Eliciting Students’ Extended Use of Spanish during Whole Group Instruction in a First Grade Two-Way Immersion Classroom

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043987/00001

Material Information

Title: Eliciting Students’ Extended Use of Spanish during Whole Group Instruction in a First Grade Two-Way Immersion Classroom
Physical Description: 1 online resource (191 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lopez, Patricia
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012


Subjects / Keywords: bilingual -- education -- immersion -- program -- two -- way
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Research literature in the field of two-way immersion (TWI) programs addresses the importance of teaching practices that provide English and Spanish-speaking students with high-quality education that meets the students’ academic and linguistic needs. Of particular interest is teaching in the minority language (Spanish) since English has a higher status, thus generally becomes a more powerful language in the classroom. More research is needed in teaching practices that provide students with opportunities for Spanish use and development in the context of TWI programs. This study examined how a bilingual teacher elicited students’ extended use of Spanish during whole group instruction. The study focused on describing strategic instructional patterns used by the bilingual teacher and her beliefs as guiding points in her practices in a TWI first grade classroom. The data for the study came from four literacy lessons and two teacher interviews during the 2009-2010 school year. Inductive analysis in the form of domain analysis was employed to examine the bilingual teacher’s practices and beliefs in her classroom. Findings indicated that the bilingual teacher promoted authentic opportunities for students to use and develop language. Her teaching practices were based on a Comprehensible Input/Problematization/Decentralization framework which served as a pedagogical combination to elicit and extend student language production. Within this framework, the bilingual teacher provided students with a context for language comprehension, presented students with problems that needed solving, and decentralized her teacher role to open up spaces for students to become autonomous problem-solvers and negotiators. In addition to the framework, Maestra Mara put into practice specific instructional strategies to ensure student language use. Her language views complemented her teaching practices as she firmly believed in the importance of providing students with real opportunities to explore language. This study adds to the extant literature about effective teaching practices to foster language opportunities for students to build and practice the minority language in TWI classrooms. From the findings of the study, implications for second language teaching practitioners and researchers are presented.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patricia Lopez.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Ross, Dorene D.
Local: Co-adviser: Bondy, Elizabeth.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043987:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043987/00001

Material Information

Title: Eliciting Students’ Extended Use of Spanish during Whole Group Instruction in a First Grade Two-Way Immersion Classroom
Physical Description: 1 online resource (191 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lopez, Patricia
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012


Subjects / Keywords: bilingual -- education -- immersion -- program -- two -- way
Teaching and Learning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Curriculum and Instruction (ISC) thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Research literature in the field of two-way immersion (TWI) programs addresses the importance of teaching practices that provide English and Spanish-speaking students with high-quality education that meets the students’ academic and linguistic needs. Of particular interest is teaching in the minority language (Spanish) since English has a higher status, thus generally becomes a more powerful language in the classroom. More research is needed in teaching practices that provide students with opportunities for Spanish use and development in the context of TWI programs. This study examined how a bilingual teacher elicited students’ extended use of Spanish during whole group instruction. The study focused on describing strategic instructional patterns used by the bilingual teacher and her beliefs as guiding points in her practices in a TWI first grade classroom. The data for the study came from four literacy lessons and two teacher interviews during the 2009-2010 school year. Inductive analysis in the form of domain analysis was employed to examine the bilingual teacher’s practices and beliefs in her classroom. Findings indicated that the bilingual teacher promoted authentic opportunities for students to use and develop language. Her teaching practices were based on a Comprehensible Input/Problematization/Decentralization framework which served as a pedagogical combination to elicit and extend student language production. Within this framework, the bilingual teacher provided students with a context for language comprehension, presented students with problems that needed solving, and decentralized her teacher role to open up spaces for students to become autonomous problem-solvers and negotiators. In addition to the framework, Maestra Mara put into practice specific instructional strategies to ensure student language use. Her language views complemented her teaching practices as she firmly believed in the importance of providing students with real opportunities to explore language. This study adds to the extant literature about effective teaching practices to foster language opportunities for students to build and practice the minority language in TWI classrooms. From the findings of the study, implications for second language teaching practitioners and researchers are presented.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patricia Lopez.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Ross, Dorene D.
Local: Co-adviser: Bondy, Elizabeth.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0043987:00001

This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2012 Patricia Lpez Estrada


3 To my husband


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I thank my husband for always supporting me a nd being a source of happiness, strength, and encouragement during the arduous times of making it through my graduate studies. I am, and will always be, thankful to my parents: mama and papa. They inculcated in me the passion for education early in my life They have tenderly and lovingly guided and supported me all my life. For their caring, compassionate love, I am who I am. It is for them that I aspire to continue being the best person and professional I can possible be. I hope to keep making them proud of me. I sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Ross, who believed in me as a professional and gave me an opportunity to fulfill my dream. I want to truly thank her for making it all happen, for seeing through my passion and dedication and investing her energy an d time in me. Her kind, caring, and motivating words will always stay with me for the rest of my life. I am grateful to Dr. Bondy who supported me through the toughest times of my studies and opened doors for me to see more critically. I am extremely indeb ted to Dr. de Jong for giving me a friendly, encouraging hand during my academic journey at the university. She made me part of her research team and introduced me to the wonders of bilingual education. It was through her that I met the teacher participant of my study, to whom I am also truly grateful for her willingness to participate. Finally, I want to thank Dr. Mirka, who enthusiastically dedicated her time to guide and challenge me during my novice qualitative research journey. I thank my committee mem bers, from the bottom of my heart, for always being a source of inspiration and endless academic and emotional support since the very beginning.


5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Language Minority Students ................................ ................................ ................... 12 Sociocultural Theory (SCT) and Communicative Language Tea ching (CLT) ......... 13 Two way Immersion (TWI) Programs ................................ ................................ ..... 14 Using the Minority Language ................................ ................................ .................. 17 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 Definition of Key Terms ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 Overview of Methodology ................................ ................................ ....................... 23 Sample Selection ................................ ................................ ............................. 23 Data Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 24 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 26 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 Importance of the Study ................................ ................................ .......................... 27 Organization of the Dissertation ................................ ................................ .............. 29 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 31 Educating Language Minority Students in the United States ................................ .. 31 Sociocultural Theory (SCT) ................................ ................................ ..................... 34 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) ................................ ............................ 39 TWI Programs in the United States ................................ ................................ ........ 43 Characteristics of TWI Programs ................................ ................................ ...... 44 Purposes of TWI Programs ................................ ................................ .............. 46 Research in TWI P rograms ................................ ................................ .............. 48 Teacher Pedagogy in TWI Programs ................................ ............................... 50 Classroom Discourse in the Second Language Setting ................................ ... 57 Research on Classroom Discourse and Interaction in the Second Language Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 62 Research Focusing on Teacher Student Interaction ................................ ........ 63 Research Focusing on Teacher Discourse ................................ ....................... 66 Research Focusing on Empowering Discourse ................................ ................ 68 Teacher Discourse in TWI Programs ................................ ............................... 70 Research Focusing on Language Development ................................ ............... 71


6 Research Focusing on Language and Identity C onstruction ............................ 74 Research Focusing on Classroom Interaction Patterns ................................ ... 76 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............... 83 Research Framework ................................ ................................ .............................. 83 Research Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 85 Escuela El Milagro: Escuela Bilinge de Doble Va ................................ .......... 86 Research Participant ................................ ................................ ........................ 88 Classroom Context ................................ ................................ ........................... 90 Data Sources ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 91 Classroom Lessons ................................ ................................ .......................... 91 Individual Interviews ................................ ................................ ......................... 94 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 96 Conducting Domain Analysis ................................ ................................ ............ 97 ............... 98 Create Domains Based on Semantic Relationships Discovered within Frames of Analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 100 Identify Salient Domains, Assign Them a Code, and Put Others Aside ......... 102 Reread Data, Refining Salient Domains and Keeping a Record of Where Relationships Are Found in the Data ................................ ........................... 103 Decide if Your Domains A re Supported by the Data and Search for Examples That Do Not Fit with or Run Counter to the Relationships in Your Domains ................................ ................................ ............................. 104 Complete an Analysis within Domains ................................ ........................... 105 Search for Themes across Domains ................................ .............................. 106 Trustworthiness ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 108 Subjectivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 110 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 116 Classroom Community and Rapport Building ................................ ....................... 117 Students Extended Use of Spanish (SEUS) ................................ ......................... 119 ................................ ........................ 120 Providing a Context To Support Language Comprehension ................................ 120 (Comprehensible Input) ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 Presenting Students with Problems (Problematization) ................................ ........ 123 Decentralizing Her Teacher Role (Decentralization) ................................ ............. 126 Strategic Instructional Patterns to Elicit SEUS ................................ ...................... 128 P retending Not To Know and Wondering Aloud ................................ ............. 128 Using Synonyms ................................ ................................ ............................ 130 ................................ ................. 131 Encouraging and Expecting Students To Produce More Language ............... 134 Encouraging Students To Provide More Ideas ................................ ............... 134 Reinforcing the Use of Complete Sentences and Ideas ................................ 135 Encouraging Students To Provide Different and Varied Ideas ....................... 136 Expecting All Students To Participate ................................ ............................ 137


7 Implementing Think Pair Share Events ................................ .......................... 138 Encouraging Elaboration ................................ ................................ ................ 141 Teacher Beliefs about Language that Guide Her Teaching Practices .................. 143 ................................ ................................ ... 145 Students Language Use ................................ ................................ ................. 146 Promoting of Problem Solving and Negotiation Skills ................................ .... 147 Providing Less Structured vs. More Structured Classroom Activities ............. 148 Advocating for Spanish Speaking Students ................................ ................... 149 5 DISCUSSIO N AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ ..... 154 Overview of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 154 Summary of the Findings ................................ ................................ ...................... 155 Discussion of the Findings ................................ ................................ .................... 156 Sociocultural Theory (SCT) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 157 The Teacher ................................ ................................ ........................ 160 Teaching Practices to Elicit Student Language Production ............................ 163 Teacher Beliefs and Expectations ................................ ................................ .. 166 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 168 Implications for Second Language Teachers ................................ ................. 168 Implications for Se cond Language Teacher Educators ................................ .. 171 Implications for Educational Research ................................ ........................... 173 APPENDIX: TEACHER INTERVIEW GENERAL PROTOCOL ................................ ... 177 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 178 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 190


8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 ................................ ................................ 30 3 1 Two way immersion classes ................................ ................................ ............. 113 3 2 En rollment by ethnicity 2009 2010 ................................ ................................ ... 113 3 3 Instructional approach and design ................................ ................................ .... 113 3 4 Whole instruction segments ................................ ................................ .............. 113 3 5 Coding sample ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 114 3 6 Examples found in data ................................ ................................ .................... 114 4 1 Number of students and duration of SEUS episodes ................................ ....... 153


9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Allocation of languages of instruction in two way immersion programs .............. 82 3 1 Domain analysis example ................................ ................................ ................. 115 3 2 Domain analysis worksheet ................................ ................................ .............. 115


10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to t he Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education INSTRUCTION IN A FIRST GRADE TWO WAY IMMERSION CLASSROOM By Patricia L pez Estrada May 2012 Chair: Dorene Ross Major: Curriculum and Instruction Research literature in the field of two way immersion (TWI) programs addresses the importance of teaching practices t hat provide English and Spanish sp eaking students with high needs. Of particular interest is teaching in the minority language (Spanish) since English has a higher status thus generally becomes a more powerful language in the classroom. More research is needed in teaching practices that provide students with opportunities for Spanish use and development in the context of TWI programs. This study examined dur ing whole group instruction. The study focused on describing strategic instructional patterns used by the bilingual teacher and her beliefs as guiding points in her teaching practices in a TWI first grade classroom. The data for the study came from four li teracy lessons and two teacher interviews during the 2009 2010 school year. Inductive analysis in the practices and beliefs in her classroom. Findings indicated that the bilingual te acher promoted authentic opportunities for students to use and develop language. Her teaching practices were based on a


11 Co mprehensible Input /Problematization/Decentralization framework which served as a pedagogical combination to elicit and extend student language production. Within this framework, the bilingual teacher provided students with a context for language comprehension, presented students with problems that needed solving, and decentralized her teacher role to open up spaces for students to become autonomous problem solvers and negotiators. In addition to the framework, the bilingual teacher put into practice specific instructional strategies to ensure student language use. Her language views complemented her teaching practices as she firmly believ ed in the importance of providing students with real opportunities to explore language. This study adds to the extant literature about effective teaching practices to foster language opportunities for students to build and practice the minority language in TWI classrooms. From the findings of the study, implications for second language teaching practitioners and researchers are presented.


12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Language Minority Students In the vast demographic landscape of the United States, language minority students have increasingly grown in number (C enter for A pplied L inguistics 2011a 2011d ; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008; N ational Center for Education Statistics 2010 a ; Lpez Estrada et al., 2009 Ray, 2008; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). According to the Nat ional Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in The Condition of Education 2010, from t he late 1970s until 2008 the number of students who either spoke a language other than English at home or spoke English with difficulty increased from 3.8 to 10.9 millio n (NCES, 2010). They represent 21 % of children ages 5 17 in the U S. Of the 2.7 million that spoke English with difficulty, 75 % sp oke Spanish. Despite recommendations from the research literature, many educational practices approach culturally and lingu istically diverse students from a deficit perspective and take an assimilationist approach includ ing programs such as submersion and ESL (English as Second Language) pull outs and some bilingual programs such as transitional bilingual education (Baker, 20 0 1 ; Freeman, 1998; Ray, 2008). Programs grounded in this deficit perspective position language minority students as deficient in one language (English) rather than potentially proficient in two languages (English and the native language). Students are then presented with mainstream linguistic norms and cultural and educational expectations to be achieved. Once these norms are achieved, students are no longer E nglish language learners (E LLs ) since they are then considered English proficient students (Davison 2001). The tendency is for students to eventually embrace one language and culture in school. Differing from the aforementioned


13 bilingual models, an enrichment structured as a two way immersion (TWI) program serves ELLs differently. TWI programs encourag e students to maintain and develop their native language while learning a second language TWI programs seek to address the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity in ic 1995). TWI programs favor the importance of placing equal value on both languages and fully integrat ing both in the curriculum. Nevertheless, TWI programs are complex in nature since striving for an equal balance of both languages in an English speaking country can be challenging (Valds, 1997). Thus it becomes essential to understand more about them. Of particular interest is the role of teacher s as they engage in teaching practices that seek to provide the environments necessary to foster language development and use, espec ially in the minority language. Sociocultural Theory (SCT) and Com municative Language Teaching (CLT) Sociocultural theory (SCT) views language development as a process that considers social interaction as a key component in the learning of a second language. It is in interaction that students explore, learn from others, prove their language hypotheses, and receive and provide feedback, thus using and developing language. SCT promotes active participation and collaboration among all individuals in the learning context. Core features of SCT include mediation, zone of proxim al development (ZPD), and scaffolding. Vygotsky (1978) indicates th at learning is a mediated phenomenon that requires the use of tools. The ZPD is the existent space


14 m ore capable learner. Scaffolding deals with any assisted performance given to the learner to build a sense of learning responsibility. All these interrelate and situate social interaction as the basis for second language learning. This sociocultural view o f language opens horizons to second language approaches; one of them is communicative language teaching (CLT). CLT views language as a whole, integrated system in which all participants ( e.g. students and teachers) interact and collaborate in the construction of new knowledge (joint construction) In this sense, communication acquires a meaningful, authentic stance since purposeful communication is required to problem solve and negotiate meaning in real life contexts. Both SCT and CLT highlight the primary functions of language: social interaction and meaningful communication. TWI programs base their theoretical foundations and understanding of second language learning and teaching in these two views. Two way Immersion (TWI) Programs A TWI pro gram, also known as two way bilingual, dual language, bilingual immersion, double immersion, and two way school is an integrated model of bilingual education where native English speakers (language majority students) and native speakers of a minority l anguage (language minority students) are educated together for most or all of the day, and r eceive content and literacy instruction through both English and the minority language (de Jong & Howard, 2009, p. 81). TWI program is the term used in the study and language minority students in the context of the study are Spanish speakers. The goals of TWI programs include academic achievement, additive bilingualism and biliteracy, and cross cultural competence for all students (Christian et al., 2000; Garca, 2004; Lessow Hurley, 2009). These programs seek to facilitate literacy and content development in the students. The


15 language; that is, the intent is not to replace the st language (Christian, 1994). This component language knowledge because students become the experts and the resources in the classroom (Christian, 1994). Some characteristics of TWI programs include a balanced ratio of native and nonnative speakers, an emphasis on the minority language in early grades, and Leary, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 1997 a ). There are two m ain models of TWI programs. In the 90 : 10 model, students are instructed 90 % of the day in the minority language and 10 % of the time in English. This model takes place during kindergarten and the early years of elementary school. Then, starting in third gra de, the 50: 50 model is implemented, where instruction is equally divided between two languages. The language allocation can be done by content area, person, or time. The purpose of the 90 : 10 model, where most of the instruction is provided in the minority language, is to provide language minority students with an opportunity to learn a second language while continuing to develop their native language proficiency (Christian, 1994). The 90 : 10 model seeks to benefit minority students by providing an additive b ilingual environment, where their native language is highly valued and their language knowledge is regarded as a classroom advantages, such as facilitating literacy and content k nowledge not only in the native language but also in the target language (Christian, 1994 ; Thomas & Collier, 1997a, 2002 ).


16 Integrating native and nonnative speakers is an essential component in TWI programs. While second language students learn linguistic structures, native speakers including the development of content knowledge and the enh ancement of cognitive and social skills in both languages. Others have also confirmed that peer interaction and cooperative learning activities in TWI programs promote effective opportunities for language development (Christian, 1996; DePalma, 2010; Valds 1997). Research shows that factors for success of TWI programs include school environment, curriculum and instruction, program design, planning, assessment and accountability, well qualified and dedicated staff, and teacher quality in terms of familiari ty with bilingual education (Christian, 1994; Howard et al., 2003; Lindholm Leary, 2005). Nevertheless, TWI teacher s face various challenges that go beyond a simplistic view of knowledge about bilingual instruction. TWI teachers have to establish equilibri um between making content comprehensible to nonnative speakers and ensuring that the same content is stimulating and challenging enough for the native speakers (Howard et al., 2007 ; Howard & Loeb, 1998). Due to the uniqueness of TWI programs, teachers need to be bilingual, but they must also be competent in linguistic and sociocultural aspects of language and language teaching and learning (Takahashi how languages are lear ned so [ that ] they can create appropriate learning environments Hurley, 2009, p. 23). There are also other challenges. Encouraging native and nonnative students to speak the minority language


17 is a ubiquitous challenge for teachers in TWI programs (Freeman, 1998; Hayes, 2005; Lindholm Leary, 2001; Palmer, 2008 a 2009; Potowski, 2004; Valds, 1997). Using the Minority Language TWI programs offer a valuable and alternative approach with regard to bilingual education. Techn ically, bilingual education is about teaching and learning in two One of the goals for TWI programs is for students to develop and maintain their native language while a lso learning a second language (de Jong & Howard, 2009; Valds, 1997). However, TWI programs are not always consistent in this intended purpose. There has been a growing concern about first language maintenance, its use and development, and optimal languag e learning opportunities for language minority students in TWI programs (de Jong & Howard, 2009; Potowski, 2004; Valds, 1997). Potowski (2004) suggests students persist in using English in the Spanish classroom mainly because of socio political and lingui stic hegemony in society. There is also s ome evidence of teaching practices that promote language minority development where teachers play an important role in providing the spaces for students to use the minority language in TWI classrooms (Palmer, 2008 a 2009). Certain d iscourse practices can promote language minority use in the classroom including teacher talk as an empowerment tool and as linguistic support. However, the literature suggests these might not be common practices (Martin Beltrn, 2010; Tak ahashi Breines, 2002). Howard et al. (2003) have reported on a number of studies on TWI programs indicating that and the minority language, in many schools ther e are still very stron g forces that favor English and outside pressures on schools diminish their capacity to give the two


18 languages equal attention. They affirm that the imbalance of language use might be related to two causes. First, the language minority students tend to ha ve a greater ability to speak English. Second, English is the societal language and is highly related to social and academic success. Delgado : 10 TWI kindergarten in northern California found English to have the superior stat us in the classroom and in the school. Instruction was mostly teacher directed rather than collaborative, where there was no promotion of the use of the minority language. Delgado Larocco (1998) found that the Spanish instruction demanded very little oral production from the students; only one word responses were required in Spanish while English was used for most social interactions by the language minority and language majority students. Conclusions indicated that these social and academic factors contrib uted to the higher status and development of English at the school. In her studies, Palmer (2007, 2009) provided evidence of the struggle and challenges faced by students and teachers who juggle Spanish and English discourses in the classroom and school s etting. Her studies speak to the teacher encouragement of students to use alternative, empowering discourses within the classroom. Palmer (2009) reflects on this by asserting that students switch to English due to pressure from mainstream deficit framing s tereotypes. Christian (1994) argues that there is current growing concern about target language maintenance, development, and even survival all in the face of the dominance and power of English in U.S. society. DePalma (2010) echoes this position by statin g that Spanish, as a minority language in the United Sates, risks significant underrepresentation in TWI classrooms.


19 classrooms indicate that, even in Spanish classes, English t ends to serve as the social language of the class. In addition, there is a tendency for students to interact in Spanish with the teacher but in English within group work and with peers. Furthermore, English seems to be given more priority in the schools. O ther studies have addressed this issue of linguistic inequality where either teachers devalue Spanish ( e.g., using English to or the entire school has a hidden curricul um that tends to value English as the language of power and superiority (Gayman, 2000; McCollu m, 1994; Montague & Meza Zaragos a, 1999). Others have also suggested that TWI programs are not always successful at providing equal learning and instructional op portunities to develop both the minority and majority language (de Jong & Howard, 2009; Vald s, 1997). The minority language status is the one that is most affected. Some potential impediments to affording equal value to the minority language include the E nglish dominant sociopolitical context, the value of linguistic and cultural capital, high status of English and English speakers, allocation of resources, access to quality minority language instruction, dominance of English in the school wide environment and the larger community, access to native language models, native minority language models in peer interaction, and opportunities to model native language (de Jong & Howard, 2009; Howard et al., 2003). Carrigo (2000) conducted interviews with four Englis h dominant teachers in order to find out more about their perceptions of TWI programs. Carrigo (2000) concluded that the teachers agreed on the difficulties in maintaining the Spanish language environment for


20 all students. They also agreed that they switch ed to English in order to make content comprehensible for students lacking a Spanish background. Pressure from school staff, students, and parents contributed to this shift. Valds (1997) emphasizes the fact that this is an English speaking country where E nglish is r eferred to as the language of power but suggests addressing this language deficit by equalizing and placing value in the minority language and providing high quality education to language minority students. Palmer (2007) also questions the inco ngruence between TWI the larger discourse at the societal macro level. She suggests the need to empower language minority students, provid ing th em with enriching discourses and a strong sense of agency so that students can build on thei r linguistic and academic identities and succeed in school. Palmer ( 2008a) indicates that, at the classroom level, teachers discursive practices can help, harm, or invigorate minority language students since teachers can mak e native language models access ible to the class and e the by providing students the necessary opportunities for oral production in the native language Howard et al. (2003) encourage dedication and hard work to promote the status of the minority language and native speakers of that language in the classroom and the wider society. Purpose of the Study More research is needed to understand the benefits of TWI program s where teachers play a fundamental role in promoting the spaces and opportunities for students to use Spanish in meaningful ways (Hayes, 2005). Howard et al. (2003) have encouraged more research with regard to the amount and nature of instruction in the minority language in the primary grades. They emphasize the need for more research in


21 the area of instructional strategies to learn more about effective teaching practices in TWI classrooms. The proposed dissertation study focus ed on describing how one bilingual teacher fosters the use of Spanish and provides a classroom environment that elicits and supports extend ed conversations in Spanish by native and nonnative speakers. By conducting this study, I intended to provide insights into the ways in which TWI teachers can promote opportunities for students to develop and practice Spanish in the classroom. Research Q ue stion of Spanish language during whole group instruction in a two way immersion first grade classroom? The sub questions of the study are as follows: What are some strategic instructional patte rns used by the bilingual teacher? conveyed in practice ? Definition of Key Terms Some terms are explained to clarify their us e in the current study. The following are take n from the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL, 2011e): BILINGUAL EDUCATION U sed both as an umbrella term for dual language and transitional bilingual programs, and synonymously with transitional bilingual programs ( Glossary of t erms r elated to dual l ang uage/TWI in the U nited States ). TRANSITIONAL BILINGU AL EDUCATION A program for English language learners in language is used for instruction for a number of years (1 3 is typi cal) and is gradually phased out in favor of all English instruction. In the l ate exit program model students receive instruction in the partner language for 4 6 years while in the e arly exit program model students receive instruction in the partner langu age for 1 3 years ( Glossary of t erms r elated to dual l anguage/TWI in the U nited States ).


22 TWO WAY IMMERSION ( TWI ). A dual language program in which both native English speakers and native speakers of the partner language are enrolled, with neither group ma king up more than two thirds of the student population. The language goals are full bilingualism and biliteracy in English and a partner language, students study language arts and other academic content (math, science, social studies, arts) in both languag es over the course of the program, the partner language is used for at least 50 % of instruction at all grades, and the program lasts at least 5 years (preferably K 12). In the 50:50 model English and the partner language are each used for 50 % of instruction at all grade levels. In the 90:10 model students are instructed 90 % of the time in the partner language and 10 % in English in the first year or two, with the amount of English instruction gradually increasing each year until English and the partner langua ge are each used for 50 % of instruct ion (generally by third grade) ( Glossary of t erms r elated to dual l anguage/TWI in the U nited States ). Other terms required to contextualize this study are taken from the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE 200 8 ): ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEA RNER An active learner of the English language who may benefit from various types of language support programs. This term is used mainly in the U.S. to describe K 12 students (NCTE 2008 ) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE Formerly us ed to designate ELL students; this term increasingly refers to a program of instructio n designed to support the ELLs (NCTE 2008 ) LIMITED ENGLISH PROF ICIENCY Employed by the U.S. Department of Education to refer to ELLs who lack sufficient mastery of Eng lish to meet state standards and excel in English language classrooms. Increasingly, English Language Learner (ELL) is used to describe this population because it highlights learning rather than suggesting that nonnative English s peaking students are defic ient (NCTE 2008 ) ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE Nonnative English speaking students who are learning English in a country where English is not the primary language. (NCTE 2008 ) Other terms used in this study are taken from the Center for Advanced Resea rch on Language Acquisition ( CARLA, 200 4 ): M INORITY LANGUAGE STUDENTS Students who speak a language other than the one spoken by the majority of people in a given regional or national context, for example, Spanish in the U.S. (CARLA, 2004).


