Project Overview

I have had several opportunities to study a variety of different languages during my life. I was eager and often very invested in learning these languages, due to my residence within the country of the language's origin. However, I have always struggled to develop strong proficiency levels in a foreign language. I found vocabulary generally easy to memorize but struggled with grammar. The grammar that I generally produced was greatly influenced by my first lanague (L1), which is English.

I also often tried to connect the English grammar and vocabulary to that of the L2 being studied, in order to better understand how the latter was constructed through the differences and correlations. I recall on several occasions asking my language teachers to explain about the differences between the constructions and to even provide more information about my L1 grammatical structure. Yet, the answer was generally always the same, which was to focus on the L2. This often rsulted in fustration as I struggled. During the majority of my L2 studies I had very little knowledge regarding linguistics and upon reflection during my studies to become an ESL teacher, I realized that some of my struggle could stem from this lack of knowledge.

My research for the literature review for this capstone emphasized to me how this desire to know the why was not restricted to me. Holland (2013) discusses how in her teaching experience she found students wanted to learn more than how to speak English but also the "why" surrounding grammar points' construction along with pronunciation (p. 139).

Website Developer's Professional Experiences

My introduction to ESL teaching started when I joined the Peace Corps as an Educational Volunteer. I taught English Language in a small village school in a fairly monolingual environment and in a co-teaching situation. The students' L1 was often incorporated into the classroom during instruction to provide support, either through describing vocabulary or the grammatical system. In addition to discussing the grammar system, my co-teachers would often explain the differences between the language grammar rules in the students' L1.

After completing my Peace Corps service, I later sought and obtained a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) certificate and then continued teaching by joining the faculty at a university in China. A few years later I obtained a Minnesota English as a Second Language (ESL) K-12 teaching license. During this time, courses on second language acquisition (SLA) and linguistics helped to improve my understanding regarding best practices concerning ESL instruction. These courses and teaching experiences began to make me reflect upon my own language learning experiences and to question the teaching methods that had been used.

As my development as a teacher grew, through experience and studies, I realized that my language struggles could have been caused by three factors:

A primarily intutive and not formal understanding of the English grammatical system.
Lack of understanding of linguistics, which meant that I did not have knowledge of how language was constructed and its components.
Inability to connect with or process an L2's different grammatical system, which would have allowed for comprehensible output.

Culmination

All of the information gained and experiences came to a culmination during the advanced linguistics course when I learned about Linguistic Analysis which is a process that seeks to determine the lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic functions of language (Erku, 2018, lesson 2 slide 2). We were asked by the professor to find solutions using language samples from different languages and comparing them on a morphological and syntactic level to the English language. After completing the comparison we were asked to consider the implications of our solutions on how we viewed our instruction. While completing these assignments, I found myself once again reflecting upon my previously mentioned language learning experiences and considering how this might have benefited my learning. I began wondering if I would have been more successful if explicit instruction that pointed out differences and made connections between my L1 and the L2 had occured. This piqued my interest to learn more about how linguistic analysis and its processes could be used as a tool to inform instruction.

Rationale Behind the Development of the Project

Driving Purpose

The rationale behind this research question revolves around a single concept; to utilize more efficient instruction methods to create a more supportive environment for English language development that might increase students' English language proficiency at a quicker rate so that ELLs can succeed in a mainstream content classroom taught in English or within English speaking environments.

English as a Lingua Franca

According to Jenkins (2012), the English Language has been used as a lingua franca between speakers with different L1’s for centuries (p. 486). The English Language has continued to gain worldwide usage to communicate in a variety of different situations including politics, business, science, and even tourism.

Personal Experience

From my experience as an ESL Teacher, learning the English language has become a vital component for both students and adults and their future aspirations, especially for individuals who are living in (or intending to) and planning to remain in English speaking environments. There is, therefore, a great deal of pressure to have students develop their English Language abilities quickly in order to support their overall academic achievement and future aspirations. This pressure to build up English Learners' proficiency is a major component behind the rationale of this research question.

Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies

According to Cummins (2007) Cook (2001) states that,“Recent methods do not so much forbid the L1 as ignore its existence altogether [...] the only times the L1 is mentioned is when advice is given on how to minimize its use.” (p. 223). In addition, Cummins (2007) further states, that educational policies are dominated by unsupported monolingual instructional principles that have been adopted as essentially “common sense” (p. 222 & 224).

