Bilingual/Immersion Teacher Education

Abstract

Bilingual education is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of program models involving use of at least two languages for academic instruction, one being the majority language of the geographic area where the program is offered. Fortune and Tedick (2008), among others, identify four bilingual/immersion models as a subset within this broad category that have distinct design features and end goals: one‐way foreign language immersion, two‐way bilingual immersion, one‐way developmental bilingual education, and indigenous language immersion. These school‐based programs offer a minimum of 50% of subject‐matter instruction through a second, foreign, heritage, or indigenous language. They aim for additive bi‐ or multilingualism and additive bi‐ or multiliteracy (i.e., the addition of one or more languages while further developing the first), academic achievement, and intercultural understanding. Baker (2006) refers to these four models as “strong” forms of bilingual education. This entry is limited to teacher education for these models.

Searching for identity and focus: towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education

“…Subject specific Content-obligatory, language of learning, subject discourses, genres, language of science, technical vocabulary, the language of the content, content specific vocabulary, knowledge structures, complex knowledge relationships, system for meaning making in school context, discursive competence, Curriculum Content Language (CCL), School Navigational Language (SNL), Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) Snow, Met, and Genesee (1989), Crandall (1998), Creese (2006), Coyle (2007Coyle ( , 2011, Pessoa et al (2007), Arkoudis (2006), Fortune, Tedick, andWalker (2008), Haneda and Wells (2008), Met (2008), Kong (2009), Cammarata (2010), Kong, Hoare, and Chi (2011), Nation andWebb (2011), Banegas (2016), Coffin and Donohue (2012), Derewianka (2012), Tedick and Fortune (2013), Lorenzo (2013) 2004), Coyle (2007), Cummins (2014, Kramsch (2014), Scarino (2014) grammatical progression from simple to complex language structures. This is supported by Coyle (2007), who advocates language teaching beyond such grammatical progression.…”

“…SLA-derived Vocabulary learning, lexical approach, corpus-driven tasks, meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, languagefocused learning and fluency development, focus on form, recasts, prompts, corrective feedback, text awareness through usage-based activities, task-based approach (using CEFR/ information gaps), communicative activities, translanguaging, interlinguistic work, communicative and content needs, needs analysis, teach cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies, noticing and awareness activities, promote interaction, skills, language proficiency Snow, Met, and Genesee (1989), Pica (1995), Crandall (1998), Burley and Pomphrey (2002), Burley (2005), Pica (2005) Echevarria, Short, and Powers (2006), Coyle (2007Coyle ( , 2011, Arkoudis (2006), Genesee (2008), Graves (2008), Fortune, Tedick, andWalker (2008), Met (2008), Cammarata (2009), Kong (2009), Bigelow (2010), Cammarata (2010), Ceruti (2010), Lesaux et al (2010), Kong, Hoare, and Chi (2011), Lyster (2011), Nation and Webb (2011), Tan (2011), Afitska (2012, Banegas (2016), Tardieu and Dolitsky (2012), Hlas andHlas (2012), Short, Fidelman, andLouguit (2012), Cammarata (2012), Nikula, Llinares, andDalton-Puffer (2013), Tedick and Fortune (2013), Cummins (2014), DiCerbo et al (2014), Hammond (2014, Kramsch (2014),…”

“…,Burley and Pomphrey (2002),Burley (2005),Creese (2005Creese ( , 2006,Pica (2005),Echevarria, Short, and Powers (2006),Coyle (2007Coyle ( , 2011,Pessoa et al (2007), Fortune,Tedick, and Walker (2008),Genesee (2008),Haneda and Wells (2008),Larsen-Freeman and Freeman (2008),Kong (2009),Cammarata (2009Cammarata ( , 2010,Bigelow (2010),Trent (2010),Tan (2011),Afitska (2012),Garcia and Vazquez (2012),Hlas and Hlas (2012),Tedick and Cammarata (2012),Short, Fidelman, and Louguit (2012),Nikula, Llinares, and Dalton-Puffer (2013),Tardieu and Dolitsky (2012),Tedick and Fortune (2013),Cummins (2014), DiCerbo et al (2014,Hammond (2014),Kong (2014) Lyster andTedick (2014),Lo (2014a),Lo (2014b),Llinares and Lyster (2014),Lyster (2011Lyster ( , 2015,Tedick and Wesely (2015) Functions, skills, strategies Language skills or functions called for in specific content areas, academic language functions, L2 skills, essay writing, study and research skills translingual/ transcultural skills, interlinguistic and intercultural skillsSnow, Met, and Genesee (1989),Pica (1995),…”

“…),Creese (2010),Lesaux et al (2010),McClure and Cahnmann- Taylor (2010),Kong, Hoare, and Chi (2011),Lyster (2011),Nation and Webb (2011),Pawan and Ortloff (2011),Afitska (2012),Banegas (2016),Coffin and Donohue (2012),Derewianka (2012),Garcia and Vazquez (2012),Short, Fidelman, and Louguit (2012),Tardieu and Dolitsky (2012),Tedick and Cammarata (2012),Lorenzo (2013),Nikula, Llinares, and Dalton-Puffer (2013),Tedick and Fortune (2013),Cummins (2014), DiCerbo et al (2014,Hammond (2014),Kong (2014),Llinares and Lyster (2014),Lo (2014a),Lo (2014b),Lyster (2015),Lyster and Tedick (2014), Martin-Beltran and Peercy (2015), Smala (2014), Llinares (2015) Thematic content Thematic units, theme-based FL, academic/cultural thematic units, thematic units varying to extent embedded in mainstream curriculum, contemporary social issues Pica (1995), Crandall (1998), Walker and Tedick (2000), Pica (2005), Cammarata (2009), Bigelow (2010), Cammarata (2010), Lyster (2011), Lyster and Tedick (2014), Tedick and Wesely (2015) Cultural content perspective and point of view, identity management, six savoirs, intercultural skills, media studies and production, literature response, written and spoken texts of target language communities (target cultures) English Language Arts, literature, film and culture, language arts/ literature, story booksSnow, Met, and Genesee (1989),Crandall (1998),Archer (2000),Burley and Pomphrey (2002),Kramsch and Ware (2004),Burley (2005),…”

A survey of American paired teachers in dual language Chinese immersion programs

“…Mandarin and Arabic, for example, are two such languages, and for as important as creating this language programming is, it is difficult to fill the open positions with American‐born applicants (Haley et al, 2013). Consequently, many school districts have looked abroad for qualified teaching candidates and some state departments of education have created policies to facilitate hiring and retaining immersion teachers, both international and domestic (Chen et al, 2017; Garcia, 2017; Kissau et al, 2011; Rubio, 2018; Tedick & Fortune, 2012; Van Houten, 2009). Further, US universities and states have also created experimental programming to facilitate the recruitment and retention of both local and international teachers to meet school districts' needs at the state and national level (Chen et al, 2017; Garcia, 2017; Michigan State University, n.d).…”