23 M AJORITY LANG UAGE STUDENTS Students who speak the language spoken by the m ajority of people in a given regional or national context, for example, English in the U.S. (CARLA, 2004). Overview of Methodology The theory of knowledge supporting this study is constructivis m. In constructivism, meaning is constructed in various ways depending on different realities, thus creating distinctive meaningful realities. In the constructivist perspective individuals are actively engage d in the meaning making process within specifi c situated contexts (Jones & Brader Araje, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978). This theoretical perspective focuses on how human beings create knowledge and meaning from systematic and mutual interaction with experiences in their lives. It focuses on the principle that human beings, through personal experiences, create an understanding of the things and the world they live in (Hatch, 2002) This theoretical framework will be further elaborated in Chapter 3; I now explain the sample selection and data sources. Sample S e lection The present study seeks to provide an in depth analysis of one research participant. The research participant data used for this study is part of a larger study focused on discursive scaffolding techniques as ways to promote language use and devel opment. I was part of the larger study f or a year and a half starting in 2009 work ing as part of the research team transcribing, revising, coding, and analyzing data from four of six TWI teachers. In the larger study there were four first grade teachers (three Spanish language teachers and one English language development (ELD) teacher), one fourth grade, and one fifth grade teacher teaching English and Spanish. Data from the larger study were collected in four first grade, one fourth grade, and one fifth grade TWI classrooms. Classroom observations took place during two week


24 visits to the school in October, November, and December 2009, and January, May, and June 2010. The lessons observed were video and audio recorded. All data were collected by the princ ipal investigator of the study. The larger study required IRB and consent letters from all teachers as well as parental consents since videotaping took place in the classroom. There were consultations with the teachers, and they agreed to be observed mainl y for science and social studies lessons. However, the focus later extended to math and literacy lessons. Teachers also participated in two formal one hour interviews (December 2009 and June 2010) and three after school meetings to discuss the video data w ith a focus on pair work as a structure to promote peer interaction and language use. From the data collected on the six teachers from the larger study, I use d the data from one first grade teacher. This one teacher inspired me to know more about her teach ing practices in terms of providing students with opportunities to use Spanish in meaningful ways. I met the teacher participant last year, and I have remained in constant communication with her in order to do member checks related to her participation in my study and the larger study. In addition, I contacted her in relation to in Chapter 3 as well as additional questions pertinent to the study at hand. Data S ources The current study use d some of the data collected for the larger study. Data were collected using naturalistic qualitative research methods including interviews and audio/video recorded lessons. They are naturalistic because they took place in the classroom, thus occurring in a natural setting (Hatch, 2002). The original study was


25 evidence of teaching practices and possible ways to analyze discourse practices use d to elicit, scaffold, and support language. The interviews were used to clarify the both video tapes of lessons and interviews w ere used as the primary source of data. For the research particip ant of this current study four lessons were video and audio recorded during the 2009 2010 school year (two in December 2009, one in January 2010, and one in May 2010). There were four lesson episodes lasting approximately eighty minutes each (Table 1 1) Even though the teacher was observed for morning message sessions, mathematics, and literacy lessons during the 2009 2010 school year for the larger study, the current study only focus ed on the literacy lessons because I transcribed all literacy lessons f or this teacher. I also transcribed both of her interviews. These literacy lessons were available to me and I was fully familiar with them. The study dr e w on data from the four literacy lessons. The lessons focused on the teaching of reading content, rea ding skills, and vocabulary building. The first lesson was organized around self regulated centers; one center was teacher led. For the others, lessons were structured as group work activities where students worked cooperatively to present a story, act out a mini play, and construct a classroom mural. lesson, a volunteer helped in the classroom. bilingual.


26 Data A nalysis Fo r this qualitative study, I use d Hatch (2002) approach to inductive analysis in the form of domain analysis D omain analysis is the study of semantic relationships that form categories that include other categories (Hatch, 2002). This analysis is best kn own as one that moves from specific elements to general conclusions. It involves a constant and systematic process of identifying, summarizing, and revising domains. The domains include identifiable frames of analysis, creation of codes, included and cover terms and the establishment of semantic relationships. The objective of the study was to examine how a bilingual teacher elicit extended use of Spanish language during whole group instruction in a TWI Spanish first grade classroom. From the s teps proposed by Hatch (20 02 ) to conduct domain analysis I used seven as follows: Create domains based on semantic relationships discovered within frames of analysis Identify salient doma ins, assign them a code, and put others aside Reread data, refining salient domains and keeping record of where relationships are found in the data Decide if your domains are supported by the data for examples that do not fit with or run counter to the rel ationships in your domains Complete an analysis within domains Search for themes across domains All these s teps are further elaborated in Chapter 3 where methodology is fully explained.


27 Limitations of the Study Some limitations of the study include the context and the data sources. First of all, I worked with e xtant data since all data for this current study belongs to a larger study in which the participant had been already selected. Since I did not collect the data, there was not initial rapport with t he teacher participant. However, interaction with her came later in the study. I first met her as we presented together in a conference where I was able to build connections with her. Another limitation of the study in regard to not having collected the da ta was the fact that I did not engage in note taking or memo writing while observing and recording the lessons and interviewing the participant Also t he lessons were video taped and only the teacher had a microphone so there were some teacher student and student student events with important information that are missing from the tape. Finally, the focus of the study was the bilingual teacher which limited the possibility to look at student conversational data during small group interactions. Importance o f the S tudy TWI programs provide culture and language rich environments. The role played by teachers is essential in the programs (Hayes, 2005; Lindholm Leary, 2005; Palmer 2008 a 2009). Their teaching strategies are key to the goals of TWI: bilingualism, biliteracy, academic achievement, and cross cultural competence. Teaching strategies that are important in TWI programs include eliciting more language through verbal and non verbal reque sts monitoring student interactions, and facilitating interaction th rough conversation and cooperation in their partner language. Teachers can work as initiators, moderators, and promoters of language use and development (Christian et al., 2000; Garca, 2004; Lessow Hurley, 2009).


28 Wiltse (2006) urges educators to seek way s in which to use linguistic diversity as a valuable resource to mediate learning, where linguistic and cultural elements are used to more effectively reach the students. She highlights the importance of exploring and conducting further research in effecti ve practices for teaching students with different and expectations and the importan ce of their dispositions when teaching diverse learners. These dispositions include t strengths and to view them as valuable resources and as learners whose linguistic and cultural background is rich and unique. As part of her findings, Palmer (2009) addressed nderstand the power of discourse and the impact of e.g., race, class, gender) on their participation in classroom ways to handle classroom talk in a search for linguistic balance. According to Takah a shi Breines (2001), TWI programs face challenging realities; eeks to add t o the body of literature that addresses possible alternative ways in which TWI teachers can empower language minority students, including maximizing their linguistic and cultural skills by providing opportunities for them to maintain their native language while developing a second language. Finding out more about how TWI teachers promote genuine conversations in the classrooms and how they engage students in dialogue to promote language use and development is fundamental to continuing the conversation about TWI programs.


29 O rganization of the Dissertation Chapter 1 of this dissertation introduce s the study and its importance. Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant literature about bilingual education and language minority students, as well as the role o f teachers in TWI programs. The methodology of the study is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 Within that chapter, the research design, data sources, and data analysis procedures are explained. Chapter 4 address es the results obtained through domain analys is. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a discussion of


30 Table 1 1. essons Lesson e pisodes Date Time Literacy L esson #1 December 11, 2009 81:09 Lite racy L esson #2 December 18, 2009 80:14 Literacy L esson #3 January 29, 2010 73:12 Literacy L esson #4 May 28, 2010 81:17


31 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The aim of this chapter is to review literature relating to TWI programs and provide a conceptual fr amework for the research questions of the study. It starts with background information about language diversity and immigration issues in the United States and examines the historical and socio political context of bilingual education It provides an overv iew of sociocultural theory (SCT) and communicative language teaching (CLT) as theoretical frameworks for TWI programs. The chapter also describes the key features of TWI programs and reviews research about the impact of the programs in terms of social int eraction and classroom discourse Finally, the chapter reviews instructional practices and pedagogical trends related to teacher discourse in TWI programs. Educating Language Minority Students in the United States There has been a growing immigrant popul ation in the United States; however, the current immigrants differ from those of the 19 th and 20 th centur ies who were mainly of European descent (Lee & Suarez, 2009). Hispanic and Asian immigrants have become the predominant immigrant population in the cou ntry T he United States foreign born population constitutes 38.1 million people about 12.6 % (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Statistics from the U.S. Censu s Bureau (2004) report that 25 % of foreign born people come from Asian and 53.3 % from Latin American coun tries 10.1 % are Caribbean, 6.3 % are South American, and 36.9 % are Central American. The Latino population has become the largest and fastest growing minority group in the country (Kohler & Lazarn, 2007; NCTE, 2008). This change in demographics presents v arious challenges in the country and brings diversity to its maximum potential.


32 Socioeconomic, political, religious, familial, cultural, educational, and linguistic aspects all come into play and try to merge into the mainstream way of living in the countr y. Students from non English speaking backgrounds are the fastest growing segment of the K 12 student population in the country (CAL, 2011 d ). Language minority students comprise a very diverse group since some are born in the United States while others ar e born abroad. They have var y i ng degrees of language proficiency in their native languages and in English. Additionally, they come from different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds and hold various immigration statuses. Some projections suggest that language minority students will comprise over 40 % of elementary and secondary students by 2030 (Thomas & Collier, 1997 a ). Bilingual Education Bilingual education policies have been changing due to current trends in demographic and philosophical views. Wh ile there have been times of rejection and prohibition for bilingual education, most supporters and researchers of bilingual education view bilingualism as an asset rather than a problem (Baker, 2001; Christian, 1994; de Jong & Harper, 2007; Freeman, 1994; Lpez Estrada et al., 2009; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008; Souto Manning, 2006; Tllez & Waxman, 2006; Villegas & Lucas, 2002, 2007). They advocate moving away from compensatory schooling to high quality schooling that educates language minority students to thei r highest academic and linguistic potential (Brisk, 2006). High quality schooling refers to treatment of provided to them takes into account their academic, cultural, a nd linguistic needs. C ompensatory education models include submersion and English as a second


33 language (ESL) and high quality bilingual models include maintenance and enrichment programs detailed as follows (Brisk, 2006; DePalma, 2010; Ray, 2008; Stritikus 2002): S UBMERSION Students are placed in regular English only classrooms and are given no special instructional support. E NGLISH AS A SECOND L ANGUAGE (ESL) primary language; ESL is taught either through pull out programs or integrated as structured immersion) where there is some assistance in the regular classroom. T RANSITIONAL BILINGUA L EDUCATION (TBE) Students receive some degree o f instruction in their primary language for a period of time; however, the goal of the program is to transition students to English only instruction as rapidly as possible. There are two different types: the early exit (within 1 to 3 years) and the late ex it (expected in 4 to 6 years). M AINTENANCE BILINGUAL E DUCATION (MBE) Language minority students receive instruction in their primary language and in English throughout the elementary school years (K 6) with the goal of developing academic proficiency in b oth languages. E NRICHMENT PROGRAMS S TRUCTURED AS TWO WAY IMMERSION PROGRA MS ( ALSO KNOWN AS TWO WAY SCHOOLS DUAL LANGUAGE TWO WAY BILINGUAL ED UCATION DEVELOPMENTAL BILING UAL EDUCATION BILINGUAL IMMERSION DOUBLE IMMERSION ) Language minority and languag e majority students are instructed together in the same program with the goal of each group achieving bilingualism, biliteracy, and cross cultural awareness. These programs rarely exist in pure form; there often are variations within them. Ray (2008) re fers to them as a continuum of bilingual programs which might vary depending on the specific demographics of the area and even district or state policies. There are weaker and stronger forms of bilingual education (Baker, 2001; Wiley, 2007). The weaker for ms, including submersion (structured and withdrawal ESL) and transitional bilingual education provide instruction in the majority language, and the ultimate aim is for language minority students to reach assimilation and monolingualism. The stronger forms including maintenance language and two way immersion, seek pluralism,


34 bilingualism, and linguistic and cultural enrichment; they encourage minority language maintenance. As bilingual education models arose, teaching and learning theories also appeared t o more effectively guide these models. Sociocultural theory (SCT) and communicative language teaching (CLT) gained popularity in the 70s and 80s opening the horizons to new understandings about second language teaching and learning. Sociocultural Theory (SCT) Second language learning theories have moved from psycholinguistic and cognitive views to more sociolinguistic and sociocultural dimensions. In this shift, communication pr environments that provide multiple interactions not only with teachers, but also with peers. The social aspect of language became more important in theories about second language learnin g and teaching. SCT considers language learning to be a social process. Language is acquired through social interaction situated in a social context where all participants in the learning process bring their knowledge and together they contribute and coll aborate to create new knowledge. The view of the role of the learner within this theoretical perspective is that learner is an active agent engaged in situated meaning making. This perspective emphasizes cognitive, linguistic, and social knowledge as being tightly scenarios (Hall & Walsh, 2002, p. 186). Vygotsky (1978) claims that sociocultural factors are essential for cognitive growth; it is the activities and the interaction in which learners engage that promotes cognitive change (Ellis, 1997 2000 ).


35 Comprehensible input (CI) remains an essential term since providing students with a context for language comprehension is fundamental in second language learning. Krashen (1981) asserts that when sufficient CI (either through verbal and non verbal means) takes place, learners can understand language that is slightly above their current language level. It is in this effort that learners progress linguistically. Others have argued that the linguistic input is not enough; students must be also exposed to recurring occasions for their output (Long & Potter, 1985 ; Lotan, 2007; Swain, 1985 1995 ) and non verb ally... where meaning is negotiated and communication accomplished language and othe r students (Krashen, 1991; Swain, 1985; Swain, 2009). Having the opportunity to express oneself and produce knowledge and language results in positive outcomes including those of testing hypotheses about language use (meaning and form) and receiving feedba ck (Ellis, 2008; Gass & Selinker, 200 8 ). Within this theoretical perspective output is an active and engaging part of second language learning since it is an indicator of language knowledge and evidence of the learning process. Social interaction provides students with expanded opportunities for CI and negotiation of meaning as well as CO (Long & Potter, 1985; Swain, 2005). Based in large part on the work of Vygotsky (1978), SCT affirms that learning is a social, collaborative phenomenon that takes place in a socially mediated context. SCT emphasizes the social and interactive character of language learning. It states that the construction of knowledge and development occurs in active engagement between the


36 individual and more competent individuals. Accor SCT acknowledges the dynamic and interactive nature of learning since it is in interaction that learning takes places (Ellis, 1997, 2000, 2008). Williams (1995) sugges ts the following features about SCT: There is emphasis on using authentic language, including rich, varied, and unpredictable input. There is emphasis on tasks that encourage the negotiation of meaning between students, and between students and teacher, p resumably with the goal of making input comprehensible to participants. There is emphasis on successful communication, especially that which involves risk taking, minimal focus on form, including: lack of emphasis on error correction (if it does occur, it is likely to be meaning focused), and little explicit instruction on language rules. There is emphasis on learner autonomy and choice of language, topic and so on (p.12). SCT promotes social interaction which goes in accordance with TWI programs. The social interaction that ta kes place with native and non native speakers is a key componen t of effective TWI programs (Peregoy & Boyle, 1999). In the context of bilingualism, native and non native students through peer interaction, share and work togeth er to use and develop the language as a meaningful interactive process. Students from the minority language can work as models for the majority language students and s CI and CO and the need to negotiate meaning. Research has argued that a second language learning classroom should provide an environment that promotes and encourages communication, opportunities to interact with native speakers of the target language and social interaction (Fillmore, 1991; Krashen, 1982). Lee Hill Bonnet, and Gillispie (2008) have suggested that language


37 skills are best developed during social interaction where there is abundant access to CI and opportunities for CO. Core principles of SCT include mediation, zone of proximal development (ZPD ), and scaffolding (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Mediation refers to specific tools including symbols, signs, artifacts, and even language that serve as means to socially learn (Lantolf, 200 9 ). These tools are used to mediate learning through various le arning tasks and demands. SCT defines language as a meditational tool for learning rather than the object of learning and instruction (Vygotsky, 1978). Mediation includes the role played by others in the learning process. S ocial interaction is central to S CT since it is through the use of tools and interaction that humans learn in a specific context. Social interaction is considered the matrix of language learning (Ellis, 1997). L anguage learning should be a process where students can interact with one anot her in an environment that allows them to be active participants and where collaborating and working together become tenets of the classroom activities. In mediation is important to note that learners are not expected to simply use the tools; learners mu st transf e r them into their world and even appropriate them for new learnings to take place (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). In contrast with e arl ier beliefs about teaching language, learners are not expected to learn isolated pieces of information ( e.g., vocabulary, language structures, and grammar) transmitted by a more knowledgeable person. Instead there is a holistic view of meaning that values what students bring with them through multiple interplays in their lives and in which environments are created for all learners to collaborate with one another and learn from one another.


38 actual and potential development level, as determined by whether a child can independently work an d problem solve or if he or she needs some adult guidance or more knowledgeable peers collaboration (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD is the space where students cannot yet fully operate independently but can complete work if they have appropriate support. The ZP D is not a place; it emerges through interaction either with an adult or more capable peers. Collaboration and interaction among peers can result in a collective ZPD where individual learners within their learning situated contexts learn what they need to (Ellis, 2008). Based on Vygotsky (1978), scaffolding refers to any kind of temporary help given by a more competent person so that the learner can achieve greater goals while performing. Scaffolding is a dialogic process in which one individual helps anot her one with a new task (Ellis, 2000). In this way, social interaction mediates learning highlighting the importance of social interaction in SCT. Scaffolding is based on the premise that learners learn most productively with support in the ZP D Scaffoldin g works as an instructional strategy used by instructors to model a task so that responsibility can gradually be given to the learners. I t is kn own as assisted performance ( Lier, 2004). SCT has significant implications for second language instruction and teacher education. First, learning should be viewed and treated in terms of collaborative achievement rather than isolated work. Second, language is learned and developed when it is used socially within interaction, mediation, and collaboration with others in the context of the classroom. Teachers and learners become active members that can


39 create ZPZs in which all can learn. Third, the use of scaffolding techniques is fundamental for language use and development. Fourth, problem solving, negotiating, and c reating meaning are collaborative acts. SCT places great emphasis on social interaction since it is in interaction that language is socially used and developed; language learning takes place in interactive settings. When thinking about the role of instruct ion and taking into account all these characteristics as part of this sociocultural view of language, there is a teaching model that emerged to provide new insights in second language teaching: communicative language teaching (CLT). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Communicative language teaching (CLT) emphasizes authentic language use, collaborative creation and negotiation of meaning, engaging classroom activities where there are exchanges of real communication, and real life settings where students communicate in purposeful ways (Galloway, 1993; Richards, 2006 ; Richards & Rodgers, 1986). This communicative approach gives priority to the semantic content of language. In other words, grammar is not fully emphasized, but learners learn grammar and form through meaning. The emphasis focuses on how well students engage in meaningful and authentic language use rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns (Richards & Rogers, 1986). As students engage in meaningful communication, the role playe d by the teacher is extreme ly importan t Teachers They also monitor the communication process as they create a classroom environment conducive to language learning w hich provides ample opportunities for students to use


40 Students are expected to speak and perform more as well as negotiate and interact with others; thus gaining more confidenc e and expertise in the use of the language. CLT has some distinctive features including learner centered teaching, interactive learning, cooperative learning, whole language education, content centered education, and task based learning (Brown, 1994; Rich ards & Rodgers, 1986; Savignon, 2002). In learner control to the students. In cooperative learning classes, emphasis is placed on collaborative efforts between students and th e teacher or among students. As part of interactive learning, there is high emphasis on pair work group work, and authentic language input in real world contexts where language production is aimed at genuine, meaningful communication. CLT highlights the real purpose of language: to communicate things that are real and meaningful, to communicate for genuine, real life reasons. Individuals like to talk, to provide opinions, to express their feelings and emotions, and to share what they know with others. Whe n communication is rooted in issues, challenges, or decisions that individuals face in the world and when communication is saturated with meaning and use of creative language to make unique statements that reflect their need to communicate. The whole language view of CLT establishes that language is no longer treated as dissectible the integr ation of them into a whole system. Content centered education is the integration of content with the intention of promoting second language learning. In CLT,


41 communicative tasks become the main focus of instruction where pair and group work ( e.g., where st udents role play or problem solve) are the means to use and develop language. Some classroom activities include information gathering, opinion sharing, task completion, reasoning gap, and role plays. All these activities require social interaction and coop erative learning approaches since they place great emphasis on collaborative work. The emphasis on pair work and group work results in students learning from hearing the language used by other members of the group and greater production of language than i n teacher directed activities. If c lassroom activities in CLT are intended as preparation for the real world, then activities and language used in the activities must be authentic, genuine and real life bounded, and meaningful to the learners (Brown, 1994) The materials used in CLT settings must promote communicative language, be authentic, and be task based. primary function n and Rodgers (1986) and Berns (1990) indicate that the most important purpose of language is for interaction and communication. Language is seen as a social tool to make meaning and to communicate with a purpose rather than as a set of rules and grammar n otions. Berns (1990) stresses the importance of language variety as recognized models for teaching and learning and the importance of culture as an instrumental tool Communicative com petence is an essential concept i n CLT (Hymes 1972; Richards, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Savignon, 2002). Commun icative competence is knowledge, what the individual knows. It also refers to the ability to use


42 language in a social context in a range of different purposes and functions. Dimensions of communicative competence which are identified in the literature include the following : linguistic or grammatical competence (grammatical, lexical, morphological, syntactic al, and phonological knowledge); soc iolinguistic, pragmatic, or sociocultural competence (social context and communicative purpose of social interaction); discourse competence (meaning relationships and interconnectedness of discourse not as isolated pieces, but as whole language); and strat egic competence (coping strategies to communicate) (Canale & Swain,1980; Richards & Rogers, 1986; Savignon, 2002). To summarize, CLT has important implications for second language instruction and teacher education. First, communication is a holistic proce ss that involves several language skills and functions. Second language learning arises when learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful communication. Meaningful communication results from students interacting with content that is relevant, purpose ful, interesting, and engaging (Richards, 2006). Finally, students learn in a sharing and collaborati ve environment that p rovides opportunities for them to negotiate meaning, expand their language resources, notice how language is used, and take part in me aningful communication. SCT and CLT came to transform the way language learning and teaching was viewed. SCT and CLR share similar underlying view s about language learning and teaching. SCT as a theory validates the importance of social interaction as a w ay to construct knowledge. In SCT language learning is a social process situated in a context. CLT, as a language approach highlights the authenticity language has in life. CLT views language not as an artificial aspect. On the contrary language is a livi ng


43 phenomenon used genuinely by individuals daily. These two, the language theory and the language approach, value the interactive piece of language and knowledge construction. TWI programs base their foundations on these two; SCT and CLT and take into acc ount their features ( e.g., scaffolding, social interaction, authentic use of language, cooperative learning, etc.,) as ways to promote language use and development. TWI Programs in the United States Public dissatisfaction with transitional bilingual educ ation models was an impetus for the establishment of TWI programs (Crawford, 1991). In 199 3 the Bilingual Education Act proposed, for the first time, that ELLs be encouraged to develop their native language skills (Crawford, 2007). At this point, new appr oaches to bilingual education began flourishing. TWI programs started as an initiative to better serve immigrant children in their education. These programs were designed to overcome the harmful effects of segregating linguistically and culturally diverse students. These programs work differently than most bilingual models since they do not fall in the category of of successful education. TWI programs are more educationally and socially effective than other bilingual models that dictate a compensatory approach rather than an enriched one (Baker, 2001; Brisk, 2006; de Jong & Howard, 2009; Dolson & Mayer, 1992; Ray, 2008). TWI is an instructional approach that integrates students from two different language backgrounds, typically native English speakers and speakers of another language (usually Spanish) to learn through both languages (a majority and minority


44 language ). TWI programs takes into account foreign language immersion for native English speakers (influenced by Canadian immersion programs) and bilingual programs for native speakers of the minority language (de Jong & Howard, 2009; Valds, 1997). These programs provide content and literacy instruction to all students in both languages. The intention is for students to have an immersion experience in each Although some states have created policies that prohibit bilingual educ ation, Massachusetts is a state in which bilingual education supporters have convinced legislatures to exempt dual language programs from prohibition (Brisk, 2006). They were able to do this by demonstrating that dual language programs educate not only lan guage minority students but also English language speakers, which have previously been recipients of a weak system of foreign language instruction (Howard et al., 2003). Even though the struggle for education of linguistically and culturally diverse studen ts continues, some efforts have been and are constantly being made to structure bilingual programs to better serve those students. A very clear example is TWI programs. Characteristics of TWI Programs ( F igure 2 1) In the 50:50 model, students are instructed 50 % in the minority language and 50 % in the majority language. In the 90:10 model, the minority language requires greater promotion in the ear ly grades of elementary school, which enhances the chances of developing and maintaining high levels of minority language proficiency (Howard & Christian, 2002). Instruction can be divi ded by subject, times, days, or teachers. T he choice of Spanish as the instructional


45 minority language and develop their linguistic and cognitive skills in the first language. Language minority students tend to be socioeconomically marginalized and are often racially or ethnically discriminated against (Valds, 1997). Spanish is, then, heavily encouraged and promoted in the early elementary years of school. By legitimizing Spanish, language minority students can benefit not only linguistically an d culturally but also academically. The aim is for students to be successful in school by providing them with a solid education in their native language. Language majority students also benefit with the reinforcement of Spanish in the early elementary grad es. When language immersion takes place that early in school, language majority students have increased opportunities to learn the second language proficiently while reaching for academic achievement in both languages. TWI programs are intended to cover K indergarten through at least grade 5 or 6. Howard et al. (2003) state the TWI programs must have three defining criteria. First, there must be a fairly equal number of students from the minority language (usually Spanish) and from the majority language (En glish) Second, students from both groups are integrated for core academic instruction for most or all of the day. Third, core academic instruction is provided to both groups of students in both languages. Christian (1994) propose some additional character istics of TWI programs: Programs should provide a minimum of four to six years of bilingual instruction to participating students. The focus of instruction should be the same core academic curriculum that students in other programs experience. Optimal lan guage input (input that is comprehensible, interesting, and of sufficient quantity) as well as opportunities for output should be provided to students, including quality language arts instruction in both languages.


