I would love to hear this conversation develop. Please keep thinking and
posting, Lori and Carol. I'll throw a few of my biases into the mix here. The
trouble with populations such as Carol's (Hispanic LEP, ELL, whatever) and
Lori's (Native American, LEP) and "language instruction" a la NCLB/Reading
First/CR/RM/OC, etcetera is that EXPLAINING WORDS WITH MORE WORDS is just never
going to do it for the very kids that may be at highest risk. They will remain
kids without any true understanding of the vocabulary, therefore unable to use
the language of power such as Lori is talking about, consequently ready to be
marginalized or oppressed. "Big words" peppered in do not an understanding of
register, or any other more powerful language usage, make.
Our knowledge of language acquisition and bilingualism and learning theory seem
to have just been thrown out the window (along with the kids) when we provide
language "instruction" to kids that is all abstract. I will never understand
how ELL educators and speech pathologists, of all people, think Reading First
will help the children for whom they are responsible, and for whom they should
be advocating!! They should know better!!
"Teaching" words such as "ambled" and "indolent" in third grade Corrective
Reading through call-and-response is just not going to make an ELL kid (such as
the ones Carol describes wetting themselves) proficient in English or a
powerful language user capable of using language to become a part of the
mainstream culture in America.
Language at early levels is acquired through direct, concrete experience. If
someone really wanted to have the conversation Carol described and have a
chance at changing the "wetting oneself" concept, they'd need to bring in the
water!! It "seems" to be more efficient to just throw big words at the ELL
kids, but the error of that thinking should be apparent when we consider our
inability to change the language of Carol's kids in her scenario.
The language proficiency hasn't changed at all; they're just LEP kids who use
big words.
The part that never ceases to amaze me is that the language experiences of ELL
kids in programs such as those required by Reading First further and further
narrow language opportunities and we think we are doing them a big favor. And
the people who should know better are the ones leading the "pack." (And I hope
my language usage of the word "pack" invokes the understanding I intend.) It's
all well and good that we, as superior language users, can write each other and
discuss language with words typed and electronically transmitted: that,
however, has little to do with the ELL or LEP kid. The "big words" we use are
appropriate to our development and educational level. "Pasting" big words onto
an LEP kid may impress someone, but doesn't necessarily broaden or deepen their
language abilities.
Now, curious enough, I agree with both Lori and Carol and a host of others,
which I guess shows how I wrestle with these concepts. My thinking is pretty
muddy. Yes, Lori's kids have to be able to use powerful language in order to
lessen the oppression in which they currently reside. There is a purpose for
using the phrases "extrapolate," "recording data," or "permutations" AND, most
importantly, we provide the concrete, direct experiences (or should) for
developing a true understanding of science process and mathematical concepts.
And those concepts might as well be called what they are. Anything less has a
chance of "locking in" the language/vocabulary of the less powerful. Of course
we want our kids to be powerful users of our language. Of course, we want our
kids to have access to rich vocabulary such as that which Carol describes. But
it's the instructional choices we make that determines to what extent our
children do become proficient in the language of power, and, again explaining
words WITH MORE WORDS isn't likely to get our kids to where we want them to go.
I suspect that this whole discussion is muddy because we ourselves aren't clear
about LANGUAGE acquisition as opposed to VOCABULARY acquisition.
Elisa, what do you think?
Hoping not to offend, but feeling strongly,
Bev
************************************************************Carol said, I
was thinking about how teaching more specific vocabulary would helpeliminate
this confusion. They could learn:Moisten the towel. or Make the towel moist.
Soak the paper. or Be sure the paper is soaked. I dried my soaking wet hair. or
I dampened my hair before styling it. I got wet in the sprinklers. I sprayed my
sister. I squirted my brother.I drenched my dad. I splashed my mom. We were all
dripping wet. Even our
underwear was drenched. All this language to teach and so little time it
seems! Carol
_________________________________________________________________
Enjoy 5 GB of free, password-protected online storage.
http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_062008
_______________________________________________
Mosaic mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
