The nature of dual-language programs

[Kevin Rocap]

Dear R.A.,

A few quick comments.

R. A. Stegemann wrote:

>
> 1) Just because students perform better on average does not mean that
> the program is working. One must also examine the variance of
> performance across children in each program. If you recall, I
> suggested the creation of three groups in each dual-language setting:

Of course you have to disaggregate the data to understand how any
program works for an individual child and/or for specific groups of
children.  It was on that basis, I believe, that Guadalupe Valdes (whom
I cited in a prior message) has concerns that language minority children
in a Two-Way program are, too often, still underserved vis a vis their
dominant language peers (in this case English language peers), and that
people concerned about educational outcomes for language minority
students should work to understand and address this.

As for your three groups, I'm afraid I'm not sure what theoretical,
research-based or even empirical grounds you are standing on to make
that suggestion.  So sharing that might be helpful in evaluating the
reasonableness of that.  And when you talk about the "creation" of three
groups, are you advocating for their creation or suggesting that they
simply arise in the practice of dual language programs?

I would tend to differ and to side with researchers who note that many
children in a society in which two or more languages are spoken rather
then being fully monolingual in one or another language tend to exist on
a bilingual continuum, closer to one extreme or another, but unlikely to
be fully and strictly monolingual.  So at least two of the three groups
you hypothesize (the monolinguals on either end) may have limited
empirical verifiability, or at least may be valid for a very short
duration of time as the groups mix and learners begin to move across the
continuum.  Further, given a bilingual continuum it is more likely,
imho, that constructs such as Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development
make more sense as a positive influence on peer learning.  So, for
example, someone only slightly further along on the bilingual continuum
towards a second language may be the child that is the best helper for a
child who is a little less far along the continuum toward a second
language (and is even more helpful, in some regards, than someone very
far down the continuum who is thereby less comprehensible to the learner
in question).  So, in this sense, every child is both a learner in the
program and a potential "buffer" if by "buffer" you mean someone who
negotiates language in such a way that they help another acquire or
develop new language skills.  And the student less far along the
continuum can even be a "buffer" for the child further along who is
helping him/her, in that the helper in interacting with this child may
come to realize things about his/her native language that he/she did not
recognize in his/her own use of language, but can see clearly in the use
of language by a learning peer (some insight that becomes useful for
language learning for that helper-child).  So I'm not sure about the
efficacy of the three groups you mention as either a conceptual
framework or as a practical reality.

> 2) My comment with regard to competition was directed more toward
> those who serve as role models than the children themselves. I do not
> want to dwell on this point too much, because it is the existence of
> the competition and not the perspective with which it is viewed that
> is most important. Besides, the children appear (based upon what has
> been said) just as capable of acting as role models for each other as
> are their appointed mentors.

Not exactly, see my comments above about ZOPED.  There can be
differential value of different mentors and language models in a
learning environment, imho, with all participants being
learners/"buffers"/models in turn, both generally and for specific
others in the group of learners.

> 3) What I am happy to learn and makes good sense, is that at least
> some of the children are performing better -- enough anyway to make
> average test scores high enough to outperform monolingual native
> speakers. This suggests that the awareness of one's own native tongue
> is enhanced by the presence of another language. Certainly this
> confirms my own personal experience with language and what many
> language experts have been saying all along about the benefits of
> studying a second language. What is key here, of course, is the
> presence of native speakers as role models.

Yes the presence of native speakers is important, but also important is
explicit attention to structuring opportunities to acquire, develop and
learn a different language.  I am talking about the importance of
pedagogy in the mix.  Otherwise you may have fine social language
development, but limited or no academic language development (which was
a concern of yours).  And you need teachers who understand things like
"logical errors" - errors in language use that demonstrate growth along
the bilingual continuum rather than being simply "incorrect".  And, of
course, other artifacts are important in the learning environment, such
as books in each language, toys with affordances in each language,
activity artifacts that promote high-level interactions among learners
and the negotiation of meaning that fosters language development.

As to the quotations from W.'s comments last night, I was embarrassed
(and still aggravated given how he came to office) at multiple points in
the debate that this man is the primary face and voice of America to the
rest of the world.  'Tis a pity 'tis true and 'tis true 'tis a pity.  To
challenge just one ridiculous point: high-stakes standardized tests are
NOT diagnostic, and are not designed to be.

In Peace,
K.