Search results

The changing U.S. demographics, characterized by the rapid growth in immigration (Suarez-Orozco, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation are good reasons to prompt all educational stakeholders to seriously examine the practices of educating learners at risk of educational failure. Among at-risk learners, a significant portion is made up of English language learners (ELLs), especially those who are newcomers (i.e., ELLs who are fairly new to the school community in the United States with little or no English proficiency). The last census revealed that immigration accounts for more than “70% of the growth of the American population,” and that “the foreign born-population reached 30 million” (Portes & Hao, 2004, p. 1). Of this group, Hispanic students comprise the fastest growing group, and among Hispanics born outside the United States, 44.2% drop out from the educational system between the ages of 16 and 24 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). For this reason, discussions and debates on the best way to educate ELLs for effective English language acquisition leading to academic achievement in U.S. schools remain at the forefront of educational debates. At the core of this discussion, the question of whether or not to provide bilingual education services to learners for whom English is not their dominant or native language remains as one of the, if not the, greatest long-standing political, ideological, educational battles in the United States.

Traditional didactic approaches to multiple language learning have mainly focused on the differences and similarities between languages. However, in the language learning classroom, the willingness to activate prior language knowledge has been generally overlooked, despite being a fundamental part of the actual process of language learning Accordingly, the author suggests that the traditional contrastive method should be complemented by a psycholinguistic approach with the aim of exploiting the interlinguistic strategies used in language teaching and learning. An alternative methodological approach that looks at the whole linguistic repertoire of students is needed in order to exploit the benefits of multilingual education, going beyond linguistic similarities and differences. Following a detailed analysis of the relevant literature in the field, which identifies metalinguistic awareness as the most important factor enhancing bilinguals’ outcomes in additional language learning, the present chapter deals with its implications for a multilingual didactic approach. In particular, students must be stimulated and assisted in the process of conscious reflection and manipulation of language, learning strategies, and linguistic skills developed in previous linguistic systems to observe a positive and significant outcome in third (or additional) language acquisition (TLA). School curricula and teaching practices could benefit from placing the multilingual learners and their entire linguistic repertoire at the center of the learning process, rather than focusing exclusively on the target language.

In this chapter, the author provides empirical research that supports the implementation of DLPs as programs that provide cogitative learning, high academic achievement, and the opportunity to be competitive in a global economy for all students – including culturally and linguistically diverse students – in order to achieve education equity. The author utilizes Arizona as an example of education policy that excludes and further marginalizes language minority students by requiring English proficiency as a requirement to be part of Dual Language Programs (DLPs). Furthermore, the author frames the current education climate and language policy affecting DLPs through an Interest Convergence theoretical lens.

A major challenge in teacher education in the United States is how to address the academic and linguistic needs of the growing numbers of emergent bilingual students. A second challenge is how to prepare predominantly White monolingual preservice teachers with little exposure to speakers of languages other than English to educate culturally and linguistically diverse students. With these two challenges in mind, this study examines how a course on literacy, language, and culture grounded in pedagogies of discomfort shifts preservice teachers’ deficit orientations toward emergent bilingual students’ language and literacy resources. Using Ofelia García’s (2009) definition for emergent bilingualism, this mixed-method study was conducted from 2011 to 2013 with 73 preservice teacher participants enrolled at an urban mid-Atlantic university. Quantitative data consisted of pre and post surveys while qualitative data comprised written responses to open-ended statements, self-analyses, and participant interviews. Findings evidence preservice teachers’ endorsement of monolingualism before coursework; however, pedagogies of discomfort during coursework provoke critical reflection leading to significant shifts in preservice teachers’ dispositions toward teaching language diversity in the classroom with implications for teaching emergent bilingual students.

Observes that, in some public schools in the USA, dual language instead of English only is being promoted as a plus and not the drawback it was once seen to be. Stresses there is still opposition to dual language or other languages being used in the US. Reckons that educated parents are the likeliest to seek dual‐language education for their children. Uses tables and figures to show the dual language options and variances. Concludes that there is potential for two‐way immersion to expand.

