willig (1985), Rosselland Ross (1986), Hakuta and Gould (1987), andHudelson (1987) have each discussed the. effective-ness of native language instruction versus ESLand/or immersion. Ramirez (1986) reports prelim-inary data from a national study which attempts tocompare the instructional effectiveness of thesediverse programs. These authors differ signifi-cantly regarding their recommendations topractitioners, however, all agree that presentresearch and evaluation studies containsignificant methodological flaws.

The intent of the present discussion is notto suggest that a "best" instructional strategynow exists for the effective schooling of languageminority students. Rather, the aim is to reviewrecent findings which have specifically reportedeffective instructional strategies. Such findingshave been reported primarily for Hispanic languageminority students who are receiving native lan-guage instruction. The absence of similar reportsfor other groups of language minority students,and the absence of such data for ESL and immersionprograms, underscores the need for such informa-tion but also limits the discussion of effectiveinstructional characteristics in such programs.This limitation does not imp!), that suchapproaches are ineffective, only that the informa-tion is unavailable. However, as Ramirez (1986)and Hakuta and Gould (1987) indicate, data fromnational comparative alternative , rograms (partic-

6

ularly native language programs and immersionprograms) for language minority students should beavailable in the near future.

SPECIFIC EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONALPROGRAMS

Specific programs which have effectivelyserved language minority populations have recentlybeen identified. Scho!ars have sought outeffective programs and/or schools and attempted todescribe their organizational and instructionalcharacter (Tikunofi, 1983; Carter & Chatfield,1986). The following discussion identifies twosuch schools which have been the focus of theserecent efforts.

Phoenix, Arizona Schools

In a project conducted at Arizona StateUniversity and funded by the Inter-UniversityProgram for Latino Research and the Social ScienceResearch Council, this author has conducted a twoyear investigation of the attributes of effectiveschools serving Hispanic language minoritystudents. This research focused on academiclearning. The primary goal of the project was todetermine the organizational, instructional, andsocial characteristics of "effective' schools,their classrooms, and their professional person-nel. The research was conducted by an interdisci-plinary research team utilizing a variety ofanalytical techniques to provide a broad ("macro')analysis of the schooling environment and afocused ("micro") analysis of instruction. Theresearch was conducted in collaboration with thePhoenix Elementary School, the Glendale ElementarySchool, and the Chandler Unified School District.

Approach

Characteristics identified by Purkey andSmith (198Z) and Carter and Chatfield (1986)associated with effective schools were assessedover a period of two years. This assessmentincluded a series of interviews as well as anethnographic description of the schoolingenvironment and the surrounding community.Interviews were conducted and the ethnographicdata were collected systematically during thestudy period in an effort to develop a two-yearcomprehensive "picture" of effective schoolingprocesses.

Activities of students in instructionalschool situations as well as in home and communitycontexts were systematically sampled over the two-year period. The activities sampled were:

5

Instructional processes in literacy and math;

Parental attitudes related to educationalmaterials and educational asc;stance providedto students;

Teacher and principal attitudes;

Student performance on standardized language,cognitive, and metacognitive measures; and

Academic ach:evement.

Research Site and Population Studied

The research s..es in this study included atotal of seven classrooms (Grades K-6) in threePnoenix area elementary schools which had beennominated by local educators as effective schools,and Whose students were achieving at o- abovegrade level on standardized measures of academicachievement. Classrooms selected to take part inthe study included students from Spanish andbilingual language instruction classrooms.

Results

Thefollowing:

results of the study indicate the

"Macro" Description of Community, Schools.and ClassroomsResults of this aspect of the study indicateseveral "types" of classrooms. each withindividual linguistic and organiza Iona',characteristics. These classrooms shareseveral significant characteristics, however.In each classroom the key emphasis was onensuring functional communication betweenteacher and students and between students andother students. The classrooms werecharacterized by an integrated curriculumemphasizing thematic organiza ion ofinstructional objectives and by: (1) studentcollaboration in almost all academicactivity, (2) minimal individualized worktasks, and (3) a highly informal, almostfamilial, social and collaborative relation-ship between teachers and students.

