Spanish language proficiency in dual language and English as a second language models: the impact of model, time, teacher, and student on Spanish language development
“…As detailed in the previous sections, Mary's lessons were lengthier than the actual protocol and the major reason was her proportion of activities before and during instruction that fostered oral language and interaction. Yet, most of the oral language time was at the reporting or discussion level with little opportunity for reaching a consistent threshold of discussion or dialogue (Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017). The following vignette from session 4 illustrates:…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Baker et al (2014) later conducted a comprehensive review of reading development specifically for designated ELs and asserts that any English literacy instruction for ELs should include three intersecting English language development constructs—oral language development (Morita‐Mullaney et al, 2020b; Renn & Morita‐Mullaney, 2018; Solari & Gerber, 2008); academic vocabulary‐in‐use (word study) (Carlo et al, 2004; Nelson et al, 2011); and regularly structured times to develop second language reading and writing skills through immersive writing opportunities (Lesaux et al, 2014). These three components nested within a larger aim of literacy (as described in Figure 1) is what ELs need to improve their English language and English literacy development (Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017).…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During in‐class instruction, students need more opportunities to engage in authentic conversations without teachers dominating the classroom discussion (Bailey & Heritage, 2018). Current studies in oral language demonstrate that there are three possible iterations of oral language development within instruction—reporting, discussion, and dialogue (Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017). Reporting involves regurgitation of information and remains at the word or phrase level.…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, a teacher may ask, “Who is the main character?” The students may respond with “The chicken.” Reporting has the purpose of discrete comprehension checks but does not go beyond the identification level. Discussion is the next level and involves at least three or more exchanges between students and/or teachers and requires more expansive language use (Lei et al, 2019; Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017; Morita‐Mullaney et al, 2020a). The back‐and‐forth nature of a discussion creates the conditions for students operating more descriptively at the sentence level and beyond.…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Drawing on students' resources does not merely involve their background experiences; their language histories and identities must also be taken into account (Morita‐Mullaney, 2018). When the role of the native language is dismissed, important linguistic resources are diminished (Morita‐Mullaney et al, 2022; Plaisance et al, 2018) and connections to students' linguistic and cultural identities are dissuaded (Chang & Viesca, 2022). Finally, because literacy interventions often take place outside of the general education classroom, designated ELs may be retracted from collaborative resources negotiated in their larger classroom communities, which can include use of their native languages.…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
Scripted literacy programs are frequently used with designated English learners (ELs) as an intervention to address below–grade‐level reading comprehension. Most literacy programs lack an explicit focus on oral language, vocabulary in use, and immersive writing, needed areas to improve reading comprehension and English proficiency among designated ELs. Literacy interventions often work in tandem with English as a second language (ESL) instructional delivery or as a substitute and are staffed with personnel trained in reading interventions, but do not necessarily involve the principles of English language development or multilingualism. In this case study, the researchers examine a literacy intervention and how it is interpreted and implemented by elementary reading specialists. Findings demonstrate that reading teachers following the literacy intervention protocol fostered oral language and vocabulary, yet the emphasis was on reading, with very little time focused on writing. Implications point to the need for reading programs to conceptualize their teaching within a framework of English language development and multilingualism, instead of defaulting to reading interventions alone. A mapping in collaboration with general education, ESL, and reading teachers is needed to foster congruence across literacy and language learning. The authors call upon stakeholders implementing literacy programs to conceptualize multilingual language and literacy resources that encompass oral language, vocabulary, and immersive writing.
