Two Models for Teaching ESL Developmental Readers in College: A Question of Effectiveness

Article Sidebar

cover image
PDF
Published: Oct 31, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434//josotl.v16i5.20022
Keywords:
sheltered instruction, mainstreaming, ESL reading, ESL accommodation, college ESL instruction

Main Article Content

Natalia Knoblock
Saginaw Valley State University
Judy Youngquist

Abstract

Finding an effective instruction mode for ESL students in the US educational system has not been an easy task. The country’s secondary and tertiary institutions continue to struggle to meet the needs of their large non-native student populations. The article revisits the debate whether sheltered instruction is an effective model to follow. In our study, a sheltered section of a college-level reading class was more effective in improving students’ reading abilities compared to mainstream sections where the international students were mixed with native speakers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Knoblock, N., & Youngquist, J. (2016). Two Models for Teaching ESL Developmental Readers in College: A Question of Effectiveness. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(5), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.14434//josotl.v16i5.20022
Issue
Vol. 16 No. 5 (2016): Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

References

Abadiano, H.R., & Turner, J. (2002). Sheltered instruction: An empowerment framework for English language learners. The New England Reading Association journal, 38(3), 50-55.

Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1988). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension", in Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. & Eskey, D.E. (Eds.) Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 37-55.

Blackwell, J.R. (2013). Teaching strategies and practices that impact English language learners’ vocabulary and language proficiency in reading. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (Order No. 3556978).

Braine, G. (1996). ESL students in first-year writing courses: ESL versus mainstream classes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 91-107.

Bunch, G. C., Abram, P. L., Lotan, R. A., & Valdés, G. (2001). Beyond sheltered instruction: Rethinking conditions for academic language development. TESOL Journal, 10(2‐3), 28-33.

Burger, S., & Chretien, M. (2001). The Development of Oral Production in Content-based Second Language Courses at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 84-102.

Burger, S., Weinberg, A., & Wesche, M. (2013). Immersion studies at the University of Ottawa: From the 1980s to the present. OLBI Working Papers, 6, 21-43.

Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 32(1), 84-117.

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 461-481.

Collier, V. P., &Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students 5, 26-38.

Cook, G. (1997) Key concepts in ELT: Schemas. ELT Journal, 51(1), 86.

Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly 14, 175-187.

Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics 11, 132-149.

Cummins, J., and Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. Longman, New York.

Curtin, E. (2005). Teaching practices for ESL students. Multicultural Education, 12(3), 22-27.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 136-141.

De Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166-178.

Doherty, R. W., & Hilberg, R. S. (2007). Standards for effective pedagogy, classroom organization, English proficiency, and student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 24 –34.

Driscoll, R. K. (2011). How sheltered instruction affects the academic achievement of low income, special education, English language learners at the secondary level. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from http://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession2010-03MEd/2011/Driscoll_Ron_MEd_2011.pdf

Dueñas, M. (2003). A description of prototype models for content-based language instruction in higher education. Bells: Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, 12. Retrieved from http://www.publicacions.ub.edu/revistes/bells12/articulos.asp?codart=33

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-211.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Edwards, H., Wesche, M., Krashen, S., Clement, R., and Kruidenier, B. (1984). Second language acquisition through subject-matter learning: A study of sheltered psychology classes at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 268-282.

Eggington, K. J., Eggington, W. G., & Zeichner, K. (2010). Teacher research used to evaluate sheltered instruction in a science classroom setting. Electronic Journal of Literacy through Science, 9, 1-24.

Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 232-249.

Faltis, C. J. (1993). Critical issues in the use of sheltered content teaching in high school bilingual programs. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(1), 136-151.

Fillmore, L.W., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Special report from ERIC Clearinghouse on languages and linguistics.

Flores, E., Painter, G., Harlow-Nash, Z., & Pachon, H. (2009). Que pasa?: Are English language learning students remaining in English learning classes too long? Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506966.pdf

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1988). Sheltered English instruction. ERIC Digest ED301070. Retrieved from http://thememoryhole.org/edu/eric/ed301070.html

Friedenberg, J. E. (2002). The linguistic inaccessibility of US higher education and the inherent inequity of US IEPs: An argument for multilingual higher education. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 309-326.

Friedenberg, J. E., & Schneider, M. A. (2008). An experiment in sheltered sociology at the university level. In Wilkinson, R. & Zegers, V., Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (155-168). Maastricht: Maastricht University.

Gaffield-Vile, N. (1996). Content-based second language instruction at the tertiary level. ELT Journal, 50(2), 108-114.

Galloway, E. P., & Lesaux, N. (2015). Reading comprehension skill development and instruction for adolescent English language learners: A focus on academic vocabulary instruction. In Santi, K. L., Reed, D. K. (Eds.), Improving Reading Comprehension of Middle and High School Students (pp. 153-178). New York: Springer Publishing.

Garza, A. V., & Crawford, L. (2005). Hegemonic multiculturalism: English immersion, ideology, and subtractive schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 599-619.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children 66(4):454-470.

Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know--and don't yet know--about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4-11.

Guarino, A.J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J.E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The sheltered instruction observation protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11 (1), 138140.

Gutierrez, K. D., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Asato, J. (2000). “English for the children”: The new literacy of the old world order, language policy and educational reform. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1-2), 87-112.

Hakuta, K., & August, D. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered instruction: Best practices for ELLS in the mainstream. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 165-169.

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241-272.

Hauptman, P. C., Wesche, M. B., & Ready, D. (1988). Second‐Language acquisition through subject‐matter learning: A follow‐up study at the University of Ottawa. Language Learning, 38(3), 433-475.

Hirsch, L. (1996). Mainstreaming ESL students: A counterintuitive perspective. College ESL, 6(2), 12-26.

Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge - Of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation's stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator, 27(1), 10-29.

Koda, K. (2004). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1996). The case against bilingual education. Linguistics, language acquisition, and language variation: current trends and future prospects, 55-69.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning, 81, 11-19.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008a). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008b). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2) 200-213.

LeClair, C., Doll, B., Osborn, A., & Jones, K. (2009). English language learners' and non– English language learners' perceptions of the classroom environment. Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 568-577.

Loeb, S., Soland, J., & Fox, L. (2014). Is a good teacher a good teacher for all? Comparing value-added of teachers with their English learners and non-English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36 (4), p. 357-475.

Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language-minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60(3), 315341.

Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25(1), 91-102.

Mount, M. (2014). Academic reading and writing at the college level: Action research in a classroom of a homogeneous group of male students from Saudi Arabia". EWU Masters Thesis Collection. Paper 267. http://dc.ewu.edu/theses/267

Nation, P. (2002). Best practice in vocabulary teaching and learning. In Richards, J.C. & Renandya, W.A. (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (267-272). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL Quarterly 14, 489502.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2001). Moving from the ESL classroom into the mainstream: An investigation of English language anxiety in Mexican girls. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1-2), 31-38.

Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata. In Spiro, R.J., Bruce, B.C. &. Brewer, W.F. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale: Earlbaum.

Rupley, W. H. & Slough, S. (2010). Building prior knowledge and vocabulary in science in the intermediate grades: Creating hooks for learning. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 99112.

Short, D. J. (2002). Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 18-24.

Short, D. J., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 363380.

Short, D. J., Fidelman, C.G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (2), 334-361.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.

Silva, T. (1994). An examination of writing program administrators’ options for the placement of ESL students in first year writing classes. Writing Program Administration, 18(2), 37-43.

Smoke, T. (1988). Using feedback from ESL students to enhance their success in college. In Benesch, S. (Ed.), Ending Remediation: Linking ESL and Content in Higher Education (pp. 719). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Sobul, D. (1995). Specially designed academic instruction in English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391357).