1 / 14

A Theory-Based Model for Educating ELL Students at the Secondary Level

A Theory-Based Model for Educating ELL Students at the Secondary Level. Craig A. Hughes WABE Conference May 13, 2006. Theoretical Foundation. Thomas & Collier’s “Prism Model” is the key foundation All areas of the Prism need to be addressed. Theoretical Foundation. Language Needs

bambi
Télécharger la présentation

A Theory-Based Model for Educating ELL Students at the Secondary Level

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Theory-Based Model for Educating ELL Students at the Secondary Level Craig A. Hughes WABE Conference May 13, 2006

  2. Theoretical Foundation • Thomas & Collier’s “Prism Model” is the key foundation • All areas of the Prism need to be addressed

  3. Theoretical Foundation • Language Needs • Native language needs to have status in the classroom (Collier, 1995; Lucas et al., 1990; McLeod, 1996) • Advanced (enriched) coursework in native language (Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2002 Lucas et al., 1990;) • Content-based English language development (Collier, 1995; Lucas et al., 1990; McLeod, 1996) • Assistance beyond basic language development (McLeod, 1996; Hughes, 2000)

  4. Theoretical Foundation • Academic needs • Grade-level expectations (Collier, 1995; Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2002; Hughes, 2000; Lucas et al., 1990; McLeod, 1996) • Enrichment activities, move beyond basics (Hughes, 2000; Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2002; McLeod)

  5. Theoretical Foundation • Social Needs • Adjustments for cultural influences (Collier, 1995; Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2002; Hughes, 2000; Lucas et al., 1990; McLeod, 1996) • Inclusion in all aspects of the school, clubs, government, sports (Hughes, 2000; Lucas et al., 1990 McLeod, 1996) • Role models in the classroom (Lucas et al., 1990 McLeod, 1996) • Family inclusion in the school setting (Collier, 1995; Hughes, 2000; Lucas et al., 1990; McLeod, 1996)

  6. Theoretical Foundation • The role of the school • All staff members are involved in the education of linguistically diverse students (Collier, 1995; Hughes, 2000; Lucas et al., 1990; McLeod, 1996) • Use of “New Wave” teaching methods (Collier, 1995; Lucas et al., 1990; McLeod, 1996) • Implementation of bridge classes (McLeod, 1996) • Extended instruction time (McLeod, 1996)

  7. Staffing is provided as “general educators.” Staff collaboration can be achieved with planning. Team teaching can be arranged with little conflict Staffing is provided along departmental lines. Staff collaboration, including team teaching, must cross over departments lines. Comparison of Elementary Schools and Secondary School

  8. The limited bilingual materials available are at the elementary level Bilingual materials are scarce. Teachers need to spend more time finding and/or creating quality materials Comparison of Elementary Schools and Secondary School

  9. Recent arrivals have similar levels of linguistic and academic development Instruction level can be more uniform. Recent arrival have tremendous differences in academic, native language, and English language development Class placement requires more flexibility. Comparison of Elementary Schools and Secondary School

  10. Research and teacher preparation focused at the elementary level. Research and teacher preparation focused at the elementary level. Comparison of Elementary Schools and Secondary School

  11. Younger children are still developing stereotypes and prejudices Social inclusion is more likely to occur naturally. Prejudices and stereotypes have become well developed. Limits social inclusion of “outsiders.” Comparison of Elementary Schools and Secondary School

  12. Ideal Program

  13. Ideal Program

  14. References • Collier, V. P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students. Elizabeth, NJ: NJTESOL-BE, Inc. • Freeman, Y.S. & Freeman, D.E. with Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to reach limited-formal schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann • 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), 315-482. • McLeod, B. (1996). School reform and student diversity: Exemplary schooling for language minority students. NCBE Resource Collection Series (4). Washington, DC: NCELA

More Related