“…As detailed in the previous sections, Mary's lessons were lengthier than the actual protocol and the major reason was her proportion of activities before and during instruction that fostered oral language and interaction. Yet, most of the oral language time was at the reporting or discussion level with little opportunity for reaching a consistent threshold of discussion or dialogue (Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017). The following vignette from session 4 illustrates:…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Baker et al (2014) later conducted a comprehensive review of reading development specifically for designated ELs and asserts that any English literacy instruction for ELs should include three intersecting English language development constructs—oral language development (Morita‐Mullaney et al, 2020b; Renn & Morita‐Mullaney, 2018; Solari & Gerber, 2008); academic vocabulary‐in‐use (word study) (Carlo et al, 2004; Nelson et al, 2011); and regularly structured times to develop second language reading and writing skills through immersive writing opportunities (Lesaux et al, 2014). These three components nested within a larger aim of literacy (as described in Figure 1) is what ELs need to improve their English language and English literacy development (Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017).…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During in‐class instruction, students need more opportunities to engage in authentic conversations without teachers dominating the classroom discussion (Bailey & Heritage, 2018). Current studies in oral language demonstrate that there are three possible iterations of oral language development within instruction—reporting, discussion, and dialogue (Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017). Reporting involves regurgitation of information and remains at the word or phrase level.…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, a teacher may ask, “Who is the main character?” The students may respond with “The chicken.” Reporting has the purpose of discrete comprehension checks but does not go beyond the identification level. Discussion is the next level and involves at least three or more exchanges between students and/or teachers and requires more expansive language use (Lei et al, 2019; Morita‐Mullaney & Renn, 2017; Morita‐Mullaney et al, 2020a). The back‐and‐forth nature of a discussion creates the conditions for students operating more descriptively at the sentence level and beyond.…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Drawing on students' resources does not merely involve their background experiences; their language histories and identities must also be taken into account (Morita‐Mullaney, 2018). When the role of the native language is dismissed, important linguistic resources are diminished (Morita‐Mullaney et al, 2022; Plaisance et al, 2018) and connections to students' linguistic and cultural identities are dissuaded (Chang & Viesca, 2022). Finally, because literacy interventions often take place outside of the general education classroom, designated ELs may be retracted from collaborative resources negotiated in their larger classroom communities, which can include use of their native languages.…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
Scripted literacy programs are frequently used with designated English learners (ELs) as an intervention to address below–grade‐level reading comprehension. Most literacy programs lack an explicit focus on oral language, vocabulary in use, and immersive writing, needed areas to improve reading comprehension and English proficiency among designated ELs. Literacy interventions often work in tandem with English as a second language (ESL) instructional delivery or as a substitute and are staffed with personnel trained in reading interventions, but do not necessarily involve the principles of English language development or multilingualism. In this case study, the researchers examine a literacy intervention and how it is interpreted and implemented by elementary reading specialists. Findings demonstrate that reading teachers following the literacy intervention protocol fostered oral language and vocabulary, yet the emphasis was on reading, with very little time focused on writing. Implications point to the need for reading programs to conceptualize their teaching within a framework of English language development and multilingualism, instead of defaulting to reading interventions alone. A mapping in collaboration with general education, ESL, and reading teachers is needed to foster congruence across literacy and language learning. The authors call upon stakeholders implementing literacy programs to conceptualize multilingual language and literacy resources that encompass oral language, vocabulary, and immersive writing.
This research aims to examine and describe the obstacles faced by students in implementing the 2013 revised curriculum in 2018 in mathematics learning, as well as to examine and describe the obstacles faced by teachers in implementing the 2013 revised curriculum in 2018 in mathematics learning. The research instruments used in this study include data collection methods such as observation, in-depth interviews, and documentation. During the observation process, the researcher observes students and teachers during mathematics learning activities, while in-depth interviews are conducted to obtain interview results that will be analyzed using the ATLAS.ti 8 application, and documentation is carried out to capture images such as photos or videos during the observation and interview processes. Obstacles faced by students in implementing the 2013 revised curriculum in 2018 in mathematics learning include: students feeling less focused and concentrated during mathematics learning; students experiencing difficulties in understanding material, calculating, and memorizing mathematical formulas; incomplete and undetailed textbook content; the use of language in textbooks being too advanced; students often feeling sleepy during mathematics learning; students' mood affecting their learning activities; teachers not delivering the material in detail, too quickly, or too elaborately; classrooms being noisy; and inadequate facilities and infrastructure. Meanwhile, obstacles faced by teachers in implementing the 2013 revised curriculum in 2018 in mathematics learning include: language used by teachers being difficult for students to understand; low basic skills of students; students having different characteristics; students having low motivation and varying abilities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