Instructional DiscourseAnalyses of audio/video taped classroom"instruction' during literacy ant mathlessons wcrc conducted biweekly. Results ofthese analyses indicated that for literacyinstruction teachers organized theirclassrooms in a manner which led students tointeract with each otner regarding theinstructional topic. Discourse characterized

6

by higher order cognitive and linguisticfeatures was observed during these student-student discussions (which occurred over 50percent of the time). The data alsoindicated a trend toward greater Englishlanguage use as the children advanced throughthe grades. Self-transitioning strategieswere observed in student-teacher and student-to-student dialogue journals.

Literacy DevelopmentLiteracy in grades K-6 was ar.alyzed usingdaily dialogue journal entries, which allowedstudents to "discuss" topics of their choicewith teachers on a daily basis. Results ofthese analyses indicate that: (1) writing intle native language progressed systematicallyin the early grades; (2) writing in thesecond language 'emerged" at or above thelevel observed in the first language; (3)gene: ally, a high degree of conventionalspelling was observed at early grades (evenwhen spelling was not an independent "target"in these classrooms); and (4) thequantitative and qualitative character ofstudent journal entries was directly relatedto the cognitive and linguistic nature of theteacher's responses (Garcia and Barry, 1981).

Academic and Cognitive AchievementSeveral cognitive and ar...demic achievementmeasures were adm'Astered to students.Teachers were als,: asked to rate studentacademic success. Results indicate that: (1)teachers at early grades did not assessacademic achievement (as measured by academicachievement tests) as proficiently asteachers in later grades; (2) averageacademic achievement in reading and math forstudents in these classrooms was at or abovegrade level; (3) students scored higher onmath than on reading; and (4) there was apositive predictive relationship between thecognitive measures and the math academicachievement measures as well as betweenSpanish language proficiency and Englishreading achievement.

Professiona: Staff, Parental, and StudentPerspectivesInterviews with classroom teachers, schoolsite principals, parents, and students wereconducted to determine their perspectives androles regarding educ lion.

7

Classroom TeachersClassroom teachers who, on average, had6.7 years of teaching experience werehighly committed to the educational

vrrrrxrrrrxx

er:;::::trYMIIME1111111:;:r.41

success of all their students. Theyperceived themselves as instructionalinnovators utilizing new psychologicaland social theories to guide theirinstructional approaches. All werehighly articulate regarding theory-to-practice issues. They continued to beinvolved in professional developmentactivities including participation insmall-group teacher networking, and hadE strong and evidenced commitment tostudent-home communication. Three ofthese teachers had developed a weeklymechanism for formally communicatingabout student progress with parents.Each teacher also felt he/she had theautonomy to create and/or change thecurriculum implemented in the classroomseven if this activity did not meet withguidelines established by local or stateeducational agencies.

School PrincipalsPrincipals, who, in this study, averaged11.7 years of administrative experiencewere highly articulate regarding thecurriculum and instructional strategiesundertaken in their classrooms. Theywere hig!ly supportive of theirinstructional staff, and recognized theimportance of teacher autonomy whilealso recognizing the pressures toconform to district policies regardingthe "standardization" of the curriculumand the need for academic accountabi::ty.

ParentsParents, who, in this study averaged 7.1years of schooling expressed a highlevel of satisfaction with theeducational experience of theirstudents. They actively supported theeducational endeavors of their childrenby assisting them with homework,purchasing reading materials. etc., andstrongly encouraging their children tosucceed academically, viewing thissuccess as a pathway to their children'seconomic betterment. The supportstrategies used by non-literate parentswere particularly interest:ng. Theseparents ensured sibling/pee; assistancefor homework, "read" to young childrenby inventing prose to match storybookpictures, etc.

The general impressions of the investigatorsas they sifted through the data they had collectedand as they interacted personally with the

schools' various constituents were that theseschools indeed served all students well,academically and otherwise. The highestcomplement that can be paid to a school can easilybe directed to those studied in this project: "Iwould want my children to attend this school."

