Dual Language Learners Reader Post #5: Models of Language Instruction

As mentioned in Part 4 of the DLL Reader, one of the most important school factors impacting dual language learners’ (DLLs) and English Language Learners' (ELLs) English acquisition is the educational model through which they are instructed. In addition, the ways DLLs and ELLs are taught impact their home language skills and content knowledge. This week’s post provides an overview of bilingual and monolingual program models for DLLs and ELLs (for more information on these terms, read the DLL Reader's first post here).

Additive Bilingual Program Models

Programs that aim to educate students to be bilingual and biliterate are considered “additive” bilingual models. Examples of these programs include heritage language (also called maintenance bilingual or late-exit bilingual) and two-way immersion (also called dual immersion) programs.

ELLs in heritage language (HL) programs often take a class — separate from their other subjects — in their home language. HL programs are often found in communities at-risk of losing a minority language and for this reason are common models for Native American language instruction.

ELLs in two-way immersion (TWI) programs learn content in both English and their home language. Most TWI programs strive to maintain a student population that is 50 percent ELLs and 50 percent students who speak English at home. TWI students usually spend 50 percent of their time in each language. This can be achieved by splitting up the day’s subjects (and/or minutes) into each language, alternating language days, or switching languages each week. Presently, most TWI programs in the U.S. serve Spanish-speaking ELLs, however, French and Chinese programs are on the rise. The Center for Applied Linguistics maintains a database of TWI programs in the U.S. At this time there are 458 records in the database, 425 of which are English-Spanish programs.

Subtractive Bilingual Program Models

Bilingual programs that provide initial instruction in ELLs’ home language in order to develop their English skills are considered “subtractive” in that they are not designed to support or enhance ELLs’ first language abilities. Transitional bilingual education (TBE) — also known as early-exit bilingual programs — and integrated TBE are both examples of subtractive bilingual program models.

Transitional bilingual education is the most common bilingual model for ELLs in the U.S. For instance, it is the state-mandated instructional model in Texas, where approximately one of every six U.S. ELLs lives. Under this model, children’s home language is used for an initial period of time to build basic literacy and content knowledge, but then they are transitioned to English as soon as possible. A critique of TBE programs is that they typically segregate ELLs from native English-speaking peers, which can isolate them from language-rich interactions present in linguistically-integrated classes. Integrated TBE programs counteract this segregation by incorporating ELLs into English classrooms for a portion of the school day.

Which of these is the best model for serving ELLs? Well, it depends upon the goals that a school or district has for their ELLs, as well as the resources available to them.

Monolingual Program Models

In the U.S., most ELLs are in monolingual classrooms. Since they are not instructed in their home languages, monolingual programs can also be considered subtractive. Common monolingual program models include sheltered English instruction, structured English immersion, and English as a second language (ESL) — also called English for speakers of other languages (ESOL).

Sheltered English instruction is a model frequently hailed by supporters of the English-only movement. Under this model, ELLs are placed in mainstream classes with their English-speaking peers, and teachers make intentional modifications to instruction in order to provide linguistic supports that help ELLs access the curriculum. Critics of sheltered English instruction assert that a certain level of English is necessary under this model and therefore it is not effective for newcomer students and those who may have low literacy skills. These critics also claim that the necessary modifications are too much for individual classroom teachers to handle, and consequently students are often left to their own devices.

Structured English immersion is the model used for ELL instruction in Arizona. In this model, ELLs receive four hours each day of English language development (ELD), which aims to build their language skills as quickly as possible. However the emphasis on language instruction means that students receive substantially less content instruction than their non-ELL peers. Sheltered English instruction and Structured English immersion are the primary instructional models used in Arizona and California, which together enroll around one-third of American ELLs. Yet there is evidence that implementation of statewide English-only mandates in these states has made little difference in the academic outcomes of ELLs since the passage of statewide mandates.

English as a second language instruction differs from SEI in that a trained ESL teacher works with ELLs to supplement and modify content instruction in mainstream classrooms and/or work with ELLs in English development outside of academic classes. This often occurs alongside a mainstream teacher (“push-in”) and/or outside of mainstream classrooms (“pull-out”). In both push-in and pull-out ESL models, the ESL teacher assists ELLs in developing their English skills and (usually) in accessing curricula in English. Some ESL teachers may speak the home languages of their ELLs and choose to use them in instruction. While this can be a beneficial teaching tool, bilingualism is not a requirement to become an ESL teacher.

Implications for Policy

So: which of these is the best model for serving ELLs? Well, it depends upon the goals that a school or district has for their ELLs, as well as the resources available to them.

There’s strong evidence in support of bilingual instruction. For instance, a meta-analysis conducted by Jay Greene at the University of Texas estimated that ELLs experience the equivalent of three additional months of learning when they receive any bilingual instruction — additive or subtractive — over ELLs in monolingual programs. There is also evidence that TWI programs produce superior outcomes than English-only instruction not only for ELLs, but also for students who speak English at home.

But despite substantial research supporting home language instruction for ELLs, schools and districts are limited by the resources at their disposal when making instructional decisions. Presently, there are not enough high-quality bilingual teachers to serve the large and growing ELL population. Moreover, many states are further restricted by English-only laws that dictate the ways in which ELLs’ home language(s) are permitted to be used in instruction. Lastly, it is important to note that a program model alone does not guarantee success for ELLs; quality is essential. It is crucial that ELLs have teachers and administrators who are familiar with their language needs and with the many benefits of being bilingual.

Stay tuned for next week’s DLL Reader post on assessment.

--

This post is part of New America’s Dual Language Learners National Work Group. Click here for more information on this team's work. To subscribe to the biweekly newsletter, click here, enter your contact information, and select "Education Policy.""