Instructional Methods for Limited English Proficient Students in Subject Area Courses

Kathleen Elizabeth Woodward

doi:10.31686/ijier.vol5.iss1.99

Authors

Kathleen Elizabeth Woodward University of North Georgia, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol5.iss1.99

Keywords:

Education, Limited English Proficient, English Language Learner, Instructional strategies

Abstract

This paper studies the question of what instructional strategies are most effective for classrooms with limited English proficient (LEP) students when teaching history content courses. Two specific instructional strategies are researched. The first is the ordering of direct instruction and constructivist activities. Is it best to begin with direct instruction, then move to a constructivist activity or is it best to order lessons in reverse order? The results of the study also offer insight into the efficacy of doing only direct instruction vs. constructivist activities. The second question studied is regarding group vs. individual work. Which type of work results in the most and deepest content knowledge for LEP students and what is useful about each type of work?

A controlled experimental method was used with pre and post quizzes, teacher/researcher observation, and student surveys and interviews. The study finds that student learning is maximized for LEP students when direct instruction precedes a constructivist activity. Using both instructional strategies, but in this order, was shown to be the most effective instructional strategy. Individual vs. group work showed less clear results, but the student interviews provided insight into why LEP students sometimes prefer group work, even if their knowledge gained is not noticeably increased.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cardinale Kimberly; Martin Carnoy; and Sandra Stein. (1999). Bilingual education for limited English proficiency students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(1), 37-57.

Chung, S. F. (2012). Research-based vocabulary instruction for English language learners. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 12(2), 105-120.

Eakle, Jonathan A. (2003, May). A content analysis of second-Language research in The Reading Teacher and Language Arts, 1990-2000. The Reading Teacher, 56(8), 828-36.

Fagundes, Rosa. (2011). Are We Closing the Gap Yet? The Challenge of Urban Teacher Education. Annual International Conference on Education & e-Learning (EeL).

Fayon, A. K., Goff, E., & Duranczyk, I. M. (2010). Impacting attitudes of ELL students: Integrated learning communities in introductory science courses. Learning Assistance Review, 15(2), 7-19.

Herbert, M. (2012). A running start for ELLs. District Administration, 48(6), 52-57.

Li, Daqi and Sandra L. Nes. (2001, summer). Using paired reading to help ESL students become fluent and accurate readers. Reading Improvement, 38(2), 50-61.

Markham, Paul L. (1999). Stressors and coping strategies of ESL teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(4), 268-79.

McEneaney, E. e., LÃ³pez, F., & Nieswandt, M. (2014). Instructional Models for the Acquisition of English as Bridges into School Science: Effects on the Science Achievement of U.S. Hispanic English Language Learners. Learning Environments Research, 17(3), 305-318.

Nam, J. (2010). Linking research and practice: Effective strategies for teaching vocabulary in the ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 28(1), 127-135.

National Center of Educational Statistics. (2000). The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Center of Educational Statistics. (2012). English Language Learners. Chapter 2: participation in education, elementary and secondary enrollment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

National Research Council. (1997). The new Americans: Economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Olga, Rubio G. and John Attinasi. (2000, Dec.) Teachers in post-proposition 227 Southern California. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4), 273-88.

Olson, L. (2015, March). Bilingualism and education in California and other states: A timeline. California Association for Bilingual Education.

Porter, Rosalie P. (2001). Accountability is overdue: Testing the academic achievement of limited English proficient students. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(4), 403-410.

Porter, Rosalie Pedalino. (2000, January). The benefits of English immersion. Educational Leadership, 57(4), 52-6.

Qanwal, S., & Karim, S. (2014). Identifying correlation between reading strategies instruction and L2 text comprehension. Journal Of Language Teaching & Research, 5(5), 1019-1032.

Rivera, Charlene and Annete M. Zehler. (1991). Assuring the academic success of language minority students. Journal of Education, 173(2), 52-77.

Roberts, Amy and Steven Locke. (2001). Tending school: A forum on the experiences of refugee and immigrant students in the U.S. Interchange, 32(4), 375-93.

Russakoff, D., & Foundation for Child, D. (2011). PreK-3rd: Raising the educational performance of English language learners (ELLs). PreK-3rd policy to action brief. No. six. Foundation For Child Development

U.S. Department of Education. (1998, February). No more excuses: The final report of the Hispanic dropout project (Executive summary). Washington, DC: Author.

Verplaetse, Lorrie Stoops. (2001). How content teachers allocate turns to limited English proficient students. Journal of Education, 182(3), 19-35.

Watson, Silvana and Lynne Houtz. (2002). Teaching Science: Meeting the Academic Needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(5), 267-278.

Webb, Rebecca K. (January-June 2015). Teaching English Writing for a Global Contenxt: An Examination of NS, ESL and EFL Learning Strategies That Work. PASAA, 49, 171-198.

Wei, Chen & Adawu (2014). Teaching ESL beginners metacognitive writing strategies through multimedia software. CATESOL Journal, 26(1), 60-7