J. Calvin Lauderbach School, Chula Vista, California

Carter and Chatfield (1986) provide one ofthe most detailed descriptions of an effectivelanguage minority school presently available inthe literature. Their work began in 1981 as aCalifornia State Department of Education projectto identify, describe, and disseminate informationrelevant to effective instructional programsthroughout the State of California. In thatproject, the J. Calvin Lauderbach School wasidentified, and descriptive research has beenongoing over the last five years. Lauderbachschool is located in Chula Vista, ."?..alifornia, amiddle-sized city south of San Diego and minutesnorth of the Mexican-U.S. border. Of the 600children that attend the school, half areHispanic, one-third are native English-speaking,and the remainder are Black, Filipino, Laotian,Japanese, or Guamanian. Almost all the Hispanicstudents have Spanish as their home language andover 50 percent are identified as LEP by locallanguage-testing criteria.

Lauderbach was considered effective primarilybased on measures of academic achievement whichindicated that the language minority students itserves, most from low socioeconomic levels, wereachieving at rates similar to those of middle-class English proficient students in the school.Specifically, Carter and Chatfield summarize:

The district developed and Lauderbachutilizes a well-developed and quite specificcurriculum continuum; a management systemparallels this continuum. Goals andobjectives are detailed, and grade-levelexpectations are clear. In most curricularareas rich Spanish-language materialssupplement the English continuum. Themanagement system is employed by the schoolto monitor student learning. Additionally,the district administers a carefullyconstructed, curricularly valid proficiencytest at the fifth grade. Lauderbach studentsscored remarkably well on this test lastyear, as they do every year. Seventy-one

:ent of fifth graders passed all foursuotests. This places Lauderbach ninth fromthe top among the 28 district schools. Ifone considers only the EO (English-only) non-special-education children, Lauderbach scoressecond highest in the district with 90

8 7

percent passing all four subtests. Accordingto figures provided by the district,Lauderbach ranks twenty-second among the 28schools in socioeconomic levels, as measuredby the California Assessment Programsocioeconomic status (SES) scale. The schoolis in the lowest fourth of district schoolssocioeconomically but in the top quartile inachievement as measured by districtproficiency tests. Lauderbach children appearto be learning very well those things theyare taught (Carter & Chatfield, 1986, p.209).

Lauderbach school offers a comprehensive,team-taught, K-6 bilingual education program.Approximately 70 percent of the students in theschool participate in this program, with one-thirdof these students being non-Hispanic.Collaborative teaching between a Spanish teacherand an English teacher ensures the integration ofinstructional responsibilities, planning, andcurriculum implementation of both Spanish andEnglish instruction. The program receives thestrong support of all the school staff and ishighly regarded in the community. For each non-Spanish-speaking LEP student an individuallearning plan is developed. As in the bilingualprogram, each student's native language isutilized to assist in the development of conceptsand of English skills. This process is usuallyfacilitated by teacher aides who are nativespeakers of a variety of languages. Of particularsignificance is the presence of administrativeleadership and staff-wide concern for continualschool improvement.

At present, it is difficult to identify allthe significant variables that promote "effective"instruction for language minority students. Moredata are becoming available, particularly in thearea of language and literacy development (Thonis,1983; Wong-Fillmore and Valadez, 1985; Edelsky,1986; Garcia and Flores, 1986; Hudelson, 1987).Unfortunately, most data are concentrated at theearly grade levels and rarely address issuesrelevant to content-area instruction. A recentreport (Krashen and Biber, 1988) does, however,report content area academic success for fivebilingual education schools in California.

EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FORORAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Wong-Fillmore, Ammon, McLaughlin, and Ammon(1985) provide a detailed analysis regarding theeffects of classroom practices on the developmentof oral English in Hispanic and Chinese backgroundlanguage minority students in grades three and

8

five. These students were in classrooms whichutilized either the native language and English orEnglish-only during instruction. Specific mea-sures of oral English language prodnction and com-prehension were obtained over a one-year period.In addition, classroom observations documented thecharacteristics of teacher-student interaction,student-student interaction, and the organi-zational features of instruction. A companionstudy directly evaluated the effects of classroompractices on those stude.ts who had minimal (0-1years) exposure to English.

These authors report a series of potentiallysignificant observations:

1. Instructional practices which promoted oralEnglish language development related directlyto students' initial level of oral Englishproficiency. Less proficient speakers ofEnglish benefited more from high levels ofteacher and peer interaction; and

2. The instructional variables related toenhanced English development were differentfor Hispanic than for Chinese backgroundstudents. Chinese students seemed to co -vestin classrooms in which the instructionalstyle was characterized by teacher-directedinstruction. Hispanic students, on the otherhand, demonstrated enhanced English orallanguage development under classroomconditions in which there were more oppor-tunities to interact with English-speakingpeers exist.