Cummins (2007) argues that a rethinking of monolingual instructional strategies needs to occur to better serve multilingual students. He states that, “ . . . when students’ L1 is invoked as a cognitive and linguistic resource through bilingual instructional strategies, it can function as a stepping stone to scaffold more accomplished performance in the L2” (p. 238).

Cummins (2007) states that “If students’ prior knowledge is encoded in their L1, then their L1 is clearly relevant to their learning even when instruction is through the medium of L2. The second theoretical perspective highlights the interdependence of literacy-related skills and knowledge across languages and the fact that cross-lingual transfer is occurring as a normal process of bilingual development. Rather than leaving this process to unfold in a potentially sporadic and haphazard manner, it seems reasonable to teach for two-way cross-lingual transfer (L1 to L2, L2 to L1) in order to render the process as effective as possible" (p. 231).

Utilizing this information can be important to an ELL’s proficiency development because according to Cummins (2007), “ . . . earning efficiencies can be achieved if teachers explicitly draw students’ attention to similarities and differences between their languages and reinforce effective learning strategies in a coordinated way across languages” (p. 233).

Further Rationale: Minnesota Report Card

(English Learners in Minnesota Report, 2018)

Increasing Number of ELLs in Minnesota

The number of ELLs within MN is growing. Since 2014, 4,516 new ELLs have been enrolled. An increasing number of ELLs means a larger number of students needing to increase their English language proficiency. This larger number means that teaching methods that might be more effective need to be explored for their viability in order to support these students' needs.

Minnesota Report Card

According to the Minnesota Report card (English Learners in Minnesota Report, 2018, pp. 25-26):

64.7 percent of English learners graduate from high school within four years
18.9 percent become continuing students
9.3 percent drop out

Comparing Non-EL to ELLs

84.2 percent of Non-EL (English Learners) students graduate from high school within four years
Only 7.9 percent engaging in continuing education
4.3 percent dropping out

(Retrieved from English Learners in Minnesota Report, 2018)

While the report does not draw any correlating conclusions between the student's English language proficiency levels, it can be considered to play a role in the graduation rate. Due to these statistics, any methods or tools that could assist students to develop their English language abilities should be researched and considered. While the Minnesota Report Card presents a picture of the ELLs within our schools, it also supports teachers in understanding their needs. Furthermore, it provides educators with background knowledge regarding students that can be used to better construct resources and tools to help ELLs succeed.

Why a website and not a traditional Professional Development?

There are several reasons why the developer of this website chose a website platform:

A website offers the potential to reach a larger audience.
It allows for the continued growth of the PD through the addition of new materials and the collaboration of educators.
It offers a dedicated space to create a community surrounding the topic of the website.
It creates a resource to construct a database to share analysis and instruction method ideas.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders are individuals who are directly connected or impacted by the results and or conclusion of this capstone project. The stakeholders are the following:

ELLs
Teachers
School Administrators
Parents

Project Impact on the ESL Teaching Field

Promotion of Different Teaching Methods

This project may impact this teaching field by promoting what could be a more effective method of instruction. This website is a single resource dedicated to this topic, that has gathered information from a variety of sources and compiled it in one location. This allows for educators to gain an understanding of this topic through the information and Professional Developments on the website without having to conduct their own research or read a large quantity of articles which have instead been synthesized. This promotes information about a topic that is not readily discussed.

Resource

There are three large hindrances in conducting linguistic analysis and its processes:

Gathering language samples
Conducting the analysis
Repeating the analysis for each language that is found within the teaching setting

This site will help to eliminate these issues through forums and databases that allow educators to share the results of their analysis. This will reduce the need for teachers to personally gather samples and conduct the analysis themselves. Instead they will be able to review the work done by others and also comment.

Dedicated Community

Conducting an analysis and then constructing teaching methods around the information derived from the analysis can be daunting. This may prevent educators from utilizing this concept. This website seeks to eliminate this deterrence by creating a community that will share analysis, ideas, and experiences.

Image Reference:

Minnesota Department of Education (2019). English Learner Education in Minnesota Fall 2018 Report. Retrieved from https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/el/.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse