ELL Students_3rd version_Final Paper

RUNNING HEAD: ELL STUDENTS 1

ELL STUDENTS

James B. Winter

EDUC 523: Diversity

12/1/15

Dr. Darline Robles

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California


Abstract

This discourse will address the linguistic ability of English Language Learners (ELL) acquiring a

second language (L2) and the complications that are created for those who come from non-

English speaking countries and how the adaptation and acquisition occurs. The focus of this

paper is to discuss common and popular beliefs regarding the ELL community and to provide

recommendations as to how language acquisition can be attained and what the timeframe might

be for that acquisition. Some questions may develop regarding language acquisition, language

learning, language fluency and language accuracy in the L2 that frequently evolve before the

learner is fluent. Several myths regarding ELLs will be discussed. In addition, four different

theories regarding language acquisition and learning, in order to determine if there is a preferred

method of learning an L2, will be discussed. The goal is to explore the research and theories

which might assist and clarify how ELLs first achieve Second Language Acquisition (SLA), then

become fluent. This essay considers the position that once acquisition occurs, as Professor James

P. Gee states, then learning can commence.

Keywords: second language acquisition (SLA), Critical Period Hypothesis, Universal Grammar,

Monitor Theory


ELL Students

The problem I am focusing on is the ELL’s difficulty in learning and acquiring a second

language (L2). Dr. Dorothee Saur, a neurologist, notes that a critical issue within the study of

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is determining whether SLA is influenced by a specific age

span or rather by changes within the brain itself (Saur, et al., 2009). Although it is commonly

accepted that successful first language (L1) acquisition is possible only during a certain period

(Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003), it is controversial as to whether the same is true for L2

acquisition (Saur et al., 2009).

Recent conclusions from the Department of Commerce’s census states that, due to the

quantity of people whose fluency in the English language is less than optimal, this situation

requires that state and local governments must provide English as a Second Language classes in

schools, and translate official forms into multiple languages (Gambino, Acosta, & Grieco, 2014).

Stephan Dinan of the Washington Times, stated less than half of the United States

immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, speak English well (Dinan, 2014). The

importance of resolving this major issue is of high concern according to Dr. Diane Haager,

because conducting instruction in English, regardless of whether it is students' native language, is

critically important to develop strategies for addressing ELLs unique literacy learning needs

(Haager, 2007). Experts agree that an ELL’s primary concern is to accomplish fluency in the

English language as soon as possible. Teachers who have the skill set for Teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) have the responsibility to ensure that the students in their

care have the opportunity to become fluent on an academic level to the point where the students

are able to accomplish their needs in school. Complications may arise if L1 is spoken in the


home and L2 is spoken in the workplace and academic environments. The fluency of the ELL is

requisite to comfortably enter into the workforce. Gee (2008) discusses the importance of both

styles of discourse for ELL and where the secondary discourse or L2 may be utilized. Gee has

determined that secondary institutions such as schools, workplaces and churches, among other

places, should maintain separate secondary discourses rather than locations such as the home,

where primary discourse should be maintained.

Gee’s (2008) article on discourses and literacies brings to the forefront two principles,

namely acquisition and learning. Both acquisition and learning apply to discourses as well as to

literacies. Gee explains the two principles in the following manner: acquisition is the process of

acquiring something subconsciously by exposure to models via trial and error without formal

teaching. It occurs this way naturally and individuals learn their native language in this fashion.

Learning is a process that requires conscious knowledge gained through teaching

although it does not necessarily need to come from a teacher (Gee, 2008). Gee continued to state

that teaching requires breaking down the thing to be learned into its analytic parts. It involves

attaining a degree of meta-knowledge regarding the language being learned (2008). Professor

emeritus of Education Stephen D. Krashen cited that:

L2 acquisition proceeds in essentially the same manner as L1 acquisition (the L1 = L2 position). That is, learners acquire underlying unconscious knowledge of a language (called linguistic competence) simply by being exposed to the linguistic input (called primary linguistic data) in the environment. Instruction and error correction play no role in the development of competence in the L2 (Krashen, 1985).

Gee has made it a point to discern between language acquisition and language learning.

Acquisition must (at least partially) precede learning; apprenticeship must precede overt


teaching. Classrooms that do not properly balance acquisition and learning, give undue

advantage to those students who have already begun the acquisition process outside the school.

Too little acquisition leads to too little mastery-in-practice; too little learning leads to too little

analytic and reflective awareness and limits the capacity for certain sorts of critical reading and

reflection (Gee, 2008, p.171).”

Other aspects of the acquisition of L2 include the age of the ELL and the community of

practice (CofP) which is discussed by Drs. Meyerhoff and Holmes (1999). These qualitative

differences may illuminate the contribution that a CofP analysis can make to the study of

language and society. The chief purpose of their article was to show the importance of CofP and

to provide a principled basis for distinguishing the CofP from similar concepts such as the

speech community, social networks, and social identity.

Once students have begun acquiring the language they can begin to learn more aspects of

the language, such as idioms. Using idioms correctly is an example of understanding the specific

culture of the language. When the students make progress in their understanding of L2, they

gradually move from SLA to the learning stage and the understanding of idioms is evidence of

that progress. Dr. Thomas C. Cooper suggests that because the thought processes of the L2

learner are not simultaneous in recognizing idioms but are slower, more deliberate and therefore

more tractable than those of the native speaker, the researcher can follow these thought processes

by using TA (think aloud) methods in an effort to gain a better understanding of how the L2

learner arrives at an understanding of the idiom itself. (Cooper, 2012, p. 254). While idioms are

closed phrases with a figurative meaning, the L2 learner, having acquired the language and

progressed to the learning stage, recognizes that it is not to be taken literally.


There are idiomatic expressions in several languages which allow the ELL to distinguish

between the figurative and literal meanings of the phrase. In the acquisition phase, the ELL may

question different idioms and their initial meanings, however, in the learning process, those

questions and concerns may resolve themselves. Research has shown that there is a good way

for students to interact in their L2 would involve them studying in cooperative learning groups.

Cooperative learning is an area in general education that provides teachers of all subjects,

including L2, with insights into how to successfully facilitate student-student collaboration

(Jacobs & Kimura, 2013). The negative side effect with this learning method is that they tend to

talk in their L1. What is a resolution for this? Drs. George Jacobs and Harumi Kimura suggest

asking students to form groups with classmates who speak different L1s. Teachers create a

situation in which the L2 becomes the lingua franca (common language) of the group.

Dr. Kazuya Saito (2015), an SLA professor, recently discovered that learners continue to

progress in the L2 over a timespan of approximately six years of living in the host country and

do so by paying attention to linguistic domains which make the most sense to the learner.

However, it may not be relevant to pronunciation which may lead to the purpose of successful

communication in the L2.

English as Second Language (ESL) programs nationwide must address widely known

myths regarding ELL learning capabilities. According to the National Council of Teachers of

English (NCTE), there are at least six myths that stigmatize the ESL community and learning

process.

The first myth is that many ELLs have disabilities, which is why they are often

overrepresented in special education. In regards to clarifying the first myth, even though there is

truth that a large number of ELLs are represented in special education, there are a variety of


placement and classifications with the size of the ELL population in each state and access to ELL

programs. Drs. Robert Rueda and Michelle Windmueller (2006) suggest in their research that,

since English language learners (ELLs) are to transition rapidly to English-only classes over

time, placement patterns by grade level need to be examined. In the eleven urban districts in

California with a high majority of ELLs, minority enrollments and high poverty levels, the

results revealed an overrepresentation of ELLs in special education emerging by Grade five and

remaining clearly visible until Grade twelve. At the district level, the ELL population was

overrepresented in the mental retardation (MR) and language and speech (LAS) categories,

especially at the secondary level. ELLs were 27% more likely than English-proficient students to

be placed in special education in elementary grades and almost twice as likely to be placed in

secondary grades (Artiles et al., 2002).

The second myth is that children learn the L2 quickly and easily. The reality is that a

variety of socio-cultural factors can affect language learning. ELL students might face additional

challenges such as acclimating to a new culture and status that interfere with learning English.

Knowing this, teachers are recommended to use culturally relevant materials to build on

students’ linguistic and cultural resources, while teaching language through content and themes.

Students should be encouraged to use native language strategically, and may be motivated by

student centered activities. Because English language learning is a recursive process, educators

should integrate the four major learning techniques which are: listening, speaking, reading, and

writing skills into instruction from the beginning (NCTE, 2008, online).

According to the NCTE, the third myth is that, when an ELL student is able to speak

English fluently, he or she has mastered it. Dr. Ignacio M. Garcia and Ms. Maria Isabel Peña

(2011) show that analysis of the output produced has found that machine translation (MT) helps


beginners to communicate more, particularly when they had a lesser mastery of the language.

The less their mastery of the L2, the greater the difference between the number of words

composed with the help of MT and the number of those written directly into L2. Language

learning is a lifelong endeavor and the importance of that learning process is only heightened

with ELLs regardless of where they are in the process.

The fourth myth is that all ELL students learn English in the same way (NCTE, 2008,

online). A way to clarify this myth is to have an understanding of the backstory and prior context

regarding the ELL community. The ELLs’ prior schooling, socio-economic position, content

knowledge, and immigration status are all variables to their learning process. There are ELLs

who speak languages with English cognates, while others speak with little lexical similarity to

English; this changes the nature of how students learn content-specific vocabulary.

The fifth myth which needs to be clarified is that, providing accommodations for ELL

students only benefits those students. Research shows that making mainstream classrooms more

responsive to the ELL community may also make them more helpful to learners who have

greater needs in general. Several cognitive aspects of reading are common to both native

speakers of English and ELLs, though recent research shows that educators should pay additional

attention to background context, interaction, and vocabulary with ELLs (NCTE, 2008, online).

Finally, research has debunked the myth that teaching ELLs means only focusing on

vocabulary (NCTE, 2008, online). Drs. Moss, Lapp and O’Shea (2011) propose that in order to

discuss the absence of literacy among ELLs and other struggling readers, curriculum should

facilitate the development of academic language and background knowledge essential for

learning in high school content-area classrooms and the workplace. If ELLs in English

classrooms are to succeed in critically engaging with academic texts, they need intentionally


designed interventions that support mastery of subject-specific academic vocabulary and

background knowledge, as well as the forms and functions of academic language.

Recommendations

On the continuum of acquisition and learning, with Skinner and Chomsky juxtaposed,

there is some thought that if one learns a new language then it is possible to lose or forget

particular parts of speech or vocabulary from the L1 which the learner has known his or her

whole life. Recent research shows there are several factors that affect the learning of L2. Some of

them concern linguistic aspects which include word class and degree of similarity between

languages. Others concern the teaching methods adopted and the corresponding learning

strategies. Still others such as age, motivation, and knowledge of other languages relate to the

learner (Tonzar, Lotto & Job, 2009, p.624).

ELLs who are on the continuum of acquisition and learning may encounter obstacles to

fluency and accuracy. To aid the student in overcoming these obstacles, research has shown four

main theories regarding SLA which may to different degrees help provide a conclusion regarding

how ELLs could learn English in the United States once they arrive from their individual

countries. ELLs could make strides in acquisition and learning according to what views or

theories they adhere to. These four theories are: 1) Behaviorism, 2) Universal Grammar 3)

Monitor Theory 4) Critical Period Hypothesis

The first theory was created by the late behaviorist B.F. Skinner. Behaviorism was the

popular theory in the 1950s and 1960s with the method being taught nationwide. The

understanding of SLA that Skinner maintained was that language learning is like any other type

of learning as long as it involves habit formation. Skinner saw babies as empty vessels that

needed information to be put into the child (Skinner, 1957). Critics of Behaviorism such as Jean


Piaget and Noam Chomsky were equally vocal regarding Skinner’s work in Behaviorism.

Chomsky believed in the internal capabilities in SLA which led to the Universal Grammar

approach (Chomsky, 1995).

Universal Grammar was defined by Chomsky (1995), “as an intricate and highly

constrained structure consisting of various subsystems of principles”. The hypothesis states that

the idea of human languages as diverse as they are, have some fundamental similarities and that

those similarities are attributable to innate principles unique to language. Basically he believed

that deep down, there is only one human language (Chomsky, 1995, p. 131).

The Monitor Theory was coined by emeritus professor from the University of Southern

California, Stephen D. Krashen.

The fundamental claim of Monitor Theory is that conscious learning is available to the performer only as a Monitor. Utterances are initiated by the acquired system, our fluency in our production is due to what we have picked up through active communication. Our formal knowledge of the second language, our conscious learning, may be used to alter the output of the acquired system, sometimes before and sometimes after the utterance is produced (Krashen, 1981, p. 2).

An example of the Monitor Theory is what occurs in the average classroom. The TESOL

teacher teaches the ELLs about a principle or concept and allows the ELLs to debate and learn

from the teacher who works as a monitor or moderator to guide the flow of the class and ensure

that the concept has been understood.

The fourth view is the Critical Period Hypothesis. There are researchers such as

Singleton and Birdsong who believe that language acquisition has a time limit. Dr. David

Singleton states that the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), involves researchers interested in


age-related effects in L2 ultimate attainment who claim that these effects are due a critical period

(CP) for language acquisition. Dr. David Birdsong (1999) discusses this further by postulating

that CPH has spawned a vast range of data, from grammaticality judgments to speech samples to

event-related brain potentials. The data has lent itself to interpretation in several ways from

theories of access (or lack of access) to universal grammar (UG); as suggesting post-maturational

age effects and cross-linguistic (transfer) effects; and as evidence for tremendous diversity of

learner outcomes, ranging from little progress to native-like mastery.

There are several methodologies used nationwide to teach the millions of ELLs that have

joined the predominantly English speaking community. This is no longer just an individual state

border issue; it is now a United States practical and cultural challenge.

Conclusion

The skill sets that are portrayed by ELLs within the United States, regardless of the

country of origin, may adhere to the point of view or hypothesis that favors their individual

situations the best. Studies show that our minds are vast enough in terms of understanding and

processing that answers can be found in English or in their L1. Accuracy in the L2 is difficult to

achieve but is available to ELLs who take the time to correct themselves.

As discussed by Gee at the beginning of this paper, the secondary discourse and primary

discourse determine where ELLs will use their L1 and where they will have to use their L2.

Language acquisition can be compared to a CD which holds several tracks and ELLs will be able

to move to the other track without hesitation depending on the need at the moment. Code-

switching open doors which were previously closed. The ability for a student to learn English is

key to their success in the United States. The language is not the critical measure as much as it is


the ability to speak a second language well enough to acclimate in a new culture. The need to

speak an L2 forces open the eyes and the minds of those who are brave enough to acquire and

learn it.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, 2012) shows that since

2002, more than 6.6 million immigrants have entered the United States of America. As the host

country to these new ELLs, the U.S. has an immediate need to create a policy whereby these

ELLs will have an easier method to learning the English language in a short amount of time.

Educators and administrators need to provide a path with goals and standards interlaced

within the ELL program in order for students to attain L2 fluency, and the program needs to set

goals for each student in order to accomplish their needs regarding higher education.

Further research is required to investigate the L2 acquisition of these immigrants, to track

overall SLA, as well as to track L2 fluency to determine whether educators are succeeding.

Questions that must be researched are: What is the current theory that is being used within an

ELL program? Is the SLA coinciding with the Common Core curriculum? Are there better

processes by which teachers can address the L2 needs of their students? Is the educational

system in the United States meeting the expectations of the ELL immigrants?

The research regarding Universal Grammar needs to be solidified and understood, as Dr.

Ewa Dąbrowska (2015) declares that we are no closer to understanding what UG is than when

Chomsky coined the term. The SLA and L2 continuum still remain a mystery to linguists and

educators who search for the best method and theory to apply to ELLs in order to accomplish L2

fluency.


For centuries, immigrants have come from countries whose L1 is not predominantly

English as it is in the United States. The United States has seen an influx as mentioned above of

millions of ELLs whose success hinges on the public education system’s ability to teach ESL

courses to the best of their ability in order for the ELLs to acclimate, acquire the L2 and continue

on to L2 fluency in a country where they are trying to adapt to a new culture. It is critical that

ELLs have confidence in a method that works. Educators and administrators must create a

method which will curb the myths and fallacies within the system and aid ELLs in their need for

higher education and employment in order to thrive in their new country.


References

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2002). Racial inequality in special

education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), English-language learner representation in

special education in California urban school districts (pp. 265-284). Boston, MA:

Harvard Education Press.

Birdsong, D. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. second

language acquisition research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62379118?accountid=14749

Cooper, T. C. (2012). Processing of Idioms by L2 Learners of English. Tesol Quarterly, 33(2),

233-262. doi:10.2307/3587719

Cox, M. P., & De Assis-Peterson, A. A. (1999). Critical pedagogy in ELT: Images of Brazilian

teachers of English. Tesol Quarterly, 33(3), 433-452. doi:10.2307/3587673

Department of Commerce, Acosta, Y. D., Gambino, C. P., & Grieco, E. M. (2014). English-

Speaking Ability of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2012 (ACS-26).

Retrieved from U.S. Department of Commerce website: http://census.gov

Dinan, S. (2014, June 10). Less than half of immigrants speak English well: Census Bureau -

Washington Times. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/10/less-half-immigrants-speak-english-

well/

Dąbrowska, E. (2015). "What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it". Retrieved

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477053/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4477053/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/10/less-half-immigrants-speak-english-well/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/10/less-half-immigrants-speak-english-well/

http://census.gov/

http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/62379118?accountid=14749


Garcia, I., & Pena, M. I. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: writing for

beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471-487.

doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.582687

Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Routledge, NY.

Giouroukakis, V. P., & Honigsfeld, A. E. (2010). High-stakes testing and English language

learners: Using culturally and linguistically responsive literacy practices in the high

school English classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 1(4), 470-499. doi:10.5054/tj.2010.240193

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English language learners to

develop oral proficiency and academic proficiency in English? Stanford, CA: University

of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The Community of Practice: Theories and methodologies

in language and gender research. Lang. Soc, 28(2), 173-183.

doi:10.1017/s004740459900202x

Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. J. Doughty

& M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford, England:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Jacobs, G., & Kimura, H. (2013). Encouraging Second Language Use in Cooperative Learning

Groups. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541827.pdf

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford,

England: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, Great Britain:

Longman.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541827.pdf


Moss, B., Lapp, D., & O'Shea, M. (2011). Tiered Texts: Supporting Knowledge and Language

Learning for English Learners and Struggling Readers. English Journal, 100(5), 54-60.

Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ926302

National Council of Teachers of English, Aull, L., Dickinson, H., Gerben, C., Green, T.,

Moody, S., … Orzulak, M. M. (2008). A Policy Research Brief. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org

Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English Language Learners, LD, and

Overrepresentation: A Multiple-Level Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2),

99-107. doi:10.1177/00222194060390020801

Saito, K. (2015). Experience effects on the development of late second language learners’ oral

proficiency. Tesol Quarterly, 65(3), 563-595. doi:10.1111/lang.12120

Saur, D., Baumgaertner, A., Moehring, A., Büchel, C., Bonnesen, M., Rose, M., … Meisel, J. M.

(2009). Word order processing in the bilingual brain. Neuropsychologia, 47, 158-168.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.08.007

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Trahey, M. (1996). Positive evidence in second language acquisition: some long-term effects.

Second Language Research, 12(2), 111-139. doi:10.1177/026765839601200201

USCIS. (2012). Naturalization Fact Sheet | USCIS. Retrieved from USCIS website:

http://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/naturalization-fact-sheet

http://www.uscis.gov/archive/archive-news/naturalization-fact-sheet

http://www.ncte.org/

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ926302


Documents

ELL Students_3rd version_Final Paper