In addition, these researchers reported thatthe developz,ent of English production andcomprehension was related to several attributes ofstudent-teacher interaction. Teachers whomodified their linguistic intcraction based onstudent feedback were more likely to produceEnglish language gains in students. Suchadjustments included simplification of syntax,less rapid speech, and repetition. Allowing andencouraging student participation and callingattention to the structure of language while usingit were additional enhancing characteristics thatteachers employed.

In recent research which focused on Mexican-American elementary school children, Garcia (1987)reported several findings related to instructionalstrategies utilized in "effective" schools. Theseschools were nominated by local public schoollanguage minority educators and had studentsscoring at or above the national average onSpanish and/or English standardized measures of

9

-xwmvvtimmommimm..,;;m6::v

academic achievement. Garcia's researchcharacterized instruction in the effectiveclassrooms as follows:

1. Students were instructcd primarily in smallgroups and talk about academics was en-couraged b tween students throughc it the day.Teachers rarely utilized large group instruc-tion or riore individualized instructionalactivities , i.e., mimeographed worksheets).The most common activity across classesinvolved small groups of students working onassigned academic tasks with intermittentassistance from the teacher;

2. The teacher tended to provide aninstructional initiation often reported inthe literature (Mehan, 1979; Moi ine-Dershimer, 1985). Teachers elicited studentresponses but did so at levels the studentscould easily comprehend; and

3. Once a lesson elicitation occurred, studentswere allowed to take control of the discourseby inviting fellow student interaction. Thisinteraction took place using more complexlanguage and thinking skills.

Teachers in the Garcia study fulfilledgeneral expectations reported by Mehan (1979) forregular classroom teachers and by Ramirez (1986)for language minority teachers. Teachers did notinvite instructional interaction in other than themost communicatively simple mode (factual andtruncated "answer giving"). This style ofinstructional discourse may be problematic forlanguage minority students because it does notchallenge them to utilize either their native orsecond language to express complex languagefunctions which reflect higher-order cognitiveprocesses.

However, teachers were clearly allowing stu-dent-to-student interaction in the child-replycomponent of the instructional discourse segment.Teachers encouraged and engineered general studentparticipation once the instructional peer inter-action was set in motion. Garcia (1983) suggeststhat such student-to-student interaction discoursebirategies are important tu enhanced linguisticdevelopment. Wong-Fillmowe and Valadez (1985)report that peer interaction was particularlysignificant for enhancing second language oralacquisition in Hispanic children. Moreover,McClintock (1983) and Kagan (1983) have suggestedthat schooling practices which focus on collabora-tive child-child instructional strategies are inline with developed social motives in Mexican-American families.

The Garcia study, much like the SignificantBilingual Instructional Features Study (Tikunoff,1983), strongly suggests that teachers can play asignificant role in English language developmentfor language minority students. Moreover, thisstudy identifies the potential importance of peerinteraction to enhance English languageacquisition.

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT FOR LANGUAGEMINORITY STUDENTS

Literacy developmentoral language proficiency.Valadez (1985) summarizedliteracy instruction forstudents and concluded that:

is directly related toWong-l-iilmore and

empirical research onlanguage minority

1. LEP students can acquire decoding skillsrelatively easily even when they do not speakEnglish. However, they have considerablygreater difficulty making sense of the mater-ials they read;

2. Initial reading instruction in L1 affectslater success in L2 reading. The ability toread L1, once acquired, transfers to L2; and

3. Efforts to develop L2 literacy without orallanguage instruction in L, are unlikely tosucceed. Students instructed in literacyskills in L1 may take longer to acquire L2literacy, but they tend to make greater gainsover time.

Similarly, Goodman, Goodman and Flores(1979), after a review of their own work withPapago and Spanish native-language students, con-cluded:

In our experience we've found that ifbilingual speakers are literate in anotherlanguage, their development of literacy inEnglish will be easier than for people notliterate in any language; and f'irther, theircontrol of English will bi. speeded as aresult of their rapid progress in becomingliterate in English. All this assumes thatoral and written English are equally neededand functional and that the opportunity touse both is present (Goodman, et al., 1979,p.22).