Purpose – To highlight and discuss a framework for promoting effective classroom assessment practice that supports the language and literacy development of English Learners (ELs).

Design/methodology/approach – Though it includes some practical recommendations, it primarily synthesizes the work found in theoretical books on EL assessment.

Findings – Provides information on the main issues teachers need to consider for engagement in effective assessment practices at the classroom levels, with particular attention to classroom-based assessment. It highlights the need for considering a multiliteracies approach.

Research limitations/implications – It focuses on ELs in the U.S. K-12 system, therefore, it does not encompass all the possible types of ELs. It does not focus on high-stakes testing.

Practical implications – A very useful source of information for both preservice and in-service teachers of ELs.

Originality/value – This chapter offers an overview of essential elements involved in the assessment of special populations of students as is the case of ELs in U.S. public schools.

This chapter presents the research findings of the study aimed at identifying the features of the content of teacher training for working in ethnocultural environment. This content depends on the language policy and geopolitical processes taking place in the world. Modern ethnocultural training at universities should include the flow of continuous transformation and development of the content and methods of teaching: the actualisation of only innovative or digital methods makes young teachers powerless when faced unpredictable ethnocultural situations in pedagogical practice.

The effectiveness of teacher training for ethnocultural education depends on properly constructed bilingual, multicultural, civic and patriotic education. The foundation of this training should be a properly formed national-cultural code, the indicators of which are ethnocultural knowledge, mechanisms of understanding, feelings, behaviour and self-realisation. The multicultural (intercultural) environment in the modern world is being transformed: the degree of use of native languages in Russia and abroad is decreasing. To prepare teachers to work in this changing environment (based on the principles of dialogue of cultures, languages equality, recognition of the right to speak and receive education in their native language), it is necessary to restructure the content and system of teacher training, the content of educational and methodological materials, taking into account the real facts of ethnogenesis.

The specific character of language policy is considered in multi-ethnic Russian regions in this paper. The relevance of this paper is because of the fact that language is one of the most important indicators of ethnic identity, and it fulfills a crucial role in the self-preservation of the ethnic community. The purpose of this paper is to determine the status and trends of language policy in multi-ethnic regions as a part of national education.

The authors analyze the historical aspect of language policy with the help of problem and comparative analysis and study the problem of bilingualism in the modern Russian society.

The threat of loss or the ban on land national (mother) language, as well as its infringement form an intolerant consciousness and attitudes in the mass consciousness and behavior of people. It is one of the factors of the deterioration of interethnic interaction and increase of ethnocentric attitudes to counter assimilation and acculturation. Language has communicative, integration, political functions in modern society. It is very important for the preservation of ethnic education. The analysis shows the inconsistency in the language policy whose roots lie in the historical past.

It is substantiated that the existence of a variety of peoples, ethnic groups with their own independent languages challenge state government bodies to solve a number of problems associated with ensuring the optimal functioning of Russian and national (mother) languages. It is concerned with the quality of education in the education system and the advisability of using languages in official events and the volume of television and radio programs in national languages, and so on.

In focusing on the changing dynamics of education governance, this chapter draws on a few key concepts of policy borrowing research, notably the focus on reception and translation of global education policy, and sheds light on the temporal and spatial dimensions of policy transfer. It is not sufficient to simply acknowledge that one and the same global education policies means something different to different actors in different contexts. In addition, to providing a “thick description” of why global education policies are received and how they are translated, a specific strand of policy borrowing research – well represented in this edited volume – examines the global/local nexus and acknowledges that local actors are positioned simultaneously in two spaces: in their own (cultural/local) context and in a broader transnational “educational space.” From a systems theory perspective, the broader educational space is Umwelt (environment) and therefore local actors interact at critical moments with the broader educational space. The policy bilingualism (or in the work of Tavis Jules, the “policy trilingualism” when the local, regional, and global is taken into the account) is a result of policy actors operating simultaneously in two spaces that are populated with two different audiences: local and global actors. The example of bonus payments in Kyrgyzstan, a local adaptation of global teacher accountability reform, is used to explain how the method of comparison is used as an analytical tool to understand the global/local nexus in the policy process.