46 The program should provide an additive bi lingual environment where all students have the opportunity to learn a second language while continuing to develop their native language proficiency. Classrooms should include a balance of students from the target language and English backgrounds who parti cipate in instructional activities together. Positive interactions among students should be facilitated by the use of strategies such as cooperative learning. Characteristics of effective schools should be incorporated into programs, such as qualified pers onnel and home school and community collaboration (p. 5 6). Purposes of TWI Programs The central goals of TWI programs include bilingualism and biliteracy, academic achievement, and cross cultural awareness (Christian, 1994; Howard & Christian, 2002; Howa rd et al., 2003; Lindholm Leary, 2001). These goals are pluralistic, and they seek (Cloud et al., 2000; Lindholm Leary, 2001). With bilingualism, it is expected that students develop high levels of communicative and literacy proficiency in both the minority and majority languages. Additive bilingualism is a form of enrichment in which students learn one language without subtracting another one. This is also related to additive schooling, where Valenzuela, 2009). Additive bilingualism is associated with high levels of language expertise in two languages and with positive affirming cross cultural atti tudes (Lambert, 1984; Lindholm, 1991). In the case of language majority students who are mostly exposed to the minority instruction language during the early grades, additive bilingualism becomes a fundamental issue for two main reasons. First, young Engli sh native speakers show a fast development of comprehension skills in a second


47 language. Second, the language is sheltered in the sense that it is a communication skill based language, where language is contextualized and pedagogical features include non v erbal cues, gestures, and drawings (Lindholm, 1991). Furthermore, early learning (Genesse, 1994; Lambert, 1984). For language minority students, additive bilingualism is als o fundamental. Spanish native speakers might not be fully proficien t in Spanish even when Spanish is their native language. Spanish is the dominant language of instruction in TWI programs in the early grades, but English continues to be the dominant societ al language both inside and outside the classroom. Thus, Spanish speakers need more exposure in order to maintain and develop their native language proficiently. Additionally, learning through ing the development of literacy, growth of content knowledge, and enhancement of cognitive and social development (Crawford, 1991; Krashen, 1991; Hakuta, 1986). Also, if sustained for a long period of time in order to promote the development of high levels of language English language (Lindholm, 1991). On the other hand, subtractive bilingualism implies a forceful situation where their native language in order to attain a more prestigious, powerful language (refer to Valenzuela (2009) for more on subtractive schooling). Subtractive bilingualism is associated with lower levels of second language acquisition, underachievement, and s ocial and psychological disorders (Crawford, 1991; Lambert, 1984; Lindholm, 1991). When it comes to the goals of TWI programs, there


48 should not be any emphasis of one language over another T here should be a balanced development of both (Christian, 1994). TWI programs seek to meaningfully integrate students, language, and instruction cultural awareness in TWI prog rams is intended to help students develop positive attitudes toward the language, the culture, and the individual as part of a group. TWI programs offer an educational and social context for language and culture. Research in TWI Programs One explanation f or the recent growth and popularity of TWI programs is the recognition that language and cultural diversity are growing issues in the country. Another explanation comes from the considerable research that has demonstrated the effectiveness of the model for both native English and Spanish speakers (Lindholm Leary, 2001; Ramrez et al., 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997 a 2002). Research has indicated that, on average, language minority and majority students do as well or better in standardized testing, and both g roups develop oral and written proficiency in two languages (Howard & Christian, 2002). TWI programs work as language resources and serve to better educate learners from minority language backgrounds (Christian, 2008). Howard et al. (2003) and Valds (1997 ) state that, in TWI programs where cultura l and linguistic identities are supported, the minority language students develop enhanced cognitive, academic, an d linguistic skills. Thomas and Collier (1997 a ) examined, in a series of quantitative longitudinal case studies, the highest long term student achievement levels and the instructional practices associated with six bilingual education models. They collected data between 1982 and


49 1996 in five participat ing urban and suburban school districts in various re gions of the country. The bilingual education models included two way developmental, one way developmental, transitional bilingual education, transitional with ESL assistance, ESL taught through academic content, and ESL pull outs. Each program was first e stablished as a well implemented program which included students with no prior exposure to English. Approximately 700,000 records from 42,317 K 12 language minority students were analyzed. Students were organized into cohort groups and attended the program s four years or more. The study aimed at highlighting specific characteristics of school effectiveness for language minority students rather than favoring one bilingual program over another one. Findings indicated that more cognitive and academic developme been schooled exclusively in English tended to have fewer academic gains in comparison to native English speakers. Also students who had previously been expos ed to schooling in their first language were more successful than others without prior linguistic and academic experiences. An interesting finding indicated that, in addition to receiving strong instruc tion in their native language (until grade 5 or 6), receiving simultaneous English instruction was the highest long term predictor for English achievement. The study concluded that there are three key predictors for the academic achievement of language min ority students: cognitive and academic development of their first language as long as possible parallel to second language academic instruction, effective approaches to teaching the academic curriculum through both languages, and a transformed sociocultura


50 schooling. Thomas and Collier (1997 a ) indicated that instructional approaches that ensured effective practices in the programs under study include those in which classes were interactive, happened in discovery lear ning contexts, and deviated from traditional, teacher directed classes. Thomas and Collier (2002) expanded the aforementioned study and conducted a five year study from 1996 to 2001 in five research sites in northeast, northwest, south central, and south east U.S. aimed at examining the long term academic achievement of language minority students. The student achievement was measured based on nationally standardized tests in different subjects and in two languages: Spanish and English. Thomas and Collier ( 2002) found that when language minority students are placed directly into English mainstream classrooms, students perform significantly lower. Conclusions indicated that bilingual TWI models help ed language minority students develop and maintain higher lev els of achievement. This study also confirmed achievement. More research is being conducted i n various areas including design and implementation of TWI programs, student outcomes, and the attitudes and experiences of individuals involved in the programs (students, parents, teachers, principals, and communities). Perhaps one area that will constant ly need research is that of instructional and pedagogical teaching practices. Teacher Pedagogy in TWI P rograms The majority of the literature in teaching p ractices in TWI programs is grounded in theoretical perspectives about the nature of appropriate ped agogy. Some advocate


51 specific pedagogical features focused on teaching model s and techniques, the nature of language input and output when teaching and the role of the teacher These pedagogical features are based on sociocultural foundations of language teaching and learning. Crawford (1991), in a collection of guidelines for TWI programs, highlights the importance of the teaching model in these settings. He suggests the breaking of the authoritarian transmission model in which teachers simply impart a nd children receive knowledge to a more student centered model (Howard & Christian, 2000). Instruction should resemble a conversation where students learn to think rather than memorize information and where language use and interaction in the classroom ref lects and 2002 ). In a set of guiding principles for dual language education based on dual language program standards developed by Dual Language Education of New Mexico, Howard et al. (2007) concur w ith Crawford (1991) about the elimination of the transmission model in these settings. They advocate an interaction approach where students engage in communication and the teacher facilitates and promotes language rather than controls it. The main pedagogi cal goal in TWI programs should be that of socially generating and constructing knowledge and communication as a group (Cummins, 2000; Howard & Christian, 2002; Souto Manning, 2006 ; Vygotsky, 1978 ) de Jong and Howard (2009) addressed issues of integratio n and distribution of the linguistic advantages in TWI programs. They critically examined literature and presented their perspectives about TWI programs to ensure linguistic equity in the programs due to various social and pedagogical factors Two main reasons


52 stood out: lack of access to native language models and learning opportunities in the language of instruction. They suggest that, in order to equalize the minority language in the classroom, teachers of that minority language should prov ide extended It is in this type of environment in which students can succeed linguistically and academically. Crawford (1991) and Lind holm Leary (2001) also concur on the importance of providing opportunities for language production as a key factor in TWI programs. Crawford (1991) affirmed that in order to become proficient in a second language, students need ample and extended opportuni ties to practice orally with native speakers, preferably in activities based on SCT and CLT views where language minority and language majority students can collaborate together (Krashen, 1981, 1982, 1991). Lindholm Leary (2001) asserts that students shoul d be given the opportunities to produce extended language where expression of ideas is highly promoted and encouraged. She adds that in order to provide those opportunities, teachers should use structured tasks and unstructured opportunities, both involvin g oral production skills so that students can be engaged. Brisk (2006) claims that even when activities are aimed at collaboration and participation among students, the activities should always be effectively structured and monitored by teachers. Based on her theoretical reviews about bilingual education, teachers should become masters at engaging students and stimulating their linguistic and academic skills. Teachers should also aim at instructing students in a way that is challenging but not overwhelming Instruction should be based on SCT features


53 including mediation, scaffolding, and ZPD that aim at guiding students and pushing them to further levels of linguistic and academic growth. Other pedagogical strategies considered best practices in TWI prog rams as supported by the theoretical foundations of SCT and CLT of the programs include sheltered instruction, cooperative learning, and scaffolding techniques. Howard et al. sidered, instruction is contextualized, and communication is made accessible to students. It includes using visual aids ( e.g., pictures, charts, graphs) which allow students to negotiate meaning make connections between course content and prior knowledge, and act as mediators and facilitators Krashen (1991) addressed the need for comprehensible input as a mandatory requisite to function in a second language. I ndividual s need to comprehend what is being said and conveyed. Swain (2005) has also stated that extremely important (p 471). That is, in addition to comprehensible linguistic input, language lear ners also need to engage in meaningful opportunities for language output (Swain, 2005). As a fundamental tenet of SCT, TWI programs should implement instruction that uses scaffolding techniques where teachers give guidance and support to students as they progressively develop independent use of the new knowledge or skill (Freeman et al., 2005; Howard & Christian, 2002). In a review of SCT and second language learning, Lantolf (2009) examined studies conducted in the early and late 90s by Takahashi Breines, Wood, Bruner and Ross, and Donato which indicated that using scaffolding


54 language growth and more engaged classroom participation. Studies also conducted by Peregoy (1 991) and Peregoy and Boyle (1999) suggested that the systematic and 474) became a vehicle that enhanced participation between native and nonnative Spanish speakers. They highlighted the importance of routines as a way to scaffold language, provide peer interaction, and set models for the students. They claimed that the systematic reinforcement and constant repetition of routines throughout the entire year served as sc affolding techniques. Routines served as ways to initiate students in the classroom environment as beginner participants and worked as scaffolds since they provided nonnative Spanish speakers with a context ualized learning environment Another pedagogical feature that is intimately related to TWI programs is cooperative learning. Cooperative learning (CL) or small instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own associated with promoting active and equal participation of students in the classroom (Cohen, 1997). They also promote student discussion and encourage student confidence and motivation. When working tog ether, students must reach agreements and share, and specific interaction dynamics must take place. These dynamics include turn taking, initiating a conversation, being responsive, and providing feedback, among others. The notion of cooperation is associat ed not only with psychological and emotional gains but also with academic achievement (Gillies & Boyle, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 2007).


55 In CL students work together on a common goal. Students also need to interact, negotiate, and colla borate to achieve a common goal a ll of which refer to the theoretical foundations of SCT and CL. In order to guide students toward their goal, C L requires teachers to play a key role in its implementation and functioning. Teachers must provide clear specifications of the dyn amics of the groups, highlight the expected behaviors, and support the groups before, during, and after any CL activity. Baines, Blatchford and Kutnick (2007) conducted a study to evaluate a four year teacher program in the United Kingdom regarding studen t group work focusing on the primary school first phase the Social Pedagogic Research into Group Work project (SPRinG). The study initiated as a response to previous research indicating a concern about CL teaching practices. The researchers, in collaborat ion with some of the teachers in the project, created materials and implemented approaches to better promote CL in the classes. Findings showed an Baines, Blatchford, and Kutnick ( 2007) emphasize three main components in relation to CL, in which the teacher plays a fundamental role. Teachers should enhance structure and support. Howard and Christi an (2002) emphasize the importance of incorporating CL strategies in TWI programs since CL provides ample opportunities to practice language and promotes negotiation skills. Additionally, Howard et al. (2007) highlight the promotion of positive social inte ractions between teachers and students as a significant instructional practice that promotes second language development among native and nonnative speakers in TWI programs since it encourages students to interact


56 and communicate (Gillies & Boyle, 200 5 ; Ho ward et al., 2003; Peregoy & Boyle, 1999; Soltero, 2004 ; Walqui, 2006 ). McKeon (1994), in a review of literature about language, culture, and school, suggests specific strategies that teachers should use to support second language learning As based on CL T views, the strategies i nclude promoting authentic communication that is meaningful and used in purposeful ways in the classroom (Cloud et al., 2000 ; Lindholm, 1991; McKeon, 1994 ). Purposeful talk requires students in the classroom to actively and constan tly engage with ideas, opinions, solutions, and to work together to co construct meaning (Nichols, 2006). McKeon (1994) urges teachers to assume a more conversational tone in their classes rather than common, monotonous, less critical question answer inter changes between the teacher and the students (Extended Response Handbook, 2011). In similar note, Brisk (2006) posits that instruction should be engaging, challenging, and supportive, where students play an active role in learning by maximizing all potenti al opportunities to collaborate and participate in the classroom (Vygotsky, 1978). Cloud et al. (2000) argue that language used by the students should drive learning, which then becomes the context for learning. That is, when students are engaged in meani ngful activities, there is spontaneous use of language which will help to develop language. Cloud et al. (2000) define five teaching strategies to foster a conducive environment for developing oral proficiency in the second language which include structuri ng the use of oral language within a meaningful context, choosing activities that are relevant to the students, surrounding students with language that is just complex enough, equalizing the status of the two languages, and encouraging


57 students to use the language as much as possible. W hen there are interactive activities and there are real life goals students become engaged and learn the language even when not knowing some linguistic forms. Crawford (1991) and Lindholm Leary (2001), in review s of theoret ical, conceptual, and empirical literature about TWI programs, claim that optimal language input requires four characteristics: language that is adjusted to the comprehension level of the learner, language that is interesting and relevant, language in abun dant and sufficient quantity, and language that is challenging so that it requires negotiating meaning and problem solving skills (Long, 1981). These characteristics go hand and hand with the theoretical foundations of SCL and CLT that value social interac tion, promote CI and CO, and use authentic language. Lindfors (1987), when addressing theoretical perspectives about academically, linguistically, and culturally when t eachers provide them with a rich environment, an environment that encourages genuine language production in the classroom The classroom becomes the means in which students interact in order to learn a second language. The classroom setting requires specia l attention in terms of ways in which language is promoted. Classroom Discourse in the Second Language Setting In classroom discourse, emphasis is placed on classroom language as a system of communication and interaction with specific discourse patterns (C azden, 2001; Cole & Zuengler, 2008; Rymes, 2009). These patterns can include discursive interactions between teachers and students and also among students. The basic unit of classroom interaction has been considered to be a three step pattern of teacher initiation, student response, and teacher evaluation or follow up,


58 which is best known as an IRE pattern (Hall & Walsh, 2002; Lier, 1984; Nunan, & Lamb, 1 996 ). S everal constructs have been studie d in terms of IRE patterns. Turn taking, for example, has bee n shown to present challenges in areas such as transitioning from student to student and distribution of student responses across the student group. There is controversy about who and whe n a speaker can participate. Lier (1984) talks about the rights of co mmunication in IRE structures which can vary from teacher the time and then rotating to another student) to a more permissive and less regulated environment where studen t initiation is allowed and even encouraged. Lier (1984) stresses the importance of understanding the contextual environment where classroom interaction takes place Some contextual aspects includ e output, and other linguistic re sources used by the teacher and students. Elicitation of responses is of great importance in IRE sequences. Elicitation is a function of teacher questioning in which the teacher seeks to extract information from the students rather that providing them wit h the answers. Questions used by teachers in the classroom can serve varied purposes. Nunan and Lamb (1996) suggests questions can be used as instructional tools to elicit information, check student understanding, and be used as classroom management ( e.g., to control student behavior) and to control classroom interaction. When questions are used to teach language and content, then elicitation can be an engaging way to encourage meaningful communication. Classroom resea rch indicates that different types of question s yield different outcomes in the students (Nunan & Lamb, 1996). High order questions (rather than factual questions) and open questions (instead of close


59 questions) are associated with encouragement and promot responses. In these types of questions, students are expected to elaborate more on their answers by explaining, justifying, or reflecting on their ideas and beliefs. Open ended and follow up questions result in longer, more comple x learner responses and unsolicited turn taking often breaks out the dominant teacher led discourse (Brock, 1986). Other types of questions that have been studied includ e display and referential questions. Display questions are those in which the initiato r already knows the answer while in referential questions the answer is unknown to the individual. Display questions have been criticized for several reasons including the fact that they are less conducive e (Lee, 2006). Display questions language use (Long & Sato, 1983). Some studies indicate that when teachers use referential questions there is more student output since s tudents provide significantly longer and syntactically more complex responses (Brock, 1986; Nunan, 1987; Nunan & Lamb, 1996). Bro c k (1986) asserts that teachers who use abundant referential questions create a flow of information which generates discourse t hat most faithfully resembles that of normal convers ation outside the classroom. Lier (1988) argues that using referential questions does not necessarily lead to student elaboration and generation of genuine conversation since these questions might trouble and frustrate students who lack content and linguistic knowledge. Also Nunan and Lamb (1996) note that low level referential questions do not encourage students to elaborate their answers.


60 Consistent use of the IRE structure ha s been assumed to limit stu opportunities to talk in the classroom since there is a tendency for teachers to control student interaction (Cazden, 2001 ; Hall & Walsh, 2002). Answers to the questions can become automatic or cause some students to remain silent. Questions can be repetitive and boring for the students who have enough language background There are also cases where s o me students tend to dominate answering the questions. Additionally teacher elicitation is not necessarily indicative of more student talk. The way ques tions are posed shapes the way classroom interaction which determines and participation patterns. Concern about IRE sequences is not unanimous though. Some argue that IRE earning (Christie, 1995; Lee, 2006). Lee (2006) conducted a literature review about teacher questions, paying close attention to display questions. While one of the criticisms of IRE patterns is that teachers tend to only rely on the use of display questio ns, making them use of display questions can have an interactional piece which involves negotiation of meaning. She argues that IRE sequences and display questions can result in me aningful, engaging conversation with the students if they have an interactive component. Hall and Walsh (2002) conducted a review of IRE (initiation response evaluation) and IRF (initiation response feedback) patterns. Evaluation ( e.g., IRE patterns) diff ers from feedback ( e.g., IRF) since fee dback provides fewer judgmental comments. Feedback seeks to continue a conversation without evaluating content or form in a


61 given student answer or comment. Feedback can also help to open the conversation to the class room and have students interact with one another in collaborative ways. From the studies examined, they concluded that providing students with feedback (in the form of response affirmations, reformulations, comments, and request for j ustification, clarific ation, or elaboration) and valuing their contributions (not judging or evaluating them) resulted in students elaborating more on their utterances and participating more as ways to engage in meaningful communication. Wells (1986) suggested that learner enga gement can be maximized through teacher led discourse using a modified pattern of IRF which encourages multiple responses and seeks peer collaboration with each teacher initiation. Cullen (1998) argues that teacher questions have been long analyzed in term s of quantity when they should be examined in terms of their effectiveness in serving as input for students, facilitating learning, and promoting dynamic interaction in the classroom. Johnson (2009) also notes that the focus of teacher questions should not be the questions themselves ; questions should be studied as symbolic linguistic tools that serve to assist and scaffold l anguage and promote language development. They should be examined in terms of their capacity to stimulate interaction, negotiation, me aning, and class participation. The impact of teacher questioning depends on factors such as how the teacher asks the questions, the type of interaction the teacher promotes, and the kind of language use d to elicit the responses. If elicitation is used ef fectively, it can keep students alert, reduce teacher talk time, encourage more student talk time, and lead to a dynamic and stimulating environment where language learning occurs. Regardless of e.g., display vs. refe rential; high order vs. factual)


62 or the question pattern s (IRE vs. IRF), the nature of the environment for learning is important. Most important are the specific ways in which teachers manage to use questions in order to elicit information from the student s and promote language use and development. Research on Classroom Discourse and Int eraction in the Second Language Setting Hall and Walsh (2002) conducted a literature review to examine specific means used in teacher student interaction to promote langua ge learning. They affirm that schools as sociocultural contexts with specific learning, instructional, and interactive order for students to be more aware of classroom inte ractive practices, there must be two aspects taken into consideration: the communicative goals of the classroom and the extended opportunities give n to the learners to work on these communicative goal s with more expert communicators. Hall (1995) asserts th at the role played by teachers in developing classroom interactive frameworks is essential. According to her, teachers must provide models of competent participation and uses of appropriate discursive structures. Teachers also play a role in providing stud ents with ample opportunities to use these frameworks so that they develop communicative competence and active, engaging participation. According to Hall (1995) interactive practices are those episodes that are purposeful and goal oriented communication t hat establish and maintain a group or classroom community. Interactive practices require interactional competence; that is, the ability to develop and manage topical issues in pragmatic and relevant ways. H all ( 1995) affirms that, f rom a sociocultural pers pective, the guidance


63 provided by more knowledgeable individuals can take many forms including those of modeling, providing explicit directions, and coaching Research Focusing on Teacher Student Interaction Toth (2011) examined the benefits of teacher l ed discourse (TLD) structured as collaborative, whole class tasks in a second language setting. The study provides a descriptive quantitative and qualitative comparison of TLD segments of two beginning university level Spanish classes. In class A, classroo m discourse was based on standard IRF sequences. Class B also used IRF, but structures were modified to more collaborative, open ended classroom interactions. Students were all English adult learners ranging from 18 to 30 years of age with limited Spanish proficiency. Data included videotaped lessons and classroom observations over one university semester. Data analysis looked at latency between teacher initiation and learner response, number of solicited and unsolicited learner turns, and negotiation over meaning or form. Findings coming from quantitative measurements indicated more latency in discourse in class A than in class B. Also students were more engaged in class B than in class A. The researcher found that IRF patterns and teacher discourse can be modified to create more open ended questions (accompanied by follow up questions) that encourage critical thinking and problem solving skills. He argues that TLD and modified IRF patterns can be effective if they are well managed. Teacher discourse can be adapted to a more communicative focus where students benefit from more freedom to comment, offer solutions, and share opinions and information. The findings of this study suggest ed that careful and monitored TLD can indeed foster, rather than impede, seco nd language discourse in the students.


64 Hall (1995) conducted a study in a first year Spanish language classroom to examine topic development and discourse organization in an interactive speaking practice. The high school class was composed of 15 students. Data collection included 37 school visits ( that were audio recorded interviews. Findings focus ed on two main aspects: the rhetorical structure to develop topics and the use of linguistic resources. The most com mon pattern was IRE which was usually initiated with a focal topic familiar to the students. Findings indicate d that there was some topic development initiated by the students, but was immediately ignored by the classroom teacher. The linguistic resources include opening utterances to se t the topic, the use of ellipsis as a sign of salience, and the allocation of related vocabulary items. Findings furthered indicate d that opening utterances initiated by the teacher we re minimal, and there was no real topic development. Hall (1995) conclude d that there w as lack of opportunities for students to engage in interactive practices since most interactions did not delve into extended talk about a topic. Reflections by the authors highlight the importance of the teach er as a promoter and initiator of well established interactive environments where students can engage in talk that promotes lexical use and topic development. They al so emphasize d language can either facilitate or constraint studen Verplaetse (2000) conducted a mixed methods study to examine discourse strategies and teacher input employed by a middle school science teacher to create interactive opportunities for limited English proficient (LEP) students. The study focused on a teacher who had a reputation for being skillful at promoting effective levels of interaction in the class and developing linguistic and cognitive skills in the students The


65 study draws from a larger study where two more te achers were participants. During the presentation of data the researcher establishe d some comparisons with the other two teachers from the larger study. Interaction in the study is presented as any opportunity to produce output or as the research refers t (Verplaetse, 2000, p. 224). Qualitative data sources include d classroom discussions, classroom observations, and three teacher interviews. Quantitative data included frequency count s of four factors: teacher elicitatio ns, cognitive level elicitations, open ended elicitations, and distribution of feedback acts. Teacher utterances were or ganized into four types : initiation, scaffold/initiation, response, and feedback. Findings presented two specific participant structures for the classroom discussions: the inquiry phase and the rapid fire review. The first structure initiated with the teacher posing a question, followed by students wondering, speculating, and providing of opinions and comments. The second structure elicite volunteering students when revising homework or going over a class assignment. Findings indicate that the linguistic minority students participated at exceptional levels of frequency. The main teach er of the study, in comparison with the other two teachers, elicit ed more language from the students, used more open ended questions, and provided more feedback. The teacher corrected the students less and listened to them tone. Qualitative findings documented specific strategies used by the teacher. These included wondering aloud, nonjudgm ental responses, drafting student participation, and constant encouragement of interaction from both native and nonnative English


66 speakers. These f aloud real questions associated with this type of discourse; instead the teacher simply spoke aloud a curiosity which resulted in a great benefit for student language production. Research Focusing on Teacher Discourse Antn (1999) conducted an ethnographic stu dy in two university language classes (French and Italian) to investigate teacher centered and learner centered discourses and their interactions in the second language context. Teacher learner interactions for this study were examined through the lens of a sociocultural perspective. Data were collected through field notes from classroom observations and audio recordings. Both classes, Italian and French, used three classroom practices: grammar explanation, exercise correction, and oral practice. Findings w ere organized into four relevant themes: the discourse of formal instruction, providing feedback, allocating turns, and that the n instructional scaffold where the teacher engaged with students to promote participation which spoke of a learner centered teaching approach suggested a teacher centered strategy, where t he teacher provided most of the answers and accurate grammar explanations like a lecture. The French teacher generated knowledge by involving students in the learning process whereas the Italian teacher provided all knowledge students were expected to learn. The s ame pattern is repeated in the theme of providing feedback. The French teacher encouraged students to negotiate meaning and self and peer correct in the classroom. On the other hand, the Italian teacher did not encourage any correction since the teacher p rovided the


67 correct answers. Antn (1999) argues that teacher centered discourse is less likely to led discourse should be interactive and lead to classroom dialogue, which can result in learners becoming highly involved in the negotiation of meaning and linguistic forms. Wiltse (2006), in a qualitative ethnographic study in a public school classroom in fo r language use and classroom participation. The study was conducted in a grade nine language arts class during one school year. Data sources included contextual field notes, audiotaped semi structured interviews, archival documents ( e.g., newspaper with ar ticles about the school) and classroom artifacts ( e.g., teacher and classroom documents, student writing samples). Findings indicated that there was a lack of structured classroom dialogue and teacher whole class discussions; there was mostly seatwork. Th e research found that the teacher did not focus on discourse in the classroom where the teacher purposely avoided initiating discussion in the classroom because of a cultural barrier for some students. The teacher noted that some Asian students did not val ue questioning and discussion with superiors ( e.g., teachers in the case of this study). Findings also suggested that when discussion did occur, activities were not structured. The researcher argue d that there was a need for explicit teaching and organizat ion of learning activities as well as for a need for m ultilingual teaching practices to provide students with opportunities for academic discourses and a need for effective teacher discourse to maximize peer collaboration in the classroom In a study in a one way Finnish/Swedish program in a kindergarten classroom, Sdergrd (2008) conducted an ethnographic study focused on teacher student


68 interaction based mainly on classroom observations. This two year study observed a group of 26 Finnish speaking monoli ngual students and their experienced immersion teacher. Data included classroom observations and a teacher interview about her personal views on second language acquisition in immersion programs. The study focused specifically on five small grou p work epis odes, each with three predictable strategies: a brief teacher initiated discussion, a drawing task, and an oral task (a language development task) based on the pictures drawn. Findings suggested two different types of strategies used by the teacher: elicit ation and feedback strategies. In order to elicit the second language, strategies included questions, answers, signals for language switch, and teacher utterances leading to spontaneous second language oral production. Questions ranged from close ended to more open ended ones and increased in complexity over the school year. Student communicati on became spontaneous since the students replied to com ments without being called upon which led to meaningful conversation with real life purposes. Feedback strategi es included non corrective repetition, positive feedback, and corrective feedback with recasts. The researcher highlighted how consistent and emphatic the teacher was in creating situations where the children were fully encouraged and sometimes even pushed to utterances by modifying, slightly correcting, reinforcing, and providing positive feedback. The teacher avoided common teacher discourse such as linguistic modeling, drills, an d repetition, and adjusted her discourse to promote second language use. Research Focusing on Empowering Discourse transformative classroom environment. More specifically the study examined how a


69 teacher provided opportunities for the students to develop their voices and a sense of community. This study used dialogic retrospection and ethnographic observation rtifacts ( e.g., portfolios, academic work, assessments, and literacy activities samples) and notes from meetings with the teacher. Findings document ed that topics which required critical thinking encouraged students to become active participants where they provided opinions and points of view. Students became engaged in the solution of problems and gave opinions. The study suggests the value of a transformative learning environment that includes critical pedagogical instructional practices, critical thinkin g processes, and inclusion of students in decision making pro cesses as a central piece of learning interactions. The teacher stated that students develop their voice when there are true opportunities for students to talk about real life issues, their feeli ngs and their opinions about their home and community situations. The role played by the teacher in structuring and implementing instructional practices and classroom interactions is fundamental for running effective p rograms in the second language contex t In the specific setting of TWI programs, these practices and interactions become of essential significance. Based on research, teachers play cen t r al roles and are tightly involved in the pedagogical pieces of TWI programs. Teachers should become masters of specific, targeted teaching techniques. Also, they should become aware of their attitudes and expectations, willingness to foster learning environments for student collaboration and social interaction and provision of opportunities to use and develop language. Knowing more about how teachers convey and communicate these is of primary importance in the context of TWI programs


70 Teacher Discourse in TWI P rograms T eacher discourse play s a vital role in second language use and development since it is impor tant in fostering meaningful conversations, student learning, and small group interaction (Cazden, 2001; Webb et al., 2004). T eacher discourse supports and enhances learning and provides opportunities for students to negotiate meaning (Cullen, 1998). In ad dition, the quality of teacher language can contribute to language classroo m activities (Consolo, 2000; McK eon, 1994). Chaudron (1988), based on literature reviews and empiri cal research about second language classrooms, claims that teachers modify their speech when talking to ELLs in an effort to maintain conversation with the students, clarify some information, and elicit responses from the students. In a review of research on teacher led discourse, Toth (2011) notes that teacher discourse can influence teaching practices negative or positively. On one hand, taking pattern s in the classroom, and impede rather that support and encourage control of discourse comes from the teacher. In order to understand the role of teacher discourse in the setting of TWI programs I searched for empirical studies that would illuminate in this matter. With the exception of two studies (Freeman, 1998; Montague & Meza Zaragosa 1999) I looked for recent studies in which teacher discourse provided understanding insights in the context of TWI programs. I reviewed prior research and got acquainted with the latest research in the area to more integrally understand the matter. Eight empirical studies addressing the issue of teacher discourse, specifically in TWI programs, in terms of language use and development identity construction, and teacher talk intera ction patterns will be further reviewed.


71 Research Focusing on Language Development Montague and Meza Zaragosa (1999) conducted a study in a TWI prekindergarten program setting with 4 and 5 yea r old s (preliterate students) who ha d been in the program for 2 and 3 years. The TWI model in the school was half day Spanish half day English. The study was conducted during three phases. During the first phase (the language production phase), there was no mandated curriculum structured elicitation or intervention responses) was conducted during Language Experience Approach (LEA), which is a period of the day where students had to dictate language to the teacher. Finally, in the post intervention phase the teacher ceased to elicit or intervene with the students T he Spanish teacher observed the students and recorded their exact answers for all phases of the study. F indings indicated that during the first phase, students were reinforced to respond i English. During the intervention phase, the majority of the Spanish answers were given only by Spanish dominant speakers. The rest of the students provided answers in English. During the last phase, students did not have to follow LEA, but language in the classroom resembled a more natural setting. In this phase, students responded in the language of their choice. Findings indicated that students became more conscious of the lan guage use and emulated teacher discourse in which there was encouragement to produce Spanish utterances. Both language groups demonstrated less second language production during the intervention phase. Findings indicated th at when elicitation of answers wa s fixed and structured, English native speakers limited themselves to little participation. The researchers found natural language and more open elicitation of answers was more effective than teacher only elicitation of answers.


72 Hayes (2005) analyzed a du al language teacher in her efforts to foster interaction among native English and Spanish speakers in a dual language kindergarten classroom during Spanish language play centers The 1998 99 study was conducted in a school in the mid Atlantic in the United States. The school was located in a 90 % Hispanic urban neighborhood as it was in its first TWI implementation year. The class included 21 students, 10 Spanish dominant and 11 English dominant. The teacher, a native from Argentina, was a veteran ESL teache r Data included video and audiotaped classroom observations, field notes, and five formal interviews with the teacher participant and one interview with the bilingual program supervisor. Findings indicated that classroom interactions were encouraged duri ng two specific play center times: blocks and housekeeping. The teacher believed that, in order to encourage students to interact more during centers, there needed to be realia present in the centers ( e.g., more attractive toys, more outfits to play with) and required scripted Spanish monologues where students were expected to declare out what they were doing while playing. The teacher was challenged by the fact that her students, regardless of the structures provided, were not using Spanish during their pl ay centers; instead, they interacted in English or simply played silently. One episode, resulting in a sustained conversation (mainly in Spanish), implied the negotiation and mediation of a conflict over the use of Barbie dolls. For the teacher, the conver sation was distracting and denoted conflict requiring classroom management. Hayes (2005) concluded that this conflict also concluded that the simple set up of centers was not interaction. Instead, collaborative task design needed to be carefully implemented to


73 linguistic interaction (Hayes, 2005; Lindholm Leary, 2005). Hayes (2005) considers language not to be an objective with specific requirements that must be met. She claims language to be 110). year ethnographic study conducted by DePalma (2010) in a TWI kindergarten classroom. The larger study focused on Spanish time, classroom design, teacher interpretations, and social production of success and failure. Data were collected through observation and interviews. DePalma (2010) conducted an in depth analysis of multiple classroom c onversation s conversations. The focal instructional activities included Calendar time, Time Tables, and Story Time. These activities included structured and less structured teacher strat egies. This balance served different purposes; some strategies leaned more towards language input and other towards language output. This balance also promoted student confidence and language development ( e.g., vocabula ry, linguistic forms) in the students while other activities required more participation and challenged students to produce more language. Some activities constrained genuine discussion since the ended and elicited formulaic speech patterns and scripted language The researcher found that classroom activities, such as housekeeping and block centers, elicited more Spanish when students had to negotiate something or when there was some kind of conflict. One of the findings of the study suggested that language shoul d not be considered an end but rather a means to an end (DePalma, 2010). When words get contextualized and when meaning becomes the


74 focus, then communication happens. The more extended interactive patterns among students happened when conflicts had to be n egotiated and ambiguities need ed to be T he teacher suggest ed creating open ended activities to encourage the negotiation of meaning among the students Research F ocusing on Language and Identity Construction Palmer (2008a) examined discourse patterns in one second grade TWI program in alternative discourses to promote language minority s academic identities. The study used ethnographic and discourse analysis approaches and was conducted in the 2002 2003 school year. Data collection methods included participant observation, open ended interviews, and close discourse analysis. The stud ent population included African American, Hispanic and w hit e students. The school had a 90: oretically, Palmer (2008a) drew (Freeman, 1998), and identity construction in language minority students. C lassroom episodes in the library with the school staff and with substitute teachers were analyzed. Findings indicated that the Spanish teacher was able to pro mote and co construct alternative discourse with the students. The Spanish teacher discourse was one that to engage in meaningful and respectful conversations, which le development of academic identities. Those alternative discourses were undermined when a substitute teacher was in charge or when students went to the library. Findings


75 indicated that the tone of the classroom is determined by the pe rson in control, which Palmer (2008b) conducted another ethnographic discourse analysis study using some data from the previous study from both the Spanish teache r (who worked four days a week) an d an English teacher (working only on Fridays). The study examined promoting (or not promoting) opportunities for the students. Data included twenty two audio recorded lesso ns and open ended interviews including both teacher participants and parents of the students. Additionally, this study followed six focal students in different linguistic groups (Spanish dominant, English dominant, and bilingual), including diverse g enders and ethnicities (African American, Latino, and w hite). Findings concurred with the previous study (Palmer, 2008a). Teachers heavily influenced findings indicated how she wa s very skilled at strategically correcting students, praising participation, equalizing language status, and focusing on academic content (rather than language form) when students contributed in class. She was also particularly skillful at opening spaces f or language minority students to contribute to the class in meaningful ways. On the other hand, the English teacher struggled with providing an equal language status, which led classroom participation to be dominated mainly by language majority students. P almer (2008b) emphasiz es the role of teacher discourse in promoting opportunities for language minority students to use alternative discourses to equalize language status.


76 Freeman (1998) conducted a study on a TWI school in Washington, DC, where 45 % of t he population was Latino and the rest was w hite and African American. The study examined school discourse practices using ethnographic and discourse analysis approaches. Data were collected through participant observation approaches, open ended interviews with policymakers, teachers, parents, and students, and documents collected during the course of her study. For the analysis of classroom discourse, data analysis took into consideration methodologies from ethnography of communication, interactional sociol inguistics, conversation analysis, and social psychology. Findings documented how the school opposed mainstream U.S. assumptions of linguistic and cultural assimilation. The school was described as a community that crossed language, culture and class. In terms of specific teacher discourse and instructional strategies, the study described practices including encouragement of all students to participate (native and nonnative), cooperative learning, and ample o pportunities for students to negotiate meaning and problem solve together. R esearch Focusing on Classroom Interaction Patterns In an ethnographic study, Takahashi Breines (2002) examined teacher talk in a third grade TWI classroom. The researcher observe d the class for two school years using ethnographic notes and audio recordings. The experienced bilingual teacher, taught exclusively Spanish in the morning and English in the afternoon. The study investigated the multifaceted role of the bilingual teacher The findings of the study were a which intertwines four different components that influence language learning in the setting of a bilingual context The components includ ed soci ocultural processes, linguistic


77 development, academic development, and cognitive development. Findings indicated that teacher discourse is a tool that can work as sociocultural, linguistic, cognitive, and academic supports (Takahashi Breines, 2002). In ter ms of sociocultural issues, findings indicated that the teacher talk related to culturally relevant teaching where she took into account critical thinking skills to foster cultural sensitivity, and social and cultural awareness. Specific teacher discourse examples include the use of positive politeness imperatives, diminutives, endearing terms, and humor. The teacher also made linguistic support, teacher talk worked as input for second language learning and as a source of language modeling. Teacher talk provided students with access to language in terms of content, vocabulary, and language structures. Additionally, specific instructional practices reflected meaningful classroom a ctivities where the teacher response s and enhanced their thinking, language, and cognitive skills. In relation to academic support, students participated in group work which promoted social interaction and content development. Findings concluded that optimal language settings involved those where teacher discourse plays complex, multifaceted roles involving distinctive yet complementary supports. Martin Beltrn (2010) conducted a one year ethnographic study in a fifth grade TWI classroom in California focus ing on a group of 30 students with different Spanish and English proficiency language levels. The class had four teachers: two Spanish


78 teachers, one English teacher for the larger group, and one English teacher for ESL pull outs for newcomers. The s tudy focused mainly on three female students to present specific excerpts for analy sis Data were collected through audio recordings, interviews, and ethnographic observations of classroom discourse. Three approaches for data analysis were used: ethnograph y of communication, interactional ethnography, and critical conversation analysis. The study sought to examine teacher student discursive practices in relation to perceived language proficiency in the classroom. Martin Beltrn (2010) used the term discursi indicated that the three focal students in the study, two Spanish dominant and one English dominant, used language accordingly to what teachers stated their language proficiencies were. Based on conversation and observation, findings indicated that if students were perceived as proficient in a language, they became engaged participants in the classrooms. On the contrar y, if they were not positioned as proficient students, then the students presented themselves as not being proficient and not knowing enough students resisted participatin g in and/or accepted marginalization within the class. Findings showed how teachers, through their talk, promoted specific discursive practices to foster environments for students to feel (and not to feel) identified as proficient language users and langua ge experts. After reviewing these eight studies, some conclusions can be reached in terms of teacher discourse. First, teacher talk can work as a way to praise students for their language proficiency and invite or deny them the opportunity to participate (Martin


79 strategically empower learners by publically declaring and reifying their proficiency and to remind learners of what they can do to participate in the classroom dis course Beltrn, 2010, p. 273 274). T eacher discourse can help students to identify themselves as language proficient students and can work as a powerful It can also shape st participatory members in the classroom. Second, teacher discourse plays a role in positive academic identities. The teacher messages about th e significance of language discourse can indeed help equalize the classroom learning environment and empower students if the discourse encourages and promotes equitable p atterns of linguistic and cultural interactions in the classroom. It also become s a source of empowerment if the and promotes them as equitable interaction pattern s in the classroom (Fr eeman, 1998; Palmer 2008a, 2008b). Third, teacher discourse can provide sociocultural, linguistic, cognitive and academic supports. These supports include teacher teacher promotion of active and equal participation of all s tudents, teacher creation of opportunities for language use where students share negotiate and problem solve language, and constant encouragement of interaction and coll aboration among students


80 (Antn, 1999; Arce, 2000; Montague & Meza Zaragosa, 1999; Toth, 2011; Wiltse, 2006). Fourth, understanding the role of teacher discourse requires careful analysis of the role of classroom questions. Lee (2006) argues that the type of question used by the teacher facilitates or impedes language learning. To foster language use and learning, teachers must use reflective questions that encourage students to go beyond simple answers or memorized phrases. Questions must enable students to negotiate meaning and encourage expression of ideas and points of views. Questions should also invite students to elaborate, extend their language production, and promote cognitive development. Although the potential benefits of teacher discourse have been studied in the context of TWI programs, few studies focus ed on the specific role of the teacher discourse and their teaching practices in fostering extended use of language. Some studies examined discourse as specific utterances used by teachers while others explored teacher assumptions, expectations, and beliefs about the role of teacher discourse in the classroom. Most of the research focuses on how classroom discourse patterns are put into practice through teacher talk. The studies reviewed here tre at discourse as a way of communicating and putting into practice specific teaching strategies. M ost studies use ethnographic research methods; some other include discourse analysis and others used mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) By employing domain analysis I expand on the previous research and elaborate more in depth on the s trategic instructional patterns used by the bilingual teacher and c ombin ed that w ith he r beliefs and values in the TWI context.


81 This study contribute s to research about TWI programs since it describe s teaching patterns used by the bilingual teacher in her classroom. It is also accompanied by an views about teach ing practices in TWI programs T his study offer s insights into the ways in w hich TWI teachers, through their teach ing practices, can promote opportunities for students to build and practice language in the classroom.


82 Figure 2 1. Allocation of languages of instruction in two way immersion programs (Christian, 1994).


83 C HAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the research methodology and methods used in this qualitative study. It explains the research framework of constructivism and d omain a nalysis as an approach to analyze data, a s well as the methods used t o collect the data. The purpose of this study is to describe how a bilingual teacher elicits extended use of Spanish language during whole group instruction in a TWI first grade classroom. This chapter explains the procedures implemented to inves tigate the topic. It is d ivided into eight sections: (1) Research Framework, (2) Research Context, (3) Research Participant, (4) Classroom Context, (5) Data Collection, (6) Data Analysis, (7) Trustworthiness, and (8) Subjectivity. Research Framework The t heory of knowledge supporting this study is constructivism By supporting the study with this epistemological theory, the researcher understands that absolute realities do not exist. Realities are merely individual perceptions. In constructivism, there is no objective reality waiting to be discovered; there is no one objective truth. Instead, meaning is constantly constructed in various ways depending on different realities. is not one but many ( Hatch 2002 Lather, 2006). These realities vary from individual to individual depending on his or her personal, linguistic, and cultural background (Crotty, 1998) There are indeed multiple constructed realities that are tightly boun d to the individuals construct their own unique meanings. According to Crotty ( 199 are constructed by human beings as they engage with the world they are inter


84 (p. 43); that is rom the same experience by different people. Vygotsky (1978) addresses this by explaining that human learning is very dynamic and situated in specific physical and social contex ts. In the constructivist perspective, learning or the development of understanding requires that individuals actively engage in a meaning making process (Jones & Brader Araje, 2002). The meaning making process is an interactive process that is mediated by factors including culture, language, context, and social interaction (Johnson, 2009). huma n beings create knowledge and meaning from constant and reciprocal interaction with experiences and ideas in their lives (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, it focuses on the premise that individuals, through personal experiences, construct an understanding of the world in which they live in. Knowledge is not something to be transmitted or retained; instead, it is a personal experience that is constructed. Crotty (1998) adds that 58). He also states that constructivism highlights the unique experiences in each individual. As part of the constructivist paradigm, knowledge is created in the interaction ndividual participant is the main meaning making source. Hatch (2002) suggests that the role of the research er in this theoretical framework is not a stance of distance and objectivity since the essence of constructivism is to jointly construct knowledge. In constructivism, participants and observing them in their natural settings in an effort to reconstruct the


85 constructions participant s 15). The research er takes into account the variety and complexity of individual realities and tries to interpret er and participant are in constant support and mutual engagement to construct a subje ctive reality. In this study, my purpose wa s to examine how one bilingual teacher fosters the use of Spanish and creates a context to elicit Spanish language production. More specifically, t he following research question guided my study : How does one bilingual teacher elicit extended use of Spanish language during whole group instruction in a TWI first grade classroom? The sub questions of the study we re as follows: What are some strategic instructional patterns used by the bilingual teacher ? conveyed in practice ? Research Context The context for this qualitative study is a K 5 public, two way S panish immersion school in the n ortheast United States. This stud y is part of a larger study in which I have been part of the research team working with TWI programs. Some of the reasons for the selection of the site and the school made by the principal investigator include the school long standing TWI program and pre vious professional research relationships between the principal investigator and the school (for more see de Jong, 2002). According to the Center of Applied Linguistics (CAL, 2011b), the majority of the studies of integration of language minority and lang experiences and professional development come from California, Texas, and New Mexico (mostly Southwest states). Conducting this study in a different area can add to


86 the TWI literature. According to CAL (2011c), the part icular state in this Northeast area is among the ten states with most TWI programs The elementary grades (K 5) are th o s e most common ly served by TWI programs. There are various languages of instruction for TWI programs, but Spanish is the most predominan t (Christian et al., 2000). As of December 2010, there were 376 TWI programs in 28 states and Washington D.C., serving elementary grade levels (280 TWI programs) and employing Spanish/English as the most common languages of instruction (344 TWI programs) ( CAL, 2011c). This highlights the importance of meeting the needs of students whose native language is Spanish and who are currently attending and being served by TWI schools in the United States. Also, the school in this study provides an important conte xt in which to conduct research. The school has made curricular and academic modifications over time to more effectively meet the goals of TWI programs (de Jong, 2002). The school program has engaged in constant professional and academic growth based on re flections about theoretical understandings regarding bilingual education, second language acquisition, and student achievement in terms of academic and linguistic matters. Having interacted with teachers from the school and the principal investigator, I ca n affirm that they value feedback and engage in reflective practices about their strengths and weaknesses as TWI teachers. The school encourages professional development and promotes positive relationships among its staff. Escuela El Milagro: Escuela Bilin ge de Doble Va Escuela El Milagro (pseudo nym) is a public school in the n ortheast United States. Escuela El Milagro is a K 5 elementary school that began the TWI program model in 1990 1991 (C AL 2011b 2001c ). The first program (1990) was a response to t wo main


87 phenomena: social segregation of bilingual students and a demographic trend called the minority population increases (de Jong, 2002). After two years of planning and profe ssional development supported by a Title IV grant, the TWI program began. In 1995, it was fully supported by local funds. The Department of Education reported that, for the 2009 2010 school year, 60 % of students in the school spoke a language othe r than English, 49 % were L imited E nglish P roficient (LEP) students, and about 54 % qualified for free or reduced lunch (CAL, 2011c) (Table 3 1) The criteria for selecting and accepting students into the school who are native speakers of Spanish include tes ting students when entering kindergarten, interviewing parents, and finally recommending a placement. There are no formal criteria for selecting and accepting native English speakers. Parents of both groups (minority and majority language) are required to sign a letter of commitment that explains the program and emphasizes the importance of long term participation. One of the characteristics of effective TWI is that students remain in the program for at least six years (Lindholm Leary, 2005; Thomas & Collie r, 1997 b ). According to the total of 506 students enrolled in the school during the 2009 2010 school year, with 88 students enrolled in first grade. he enrollment by ethnicity of students in 2009 2010 school year the three major groups included 66.2 % Latino, 27.1 % w hite, and 3.4 % African American (Table 3 2) Students from English and Spanish language backgrounds are fully integrated through the day. Spanish is emphasi zed during elementary grades since it is the main


88 language used for emergent literacy instruction. In 2009 2010, the school was in its third year of transitioning to an 80 : 20 TWI model where students were integrated during the entire instructional time and the emphasis of instruction was 80 % in Spanish (Table 3 3) The staff of Escuela El Milagro Department of Education reported that, for the 2009 2010 school year, about 25 % of the staff at the school wa s H ispanic and 39 % wer e w hite ; the remaining staff were Asian or other multi race non Hispanic. The program staff also contain ed ten classroom aides, including one f ull time bilingual special educator, one full time bilingual social worker, one part time bil ingual Title I professional, one full time Spanish as a Second Language (SSL) teacher, one full time English Second Language (ESL) teacher, one bilingual school psychologist, one bilingual music teacher, one Spanish Reading Recovery teacher, and one Englis h Reading Recovery teacher. The demographic profile nt of Education (2011) indicated that over 97 % of teachers we re licensed in teaching and about 96 % of the core academic classes we re taught by teachers who we re highly qua lified. Research P articipant Maestra Mara (pseudonym) is originally from South America where she obtained her Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education. She worked in full immersion English programs and taught e arly c hildhood classes in her country for ten years. In 1991, as a Fulbright scholar, she got a Masters of Arts in Early Childhood Education in the United States. Upon returning to her native country, she put together a school where she designed and implemented the school curriculum and taught in a m ultiage classroom. In 1998, she came back to the United States to purse a doctoral degree, graduating as a


89 Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Teaching. During her doctoral studies, she worked as a literacy teacher and as a teacher educator for both the Early Childhood Program and the Literacy Program at the university. She began working at Escuela El Milagro in 2005 where she taught first, second, and thir d grade with two TWI models, 80:20 and 90: 10. Initially, she felt she lacked training in bilingual e ducation to be able to teach in a TWI program. She attended a dual language training during her first year teaching in Escuela El Milagro. Maestra Mara was the teacher literacy leader for first grade at Escuela El Milagro in 2010 2011 school year She is t he current head teacher for first grade at the school. Her bilingual education knowledge has been building through her over 18 years of teaching experience in one way and TWI programs. I had the opportunity to be part of the research team previously work ing with TWI programs. Part of my contribution to the team included transcribing, revising transcriptions, and analyzing video recordings of four different TWI teachers. I have been dealing with an extant data base of four different teachers. The teachers that were part of the larger study volunteered to participate in the study. For the current study, I am using previously collected data from one of these teachers. I met the teacher of the study prior to conductin g the study. I built rapport and was able t o build connections with her. The teacher I chose was selected purposively (purposive sampling) because she was intriguingly different from other TWI teachers that I had observed. Her interactions with the students and her ways of engagement in Spanish see med to evoke more Spanish from her students. While observing and transcribing her lessons and interviews I noticed that in her lessons, students participated more, used more Spanish, and worked together in more collaborative ways that in other TWI classro oms. She


90 inspired me, as a researcher, to find out more about her teaching style, discou rse patterns, and philosophy of teaching in TWI programs. I believe her discourse practices can provide valuable information for the field. Classroom C ontext There we 2010 school year. Nine were female and eleven were male. Seven of the students were Spanish dominant, six of them were English dominant, and the other seven of the students were both Spanish and En glish dominant. Maestra Mara clearly stated that although students tend ed to be classified depending on the mastery of the language, there wa s a thin and subtle line when interpreting that data Maestra Mara addressed this issue by stating that some studen ts are not completely dominant in one language or another. She another. For her, seven of the students we re more fluent in English but ha d some Spanish knowledge, six we re S and the remaining seven students ha d slightly limited fluency in Spanish and English. She stated that delineating between fluency and proficie ncy levels wa s very challenging in her class. For her, there we Spanish native speakers. There wa we re several reasons for this. First, some students we re only spoken to in Spanish at home. Some others we re spoken to in English by one par ent and then in Spanish by another parent. Some ha d only been spoken to in English but ha d some Spanish heritage in extended family ( e.g., grandmother who does not speak English). Students and their families we re from countries such as the U S Puerto R ico, Mexico, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Maestra Mara was the main


91 classroom teacher and t lessons. For the last lesson, there was a volunteer helping in the classroom. Both the t e bilingual. Data Sources The data used in this study were collected during the larger, more comprehensive study of four teachers. As part of the larger study, my task was to transcribe a subset of the lessons : the lite racy lessons The data from these lessons were available to me. Thus I became fully familiar with the literacy lessons and felt connected to th e data. For the current study of one teacher the two primary sources of data were four aud io and video recorded classroom literacy lessons and two one hour individual teacher interviews. The data were selected because they capture d the views, and language scaffol ding techniques, among others. The two main sources of data are detailed below. Classroom L essons According to Hatch (2002), videotaped lessons are advantageous because they can be viewed over and over again and non verbal aspects of language can be captur ed. Facial expressions, non verbal communication, emotions, reactions, non linguistic ways of interacting, and responding are all examples of such evidence. The videos were used to conduct transcriptions of the lessons (including textual and contextual not es). After lessons were transcribed, the current study focused on the transcriptions of the lessons, not the actual videos. There were a total of four literacy lessons that took place on December 11 and 18, 2009, January 29, 2010, and May 28, 2010. The ave rage length of the literacy lesson was about eighty minutes (See Table 1


92 1) This study focus ed on these four lessons. All four lessons were interactive, focused cooperativ e learning activities. The first lesson was organized around student learning centers; one center was teacher led. There were five tables where students worked either together cooperatively or individually. For the other three lessons, the teacher assigned students to work on projects, including creating and presenting a story, practicing and acting out a mini play, and creating and putting together a whole group mural. For the lesson where the teacher instructed students to act out a mini role play, there was a debriefing time where the teacher encouraged students to provide feedback about the activity. During whole group instruction, the teacher was sitting on a chair in front of the students and the students were sitting in rows on the floor facing her. Next to her there were two little boards that served different purposes: writing information, writing the objectives of the lessons, presenting a message, explaining concepts, making drawings, etc. The walls around the boards were filled with student mad e posters and projects. There was also a word wall and posters that included specific letters ( e.g., ch, h ) where students wrote words that ha d those letters. The teacher made posters included some stories and poems for students to read aloud as a group. The teacher and the students made constant use of the posters, letters, and words on the walls of the classroom. Even though the nature of each lesson wa s different, each lesson ha d specific times where there wa s whole group instruction, which i s the emp hasis of the study: to examine how a bilingual teacher elicits extended use of Spanish during whole


93 group instruction. xtended use of Spanish refers to deviate from a short verbal communication, single answers and common teacher utterances must be long The utterances must convey one or more full ideas, in which students formulate an opinion, share an idea, provide a com ment, offer a solution, or negotiate meaning. The main focus of the study was c ommunication that wa s meaningful, extensive, and genuine between the teacher and the students. T he majority of the whole group instruction t ook place at the beginning of each lesson (Lessons 1, 3, and 4). Lesson 2 ha d two whole group instruction segments one at the beginning and one at the end. I analyze d all five whole group instruction segments and examine d the patterns in the instructional strategies that led to extended co nversation. The five whole group segments totaled approximately one hundred and twenty seven minutes ( Table 3 4) During whole group instruction, there were five particular activities. The first one or the presentation of the brainstorming ideas, building vocabulary, and reviewing of grammar points such as punctuation marks, accent, the use of specific letters ( e.g., h, c h, etc ., ), capital letters and synonyms, and singular and plural structures. It also included some news presented by the teacher, which served as contextualized information that evolved into questions designed to engage students and encourage them to use Spanish. A second activity was a well known cooperative learning structure: T hink P air Share This structure provided opportunities for students to interact with their peers. Several T hink


94 P air S hare events took place during whole group instruction in whic h students had to share some information, express their opinions, brainstorm ideas, seek solutions, list things, or explain something. A third activity included the reading of poems to review grammar structures, practice reading skills, and build on conten t knowledge and vocabulary. The fourth activity that happened during whole group instruction was the presentation of specific tasks students needed to carry o ut with their peers. In this activity, the teacher presented some information and had students bra instorm ideas about the task. The tasks included having students create a poster in groups, practice dialogue to role play a mini play, and create a classroom mural. During the presentation and brainstorming of this fourth activity, the teacher reviewed so me classroom management procedures, explained the directions for expected behaviors, and encouraged student cooperation in the negotiation of meaning and solution of problems. The fifth and final activity was a debriefi ng session after the mini play activity where the teacher encouraged students to provide feedback on how the activity went and what could be done to improve the activity. Individual I nterviews Semi structured i nterviews in qualitative research are used t experiences and interpretations. They serve to uncover meaning individuals use in order to talk about their experiences and make sense of them (Hatch, 2002). The participant in the study was interviewed twice. The first interview wa s conducted in December 2009 and the second was in June 2010. Both interviews were conducted by the principal investigator of the larger study. The first interview provided background about the research participant. It lasted about an hour and focused on t personal and professional background in order to establish rapport and find out more


95 about learning and teaching experiences in terms of bilingual education and teaching in TWI programs. The second provide d evidence of the iefs about her teaching practices. This second interview was about forty minutes long and was solving skills, social and native and non native speakers in the classroom when teaching, learning, and planning curriculum. The interview protocol included nine questions (Appendix) This current study focus ed on both interviews paying close practices and beliefs in the setting of TWI programs in the context of her classroom. I collaborate d with the participant as I conduct ed member checks with her a bout her perspectives of her instructional practices. For the member checks, I maintained communication, via email and video conferences, about the data process and analysis. I interacted with her during three specific times: at the beginning of the data a nalysis, during data analysis, and at the end for the checking of some preliminary findings. At the beginning of the data analysis, I informed her of the data analysis process. She also provided some feedback on the writing sections about the research cont ext, the research participant, and the classroom context. She suggested some minor content changes (e.g., personal information, countries of origin of her students) During the data analysis and after I had created some domain categories, I checked with he r to confirm the categories taken from her lessons and the interviews. T he teacher participant had full access to the findings prior to the writing of Chapter 4 She read through the preliminary findings and confirmed them.


96 Data Analysis Data analysis for this study draws on Hatch (2002) concept of inductive analysis specifically domain analysis This type of analysis seeks to generate understandings from specific elements to general conclusions. Two main features characterize domain analysis. First, th ere is a constant and systematic search for patterns of meaning that are inducted from particular elements and then generated to larger categories within the of evid Second, domains are established through the use of semantic relationship s that link specific elements in order to create greater categories. Spradley (1979) defines a domain as a ny symbolic category that contains other categories. That is, a domain is a compilation of categories that have in common a certain type of relationship. Spradley (1979) states that there are three fundamental concepts in domain analysis: included terms (g iven categories), cover term (title given to a set of categories), and semantic relationships. He identifies nine semantic relationships in order to conduct domain analysis including strict inclusion (X is a kind of Y), spatial (X is a place of Y, X is a p art of Y ), cause effect (X is a result of Y, X is a cause of Y), rationale (X is a reason for doing Y), location for action (X is a place for doing Y), function (X is used for Y), means end ( X is a way to do Y), sequence (X is a step to Y, X is a stage i n Y), and attribution (X is a characteristic of Y, X is an attribute of Y). At the end of the study, all these semantic relationships w ere not equally salient For the current study, there were indeed more than the study needed to answer the research quest ions However, going through all of them encourage d the exhaustive search for potential relationships that at the end w ere insightful for the findings of the study. The most used types of semantic


97 relationships for this study were strict inclusion, rationa le, function means end and attribution. T his study use d d omain analy s is to examine how a bilingual teacher elicit ed extended use of Spanish language during whole group instruction in a TWI f irst grade classroom. Inductive analysis was used sinc e it provided insightful information and worked effectively for extracting meaning from complex data that was gathered with an open focus in mind. D omain analysis became essential for this study because it provided a systematic approach to processing data It was a good fit for a constructivist descriptive study Conducting Domain Analysis All data collected audio and video recorded lessons and interviews were transcribed. For the lessons, transcriptions had an extra component. In addition to the textual component of the transcription, contextual notes were taken. Contextual notes verbal communication ( e.g., gestures, face motions), the use of teaching materials, student student interactions, and student teacher interactions. Since a ll data from videos was in Spanish, all initial analysis t ook place in Spanish. I n order to remain as faithful as possible to the data, English translations did not occur during this phase Temple and Young (2004) talk about translation dilemmas, and they highlight that the choice of when and how to translate is sometimes determined by the resources of the researcher in terms of language proficiency, time, and even funding issues. They also mention how some researchers stay away from translating because the re are some instances where specific things cannot be translated; in those cases, translation causes meaning to be lost. Given that I am a native Spanish speaker, all data w ere kept


98 in Spanish. Translation happen ed when findings need ed to be presented to a n English speaking audience. To conduct the d omain analysis for this study, I used Hatch (2002) proposed steps (all of which are further elaborated and fully explained below) as follows: Create domains based on semantic relationships discovered within frames of analysis Identify salient domains, assign them a code, and put others aside Reread data, refining salient domains and keeping record of where relationships are found in the data De cide if your domains are supported by the data examining examples that do not fit with or run counter to the relationships in your domains Complete an analysis within domains Search for themes across domains Read the Data and Identify Frames of A nalysis ( Meaningful Units The first step I conducted in domain analysis was to become fully familiar with the data, thus various readings of the data took place in order to get to know the data set. From all four literacy lessons, I isolate d the five teacher ini tiated whole group instruction segments to begin initial coding. I referred to them as meaningful units since they resembled specific segments of text that were comprehensible on their own and contained one solid idea. The meaningful units were summarized so that they represented unique and specific analyzable frames. Hatch (2002) argues that meaningful units can range from a simple set of words to larger pieces of information, even entire episodes and events. For this current study, I


99 confined the meaningful units to words, clauses, phrases, or sentences that indicated a full idea. Meaningful units referred to th e initial conceptual categories of the data. Meaningful units served as parameters that delimited the study determining how the researcher starts looking closely at the data. After all meaningful units were deter mined, they were listed on separate sheets o f papers. Once in the list, I began thinking about possible included terms (name of the specific elements) as those that would capture the essence of the meaningful units ( Table 3 5 ) The included terms represented summarizing labels about the meaningful u nits. I created a new list of included terms on a separate piece of paper. At the end of this first step, I had three separate lists: one containing all meaningful units, another one including the meaningful units with their respective included terms, and a last one containing all included terms identified. From both interviews, I beg a n initial coding and then follow ed the respective domain analysis steps as I did with the lessons Since the very beginning of the study two stipulations t ook place. First, I had a research journal to record my insights and wonderings. The journal help ed me keep a systematic recollection of the data analysis. Second, when I began analysis and interpretation of data I kept in mind that the main knowledge producer wa s the teach er participant Thus I did member checks with her where she provided insights to the researcher during the data analysis process. During the first stages of coding, she read through the meaningful units and included terms We did a video conference where she check ed the categories I had created In addition, during this step I collaborated with two Spanish speaking colleagues to be provided with feedback about the initial coding stages of the data analysis process where all data

PAGE 100

100 w ere in Spanish. The collea gues also confirmed the included terms and categories I had generated. Create Domains Based on Sem antic Relationships Discovered within Frames of A nalysis The main focus of this domains that reflect r domains were referred to as meaningful categories of the data. The key element of domain analysis relied on this very aspect: to create the domains to relate categories. Thus categories could only be categories as long as specific elements could be related category that includes other categories is a domain [where] all the members of a domain share at least one fea (p. 100). Included terms and cover terms become essential to establish the semantic relationships of a domain. Included terms were inducted from the meaningful units (the members of the category), and cover terms (the names of the categori es) served as umbrella terms that captured the categories belonging to the included terms. All included terms were thoroughly examined before naming the cover terms since it was in their content and essence that cover terms emerged. Cover terms were carefu lly analyzed since their label resulted from systematic, conscious, and deep analysis of the included terms. To illustrate a domain i nclude s three components : the cover term ( e.g., Think Pair Share Events ), the included terms ( e.g., indicating that studen ts pair up encouraging students to tell their partners about the meaning of a word and telling students to close their eyes and think prior to shar ing with their partners ) and the semantic relationship ( e.g., I ndicating that

PAGE 101

101 students pair up is a chara cteristic of Think Pair Share Events ) I n this case the semantic relationship is of attribution inclusion (X is a characteristic of Y) ( Figure 3 1 ) I thoroughly reviewed all included terms. As I was revising them, I sought to group similar included terms together. After all included terms were clustered, I selected one semantic relationship at a time (from all the ni n e Hatch (2002) proposed ) and went one by one through the data set searching for examples of the relationship. To do this, I prepared a domain analysis worksheet and made copies of the blank sheets to search for the semantic relationships (Figure 3 2 ). At that stage, I was critical of my analysis and searched for all semantic relationships without favoring or neglecting any category. I remained open to searching for examples of all semantic relationships. As suggested by Hatch (2002), I started with a specific relationship, read through the data and asked if there were examples of the relationships. Hatch (2002) indicates that there is a possibil ity that during this step the researcher might find more domains than the ones that are to be presented as findings of the study. Nevertheless, he argues that at this point it is counterproductive to decide on domains; the focus here is to search for as ma ny domains as possible (even if they seem unimportant to the researcher). For this current study, I indeed found more domains that needed, but I followed the step of search for domains faithfully to Hatch (2002) suggestions. All domains were labeled with a capital D followed by either LL (data coming from literacy lessons) or TI (data coming from teacher interviews) and a number ( e.g., DLL2). Conducting a thorough domain analysis at this point was key for later stages during the analysis. It is important to note that I kep t a systematic research journal with analytical notes.

PAGE 102

102 Identify Salient Domains, Assign T h em a Code, and Put Others Aside took place (Hatch, 2002, p. 168). Wi th all the domains that emerged, I analyzed them and decided which domains were salient to the study. The selection of the domains was highly related to the research purposes of the study and aimed at answering the questions the study. In the research jour nal I had the main question and the sub questions of the study written so that I could easily refer to them when analyzing the domains. In order to select the salient domains, I revised every domain and its respective included terms independently to reflec t on the salience of the domain and the included terms as the y related to ed included terms that could be related to and used in other domains as well as the possibility of merging domains. From all initial domain s selected (both from the literacy lessons and teacher interviews) there was a substantial reduction of domain s The ones that directly related to the research questions became the salient domains; the rest were labeled as non salient domains. Hatch (2002) suggests the following questions to be taken into account when revising all domains. This set of questions served as a guide in the search of salient domains for the study: Could this relationship be linked to other domains discovered in the data? For dom ains with few included terms, are these included terms important to understanding what is going on in the data? Are these the only included terms in this domain? Are there more included terms that I may have missed or that will show up later in the data? Hatch (2002) indicates that the researcher should not be biased by the number of included terms. It could be the case that some domains are unimportant, yet they have

PAGE 103

103 a large amount of included terms whereas some domains might have few included terms and have powerful, insightful data related to an important aspect of the study. After I selected the salient domains, I kept all other domains (non salient domains) as a point of reference in case I needed to go back. Domain analysis is a recursive process of constant revision, coming back, redefining, and reanalyzing which is all part of the complex nature of inductive analysis. After all salient domains were identified, I created a code system to keep track of d outline format: Roman numeral for each domain and a capital letter for each included term. In the case of the existence of sub categories I used lower case letter ( e.g. IIAa).This coding was kept in the domain analysis worksheets. Reread Data, Refining Salient Domains and K eeping a Record of W here R ela tionships Are Found in the Data In this step, I made sure that the data supported the existence of a domain and all correspondent included terms were identified. This process implied reading the data again refining the salient domains, and being careful to keep record of the relationships and where they were found in the data. After all salient domains were selected and refined, I meticulously studied all the selected salient domains and their included ter ms to get familiar with the data. Then I picked one domain at a time and read carefully through the data searching for specific examples of where the relationships of the domain were found in the data. The examples were marked in the data and in the domain analysis worksheets. I also kept track of the page number of the copies of the lesson and the interviews. That way, I kept record of the places in the data where the

PAGE 104

104 analysi s worksheets were the semantic relationships of those examples were found. To conduct this step, I created a table to help me visualize the data in a more organized way In this table, I included the description of the code, the actual code, the page numb er where the code was identified in the data, the source where the code came from ( e.g., literacy lesson or teacher interviews), and a list of all the examples found in the data. This was a systematic and efficient way to relate the codes to the examples w hile keeping record of the sources and the page numbers. The table worked as a guide to cluster sets of codes that belonged to (or did not fit) the descriptions of the codes and the domain themselves. I created two separate tables at first (one for the les sons and another one for the interviews) and examined the data three separate times in order to avoid missing any examples and reach saturation of evidence. After deliberate analysis of both tables, I fused both tables into one that included all examples c oming from the literacy lessons (LL) and teacher interviews (TI) ( Table 3 6 ) By using this data, I contributed to the trustworthiness of the study. I continue d writing and referring to my research journal about the data analysis taking place in the litera cy lesson and the interviews. Decide if Y our Domains A re Supported by the Data and Search for Examples That Do Not Fit with or Run C ounter to th e Relationships in Your Domains This step of domain analysis call ed for deductive reasoning in order to decide if the tentative domains found and the hypothetical categories identified support the existenc e of domains. Hatch (2002) suggests answering the following questions: Is there enough data to support the existence of this domain in the setting being studied? Are the data strong enough to make the case for including this domain?

PAGE 105

105 Are there other data that do not fit with or run counter to the relationship expressed in the domains? Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Hatch (2002) st age must be reached in this step of domain analysis. They argue that an absolute saturation stage is not likely to happen, but it is feasible and recommended for the analysis to reach a point where all the elements of the domains are repeated and there is representation of evidence of data. Hatch (2002) suggests a careful read of the data 171). He proposes the use of negative examples. He suggests selecting domains in order to question their creation and construction in terms of categories. He considers ains might be reevaluated, partially or completely modified, or even abandoned in their totality. For this study, no domain was completely abandoned yet there was merging and modifications of domains. Hatch (2002) asserts that analytical questioning must t ake place at all times and the research er must always have fresh eyes to be able to pick up any incongruence to support the trustworthiness of the study and eventually its findings. Comp lete an Analysis within D omains This next step was used to further the analysis and provide more insightful, richer description and analysis of data. It moved the analysis to a more interpretative level. The purpose of this step was to deeply study the data organized into domains in order to discover new links and connect ions, even new domains. This step necessitated searching within domains and searching for themes across domains for complexity,

PAGE 106

106 richness, and depth. Completing the analysis within domains required revisiting included terms, cover terms, and semantic relati onships to try to frame categories differently. First, I considered including or excluding included terms and even thinking about the possibility of organizing new domains. Second, I searched for special relationships among specific included terms to try t o find out if they fit together because of some commonalities. Third, I examined domains to determine if categories had distinctive features that required the creation of a new domain. Hatch (2002) refers to this step in domains served the purpose of deeply examining the domains identified and better understanding the complexity within each domain. Search for Themes across Domains The final step of domain analysis involved look ing for themes. From all the data analyzed, I looked for broad themes tha t br ought pieces together. In order to do that, I examined the domains in search of repeated patterns or patterns that showed connections among the data. Hatch (2002) pro poses a set of question to guide this examination as follows: What does all this mean? How does all this fit together? How are pieces related to the whole? I read both the original data set and the frames of analysis, focusing more on the frame s of analys is in the search for particular relationships. As searching for themes, I kept records of the relationships and the places where they were found. Three strategies were used. First, I kept in mind potential themes and was open to finding new themes. Second,

PAGE 107

107 or Hatch (2002) suggests that when searching for similarities some thought be given to possible difference s among domains as well. As part of this strategy, I considered the following questions: What is the same or similar among these domains? What threads connect the domains in positive ways? How are they similar? How are they linked? The third strategy fo cused on relating pieces to a whole. I constructed a meaningful whole that represented the specific parts of the analysis up until this point. Hatch (2002) suggests two possible scenarios for this: one to do a graphic representation and t wo, to write a su mmary overview of what has been found. For this representation which helped me to visualize data a nd themes to write up the summary. At the end of this step, I had a sense of what the data meant, the relationships among the domains, and how the parts of the analysis fit together. As I put the summary together I s elect ed d ata e xcerpts to s upport the e le ments of domains, which became part of the findings. One last step before writing the findings was to have a final check to see if there was sufficient data that provided enough evidence and supported the findings. At this point, with the domain analysis worksheets, the research journal, and the examples to be used to represent the findings, the writing of findings took place.

PAGE 108

10 8 Trustworthiness For an audience to examine the quality of a study in terms of its design, the selection of the participants, and e ven the results, there should be some level of trustworthiness. Lincoln and Guba (1985) highlight the importance of this by claiming that researchers must convince the audience that the research findings are indeed 290). Some strategies in qualitative research that can ensure trustworthiness are triangulation, peer reviews, member checking and audit trials In the case of this study, various methods we re used to verify perspectives and triangulate findings In the case of peer reviews and d uring the coding and creating of domains, I worked with two Spanish speaking classmates and also with the principal investigator of the larger study (who has some Spanish background) to review sample pieces during the data analysi s process. The two classmates I worked with are fellow doctoral candidates in the College of Education at the University of Florida. Both classmates are Spanish native speakers, are ESOL certified, and have experience teaching in K 12 setting s T aking into account the constructivist nature of the study, I conducted member checks with the teacher participant to make sure that I provide d an accurate representation of her meaning making process. T he teacher participant engaged in corroborating information abou t the study by reviewing the initial coding and the creation of domains and confirming the findings of the study Finally, f or audit trails, there was a thorough documentation of the entire research process. I had a very detailed and systematic research jo urnal where memos, comments, insights, decisions, and questions w ere k ept orderly. I t is important to note that different research paradigms favor more specific strategies to ensure trustworthiness. In the case of d omain analysis, Hatch (2002)

PAGE 109

109 suggests th ree ways to reach for trustworthiness, including revising to check possible domain modifications, data saturation, and disconfirming domains. Hatch (2002) urges researchers, from the initial steps and through the entire process of domain analysis, to caref ully examine and constantly and systematically revise elements of domains and the domains themselves. Along with following the steps of domain analysis, researchers should be open to new domains or domains that might need modification, even domains that mi ght have to be left aside. For this study, some domains were put aside since they did not help in answering the research questions of the study while others needed modification and had to be fused In relation to data saturation, as already mentioned, ther e has to be enough solid evidence of each of the elements of the domains. In order to reach saturation, the parts that constitute the domains must be repeated over and over again. I revised all domain analysis components (meaningful units, included terms a nd semantic relationships) several times to ensure all data were incorporated into the identified domains One last piece of trustworthiness that must be taken into account is the search for co unterevidence to the domains identified A search was conducted to find possible evidence that might disconfirm each identified domain Other issues in terms of trustworthiness of the study relate to data collection. Data were collected over an extended period of time from December 2009 until June 2010. In addition, videos and interviews were transcribed verbatim and in their entirety. The transcriptions included text and also contextual descriptive notes that helped in the analysis of the data. This ensured that the analysis took into consideration the words as well as her actions.

PAGE 110

110 Subjectivity began gaining familiarity with these programs in 2009 2010 a s I was part of the research team for over a year and a half. At fir st, I became familiar with bilingual education and its different types, including that of enrichment in its form of TWI programs. D ue to my linguistic background as a native Spanish speaker, I transcribed literacy lessons for a first grade TWI teacher the n revised Spanish and English transcriptions in literacy and math for other teachers. I also transcribed in English including literacy and science lessons. Additionally, I transcribed and revised three ipal investigator of the study, I conducted a study on Think Pair Share as a way to promote peer interaction and language development in the classroom of one first grade teacher. Our purpose arning activities (specifically Think Pair Share) in a Spanish TWI first grade classroom. The first grade bilingual t eacher for th is current study was the last teacher whose classroom videos I transcribed so h er transcriptions we re fresh in my memory. I me t the first grade bilingual teacher and the current teacher of the study ( Maestra Mara ) as we presented together in La Cosecha Dual Language Conference in 2010. Bilingual education has been part of my life for the past sixteen years. My personal and profes sional identity is that of a bilingual person and drives my fascination for the topic. I am a Latina, a native Spanish speaker, and an English language learner Professionally I have worked as an English teacher and professor and as an English teacher edu cator In my native country of Costa Rica I have taught English as a foreign language, and the student population has been mostly linguistically homogeneous:

PAGE 111

111 native Spanish speakers. However, I personally struggled with students not viewing English as an important aspect of their education since students did not really need it to S Spanish is viewed as a foreign language. Students functions in terms of English. Students in TWI programs in the U S might not see the importance of learning (for non native students) or developing and maintaining (for native speakers) a second language. I am familiar with the exceptional challenges students face when learnin g a second language and also with the challenges teachers face in terms of pedagogical features when teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students. Based on my experience in teaching English as a foreign language in a Spanish speaking country for Knowing about the language is essential. Knowing about how to teach the language is fundamental. In addition to the great deal of social and academic language needed, pedagogic al and curricular knowledge must also be mastered in order to feel confidence when teaching a second language A mandatory aspect for me is for teachers to s how true, genuine care for the students and hold high expectations levels. I firmly believe that t eachers working in TWI programs who can see students as human beings with strengths weaknesses, unique backgrounds, and the positive potential for knowing two languages can reach the students in more effective ways. It has been affirmed that teaching dive attitude toward students, their languages, and their cultures, which can result in being transferred to the students and can directly affect student

PAGE 112

112 performance and achievement (Bank s et al., 2005; Howard et al., 2003; Nieto, 2000; Valds, 1997). As a Spanish speaker, I am an advocate for Spanish speaking students. I t is my belie f that teachers need to pay close attention to Spanish native speakers in the context of TWI programs since these programs can be the only option for them to preserve their heritage language, their linguistic and cultural roots. As a result of being involved with the larger study and as my bilingual background I developed a n interest in TWI programs and was d rawn to the unique interactions and dynamics that take place in the programs Conducting research in the field of bilingual education, specifically in the context of TWI programs encourages me to better understand effective teaching practices. It also mot ivate s to know more about the challenges, the weaknesses and strengths of the programs and how they are working in terms of meeting the needs of Spanish speaking students. This chapter situated the study within constructivist and domain analysis approach es to research and also elaborated on the implications of such approach es on the methodology used in the study. Further, the chapter described the research context of the TWI school setting of the research participant. The classroom context was also detail ed. The data sources including classroom lessons and interviews as well as the procedures for their collection were explained. The data analysis referred to d omain a nalysis approaches to systematically reflect on the data. Finally, issues of trustworthines

PAGE 113

113 T able 3 1 Two way immersion c lasses Table 3 2 Enrollmen t by e thnicity 2009 2010 T able 3 3. Instructio nal approac h and d esign Table 3 4 Whole instruction s egments Grade l evel N 0 of classes Kindergarten 5 First Grade 5 Second Grade 4 Third Grade 4 Fourth Grade 4 Fifth Grade 4 Ethnicity Percentage of students African American 3.4% Asian 1.0% Latino 66.2% Native American 0.0% White 27.1% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander 0.2% Multi Race, Non Hispanic 2.2% Percentage of time Kindergarten First grade Second g rade Third g rade Fourth g rade Fifth g rade Percent age of Spanish for Spanish native speakers 80% 80% 70% 50% 50% 50% Percent age of Spanish for English native speakers 80% 80% 70 % 50% 50% 50% Lesson e pisodes Date Time Whole group segment #1 December 11, 2009 36:06 Whole group segment #2 December 18, 2009 25:06 Whole group segment #3 January 29, 2010 29:05 Whole group segment # 4 January 29, 2010 08:20 Whole group segment #5 May 28, 2010 28:03

PAGE 114

114 Table 3 5. Coding sample M eaningful Units I ncluded T erms Qui n tiene otra idea? Encouraging alternative solutions Alguien tiene otra idea diferente a la de regales? Encouragin g students to think of different ideas Por eso idea es muy buena Praising students for providing ideas Y voy hacer marcas de conteo como esta maana and ideas Julio qu ideas tienes? Asking students to share their ideas to the whole class ¡Oh l dice cmprale algo pero no en el centro comercial por internet en la compu! Rephrasing what a student has said ¡Gracias Sar a h Thanking students for providing ideas Table 3 6 Examples f ound in d ata Description of C ode Code Page Lesson/ Teacher Interview Examples Found in Data Pretending not to know a word or some vocabulary or an answer to something, pretending not to know what to do IA 1 3 3 4 4 4 13 13 16 16 LI LII LII LII LII LII LII LII TII TII no s n sabe qu paso? Andr s me dijo es Andr s no s mo van hacer para decidir qui n Asking for students help to define a word, asking students to defi ne a word, requesting students help by wondering IB 1 17 3 4 4 4 LI LI LII LII LII LII n me dice palabras de cmo se Asking for students help to solve a personal problem IC 13 13 14 13 LI LI LI LII n ms tiene ideas para ayudarme

PAGE 115

115 Figure 3 1 Domain a nalysis e xample Figure 3 2 Domain a nalysis w orksheet

PAGE 116

116 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS The presentation of results in this chapter is organized in terms of the research questions of the study. The main research question examined how a biling ual teacher instruction. The two sub research questions focused first on describing strategic instructional patterns used by Maestra Mara, and second on describing her beli efs and how these guided her teaching practices in a TWI first grade classroom. The findings are presented in terms of these three research questions. Three main instructional structures were studied to examine evidence of ways in which Maestra Mara elici ted SEUS. Through these structures, Maestra Mara provided contexts to help students understand language (c omprehensible input ), presented students with problems that needed to be solved (problematization), and encouraged students to be independent problem solvers and negotiators (decentralization). I refer to these instructional structures as a Co mprehensible Input /Problematization/Decentralization (CPD) framework. After explaining this framework, I describe specific instructional strategies used by Maestr beliefs in terms of her actions in the TWI classroom. The descriptions of Maestra Mara are supported by quotes taken from the literacy lessons and teacher interviews. Prior to presen ting the findings that answer the research questions, I describe the general classroom culture and the climate that Maestra Mara promoted. It was within the context of the classroom climate that Maestra Mara supported language production in her lesson stru ctures.

PAGE 117

117 Classroom Co mm unity and Rapport Building She created a safe environment where students were invi ted to ask questions. Students could also seek clarification of unknown vocabulary or unclear classroom tasks ( e.g., Alguna otra pregunta? Another question?). The classroom culture encouraged and expected students to solve problems, make decisions, and wo rk together as a group. Maestra Mara constantly thanked students. She thanked them for various reasons. Some were managerial including thanking students for following expected classroom behaviors ( e.g., raising their hands to comment on something, showing and moving their index and middle fingers up and down to indicate students have the same idea as others) and thanking students for following directions. She also thanked students for asking questions and most importantly for providing ideas and solutions. In addition to thanking students, Maestra Mara praised students for participating and showed excitement when students shared ideas and opinions. She enthusiastically emphasize d how quot e, a student proposed an idea to solve a problem, and she reacted by exclaiming, { ¡Gracias me gusta ms que la ropa! Thank you I like it even more than clothing! } with a raised, excited voice ( indicated in curly brackets ) demonstrating the value placed in ideas. She hi ghlighted the importance of helping one another and collaborating in the classroom. In this way, she promoted a sense of classroom community. In the following

PAGE 118

118 example Maestra Mara responded to and included the whole class in evaluating a on (note the curly brackets as raising of the voice): (interacta con un estudiante) Mana a? { Le puedo festejar maana? } (pregunta a toda la clase)Le { puedo } celebrar maana? Les parece buena idea? (interacts with one student) Tomorrow? { Can I cele brate tomorrow? } (addresses the entire class) { Can I } celebrate tomorrow? Do you think that is a good idea? regards to classroom activities and tasks. Additionally, as pa rt of her bu ilding of classroom community, she urge d students to listen to what others ha d to say and persistently encouraged students to be respectful to one another. She created a sense of collectiveness where students needed to help each another. Each o f the following c ollectiveness (all names are pseudonyms). Vamos a escuchar que dice Amy Let us listen to what Amy says. Escuche lo que dice Luke nos fue bien porque todos tenamos un pan de jenjibre Listen to what Luke is saying that it went well because everybody had a gingerbread. Quin le ayuda a Mar a? Ok ayudmosle a Mar a Who will help Mar a? Ok let us help Mar a. Vamos a ver como Lauren escribe. Veamos si escribe o hay que ayudarle Let us see how Lauren writes. Let us see if she writes or if she needs help. When correcting students, Maestra Mara sometimes used direct correction, but most of the time she provided scaffolds so that students could self and peer cor rect. She also respectfully asked students for permission to correct a grammar, spelling, or vocabulary mistake they had made ( e.g., Natalia puedo corregir algo? Natalia can I

PAGE 119

119 correct something ?) She asked students permission in very polite ways and ado pted a humble position. In addition to her invitations and responses to students, Maestra Mara conveyed a caring attitude towards her class and students in various ways. She smiled and laughed at all times. She made fun of herself ( e.g., calling herself cabeza de pollo head, implying how forgetful and silly she c ould be ). She also used humor and jokes to establish rapport with the students thus creating a warm comfortable environment in her classroom. She established positive personal interact ions with the students individually and in groups through actions such as praising students who were good friends, good classmates, and good partners in the classroom. Maestra Mara showed care by cuddling and hugging students and using terms of endearment to address them ( e.g., my love, my life ). encouraged student language production. Students felt free to ask questions, seek clarification, and interact with the teacher and classmates. Most importantly, she welcome d varied opinions and praised students for offering them. At this point, I provide detail as to how she elicited SEUS during whole group instruction. Students Extended Use of Spanish (SEUS) All examples of whole group instruction in the classroom were teacher directed. The teacher sat in front of the students who were gathered on the rug facing her. In some cases, students interacted in pairs or in groups for short periods of time and then again as a who le group. During the whole instruction events in the data set, there were seven SEUS episodes encouraged students to produce language that was extended

PAGE 120

120 and purposeful in n ature. In these episodes, at least eight different students conveyed one or more full ideas to provide an opinion or comment, offer a solution, or negotiate some meaning. The SEUS episodes varied in terms of the number of students that spoke; they ranged f rom a minimum of eight students to a maximum of 18 students per episode. This variation is linked to the duration of the episodes which ranged from four minutes to twenty three minut es (Table 4 1) E licit ing S E xtended U se of S panish The most promi opportunities for students to use and develop language in meaningful ways. Seen as recurring patterns in all seven SEUS episodes, the teacher achieved this by means of three specific instru ctional structures, described above as the CPD framework. First, Maestra Mara used strategies to provide students with a context for language comprehension (c omprehensible input ). Second, she presented students with problems that needed real life solutions (problematization). Finally, she decentralized her role as the teacher to promote more student participation and leadership in decision making process and providing of suggestions (decentralization). These structures acted independently; nevertheless, the y also acted together in simultaneous and complementary ways. Each structure is detailed below. Providing a Context T o Support Language Comprehension (Co mprehensible Input ) Maestra Mara provided students with comprehensible input to ensure that students we re able to understand what wa s being said to them. Maestra Mara provided students with a context to enhance comprehension and support the development of meaning. She achieved this by presenting students with situational contexts to provide

PAGE 121

121 students with background To provide situational contexts, she used her personal life stories and personal problems, which provided authenticity and content for the problems she asked them to help resolve. In addition to context, she used her intonation and non verbal c ommunication. In her teaching, Maestra Mara contextualized language through her intonation patterns and non verbal communication to enhance language comprehension. M aestra M ara intonation facilitated the development of meaning by denoting emphasis and c onveying the emotions connected to specific situations. For example, the r a ising ( indicated in curly brackets ) and lowering of her voice ( i ndicated in s quare brackets ) made content more comprehensible of a story or problem and by creating variety that kept students engaged. Maestra Mara also used non verbal communication parallel to verbal utterances to enhance student understanding. The combination worked as an empowerment tool and as linguistic reinforce ment in her teaching practices. She used non verbal communication both to sustain student engagement and to scaffold the comprehension of meaning. To support comprehension, Maestra Mara used face and body gestures ( e.g., touching and/or hitting body parts, making specific faces, showing emotions). Other non verbal communication cues included pausing, pointing at students, and sustaining eye contact expectations for students to help her with a personal situation. Additionally, she referred to classroom materials such as posters and books to make content comprehensible thus providing students with context to understand better and produce language more effectively.

PAGE 122

122 In the following e xamples taken from a literacy lesson on December 11, 2009, Maestra Mara told the students that she and her entire family (son, daughter, and indeed a personal problem she was going through at the time. She read the story to the students as part of the morning message for the day. At the beginning of the story, she indicated that her story was sad and troublesome due to the fact that she forgot her ntonation and attitude invited the students to help her by providing suggestions to communicate her regret and secure her forgiveness. Note the non verbal cues (in parentheses ) which worked as non linguistic support. Also note how she raised ( indicated in curly brackets ) and lowered ( i ndicated in s quare brackets ) her voice to put emphasis on forgetting the birthday and reinforced the emphasis by using non verbal communication ( e.g., touching her head, making a sad face). (leyendo el mensaje de la maana) [ Ahora tengo una mala historia ] (hace cara triste) una mala noticia (pone su dedo gordo hacia abajo) anteayer antes de ayer ayer fue jueves antes de ayer fue mircoles (se refiere a un poster de la clase) el mircoles el mircoles me olvid (toca se cabe za) del cumpleaos del cumpleaos de Rafael ¡Cabeza de pollo! (toca su cabeza) { Francisco } no regalo { Francisco se olvid Ana Emilia se olvid (golpea su pierna) mi mami Carmen se olvid } (golpea su pierna) ¡Ay no! (hace cara triste y de preocupacin) { Todos nos olvidamos ¡Qu pena! Qu puedo hacer? Me ayudan } (apuntan a los estudiantes) { a m } (se refiere a si misma)? (reading the morning message) [ Now I have a sad story ] (mak es a sad face) Two days ago, two da ys ago yesterday it was Thursday two days ago was Wednesday (referring to { Francisco } no present { Francisco forgot about it, Ana Emilia forgot about it } (hitting her leg) { my mother Carmen forgot about it } (hitting her leg) my mother the grandmother of the children. Oh no (making a sad and worried face)! { Everybody forgot! What a shame! What can I do? Can you } (pointin g at the students) { help me } (referring to herself)?

PAGE 123

123 In t he next excerpt, Maestra Mara encouraged students to provide her with solutions to her real life problem. Note how her intonation in this case reinforced ged others to provide solutions to help her solve her problem. In the last two lines of the excerpt, she communicated the emotion of ( i ndicated in square brackets ) and using non verbal communication ( making a sad face, touching her head, hitting her legs). Then she paused and provided students some time to think and reflect upon her problem. She invited students to empathize with her. She sustained eye contact to make sure all students felt invited to provide solutions. She created an authentic context with which students could identify. ¡Oh Felipe ya tiene una idea y Steven tambin (hace cara feliz)! { ¡Ah Melissa y Lucia tienen una idea } (hace cara feliz) { para ayudarme a m! } (se refiere a ella) { P orque sabe qu pasa? } [ Rafael est enojado ] (hace cara enojada) [ est un poco triste ] (acerca sus manos a sus ojos). [ La Maestra Mara se olvid ] (toca su cabeza, hace cara triste y golpea sus piernas) (pausa y mira fijamente a los ojos a los estudian tes) Quin ms tiene ideas para ayudarme a m? Oh Felipe already has an idea and Steven too (mak es a happy face) { Ah Melissa and Lucia have an idea } (mak es a happy face) { to help me } (refer s to herself) { Because you know what is going on? } [ Rafael i s m ad ] (making an angry face) [ He is a bit sad ] (moves her hand to her eyes) [ Maestra Mara forgot about it ] (touching her head, making a sad has more ideas to help me? Presen ting Students with Problems (Problemat i zation) Maestra Mara presented students with problems and encouraged students to provide solutions. By providing students with real conflicts and t hrough eliciting solutions in pairs and groups, she invite d students t o extend their language production and problem solving skills. In several cases, she initiated conversation by stating she had a problem ( Tengo un problema ). In other instances, she simply posed a question with a

PAGE 124

124 reference to a problem. She presented stude nts with personal problems and language related problems that elicited students extended language production Note how in the following ex amples taken from a literacy lesson on December 11, 2009 Maestra Mara indicated to the students that there was a probl em with regard to the language. In the first ex ample students were filling in the date in the morning message. After one student wrote the word Maestra Mara questioned the spelling of the word ( e.g., Hay un problema ah dice hoy pero est mal escri to There is a problem here it says today but it is not written correctly). In a similar way, in the second ex ample she also indicated that there was a problem with the semantics of a word ( Tengo un problema en una palabra. Tengo un problema en esta palab ra I have a problem in a word. I have a problem in this word) In the following example, Maestra Mara engaged with the students in planning a play. She challenged students to think about what characters of different books might say so that students could rehearse for the play. Students had read various versions of a book so there was a problem in determining whether or not the main animal character was male or female. Maestra Mara opened up a space for students to provide ideas and comments so that the cla ss could decide which character (male or female) to choose for rehearsing the play ( Pongo el zorro o la zorra? Qu creen? Should I put the male or female fox? What do you think?). In the following excerpt s Maestra Mara presented students with problems ab out how to deal with a classroom task In this excerpt, Maestra Mara initiated a discussion by explicitly stating in a lowered voice (i ndicated in square brackets ) that she had a problem She also conveyed an attitude, accompanied by non verbal communicati on of

PAGE 125

125 worry about a genuine problem and the need for students to provide ideas to solve it. She gave students instructions about a classroom activity in which groups had to talk about an assigned book and write about four specific parts (the setting, the c haracters, the problem, and the solutions proposed to solve the problem). More specifically, she questioned students and they beg a n proposing ideas about how to solve the problem Within a few minutes students reach ed an agreement as a group Pero [ tengo un problema ] (pausa, baja su voz y muestra preocupacin, se inclina hacia los estudiantes, pone su mano en la cara y muestra una expresin en su cara de preocupacin e intranquilidad) no s Andrs no s y tal vez tu me puedes ayudar [ no s cmo van hacer para decidir quien escribe que ] But [ I have a problem ] (pauses, lowers her voice, and shows preoccupation, leans forward towards the students, puts her hand on her maybe you can help me [ going to write ] As the lesson continued, Maestra Mara challenged students with another problem. In this case, she want ed to ensure that students we re careful about what they wr o t e o n the poster { Qu tal que yo pienso una idea y escribo } [ y luego est mal? ] (muestra una cara de preocupacin, pone su mano en su boca y mira a los estudiantes, luego pausa) Qu creen que puedo qu podemos hacer para que no suceda eso? (pausa) Puedo tachar si me equivoco? Pero preferira no equivocarme entonces qu puedo hacer? { What if I think of an idea and I write it} [and it is wrong ] (shows a worried face, puts her hand in her mouth, and look s at the students, then pauses) ? What do you think I can we can do for that not to happen? (pauses) Can I so what can I do?

PAGE 126

126 She encouraged students to think abo ut solutions prior to writing on the poster. As students thought about the problem and began offering ideas, she encouraged student interaction in their groups in order to negotiate about what they would write on the poster. Decentralizing Her Teacher R ole (Decentralization) Maestra Mara promoted a sense of classroom community, where she was not the only knower in the classroom. By decentralizing her role, she e licited students language production in Spanish. Most importantly, decentralizing her role pr ovided students with a central role: an ownership over their language and knowledge. She encouraged students to play a more central role in the classroom in specific ways. First, she made sure solutions, comments, and ideas came from the students. She invi ted class members to work together, help one another, and positive ly evaluate suggestions provided by others. Second, Maestra Mara not only opened up spaces for students to make suggestions, but also provided spaces for students to explain those suggestion s and provide a rationale by sharing the thinking behind the suggestions. Notice, for example, that in the excerpt below taken from a literacy lesson on January 29, 2010, she asked students to propose ideas on how to decide on characters from a book in ord er to perform a play. Students needed to designate specific characters to specific students, which caused a problem, and she encouraged students to provide solutions to solve the problem. She did not provide students with solutions to a classroom problem. Instead she encouraged students to think of possible solutions to solve the problem. Students engaged in discussi on about choosing characters for a classroom play. A student proposed an idea. Maestra Mara validated the idea but made sure the student expla

PAGE 127

127 her decentralizing role and invited all students to provide solutions ( e.g., Qu podemos hacer? What can we do?). integra te the students. In her questioning she clearly acknowledged that she expected students to be active participants and propose ways to solve problems in the classroom. Repito lo que dice Felipe y la misma pregunta tiene Amy { Qu podemos hacer si un nio quiere ser el hombre de jenjibre y el otro tambin quiere ser el hombre de jenjibre? } I repeat what Felipe says and Amy has the same question. { What can we do if a stud ent wants to be the ginger man bread and the other one was to be the gingerbread man? } From the excerpt about the male/female character, Maestra Mara knew that only one cha racter (either male or female) was part of the play. Nevertheless, she opened up a space and let a student provide rationale about a possible way to include the two. Pongo el zorro o la zorra? Aydenme a contar escuche escuche pero (interacta con un es tudiante) Cmo ponemos el zorro y la zorra en un solo cuento? Should I put the male fox or the female fox? Help me to count listen listen but (interacts with one student) how can we put the male fox and the female fox in one story? Finally, Maestra Mara explicitly stated that she was not the one that decided all the time, informing the students about how she welcomed and encouraged their suggestions. Note how in the next excerpt she conveyed her expectations that students play a central role in the d ecision making process. Students had decided to vote for the selection of specific characters to perform in a play, but one student questioned why Maestra Mara had not vote d Maestra Mara responded that she wanted students to decide, negotiate and problem solve together.

PAGE 128

128 Yo? Y yo porqu ? Yo no voto ah yo no voto (pausa) yo quiero lo que hagan mis nios. Yo no quiero involucrarme. Ustedes solucionan. La maestra esta vez no decide. decide this time. In the following excerpt from a literacy lesson on December M ay 28, 2010, students approached Maestra Mara with questions about deciding which students would be in charge of making the drawing of an animal as part of a classroom activity. Students expected her to provide them with answers. Instead she pushed them to come to a decision within their groups. Saben qu van hacer? Ustedes deciden. Cada grupo tiene que decidir quin va hacer el dibujo del animal. Do you know what you are going to do? You decide. Each group must decide who will do the drawing of the animal. Strategic Instructional Patterns to Elicit SEUS specific instructional strategies included pretending not to know and wondering aloud us ing synonyms, a ctivating e ncouraging and expecting students to produce more language, expecting all students to participate, implementi ng Think Pair Share cooperative structures, and e n couraging elaboration These strategies are explained in detail now. Pretending N ot To K now a nd Wo ndering A loud create an authe ntic reason for communication and elicit language from the students. Her strategy consisted on pretending not to know either the meaning of a word, some vocabulary term or an answer to something She pretended not to know how to go

PAGE 129

129 about things or what to do in specific situations. This strategy is r elated to two elements o f the CPD frame w ork: problematizing and decentralizing. She presented students with a problem (problematizing) and encouraged them to provide solutions (decentralizing). Integrally rela ted to pretending not to know was the strategy of wondering aloud about the meaning of a word and a sk ing students help her define it. Her questioning was sometimes direct, but most of the time she requested help through wondering. By using this strategy, s he encouraged students to provide the definition of unknown vocabulary for their peers (decentralization). Defining words also provided context for the students (co mprehensible input ) to carry out tasks with an emphasis on language production (oral and wri define a word. Quin me quiere ayudar con esa palabra? Who wants to help me with that word? Note in the example below how Maestra Mara acted as if she did not know the meaning of the word knowing. She read the word in a poem and invited students to define it. Note how her question was posed as a wondering. Qu significar popular? Qu ser eso? I wonder what popular means. Wh at would that ( popular ) be? in English. Still pretending not to know, she paused and indicated that a student had provided an answer, but she still did not know the m eaning of the word. She opened up a space to include the rest of the class in reflecting about the meaning of the word. She expected students to provide more than a literal translation of the word. She

PAGE 130

130 encouraged students to think of possible ways to expl ain the meaning of word. Note how she raised her voice ( indicated in curly brackets ) and used repetition to convey emphasis Y saben que pas? Andrs me dijo es popular y no s que eso. ¡Yo no s qu es eso! { ¡No s qu es eso! ¡No s qu es eso! } And { } Notice how in the next excerpt Maestra Mara pretended not to know in regards to a c lassroom task students needed to carry out in groups. She explained a task and wondered aloud about how students might get organized. No s cmo van hacer para decidir quien escribe que. you are going to decide who will write. Using S yn onyms Maestra Mara used synonyms as means to provide context for the students (co mprehensible input the classmates. She also used synonyms as a way to encourage students to learn vocabulary w Mara expand ing of synonyms in her lessons by referring to synonyms students offered and used in their speech. As linguistic support, there was a synonym chart in t he classroom she often referred to during lessons. Students were encouraged to look out for synonyms to write in the chart. In the following excerpt Maestra Mara brainstormed possible dialogues for book characters to perform a play. Para para Quin dijo eso? Alto es un sinnimo de para y puede decir Para para o alto alto

PAGE 131

131 Stop stop who said that? Alto (stop) is a synonym of para (stop) and you can say para para or alto al to The following example from a literacy lesson on December 12, 2009, shows how language production and use. She presented students with a problem (having forgotten about solutions. A student suggested that she get him a birthday cake. Maestra Mara realized and then as ked students for other ways to say cake in Spanish (note the raised voice to put emphasis indicated by curly brackets ). Students were eager to provide synonyms. { Quin me dice palabras de como } ¡ Pastel Cmo ms? { Quin ms sabe otro nombre para pastel? Otro sinnimo } ¡Queque! Quin ms sabe? Qui n sabe otro sinnimo para pastel? O k that is fine Robert I liked the idea. What is cake is Spanish? { Who can tell me words ab out how to say cake? } Pastel else? { Who else knows another name for cake? Another synonym! } Queque Who else knows another synonym for cake? Activating S B ackground K nowledge Maestra Mara activat ed in order to establish connections between past and current content knowledge. background knowledge enabled students to carry on classroom tasks and compensate for those whose Spanish b ackground would otherwise be insufficient to carry out a classroom activity or engage in classroom conversations and discussions. This niti ate d this activation with

PAGE 132

132 Who remembers? It was also accompanied by a reference to a book read, an activity, a word explained, or an event that happened in the classroom. In the following excerpts taken from two literacy lessons on Ja nuary 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010 two previously read books, The Three Little Pigs and The Gingerbread Man. In the first excerpt, she asked students about a problem that was part of the p lot of The Three Little Pigs Quin se acuerda cual era el problema? Who remembers what the problem was? In the second ex cerpt, she background knowledge by making reference to dialogues of two characters in the book The Gingerbread Man Activating content and vocabulary to carry out a classroom activity. Vamos a escoger el viejito y la viejita Qu puede decir el viejito y la viejita? Qu deca el viejito ? Quin se acuerda que deca el viejito? Let us choose the old man and the old lady. What can the old man and the old lady say? What did the old man say? Who remembers what the old man say? In the following excerpts taken from a literacy lesson on Ma y 28, 2010, Maestra Mara reminded students of a word or topic that she taught them previously. The importance of remembering and understanding the word or topic was key to carry out a classroom activity. Quin se acuerda de una palabra? Quin se acuerda? Se acuerdan que les dije ayer que bamos hacer algo muy especial y les ense e una nueva palabra ayer. Who remembers a word? Who remembers? Do you remember that yesterday I told you we were going to do something very special and I

PAGE 133

133 taught you a new wo rd yesterday? Quin se acuerda cual es nuestro hbitat de aqu de nuestra clase? Quin se acuerda? Quin se acuerda como se llama nuestro hbitat? Who remembers the habitat of our classroom? Who remembers? Who remembers the name of our habitat? In the following excerpt Maestra Mara directed students to create a classroom background knowledge. As students provided their ideas, she wrote the ideas in the board which provided students with a review of vocabulary and grammar. The ultimate purpose of this was for students to use language as they worked on a mural in their group s Note how non verbal communication was also part of the context in two specific ways: it made content more comprehensible ( e.g., touching of her head when referring to thinking processes) and communicated an expectation that students participate ( e.g., leaning forward, staring at students). Also note her raised voice ( indicated by curly brackets ) Piense ms (se agacha hacia los estudiantes, los ve fijamente y toca su frente) que en los animales. Piensen como es el hbitat donde viven pulpos al norte bien al norte { Qu ms? } Cosas otras cosas morsas (escribiendo en la pizarra) { ah escuche algo sper importante Por qu sern los peces muy importante? Puedes repetir eso muy fuerte? Por qu sern muy importante los peces? } (escribiendo en la pizarra) Escuche { Quin sabe cmo se dice tengo muchos peces? } Cmo s er solo uno? Escuche mi pregunta. Think more (leans forward towards the students, stares at them, and touches her forehead) about the animals. Think about the habitat where the octopuses live up north. { What else? } Things other things ( tell me ) walru ses (writing in the board) { ah listen to something very important: why are fish important? Can you repeat that loudly? Why are fish so important } (writing in the board)? Listen { who knows how to write fish in plural? } How do you write fish in singular? Listen to my question.

PAGE 134

134 dent language production since it required students to speak more and provide answers to her questions. She expected students to use language while relat ing to prior knowledge and establish connections between past and current content. Encouraging and E xpecting S tudents To P roduce M ore L anguage Maestra Mara constantly encourag ed students to produce more language. There was verbal encouragement to continue talking w hen students were in pairs sharing, brainstorming, or listing ideas She also encouraged students to produce more language as a whole group when students we re discussing a problem and formulating solutions to the problem. Encouragement also include d the te acher asking students to expand on answers. More specifically, she encourage d students to produce language in four distinctive ways: E ncouraging students to provide more ideas Reinforcing the us e of complete sentences and ideas Encouraging students to pr ovide different and varied ideas Expecting all students to participate Implementing cooperative structures such Think Pair Share I provide specific examples to illustrate these four patterns in which Maestra Mara encouraged and expected students to pr oduce more language. Encouraging S tudents To P rovide M ore I deas Maestra Mara pushe d student s to provide more ideas, think more deeply and extend their language production Note the (more, what/why else) as a key word in encouraging students to spea k more. The context of the following example is from a debriefing time where Maestra Mara asked students what went well when they practiced and presented a play. She questioned students, and in the middle of students providing

PAGE 135

135 ideas, she insisted that stud ents provided more comments. Each question represents a different utterance in which she encouraged students to provide Porque saben ms que sali bien? Quin sabe ms que sali bien? Quin ms dice como nos fue? Por qu ms? Quin ms tiene otra idea? Por que ms les fue bien o mal? Qu ms? Why else do you know it went well? Who else knows what went well? Who else knows how it went? Why else? Who else has another idea? Why else it went well or not so well? What else? In the following example, students brainstormed ideas about specific things that a mural must have. When students suggested things, Maestra Mara constantly pushed students to provide more ideas and to offer more suggestions. Each question and sentence represents a differen t statement. En el rtico hay animales Qu animales? Cmo cules? Qu ms? Qu ms? Piense que ms en los animales, piense c mo es el hbitat donde viven Qu ms hay? Qu ms? Qu ms? Qu ms hay? In the Arctic there are animals. What animal s? Which ones? What else? What else? Think more about the animals. Think about how the habit at where they live is. What else is there? What else? What else? What else is there? Reinforcing the U s e of C omplete S entences and I deas Maestra Mara required t hat students use a complete sentence (subject verb object structure) when giv ing an idea In the following excerpt, Maestra Mara asked students Maestra Mara requested that t he student used a complete sentence to express her opinion. Note how her request was accompanied by the use of non verbal communication and raising of her voice ( indicated in curly brackets ) { Cmo se sienten ahora? } (Natalia pronuncia una palabra) Oraci n completa (usa sus dos brazos y los elonga a los lados) (Natalia formula una oracin completa) { Ah se siente muy feliz porque hice algo muy bien }

PAGE 136

136 { How do you feel now? } (Natalia pronounces a word) Complete sentence (uses her arms by elongating the m to the sides) (Natalia states a complete sentence) {A h she feels happy because I did something very good } In the same way, in the excerpt below Maestra Mara asked a question and would not accept the short answer provided by the students. Qu debe te ner nuestro mural para que sea una representacin del hbitat del rtico del Polo Norte? (Christopher ofrece una respuesta corta) Dame una idea (mira fijamente a Christopher). What must our mural have to be a representation of our habitat of the Arctic of the North Pole? (Christopher provides a short answer) Give me an idea (sustains eye contact). Encouraging S tudents To Provide Different and Varied I deas In addition to Maestra Mara expecting students to provide more ideas, she also encourage d student s to provide different ideas. She expected students to diversify their answers and pushe d them into thinking about different possibilities, suggestions, and solutions to problems proposed. The following excerpt comes from the lesson about her thday. When students began to repeat solutions to her problem, she encouraged them to think of different solutions. Note the use of (different) and ( another ) as means for her to indicate she expected students to provide varied answers. Qui n tiene ideas para ayudarme a m? Otra idea? Ropa Otra idea? Otra idea { diferente? } Qui n tiene otra idea diferente? Qui n tiene otra idea? Alguien tiene otra idea diferente de regalo? No regalos ( dganme ) otras cosas. Who else has ideas to help me? Another idea? Clothing. Another idea? A { different } idea? Who else has a different idea? Who else has another idea? Does somebody have a different idea from presents? No presents ( tell me ) other things.

PAGE 137

137 In the next example several students p rop o s ed similar dialogues for characters in a play. Maestra Mara overhear d a student proposing a different idea and encouraged the student to speak up and offer his suggestion ( Luke? T dijiste otra cosa. Luke? You said something different. ) In the follow ing excerpt Maestra Mara asked students a question related to a book they had read. A student (Natalia) provided an answer that was slightly different from what students had studied, but it was indeed accurate. Another student (Robert) immediately affirme d how that was not the precise answer according to the book. A different student (Amy) argued that answers did not necessarily have to be the same. that answers did not have t o be exactly the same, which affirmed the value of diversity in answers and praised students for offering different ideas. O puede ser diferente no tiene Amy (muestra sus pulgares hacia arriba) no necesitamos decir igualito si podemos cambiar. Or it can need to say it exactly the same way. We can change Expecting All Students To P articipate Maestra Mara was explicit in her expectations that as many students as possible participate. Whe n Maestra Mara wondered aloud, posed a question, or provided students with some context to solve problems, she expected students to be ready to provide ideas. She was masterful at managing whole group instruction and firmly insisted on student participatio n The classroom interaction during whole group indicated she skillfully engage d students in meaningful conversation. There was dynamic construction of knowledge as Maestra Mara interacted with the students. When few students raised their hands to offer th eir opinions, she openly stated she had more

PAGE 138

138 than one student, thus implying that more students needed to participate, as the following excerpts illustrate. Note how she expressed a statement of concern which indicated her expectations for more students to raise their hands and provide opinions. ¡Oh solo Natalia tengo de alumna! Oh I only have Natalia as a student! Veo cinco manos (levantadas) no veo ms manos por aqu. I see five ( raised ) Implementing Think Pair Sha re E vents Five of seven SEUS episodes had a Think Pair Share event related to them. These events worked within the CPD framework, connected to many strategies already discussed, and created opportunities for students to talk more within the structure of l arger group lesson s However, because this instructional pattern was used so unique feature. This strategy served four specific purposes. First, and perhaps most important ly, it was used as a way to encourage more language during larger group lessons. Instead of one student talking at a time, Think Pair Share ensured half of the students were talking at any given time. Second, it was used to encourage students to brainstorm ideas to be further used in a classroom activity. Third, it was used to enable students to define a word or some vocabulary. Lastly, the Think Pair Share events e.g., vocabulary, grammar, or content k nowledge). This strategy provided ways for students to think about something before having to speak to the entire group. The Think Pair Share events shared a common characteristic: they began with ( tell your partner). Some other common structures of the events included the following, Directing students to close their eyes and think

PAGE 139

139 Pairing up students Encouraging students to work one on one with a partner to brainstorm ideas, discuss solutions to problems, list suggestions, provide exa mples, and define words Praising expected behaviors (showing respect, raising hands, listening to one another, taking turns ) Encouraging students to share with the class the ideas they had just discussed with their partner The following three examples illustrate the T hink P air S hare pattern. In the first one Maestra Mara indicated how she expected students to talk about a problem. Students shared momentarily in pairs and then got together as a group to share. Note the use of he r tone of voice and the use of non verbal communication to convey points of emphasize. Quin se acordaba cual era el problema? Dganle a su amigo bilinge a su pareja Steven tu pareja es Amy? Ok dile a tu amigo (estudiantes interactan con sus parejas ) Ok mirada escolar (pausa) me gusta la mirada de Mara y la mirada de Cindy ok Quin se acuerda cual era el problema de este libro? { ¡Qu problema! } (golpea sus pierna) { Es un problema } (golpea su pierna) Who remembered what the problem was? Tell yo ur bilingual friend, your partner. Steven your partner is Amy? Ok tell your partner (students interact with their partners) Ok mirada escolar [a classroom management strategy which means all students need to look at Maestra Mara or gather as a whole gr oup] (pauses). I like how Mara looks at me and Cindy too. Ok who remembers what the problem of this book is? { What a problem } (hits her legs) { } (hits her leg) In the second example notice how in addition to all the Thin k Pair Share pa tterns presented in the first example, Maestra Mara indicated that students, prior to telling their partners, close their eyes and think for some time. Then students began sharing and talking in pairs. Vamos a escoger el viejito y la viejita Qu puede de cir el viejito y la v iejita? Qu deca el viejito? Quin se acuerda que deca el viejito?

PAGE 140

140 Cierren los ojos, piense que puede decir el viejito. Cierra los ojos. Ok dgale a su amigo, a su amiga. Let us choose the old man and the old lady. What can the old man and the old lady say? What did the old man say? Who remembers what the old man said? Close your eyes. Think what they old man can say. Ok tell your male or female friend. In the third excerpt Maestra Mara reinforced expected Think Pair Share b ehaviors by encouraging students to talk and help one another. Note the non verbal comm unication in parentheses which served as ways to make language more comprehensible. Also, she interrupted the event to clarify instructions for some students that seemed confused. Additionally, s he modeled some behaviors for students and interacted with some pairs. Finally, she encouraged students to decide in pairs what they wanted to share with the entire class. Quiero que con su pareja jntese a su pareja (pone sus ma nos juntas) { piense que tiene que tener nuestro hbitat para que sea perfecto nuestro mural } (los estudiantes interactan con sus parejas) ¡Me gusta como Natalia est conversando con uh { Natalia est hablando con su pareja! } (interacta con un estudiant e) Felipe Qu es tu pregunta? Qu es hielo? (a la pareja de Felipe) ¡Explcale! (con todo el grupo) Mirada escolar (pausa) ay que lindas miradas gracias hay personas que todava no me han entendido (usa su dedo ndex) voy a repetir de otra forma la pre gunta quiero que con su pareja (pone sus dedos indexes juntos) piensen (toca su frente con ambos dedos indexes) y me digan (pone sus dedos en la boca) y hablen entre ustedes y decidan (usa sus manos) que tiene que tener nuestro mural para demostrar sobr e nuestro hbitat del rtico. En el rtico hay animales? { Qu animales? } (los estudiantes vuelven a interactuar con sus parejas) (Maestra Mara deja su silla e interacta con una pareja) Cmo cules ? Reina acrcate y escucha Qu ms? (Maestra Mara v uelve a sus asiento y habla a todos los estudiantes) Decidan con su pareja que van a compartir con la clase. Quiero que compartan algunas ideas. I want you to get together with your partner (put her hands together) { think about what our habitat must h ave to be our perfect mural } (students interact with their partners) I like how Natalia is talking to uh { Natalia is talking with her partner } (interacts with one student) ? Explain it to him (ad dresses the

PAGE 141

141 entire group) Mirada escolar (pauses) ay such beautiful looks thank you there are some people that have not yet understood (uses her index the instruction in a different way. I want you that with your partner ( puts her index fingers together) you think (touches her forehead with her index fingers) and tell me (puts her index fingers in her mouth) and talk between yourselves and decide (uses her hands) what our mural must have to show our Arctic habit. Are the re animals in the Arctic? { Which ones? } (students get back to interacting with their partners) ( Maestra Mara gets close to a pair of students and interacts with them) Which ones? Come closer dear and listen W hat else? ( Maestra Mara sits down in her chai r and addresses all students) Decide with your partner what you are going to share with the rest of the class. I want you to share some ideas. Encouraging E laboration Within the context of classroom conversations, Maestra Mara used strategies to encourag e students to elaborate by requiring them to explain their thinking as they provided answers. She demanded that students share their thinking and listen to others thinking as well. She provided the space and explicit expect ation for s tudents to provide ra tionale for their suggestions In the episode about selecting characters for a play, one student thought of a solution during whole group brainstorming. When Maestra Mara was counting the raised hands, she stopped and asked students to listen to the studen S he provided the student the opportunity to explain himself and provide some rationale for his suggestion. (a toda la clase) Pongo el zorro o la zorra? Aydenme a contar espere escuche escuche (interacta con un estudiante) pero cmo p onemos el zorro y la zorra en un solo cuento? (to the whole class) Should I put the male fox or the female fox? Help me to count wait listen listen (interacts with one student) but how can we put the male fox and the female fox in the same story? Mae stra Mara also used follow up and high order questions to help students explain their thinking. In the following excerpt, Maestra Mara brainstormed with the students about possible dialogues. Note how she engage d in a conversation with the

PAGE 142

142 students to help them elaborate their suggestions. As students suggested ideas, Maestra Mara used follow up questions to keep the conversation going and demand more rationale and student language production. Qu puede decir el viejito? A quin? A l? Y antes de agarra r Qu puede decir? Y qu dir la viejita? What can the old man say? To whom? To him? And before grabbing what can he say? And what will the old lady say? The excerpts below demonstrate her use of high order questions to elicit elaboration. Maestra M ara recurrently used three specific structures: (why), (how), and (what do you think). She emphasized the importance of opinions and justi fications. In the next excerpt Maestra Mara was asking a student to make an inference about the setting of a story (which was not communicated in the text). Andrs donde crees t que fue la historia? Andrs where do you think the story was? The excerp t below refers to the debriefing episode after students had presented a play. Maestra Mara used high order questions to push students to extend their language production and develop some critical thinking skills. Note how the questions invited students to provide different answers. Every statement and question represents a different example. Cmo podemos mejorar nuestra obra de teatro para la prxima vez? Y por qu ms? Cmo creen que les fue en la obra de teatro? Bien Por qu? Qu piensas t? Cmo nos fue en nuestra obra? Por qu? Por qu ms? Natalia por qu ms? Por qu ms les fue bien o mal? Cmo podemos hacer mejor para la prxima vez? Andrs como podemos hacer algo mejor? Cmo podemos pensar mejor para la prxima vez? Pero Cmo pod emos mejorar en lo que hablamos?

PAGE 143

143 Cmo podemos mejorar? How can we improve our play for next time? And why else? How do you think the play went? Fine why? How do you think our play went? Why? Why else? Natalia why else? Why else it went well or not so well? How can we make it better for next time? Andrs how can we make it better for next time? How can we make it better for next time? How can we think better for next time? But how can we improve in what we speak? How can we make it better? Teacher Beliefs about Language that Guide Her Teaching Practices During the interviews, Maestra Mara stressed several of the core beliefs that guide her teaching practice s First, she clearly state d her belief in the importance of using specific strategies (prete nding not to know, us ing synonyms, e ncouraging and expecting students to produce more language using Total Physical Response [TPR], providing models, pair and group work, and using of non verbal communication) to elicit more language production from the s tudents, which were demonstrated in the literacy lessons. e sounds. Those are mos tly my Spanish speakers. They put the page. I to bring another piece of paper! Yeah! So they write down when they are With En a lot. I write them down on strips for everywhere write them down in ( on ) the board. I tried to use TPR a lot. I model a lot with my hands and face. I provide models. Second, Maestra Ma ra firmly believed in the importance of promoting and implementing classroom spaces and opportunities for students to interact in order to use and develop the language. These opportunities included working in centers,

PAGE 144

144 implementing Think Pair Share events, and providing students with unstructured settings to problem solve and negotiate together. She noted, TPS (Think Pair Share) we do that a lot I think. .. I think I love working with centers. I think it allows them ( students ) to openly speak and talk whatev er they want. Maestra Mara referred to the importance of providing students the necessary space to engage in conversation in the classroom. She recognized the significance of providing instructional structures to support students lacking linguistic backg round, but h ighlighted the need for Spanish speaking students to be exposed to less structured instructional situations so that they could explore language and use it more freely. She indicated the need for Spanish speaking students to use language in more genuine ways. Note the following example in which Maestra Mara openly stated her belief in providing students with open spaces so that students could solve problems in authentic manners. I believe in having in place times when the kids can resolve things without killing each other. You are there. They know you are there and they solve does not give freedom for the first language speakers. Maestra Mara did not believe in linguistic ally ing they c ould only speak or be provided certain level of language. She affirm ed how important it was to open spaces and create opportunities for students to use language in genuine and exploratory ways. She noted, ike put them in a square ( Not liking to put students in a box ) ( to put students in a box ) Third, Maestra Mara emphasized the need for students to use language and extend their language productio n. Interesting to note is how she expected students not

PAGE 145

145 only to use their language further but also to think further. She made explicit the link between language and thinking skills stating With the Spanish speakers when they speak I usually go beyond I ask more. So like I tried to go beyond with them so that they think further so that they use their l anguage further. In her practice, the link was also clearly demonstrated. As previously presented in the examples from the literacy lessons, the notion o f extending language and thinking was demonstrated in her use of follow up and high order questions. Finally, Maestra Mara highlighted her belief in the import ance of encouraging her Spanish speaking students to speak more Spanish, providing various reaso ns. First, Spanish is their home language, where their immediate and extended family only of Spanish was accurate (oral and written). Thirdly, students had enough langua ge background to speak Spanish. Note the following example in which Maestra Mara e xplained why she pushed Spanish speaking students to speak more Spanish. She particularly referred to three students (Steven, Christopher, and Estela). ys saying (speak in Spanish) because all his relatives are from Bolivia and they only speak in Spanish. The mom only speaks Spanish and his Spanish is strong enough. So if you hear me I am like with him (in Spanish) is wi th him and then with Christopher in this table. His Spanish is flawless. He is one of my best. He is my best reader and then with Estela. She is also in the Spanish side. As Maestra Mara shared her beliefs, she also talked about some struggles she had in her classroom. These tensions are further elaborated now. Through both interviews Maestra Mara explicitly expresse d some tensions she had when teaching in her TWI first grade classroom. These tensions included studen

PAGE 146

146 language use, promoting of problem solving and negotiation skills, providing less structured vs. more structured classroom activities, and advocating for Spanish sp eaking students. It is fundamental to address and elaborate on the tensions, or that guide her teaching practices. These tensions, while presented independently, highly relate to one another. Students Language U se irst tension deal t wit specifically, she expressed concerns about students switching language s, mostly from Spanish to English She believed that sometimes English speaking students spoke more Spanish than the Spanish speaking students and tha t Spanish speaking students switch ed from Spanish to English more frequently She affirm t is interesting because many times the English speakers speak more Sp anish than the Spanish speakers. two main reasons for this. First some Span ish speaking students d id not want t heir English speaking peer s struggling with understanding the language. Because of this she believed that Spanish speakers were kind enough to switch to English for those students who struggle d with Spanish. The second r eason she proposed was that some students switch ed simply because their Spanish wa s not strong enough. She noted that switching from Spanish to English was more common when they were working in pairs or groups. W hen students we re gathered in whole group in struction, they more consistently spoke Spanish as she sta te a re working with themselves ( that they switc h )

PAGE 147

147 A constant struggle for Maestra Mara wa s wh en students work ed i n groups and spoke in English. She point ed out how importan t it was for her that students collaborat ed and work ed in Spanish. She insisted that she created these spaces for students to int eract with each other thus using their Spanish. S he believe d in these spaces as unique and authentic opportunit ies fo r students to practice Spanish. I struggle a lot if I c Spanish use, but she also indicate d her support of students speaking in any language as long as the y collaborate d and work ed together of let them speak in whatever language they want. what language students spoke as long as they worked together, but she also communicates her bel ief that she has to encourage Spanish use (even when students ever get it. P romoting of Problem Solving and Negotiation S kills This tension linked to the previous one dealt with language use but related more broadly to the promoti o n of problem solving and negotiation skills among the students Maestra Mara assert ed: T cooperating in English or Spanish? { } I just want them to cooperate, other side of me, yo

PAGE 148

148 She believed that promoting these skills was sometimes as or more important than promoting language skills. Note how Maestra Mara raised her voice ( indicated in curly bracket s ) to show her frustration and uncertainty when it comes to letting students problem solve and negotiate in the language students feel more comfortable (English), even if it is not the intended language (Spanish). She explicitly stated this was a daily str uggle. Providing L es s Structured vs. More Structured Classroom A ctivities When talking about classroom activities, Maestra Mara believed there was some tension in how she managed and balanced structured and unstructured tasks in the classroom. She believe d she was an effective classroom manager who provided students with models and behavioral and managerial structures to be followed. Her statement showed a sense of self efficacy in terms of classroom management issues. However, she wondered if managing and controlling students was always a useful way to promote students language and thinking skills: There is a lot tension for me as a teacher like my traditional piece as a ki d also really important t structured I give them the l ee way of talking and problem solving. S he co mm ent ed on a specific situation in which she provide d students with all possible structures and instructions to be followed. Nevertheless, within the lesson she let the students provide some ideas and insights. She reflected on the importance of having students suggest ways to deal with th ings ( e.g., carry out classroom tasks) because students can propose viable and original ideas. She emphasized how this You know I was struggling because I wanted them to do something specific. And they came up with

PAGE 149

149 ( language and critical thinking promoter ) Maestra Mara question ed whether giv i n g students too many structures wa s counterproductive to language lear ning and development S he highlighted the importance of not giving many structures and providing students with opportunities to make suggestions about how to play a game, solve a problem, or decide on duties and tasks in their groups. Like some body mentioned Brian oh Brian Ee n y, Meeny, M o e and Brian ( the rest of the class ) said ah good idea. So even though it was something imposed by a game they talked about it. Maestra Mara was troubled by these tensions, but ref lecting on these tensions served as a way for her to evaluate her teaching strategies. Advocating for Spanish Speaking Students Maestra M ara noted that she took Spanish speaking students into account (more than English speaking students) when teaching and planning. She wondered if that was appropriate when teaching both student populations. She stated that her Spanish I think when I plan I think more about my Spanish speakers. When I plan I plan to see, I have higher expectations for them than the other ones ( English speaking students ) When I teach I usually think about my Spanish The primary goal for Maestra Mara was for Spanish speaking stud ents to excel linguistic and academically. She stated she wanted her Spanish students to shine. Spanish speakers need more help from me than the other ones ( English speaking students )

PAGE 150

150 ese ( Spanish speaking ) kids really need She compare d her student population s and it was evident that she defend ed Spanish speaking students Maestra Mara believed Spanish speaking students suffered from academic, emotional, and socioeconomic dis advantages. In the following q uote, she asserted that English speaking students excelled not only in academic matters but also in their linguistic skills. In this example, Maestra Mara reflected on a teacher meeting where she defended Spanish speaking stud ents. In the meeting, teache r s within the schoo l evaluated Spanish and English ra Mara complained that Spanish speaking students needed more reading in order for them to excel academically. English speakers are shining and now they are bilingual. And my other babies ( Spanish speaking students ) you know I said we need to step it up. People are lik e: more reading for the English speaking children and { like no more reading for my Spanish speakers! } English speakers: they are shinning across the board. And where are my other babies ? They have my heart. They are not here ( at an excelling academic level) ( Spanish speaking students ) but not push for the Engli sh Latinos we need to push it. Maestra Mara believed English speaking students did not need as much academic support as Spanish speaking students did. She argued, The other ones ( English speaking students ) are doing it for an addi tive part in their lives. English speakers are shining and now they are bilingual. speaking students became bilingual as an extra component in thei r academic life whereas Spanish speaking students needed to be bilingual to keep their cultural and linguistic roots and succeed in an English speaking country.

PAGE 151

151 Furthermore, she talked about some of the reasons why English speaking The other ones ( English speaking students) usually go beyond. They h ave, you kno w, their great background knowledge, the great parent involvement who support their reading at home. Also English speakers have all this school language. Maest ra Mara highlighted how Spanish speaking students did not have a s many advantages. Spanish speak States. Some had several jobs, lacked English skills, and had limited formal schooling knowledge. Maestra M ara was an advocate for Spanish speaking students in her class and in the TWI school. C hapter 4 presented the findings of the study. The findings were organized in terms of the main research question and the sub questions of the study. The main extended use of Spanish (SEUS) during whole group instruction. The two sub research questions focused first on describing strategic instructional patterns used by the teacher, and second on describing her beliefs and how these guided her teaching practices in a TWI fir st grade classroom. The CPD (Co mprehensible Input /Problematization/Decentralization) framework was presented and supported with evidence from the literacy lessons. At the same time, specific instructional strategies were elaborated as complementary ways wi thin the CPD framework. Finally, through evidence provided in and tensions were addressed to better comprehend her teaching practices in the TWI classroom.

PAGE 152

152 C hapter 5 will summarize the conclusions of the s tudy It wil l also provide links with the research literature about TWI programs and teaching practices in the second language setting. Lastly chapter 5 will talk about the implications of the study for teachers, teacher educators, and educational researchers in the field of English language teaching.

PAGE 153

153 Table 4 1. Number of s tudents and d uration of SEUS e pisodes Literacy l esson s SEUS e pisodes Number of s tudents who s poke SEUS d uration Literacy Lesson #1 1 13 11:49 Literacy Lesson #2 2 8 04:15 Literacy Lesson #2 3 9 17:00 Literacy Lesson #2 4 10 04:10 Literacy Lesson #3 5 18 23:20 Literacy Lesson #3 6 12 09:36 Literacy Lesson #4 7 14 22:15

PAGE 154

154 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLI CATIONS Overview o f the Study TWI programs in the United States were developed to p rovide students who spe ak a language different from English the opportunity to learn E nglish while maintaining their native language. TWI programs encounter many challenges in achieving this mission including i ntegrating native and non native speakers e stablish ing equilibrium between making c ontent comprehensible to nonnative speakers, and ensuring content is stimulating and challenging enough for the native speakers ( Freeman, 1998; Hayes, 2005; Howard et al., 2007 ; Howard & Loeb, 1998 ; Lindholm Leary, 2001; Pal mer, 2008 a 2009; Potowski, 2004; Valds, 1997). The most significant challenge, however, is ensuring the use of strategies t hat foster language development and use, particularly in the minority language (de Jong & Howard, 2009; Potowski, 2004; Valds, 199 7). There is a need for more and better research about specific teaching practices in the context of linguistically diverse classroom settings and the relationship between teaching practice s and language production T he present study add s to the literature about teaching practices in TWI programs. The study using a n inductive approach Mara) practices and beliefs that lead to student extended use of Spanish (SEUS) in a first grade classroom The study employ e d quali tative methods of data collection. Four literacy lessons and two teacher interviews were the data source s. Data were analyzed through domain analysis that sought to provide in depth descriptions of Maestra Mara teaching practices Findings indicated that Maestra Mara purposefully promoted genuine opportunities for students to use and develop language. Her teaching practices

PAGE 155

155 were based on a Co mprehensible Input /Problematization/Decentralization (CPD) framework which served as a pedagogical combination and a s a solid platform to elicit and extend student language production. In addition to the framework, she put into practice specific instructional strategies to ensure student language use. Her language views complemented her teaching practices as she firmly believed in the importance of providing students with real opportunities to explore language. The purpose of this chapter is to provide further discussion of the conclusions, link the conclusions to existing research literature, and present implications of the findings for teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers. It begins with a discussion of the most prominent conclusions of the study and the relationship of the conclusions to related literature Finally, implications for future practi ce and research on second language teaching are provided Summary of the Findings The study documents the practice of a bilingual teacher who used three instructional structures to suppor t language use. First, she provided students with a context to enhan ce language comprehension and the development of meaning. Second, she presented students with real life problems so that there was purposeful communication. Finally, she decentralized her role for students to engage more and become autonomous problem solve rs and negotiators. strategies elicited student language production in complementary ways and were situated within a holistic context. It was within the CPD framework that she employed her strategies including pretending not to know and wondering aloud, using synonyms, produce more language, implementing cooperative structures (specifically Think Pair

PAGE 156

156 Share events), and demanding elaboration from th e students. Pretending not to know and wondering aloud offered opportunities for authentic use of language. Synonym use vocabulary. Think Pair Share events enabled students to interact one on one with a partner in order to talk about a topic, brainstorm ideas, make lists, or define a vocabulary term. Maestra Mara also pushed students to produce more language by using encouragement. She e ncourag ed students to provide more and va ried ideas participate more. She demanded, in subtle and explicit ways, that students use the language. She was constant and firm in what she considered to be necessary for students to produce Spanish. Her willingness and disposition to create the opportunities was also key in building the environment to elicit student language. As a native Spanish speaker, Maestra Mara was moved to provide these opportunities since she knew students needed genuine opportunities to use and develop their language skills. The findings from this study are clearly linked to the implications of SCT and the pedagogical suggestions of CLT. In addition, the strategies used by Maestra Mara clearly are consistent with and provide illustrations of strategies suggested in the literature. Discussion of the Findings The study reinforces several suggestions about second language teaching and learning First, this study support s SCT and CLT as frameworks wh ich provide students with rich environments that foster social interaction and genuine language opportunities. Second, the study highlights the importance of the teacher role in TWI settings. Third this study adds to research related to specific teaching practices to elicit student

PAGE 157

157 language production. Finally, the study provides support that the teacher beliefs and expectations play a major role in the context of TWI program s Sociocultural Theory (SCT) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) SCT as a learning theory and CLT as a second language approach highlight the importance of social interaction and environments that promote and encourage communication. SCT considers language learning to be acquired through social interaction situated in a social context where knowledge contributes to the creat ion of new knowledge. SCT acknowledges the interactive nature of learning since it is in interaction that learning takes places (Ellis, 1997, 2000, 2008 ; Vygotsky 1978). SCT views language developm ent as a dynamic process in which student participation and collaboration in the learning setting are essential. W ithin this theoretical perspective the learner is an active agent engaged in situated meaning making where there is dynamic joint constructio n with others in the classroom (e.g., classmates, teacher, and others) SCT suggests that language is best learned when there is authentic language use, collaborative creation and negotiation of meaning, engaging classroom activities w ith exchanges of real communication, and real life settings where students communicate in purposeful ways (Galloway, 1993; Richards, 2006 ; Richards & Rodgers, 1986). CLT provides a set of pedagogical implication s that is consistent with SCT. This communicative approach highli ghts the semantic content of language. G rammar is not prioritized; learners learn grammar through meaning. Language is seen as a social tool to make meaning and to communicate with a purpose rather than as a set of rules and grammar notions. CLT emphasi ze s student engag ement i n meaningful and authentic language use rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns (Richards &

PAGE 158

158 Rogers, 1986). D istinctive features of CLT includ e learner centered teaching, interactive learning, cooperative learning, w hole language education, content centered education, and task based learning (Brown, 1994; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Savignon, 2002). CLT highlights the real purpose of language: to communicate things that are real and meaningful It approaches communicati on as being rooted in issues, challenges, or decisions that individuals face in the world and promotes communication that is saturated with meaning and significance CLT v iew s expression of meaning; primary function interactio p. 70). CLT fosters environments that promote problem solving and negotiation skills in the classroom setting by using real life contexts which encourage students to communicate in purposeful ways. Williams (1995) suggest s that the following features of language instruction are consistent with SCT: authentic language use, tasks that encourage negotiations, and emphasis on genuine communication with little explicit instruction on language rules. Instructional features cons istent with SCT and CLT were present in Maestra freely implied a focus on meaning and content S he focus ed on learning specific language structures and form but it was embedd ed in meaning and context Her classroom practices resembled a group conversation more than a formal didactic context for the teaching of language. Language in her classroom was not simply a subject that needed to be taught. Language became a medium to the free expression of ideas. It was within this context that students used language in authentic ways including

PAGE 159

159 communicating a thought, sharing a comment, offering an idea or a solution to a problem. The findings from the current study reinforce earlier fi ndings about the nature of CLT that supports extended language use from Hayes (2005) and DePalma (2010). teacher expectations to speak Spanish when presented with fixed envi ronments and scripted language structures. However, Hayes (2005) noted extended language use when productive life problem. Hayes argued that language is not an objective with specific requirements that must be met. Instead De Palma (2010) subsequently conducted a larger study where she also e xamined teacher strategies that led to student language production. Similar conclusions were reached: real life contexts in which conflicts are resolved and meaning is negotiated lead to extended language production es in which she seeks to balance scripted language structure s and unstructured language activities Hayes (2005) notes that language productive negotiation situations elicit authentic communication use whereas the provision of language frames delimits st udents to scripted language production. Teachers in the context of TWI programs need to see the importance of knowing when and how to pro vide students with language structure d activities. Presenting students with conflict s and problems served as opportunit ies to expose students to genuine communication since they invite students to negotiate and produce language in authentic ways As students participated

PAGE 160

160 in authentic communication, Maestra Mara also insisted and assisted students in producing grammatically and semantically correct language. In this way, she embeds linguistic form within function. CLT as pedagogy consistent with language learning theory (SCT) is critically important in TWI settings In these settings, the ultimate goal is for students t o become linguistically, culturally, and academically competent students. Reaching this goal requires the teacher to purposefully use CLT features to ensure student participation and language learning in all students. The Teacher Role Some literature re fers to teacher roles and how they can provide spaces for students to use the minority language in TWI classrooms (Palmer, 2008a, 2009). Several scholars concur that teachers can be initiators, moderators, and promoters of language use and development (Chr istian et al. 2000; Garc a, 2004; Hall, 1995; Lessow Hurley, 2009). T eachers can not only help but also harm student language production (Christian et al., 2000; Garca, 2004; Lessow Hurley, 2009). Hall (1995) and Hall and Walsh (2002) concurred that teac environment that fosters language production and build s a sense of classroom willingness to create learning environments for student collaboration and social interaction affected student lan guage production in effective ways. Students identified with situations and problems posed by Maestra Mara and felt invited to speak and express their ideas. The findings demonstrated that by building a warm, positive classroom community and establishing r apport with the students, she created an inviting environment for language use. In this environment, s he created a

PAGE 161

161 Language production was supported with praise and encouragement. The classroom environment communicated to students the value of providing ideas and offering solutions in a non threatening environment. Palmer (2008a) noted that teaching and discursive practices can not only stimulate but also dampen minority language u se. Palmer (2008a, 2008b) asserted that teachers spaces for students to use language. In both her studies, the role played by the teacher (or the person in control at a sp ecific time, including Spanish or English teacher, substitute teacher, or librarian) was instrumental in fostering environments for students to interact and contribute in meaningful ways in the classroom. The teachers in the study who purposefully supporte d language fostered language opportunities to support students in learning and using the minority language opportunities that were not artificial or mechanically created. Facilitative teachers made spaces for students to interact, problem solve, negotiate, language spaces initiated authentic interaction and conversation. de Jong and Howard (2009) claim that too often students in the context of TWI programs are not provided 93). They claim that providing students with extended opportunities to use the minority concurred that providing students with significant opportunities for language production is an essential aspect of TWI programs ( Crawford 1991 ; Lindholm Leary 2001 ). McKeon (1994) suggested that teachers need to foster a c onversational tone in their classes and move away from monotonous, question answer exchanges between

PAGE 162

162 the teacher and the students Creating interactive environments, however, is not creation of the language production space. She also created a nurturing, responsive environment for students to produce more language. Maestra Mara consistently demanded more language production from the students. She created the language opportunities and promoted language production. The current study provides an important contrast to the findings of Delgado language production to practices in which teacher demanded little language production nished and English became the high status language in the school. Findings from Sdergrd (2008) study about teacher strategies highlight ed the importance of teacher responsiveness to students with regard to their contributions in the classroom and their show ed genuine interest w hen students share d personal information or offer a comment or solution. She did not agree or disagree but invited students to share their comments, elaborate their suggestions, and justify their answers. She engaged in discussion by what students we re saying She did not wa nt students to simply say things or superficially answer questions; she expected students to think about what they were saying and elaborate their thoughts and ideas. She demonstrate d that she value d c ontribution s to the classroom It is importan t to note that even when focusing on the meaning students were creating and how they were struggling to try to make sense of

PAGE 163

163 their ideas and suggestions Maestra Mara also focus ed o n form and language accuracy but embedded in meaning Maestra Mara used he r language to support high order thinking She encouraged elaboration by using high order and follow up questions to ensure students continue their thinking. Her question patterns were interactive in nature and evoke d student collaboration and negotiation of meaning. However, s he did not provide much of a formal evaluation Her feedback was not judgmental ; i nstead her feedback consisted of polite request s for justifications, clarification, and elaboration from the students. As in the stu d y conducted by Hall and Walsh (2002) question patterns that provided students with feedback rather than evaluation, resulted in students participating more and engaging in meaningful conversations with the teacher and among students. Maestra Mar a being aware of the importance of providing students with opportunities to use language. She made sure a welcoming environment was created where students could feel motivated and praised for participating an d providing their opinions. Her role in the classroom was that of a language promoter. Encouraging students to produce more language required specific instructional strategies. Teaching Practices to Elicit Student Language Production Maestra Mara was a resourceful teacher who used several strategic instructional solving and negotiation skills where she encouraged students to offer solutions and interact with peers to create and negotiate meaning. To ensure student language production,

PAGE 164

164 Maestra Mara used the CPD f ramework accompanied by specific teaching patterns including pretending not to know and wondering aloud us ing synonyms, a ctivating e ncouraging and expecting students to produce more language, i mplementing T hink Pair Share events and e n couraging elaboration. The CPD framework was a structure through which Mae stra Mara provided students with a context for language comprehension, presented students with problems that needed solving, and decentralized her teacher role to ensure student participation and language elaboration. She provided students with situational contexts to which students could relate. She also provided context and comprehensible input t hr o ugh the use of intonation and non verbal communication. Additionally, students were presented with prob lem s which opened up opportunities for students to help M aestra M ara either to solve a personal ( e.g., forgetting a birthday) or a language related ( e.g., deciding on a character for a play) problem. The phrase along with the non verbal cues ( e.g., leaning forward, showing a concerned face, s taring at students and sustaining eye contact ) worked as effective initiator s to elicit student language productions in Spanish. The three instructional structures of the CPD framework were complementary of one another. They worked as a platform for stude nts to produce more language. The CPD framework created an invitational context for encouraging and drawing out language. Maestra Mara used the framework simultaneously and it worked on. As one of the tenets of SCT and CLT, Maestra Mara gave more control to the students. She de c entralize d herself in the classroom so that students bec a me central, active players in their learning, linguistic and cognitive process es Language was

PAGE 165

165 elici ted to foster development of thinking, problem solving and negotiation skills. L anguage became a vehicle for students to develop the ability to solve problem s and propose solutions (2000) study concluded that when students are included they becom e active participants. Arce (2000) claims that these processes are a key piece in learning interactions since they engage students in providing solutions where students put linguistic and cognitive skills in to practice. The CPD framework provides a learn er center teaching approach. In Thomas and Collier (1997a) study, a prominent finding highlighted that the most effective teaching practices in the setting of TWI programs w ere learn er centered. They indicated that instruction that was less teacher cente red w as more likely to enhance linguistic and academic student gains. Shifting from a teacher centered to a student centered approach in the TWI context has been enco uraged by others, who also emphasized the importance of teachers who promote language rath er than have power over it ( Antn, 1999; Crawford, 1991; Cummins, 1994, 2000; Howard & Christian, 2000, 2002; Howard et al., 2000, 2007; Souto Manning, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). It is in this context that teacher s are not language authorities ; instead the y fo ster environments in which students become language authorities. The teacher role changes from the only language provider to a facilitator of genuine dialogue between the students who also know language and can contribute to the classroom in meaningful way s. It was the CPD framework which supported p urposeful talk by requir ing students to actively engage in ideas, opinions, and solutions. hat elicit ed student language production. She expected st udents to elaborate and provide rationale for their

PAGE 166

166 suggestions and opinions. Her question patterns are consistent with patterns suggested in the literature. Nunan and Lamb (1996) and Toth (2011) argue d that high order questions and open questions lead to more student second language d iscourse. Hall and Walsh (2002) noted th at providing students with feedback (in the form of response affirmations, reformulations, comments, and request for justification, clarification, and elaboration) and valuing their cont ributions (not judging or evaluating them) resulted in students elaborating more on their utterances and participating more as ways to engage in meaningful communication. Teacher Beliefs and Expectations strategies to elicit more language production from the students, promoting and implementing classroom spaces and opportunities for students to interact, emphasizing the need for students to use language and extend their language production, encouraging he r Spanish speaking students to speak more Spanish, and holding high expectations for all students. Maestra Mara believed in spaces for students to interact and use language and the use firmly believed in the importance of providing students with interactive spaces for students to explore the language, learn from one another, and feel free to communicate their thoughts in the class room She applied her beliefs to her teaching practices. Banks et al. (2005) expectations as well as their dispositions with regard to the students they teach. context. Dispos result in more student participation in the classroom. Villegas and Lucas (2007) state that

PAGE 167

167 responsi ve ways leads to engaging students in effective school learning. Maestra Mara valued Spanish speaking students and their linguistic contributions to the classroom. She believed the Spanish speaking students had unique strengths which worked as ways for Mae stra Mara to convey high expectations for student performance. Martin Beltrn (2010) suggested that teacher talk in this classroom conveyed high expectations. Teacher talk can invite or alienate students from classroom participation. If teacher s comments suggest a belief that student lack proficiency in the language, then students marginalize themselves and refuse to participate. Maestra Mara p resents a model in which she communicated students were proficient and as a result, students were eager and more w illing to participate. Her high expectations for students to produce more, extend their utterances, and share their thoughts elicited and reinforced language production. Her expectations indicated she knew students were capable of producing more language s o she pushed them to produce more. Her expectations also suggested that she p laces language minority students in a n empowered position She conveyed that Spanish speaking students are la nguage experts thus she put students in authority as contributors. She firmly believe d students could contribute in meaning ful ways. She emphasized the importance of holding high expectations for language minority students since they are in a position of knowing more and are capable of producing more language. Maestra Mara believed in finding a balance between developing linguistic and cognitive skills in the students. She promoted language, problem solving, and negotiation skills development. She provided students with spaces to develop language

PAGE 168

168 problem solve, and col laborate together. As one of her beliefs, she highlighted the importance of Spanish speakers speaking more S panish because there are fewer opportunit i es for them to develop their language outside of school. She believed bilingual teachers need to work on l anguage minority li nguistic skills because Spanish speaking students lack many advantages that English speaking students have. Maestra Mara speaks as a Latina who advocates for her Latino students but she emphasizes the fact that the Spanish speaking stude should be more effectively addressed in TWI programs. I mplications T he current study suggests important implications for future practice and research in second language and teaching. Implications for te achers and teacher educators in TWI contexts are explored first, followed by implications for educational researchers. Implications for Second Language T eachers Second language instruction is complex in nature. Teachers teaching in TWI programs understan d the challenges that these settings bring, especially when teaching students in the minority language. English is the dominant language which socioeconomically and linguistically has a higher status in society and thus, in school. Th e current study a dd s t o the body of literature that addresses possible ways in which TWI teachers can empower language minority students to maximiz e their linguistic skills by providing opportunities for them to use, develop, and maintain their native language Th is dissertatio n study focus ed on describing how a bilingual teacher foster ed the use of Spanish and provided a classroom environment that elicited and supported extended conversations in Spanish The study provide d insights into the ways in which

PAGE 169

169 TWI teachers through their teaching practices, can promote opportunities for students to build and practice Spanish in the classroom. The findings of the study indicate that teachers, the classroom environment they create, the instructional strategies they use, and t he expectations they have for the students are key features in promoting language opportunities in a second language gathered from this study include creating a sense of cla ssroom community, building rapport with the students, using a pedagogical framework with CDP features, implementing specific instructional strategies, and holding strong language beliefs and high expectations for the students. The expectations teachers hol d for their students require consideration. Maestra Mara believed students could produce more language. As a result, she constantly pushed students to use language to provide explanations, offer solutions, and negotiate meaning as a group. Second language teachers need to have high linguistic and cognitive expectations for their students. Particularly in the setting of TWI programs, teachers need to notice and internalize the potential bilingual students have since having high expectations leads to students growth. However, the mere demand for more language would not necessarily result in students producing more language; a context for language comprehension must be provided in which teacher s use intonation and non verbal communicati on to scaffold language. Teachers also need to foster a warm, respectful environment where students feel free to ask questions if something is unknown, make linguistic mistakes when expressing their ideas, and engage in conversation and discussion freely.

PAGE 170

170 Teachers need to understand the impact the teacher role has in the classroom. Providing the opportunities does not mean that the teacher has to control the language activities or become an authoritarian model in the classroom. The teacher is crucial in pu tting specific strategies into practice to provide students with opportunities for social interaction to use and develop language. The following specific strategies are suggested from the study of Provid e students with a contex t to make content and language comprehensible to the students (comprehensible input) Present students with real life situation where there are opportunities to problem solve or negotiate. Let the students play a more central role in the classroom. Provi d e students with real life scenarios Activat e student background knowledge to establish connections with previously learned content Pretend not to know and wonder aloud Use synonyms Use non verbal communication (referring to classroom materials and posters, face and body gestures, pauses, sustained eye contact) Use scaffolding techniques to facilitate student language learning P ush students to produce more language Encourag e students to provide more and varied answers Insist that students p rovide full sentences and ideas Encourag e all students to participate Use cooperative structures s uch as Think Pair Share events Use open ended and follow up questions Provid e students with feedback rather than an evaluative response

PAGE 171

171 It is importa nt to note how Maestra Mara provided feedback to the students. She did not offer judgmental responses ; instead she accepted students responses and either sought clarification or elaboration of answers. Teacher s should pay close attention to student parti cipation. Maestra Mara constantly invited student participation reinforc ing the need for students to participate and engage in classroom conversation. She made it clear that she expected students to participate. Maestra Mara used a wondering tone which was key in getting students to offer solutions and express their ideas and comments. Posing a curiosity, presenting an uncertainty, and simply wondering aloud about something engaged students in meaningful communication where they needed to purposefully deal with issues. When wondering aloud, Maestra Mara used non linguistic cues to provide a context for language comprehension and to empha si ze her wondering about something. It is important for teachers to understand that wondering aloud worked as a strategy th at invited students to produce language genuinely. Teachers need to understand th at d irect questioning might be counterproductive to language production since these types of questions and interaction s might limit student language production. Implications for Second Language Teacher E ducators Changes in teaching practices require shifts in teacher beliefs about learning and teaching. S tudents learn in many ways which have been proven to deviate from direct t eacher instruction It is fundamental for second l anguage teacher educators to understand the principles of SCT and CLT and to emphasize their principles in the second language classroom. Teacher educators need to go beyond theories and place greater emphasis on practical issues. The teaching strategies M aestra Mara used to create an environment that promoted language should be highlighted for prospective

PAGE 172

172 teachers. One suggestion for teacher educators is to have students read cases like the one described here so that students can see and engage in discussi on with peers about Another suggestion is to provide students with pedagogical tools keep ing in mind that skilled use requires more that knowing the tools. Teacher educators need to make s paces for student teachers to use, critique, and reflect about the tools in real scenarios. Language educators could present students with teacher cases to be thoroughly analyzed in terms of teaching strategies used by TWI teachers. That way, the tools bec ome true and acquire real meaning, as opposed to strategies student teachers read in books in their classes. Of equal value, language teacher educators need to address the importance of building a classroom community where Spanish speaking and English spe aking students learn from one another through the use of language and through opportunities for problem solving and negotiati o n. Establishing rapport with the student s is key to ensure a warm environment in the class. A suggestion for teacher educators rel ates to culturally responsive pedagogy which addresses the needs of students coming from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Villegas and Lucas (2002, 2006) proposed six salient qualities for professional development of teachers and teacher educators, including understanding how learners construct knowledge, learning about using appropriate strategies, and advocating for all students. Culturally respons ive pedagogy speaks of teaching approaches in which students are given opportunities to

PAGE 173

173 problem Lucas, p. 30). This pedagogy reinforces the fact that all students are capable learners regardless of their cultural or linguistic background and encourages teachers to hold affirming, high expectations for all students. Implications for Educational R es earch Maestra Mara presents two very intriguing aspects: her effective teaching practices to elicit language production and her set of beliefs in the context of TWI programs A future study that will take into account both aspects and will provide additio nal insights to the current study suggests a critical discourse/Discourse analysis (Gee, 2011). Under such a study Maestra Mara will be examined through two lenses: details of speech (descriptive discourse) and details of context (critical Discourse) Gee (2011) differentiates between Discourse discourse (with a little in use or any stretches of spoken language; that is, language in its linguistic funct ion (details of speech) Discourse (details of context) (p.34). Discourses are interactions, and ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various s ymbols, tools Discourse analysis is the study of language in use ( Clarke, 2005; Gee, 20 1 1). Its ). The objective of discourse analysis is to understand what individuals do with language in specific situations As part of details of speech, Gee (2011) proposes the use of a tool named Significance which refers to a language building task which analyzes how teachers use

PAGE 174

174 According to him, significance as a process within discourse analysis, refers to how language is used to enhance or lessen importance given to things in specific situa tion s ( e.g., teaching a first grade TWI classroom) and to signal to others ( e.g., students) how individuals view that importance. A study focused on Significance would describe what and how Maestra Mara through her use of language, value s and makes more o r less significant. Initial the following: What things are relevant and significant for the teacher when teaching? In what ways are they significant? How are they evident? How does she signal students about what is significant for her when teaching? The Significance tool also looks at specific words and grammatical devices and how those are used to increase and decrease significance for certain things when teaching. Discou r se analysis address es the intonation patterns of a speaker. The intonational tool might be used A study of intonation including the transcriptions of the lessons and the adding of the videos might yield insightful perceptions si nce v isual data from the videos provide meaningful, rich portrayals of use of symbols, tools, teacher gestures, interactions, and reactions that w ould work as complementary aspects of the teacher use of language. Th e intonation tool would look closely at l inguistic features including function and content words (informationally and less informationally salient), stress, and intonation. Content words (usually informationally salient) refer to major parts of speech such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, while f unction words (usually less informational salient) refer to determiners, pronouns, and prepositions, for example. Stress and intonation also help to indicate what is more or less salient for the speaker when using language. According to Gee

PAGE 175

175 (2011), stress close attention to increased loudness, increased length, and changes in pitch (raising or informati on did the teacher make salient in terms of where the intonational focus is A future study would examine what Maestra Mara does with language i n a TWI Spanish first grade classroom. A critical discourse/ Discourse analysis seeks to examine details of speech (throu gh microanalysis of intonation patterns) and details of context (through macroanalysis of set of beliefs and actions). A future study w ould look at establishing a In addition to describing discourse it would be v aluable to dig deeper into the set of beliefs in regards to language teaching and learning in TWI settings (details of context) This future study of language might focus on Discourse/discourse to analyze language interactions, occurrences of language in use, any stretches of language used by the bilingual teacher when teaching (discourse) as well as language and other aspects (Dis course) including ways in which t he teacher takes action, interacts, values, disposes, believes, relates, reflects, responds, and uses diverse artifacts in her classroom. Such study w ould illuminate the hose are associated with the teacher language. Additionally, the study might look at how Discourse is used to build significance for the teacher when teaching. More r esearch is needed to understand teachers role in promoting the spaces for students to en gage in meaningful Spanish conversations (Hayes, 2005). Howard et al.

PAGE 176

176 (2003) have emphasize d the current need for more research in the area of instructional strategies to learn more about effective teaching practices in TWI classrooms. More research is nee ded in TWI teaching practices and specific strategies that elicit the minority language production. Also, more research is required to understand how preservice teachers learn to use these instructional strategies and the challenges faced in learning them would be really important. Conducting more research in this area is mandatory to continue expanding on effective teaching practices in TWI programs. Particularly, k nowing more about relevant teacher discourse and use of language can result in more effectiv e teaching practices to better serve the diverse student population in TWI programs. This study adds to the current knowledge base on teaching practices in TWI programs. It shows that a combination of instructional strategies with in the context of a frame work results in effective teaching practices to elicit student extended Spanish use Further, it confirms the theoretical basis of SCT and CLT as solid tenets in the context of second language instruction. Finally, this study builds on knowledge to the gro wing body of literature about second language teaching and learning in TWI programs

PAGE 177

177 APPENDIX TEACHER INTERVIEW GE NERAL PROTOCOL 1. Tell me about your experiences teaching in general and in the TWI program specifically. 2. What do you see as the goals of th e TWI program? 3. Native/non native speaker integration is an important component of a TWI program. What are your thoughts about this component and its importance for meeting the goals of the TWI program? 4. In what ways do you consciously consider native non native speaker interaction in your lesson planning? a. In setting lesson objectives? b. When you use small groups, how do you decide on group composition? c. When you use small groups, how do you decide on the task students will be asked to complete? d. When yo u use small groups, how do you ensure individual and group accountability? e. What is your role during small group instruction? 5. How do you prepare your students to work in groups together? (socially, academically, and linguistically) 6. What patterns of inter action have you observed when grouping native and non native speakers? 7. Do you think native non native speaker grouping is always the most optimal way of grouping in a two way program? Explain. 8. What do you consider the most challenging in capitalizing on native and non native speaker interaction? 9. What do you see as the greatest benefit of the presence of native and non native speakers?

PAGE 178

178 LIST OF REFERENCES Antn, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teache r learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303 318. Arce, J. (2000). Developing voices: A transformative education in a first grade two way Spanish immersion classroom, a participatory study. Bilingual Resea rch Journal, 24(3), 249 260. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2007) Pupil grouping for learning: D eveloping a social pedagogy of the classroom. In R. M. Gillies, A. F Ashaman, & J. Terwel,(Eds.), ng cooperative l earning in the c lassroom (pp. 55 71). New York: Springer. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Banks, J., Cochran Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., Darling Hamm ond, L., Duffy, H., & McDonald, M. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232 274). California: Jossey Bass Education Seri es. Berns, M. S. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching. New York: Plenum. Brisk, M. E. (2006). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc iates Publishers. Brock, C. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 47 59. Brown, D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1 47. Carrigo, D. L. (2000). Just how much English are they using? Teacher and student language distribution pa tterns, between Spanish and English, in upper grade, two way immersion Spanish classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning New Hampshire: H einemann.

PAGE 179

179 Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (2004). Definition of terms. Retrieved from http://www.carla.umn.edu/conferences/past/immersion/terms.html Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011a). English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/topics/ell/ Center for Applied Linguistic. (2011b). Resources for two way immersion and dual language practitioners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi / Center for Applied Linguistic. (2011c). Directory of two way bilingual immersion programs in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/index.htm Center for Applied Linguistics. (201 1d). English language learners: Immigrant education. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/topics/ell/immigrantEd.html Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011e). Glossary of terms related to dual langu age/TWI in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/glossary.htm Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Christie, F. (1995). Pedagogical discourse in the primary school. Linguistics and Education, 7, 221 242. Christian, D. (2008). Foreword. In T. Williams Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. xiv xvii). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Christian, D. (1996). Two way immersion education: Students learning through two languages. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66 76. Christian, D., Howard, E. R., & Loeb, M. I. (2000). Bilingualism for all: Two way immersion in the United States. Theory into Practice, 39(4), 258 266. Christian, D. (1994). Two way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages. Santa Cruz, CA: The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Cloud, N., Genesse, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Cohen, E. G. & Lotan, R. A. (1997). (Eds). Working for heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

PAGE 180

180 Cole, K., & Zuengler, J. (Eds.). (2008). The research process in the classroom discourse analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlb aum Associates. i nteraction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction ( pp. 91 107). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services. Crawford, J. (2007). Hard shell: Why is bilingual education so unpopular with the American public? In O. Garca & C. Baker (Eds.), Bilingual Education: An introductory reader ( pp. 145 161). New York: Multilingual Matters. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications. C ullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal 52 (3), 179 187. Cummins, J. (2002). Challenging the construction of difference as deficit: Where are identity, intellect, imagination, and power in the new regimen of truth? In P. Trifon as (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference (pp. 41 60). New York: Routledge Falmer. Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power, and identity in teaching English as a second language. In F. Genesse (Ed.), Education second language children: The whole child, the whole cu rriculum, the whole community (pp. 33 58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Great Britain: Multilingual Matters. Davison, C. (2001). Identity and ideology: The p roblem of defining and defending ESL ness. In B. Mohan, C. Leung & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the Mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity, (pp. 71 90). United Kingdom: Person Education. de Jong, E. J. (2002). Effective bilingu al education: From theory to academic achievement in a two way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 65 84. Language, Culture and Community in Teacher E ducation (pp. 127 148). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group. de Jong, E. J., & Howard, E. (2009). Integration in two way immersion education: Equalising linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Educ ation and Bilingualism, 12(1), 81 99.

PAGE 181

181 Delgado Larocco, E. L. (1998). Classroom processes in a two way immersion Kindergarten classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA. DePalma, R. (2010). Language use in the two way classroom: Lessons from a Spanish English bilingual kindergarten. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dolson, D. P., & Mayer, J. (1992). Longitudinal study of three program models for language minority students: A critical examination of reported findings. Bil ingual Research Journal, 16(1&2), 105 157. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2000). Task based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193 220. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press. Extended Response Handbook (2011). Office of Literacy. Chicago Public School. Retrieved from http://w ww.smyser.org/ourpages/professional_development/Extended%20Respo n se%20Handbook %20CPS.pdf Fillmore, L. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in b ilingual c h ildren (pp. 49 69). New York: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Freeman, R. D. (1994). Language planning and identity planning: An emergent understanding. Working P apers in Educational Linguistics, 10(1), 1 20. Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Mercuri, S. P. (2005). Dual language essentials for teachers and administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Galloway, A. (1993). Communicative language teaching: An introducti on and sample activities Retrieved from www.cal.org/resources/digest/gallow01.html Garca, E. E (2004). Teaching and learning in two languages. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introdu ctory course. New York, NY: Routledge.

PAGE 182

182 Gayman, S. M. (2000). Understanding language use and social interaction in a French/English two way immersion classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Gee, J. (2011) An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge. Gee, J. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. London: Routledge. Genesse, F. (Ed.). (1994) Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum the whole community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies. London: Routledge Falmer learning. Asian Pacific Jou rnal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 243 259. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: S trategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. on and the development of interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 37 62. Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishments of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for th e learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14, 145 166. Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186 203. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educ ation settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books Hayes, R. (2005). Conversation, negotiation, and the word as deed: Linguistic interaction in a dual l anguage program. Linguistics and Education, 16, 93 112. Howard, E. R. & Loeb, M. I. (1998). In their own words: Two way immersion teachers talk about their professional experiences. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J Christian, D., Lindholm Leary, K. J., & Rodgers, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.

PAGE 183

183 Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J. & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two way immersion education: A review of the research. Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report63.pdf Howa rd, E. R., & Christian, D. (2002). Two way immersion 101: Designing and Implementing a two way immersion education program at the elementary level. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269 293). Harmondsworth, New England: Penguin. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Johnson, D. W., & Joh nson, R. T (2007). Social independence theory and cooperative 36). New York: Springer. Jones, M. G., & Brader Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal. Retrieved from http://w ww1.appstate.edu/orgs/acjournal/holdings/vol5/iss3/special/jones.htm Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. Kohler, A. D., & Lazarn, M. (2007). Hispanic education in the United States National Council of La Raza. Retrieved from http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdf Krashen, S. (1991). Bilingual education: A focus on current research. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Kras hen, S. (1982). Principles and practices of second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lambert, W. E. (1984). An overview of issues in immersion educ ation. In Studies in immersion education: A collection for U.S. educators (pp. 8 30). Sacramento: California State Department of Education. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second lan guage learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Knowledge of language in foreign language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 270 274.

PAGE 184

184 Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Tea ching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35 57. Lee, J. S., Hill Bonnet, L., & Gillispie, J. (2008). Learning in two languages: Interactional spaces for becoming bilingual speakers. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 75 94. Lee, J. S., & Suarez, D. (2009). A synthesis of the roles of heritage languages in the lives of children of immigrants: What educators need to know. In T. G. Wiley, J. S., Lee & R. W. Rumberger. (Eds.), T he education of language minority immigrants in the United States (pp. 136 171). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Lee, Y. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 691 714. Lessow Hurl ey, J. (2009). The foundations of dual language instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pearson. Lier, L. van. (1984). Analysing interaction in second language classrooms. ELT Journal 38(3), 160 169. Lier, L. van. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. Lo ndon: Longman. Lier, L. van. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. e and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lindholm Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lindholm Leary, K. J. (2005). The rich promise of two way immersion. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 56 59. Lindhol m, K. J. (1991). Two way bilingual/immersion education: Theory, conceptual issues, and pedagogical implications. In R. V. Padilla & A. H. Benavides. (Eds.), Critical perspectives on bilingual education research, (pp. 195 220). Tempe, Arizona: Bilingual Press. Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Wintz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259 278). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

PAGE 185

185 Long, M.H., & P.A. Porter. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207 228. Lpez, M. M., & Frnquiz, M. E. (2009). We teach reading this way because it is the way immersion programme. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 175 200. Lpez Estrada, V., Gmez, L., & Ruiz Escalante, J. A. (2009). language the norm. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 28 33. Lotan, R. A. (2007). Developing language and mastering content in heterogeneous in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. 187 203). New York: Springer. Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the ling uistic reality of mainstream classrooms. In M. Cochran Smith, S. Feiman Nemser & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (3rd ed.) (pp. 606 736). London: Routledge. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education ( 2011). Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ Martin Beltrn, M. (2010). Positioning proficiency: How students and teachers (de)construct language proficiency at school. Linguistics and Education, 21, 257 281. McColl um, P. (1994). Language use in two way bilingual programs. IDRA Newsletter, 21(2), 1, 9 11. McKeon, D. (1994). Language, culture and schooling. In F. Genesse (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole commun ity (pp. 15 33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Montague, N. S., & Meza Zaragosa, E. (1999). Elicited response in the pre kindergarten setting with a dual language program: Good or bad idea? Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2 3), 289 296. National C enter for Education Statistics. (2010a) Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96 National Center for Education Statistics. (2010b). The Condition of Education 2010:Indicator 5, language minority school aged children. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028_2.pdf

PAGE 186

186 National Council of Teachers of English. English language learners: A policy research brief. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/PolicyResearch/ELLResearchB ri ef.pdf Nichols, M. (2006). Comprehension through conversation: The power of purposeful talk in the reading workshop. New Hampsh ire: Heinemann. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal 41(2), 136 145. Nunan, D., & Lamb, C (1996). The self directed teacher: Managing the learning process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, D. (2007). A dual immersion strand programme in California: Carrying out the promise of dual language education in an English dominant conte xt. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(6), 752 768. of discourse in a two way immersion classroom. International Journal of Qualitativ e Studies in Education, 21(6), 647 667. Palmer, D. (2009). Code switching and symbolic power in a second grade two way 32, 42 59. Palmer, D. (2008b). Diversity up close: Buildi ng alternative discourses in the two way immersion classroom. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to bilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 97 116). New York: Multilingual Matters. Peregoy, S. F. (1991). Environmental way Spanish immersion kindergarten. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 47(3), 451 476. Peregoy, S. F, & Boyle, O. F. (1999). Multiple embedded scaffolds: Support for English speakers in a two way immersion Span ish immersion kindergarten. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2 3), 113 124. Potowski, K. (2002). Language use in a dual immersion classroom: A sociolinguistic perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

PAGE 187

187 Potowski K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 75 101. Ramrez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). E xecutive summary: Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early exit and late exit bilingual education programs for language minority children. U.S. Department of Education. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. No. 300 8 7 0156. Rapley, T. (2009). Doing conversation, discourse, and document analysis. London: SAGE Publications. Ray, J. M. (2008). Building the bridge as you walk on it: Didactic behaviors of elementary teachers in a dual language program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1658 1671. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambrid ge University Press. Rymes, B. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. New Jersey: Hampton Press. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. London: Yale University Press. Shannon, S. M. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of resistance. Linguistics and Education, 7, 175 200. Sdergrd, M. (2008). Teacher strategies for second language production in immersion kindergarten in Finland. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 152 173). Buffalo, New York: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Soltero, S. (2004). Dual language: Teaching and learning in two languages. Boston, MA : Allyn & Bacon. Souto literacy and discourse practices. Journal of Latinos and Education, 5(4), 293 304. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnograph ic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stritikus, T. (2002). Immigrant child ren and the politics of English only: Views from the classroom. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

PAGE 188

188 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of compr ehensible input and output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235 253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 25 44). Oxford, England: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkle (Ed.),Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 895 911). Mahwah, NJ: Lawre nce Erlbaum Associates. Takahashi Breines, H. (2002). The role of teacher talk in dual language immersion third grade classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213 325. Tllez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (Eds.) (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Temple, B., & Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. Qualitative Research, 4(2),161 178. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A nationa l study on the school effectiveness for term academic achievement. Final report: Project 1.1. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Excellence on Education, Diversity, & Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_conclusions.html Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997a). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: NCBE. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997b). Two languag es are better than one. Educational Leadership, 55(4), 23 26. Toth, P. (2011). Social and cognitive factors in making teacher led discourse relevant or second language development. The Modern Language Journal, 95(i), 1 25. U .S. Census Bureau. (2004). The foreign born population in the United States: 2003. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20 551.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Race and Hispanic origin of the foreign born population in the United States: 2007. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs 11.pdf. Valds, G. (1997). Dual language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67 (3), 391 429.

PAGE 189

189 Valenzuela, A. (2009). Subtractive schooling, caring relation, and social capital in the schooling of U.S. Mexican youth. In D. J. Flinders, & S. J. Thornton, (Eds.) The Curriculum Studies Reader (3rd ed) (pp. 336 347). New York: Routledge. Verpla etse, L. S. (2000). Mr. Wonder ful: Portrait of a dialogic teacher. In J. K. Hall & L.S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom Interaction (pp. 221 241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. New York: State University of New York Press. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 64(6) 28 33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in socie ty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walqui A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159 180. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Ke rsteing, N., & Ing, M. (2004).The effects of teacher discourse on student behavior in peer directed groups. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children l earning language an d using langu age to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wiley, T. G. (2007). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the U.S. context. In O. Garca & C. Baker. (Eds.), Bilingual Education: An introductory reader (pp. 89 107). New York: Mul tilingual Matters. Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal 4(4), 12 16. lan guage arts classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(2), 199 223.

PAGE 190

190 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patricia L pez Estrada was born in Puntarenas, Costa Rica. She grew up in Esparza where she graduated from Liceo Diurno de Esparza in 1996. She earned two Bach elor of Arts degrees in English Teaching and English with emphasis in Translation from Universidad Latin o A mericana de Ciencia y Tecnolog a in 2000. In 2005, she obtained a Licentiate degree in Applied Linguistic s with emphasis on English from Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica. She also earned a degree of Master of Arts on Second Language and Culture with Emphasis on English as a Foreign Language for Adult Learners from Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica in 2007. During her studies at the university, she worked as an educational assistant for the Costa Rican Department of Education, where she assess ed and train ed teachers of rural areas in the country. She ha s taught English as a Foreign Language (EFL ) and English with Special Purposes ( ESP) for several ye ars. From 2002 to 2007, she wor ked as an English professor in various universities including Universidad Catlica de Costa Rica, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, and Universidad T cnica de Costa Rica In 2005 2006, she worked as the coordinator of English Extension Programs in the Board of Com m unity Educational and Technical Assistance in Universidad T cnica Nacional where s he conducted a curriculum reform for the Conversation English Programs and designed new curricula for the E nglish programs. At Universidad Nacional she conducted an ethnograph ic research study entitled Humanistic approach: A different perspective in the EFL classroom published in Letras Linguistics Journal of the Escuela de Literatura y Ciencias d el Lenguage in 2007.

PAGE 191

191 Patricia Lpez Estrada began her Doctor ate of Education degree at the University of Florida in 200 7 There, she collaborated with an associate professor from the University of Florida in writing an article titled in promoting language use through think pair which was published in the Sunshine State TESOL Journal in Spring 2011 She presented in South East Regional TESOL Conference in September 2010 and La Cosecha Dual Language Conference in Nov ember 2010. Upon completion of her doctorate degree, she will take a position as a professor with Instituto Tecnolgico de Costa Rica to teach English classes and conduct educational research. She now lives in San Carlos, Costa Rica.