A more recent overview of literacydevelopment data gathered from several sites inthe United States (Hudelson, 1987) specificallysupports this conclusion.

10 9

CONCLUSION

It seems clear that language minority stu-dents can be served effectively by schools. Theycan be served by schools which are organized todevelop educational structures and processes thattake into consideration both the broader attri-butes of effective schooling practices and thespecific attributes relevant to language minoritystudents (Tikunoff, 1983; Carter and Chatfield,1986; and Garcia, 1987). Effective classroomsexemplify instructional strategies which seem tobui:d on socialization factors relevant to thestudent population. Effective instructt'n ischaracterized, for some :tudents--Hispanics, inparticular--by student-to-student communicationabout academic material. Such communicationbuilds on culturally relevant interactionstrategies. It allows students to engage ininstructional interactions that promote higher-order linguistic and cognitive functioning.

Although language minority education is in adevelopmental period and in need of furtherclarifying research, it is clearly not in itsinfancy. A serious body of literature addressinginstructional practices, organization, and theireffects is emerging. The challenge for theclassroom teacher, administrator, and policymakeris to consider this literature and to criticallyevaluate its implications for the classroom.

REFERENCES

Baker, K.. and De Kanter, A.A. (1983). An answer from research onbilingual education. American Education, 40-48.

California State Department of Education (1984). Studies on immer-sion education. Sacramento, CA: California State Department ofEducation.

Caner, T.P., and Chatfield, M.L. (1986). Effective bilingualschools: Implications for policy and practice. American JournalofEaucation, 95(1), 200-234.

Chamot, A.U. and O'Malley, J.M. (1986). A cognitive academiclanguage learning approach: An ESL content-based curriculum.Wheaton. Maryland: National Clearinghouse for BilingualEducation.

Cummins, J. (1981). The rolc of pnmary language development inpromoting educational success for language minonty studcntsIn California State Department of Education (Ed.) Schooling andlanguage minority studcnts: A theoretical framework. LosAngeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Ccntcr, 3-S0.

Development Associates (1984). Final report: Descripuve studyphase of the national longitudinal evaluation of theeffectiveness of services for language minority limited-English-proficient students. Arlington, VA.

10

Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Nable unavez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Edmunds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Eauca-:lona! Leadership ", 57-62.

Garcia, E. (1983). Bilingualism in early childhood. Albuquerque,NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Garcia, E. (1986). Bilingual development and the education ofbilingual children dunng early childhood. American Journal ofEducation, 95(1), 96-121.

Garcia, E. (1987). Instructional discourse in effective Hispanicclarrrooms. Working Paper #3, Bilingual/Bicultural EducationCenter, Arizona State University.

Garcia, E. and Berry, C. (1988). The effect of teacher reactionon stadents' interactive journal responses. Paper to bepresented at the annual meeting of the American EducationResearch Association. New Orleans, LA: April 5-9, 1988.

Garcia, E. and Flores, B. (1986). Language and learning in bi-lingual education. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

Goodman, K., Goodman, Y., and Flores, B. (1979). Reading in thebilingual classroom. Wheaton, MD: National Clearinghouse forBilingual Education.

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingual-um. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Hakuta, K., and Gould, Li. (1987). Synthesis of research on bi-lir.gual education. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 39-45.

Halcon, J. (1981). Features of federal bilingual programs. NABEJournal, 6(1), 27-39.

Hudelson, S. (1987). The rolc of native language literacy in theeducation of language minority children. Language An; 64(8), 827-841.

Johnson, D.14. (1988). ESL children as teachers: A socia' viewof second language use. Language Arts, 65 (2), 154-163.

Kagan S. (1983). Social onentation among Mexican - American chil-dren: A challenge to traditional classroom strictures. In E.Garcia (Ed.), The Mexican-American child. Tempe, AZ: ArizonaState University, 162-163.

Krashen, S.B. (1982). Principles and practices in second languageacquisition. Oxford: Pcrgammon Press.

Krashcn, S.B. and fiber, D. (1988) On course: Bilingualeducation's success in California. Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaAssociation for Bilingual Education.

McClintock. E, Bayard, M., and McClintock, C. (1983). Thesocialization of social motives in Mcxican-American familiesIn E. Garcia (Ed.), The Mexican- American child. Tempe, AZ:Arizona State University, 143-162.

McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in childhood.rohinie 1: Preschool children Hillsdale, NI. Lawrence EarlbaumAssocie:cs, Inc.

11

.

Mehan, H. (1979) Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: ii.avard Uni-versity Press.

Morn r-Dershimer, G. (1985). Talking listening and learning inelementary classrooms. New York: Longman.

Ova J, CJ., and Collier, V.P. (1985). Bilingual and ESL classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Purkey, S.C., and Smith, M.S. (1983). Effective schools: Areview. Elementary School Journal, 83, 52-78.

Ramirez, A.G. (1985). Bilingualism through schooling. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

Ramirez, J.D. (1986). Comparing structured English immersion andbilingual education: First-year results of a national study.American Journal of Education, 95(1), 122-148.

Rossell, C. and Ross, J.M. (1986). The social science evidence inbilingual education. Boston: Boston University.

Schumann, J.H. (1976). Affective factors and the problem of agein second language acquisition. Language Learning 25, 209-239.

Scliger, H.W. (1984). Processing universals in second languageacquisition. In Universals of second language acquisiaor., F.R.Eckman, L.H. Bell, and D. Nelson, (Eds.). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse, 161-183.

About the Author

Eugene E. Garcia is currently Professor and Chairof the Education Board at the University of Cali-fornia at Santa Cruz. Dr. Garcia is pr,:,..tmlyconducting research on effective schools for lan-guage minority children, specifically Hispanics.His previous research activities have centered onsecond language learning and acquisition and cog-nitive development. He served as Director of theBilingual-Bicultural Education Center, College ofEducation, at Arizona State University at Tempefrom 1980 to 1987.

Scliger, II.W. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study ofinteractional patterns and second language competence.Language Learning 27 (2), 263-278.

Tikunoff, WJ. (1983). Significant bilingual instructional fea-tures study. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory'.

Thonis, E.W. (1983). The EnglishSpanish connection. Northvale,NJ: Santillana Publishing Co.

Troike, R.C. (1981). Synthesis of research in bilingual education.Educational Leadership, 38, 498-504.

Willig, A. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies oneffectiveness of bilingual education. Review of EducationalResearch, 563, 260-318.

Wong-Fillmore, L (1976). The second time around: Cognitive andsocial strategies in second language acquisition. Ph.D.Dissertation, Stanford University.

Wong-Fillmore L, Ammon, P., McLaughlin, B., and Ammon, M.S.(1985). Final report for learning English through bilingualinstruction. ME Report.

Wong-Fillmore, L, and Valadez, C (1985). Teaching bilinguallearners. In M.0 Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research onteaching, 648-685.

12

This publication was prepared under Contract No.300860069, for the Office of Bilingual Educationand Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA), U.S.Department of Education. The contents of thispublication do not necessarily reflect the viewsor policies of the Department of Education, nordoes mention of trade names, commercial products,or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.Government.

Enrique M. Cubillos, Director

Shelley P. Gutstein, Publications Coordinator

Lorraine Valdez Pierce, Series Editor

11

Are You Familiar with NCBE Services?

The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) responds to yourquestions related to the education of limited-English-proficient (LEP)populations through:

Information Services

NCBE provides information to practitioners in the field about curriculummaterials, program models, methodologies and research findin, ; on theeducation of limited-English-proficient persons. We continually collect andreview materials on bilingual education, English as a second language, refugeeeducation, vocational education, educational technology and related areas.

Electronic Information System

NCBE offers electronic access to its information system at no cost. Users areable to search a database of information containing curriculum materials andliterature related to the education of limited-English-proficient students.An electronic bulletin board, which contains news from federal, state andlocal education agencies, conference announcements and other currentinformation, is also available.

Publications

NCBE develops and publishes three types of publications: a bimonthly news-letter, occasional papers, and program information guides. Ail publicationsfocus on significant issues related to the education of LEP students.

Contact Us

Contact NCI:52 by telephone, weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (EST).

Outside Maryland call: (800) 647-0123.

In Maryland call: (301) 933-9448.

If you prefer to contact us by mail, our address is:

the notional clearingnou e bilingual education11501 C-:eorgia Avenue, Wheaton. Maryland 20902

800.047-0123 (301) 933.9448

13