Biliteracy
Blog: José
Synthesis /
Reflection
Introduction: José is a Mexican student who is currently
enrolled in my Developmental Bilingual Education Spanish Arts class and my
Newcomers Class (English as a Second Language).
He comes from a family of five
children, and his parents are very supportive of his education.
José arrived in Madison from Mexico
in mid-2010 and enrolled in mid-year at Stephens Elementary. At the start of the 2011-2012 school year, he
spoke very little English, whispering only a few words. As I evaluated his Spanish, I noted that his
Spanish literacy was strong, so I quickly requested authorization to enroll him
in DBE-Spanish Language Arts so that he could continue to develop his Spanish,
use his Spanish literacy to bridge to English and benefit from the self-esteem
that his strong Spanish gave him.
Sequential or Simultaneous? Jose is a sequential bilingual, having
arrived from Mexico last year. Spanish
is his native tongue, and it is still his dominant language.
Previous evaluations: I administered Jose’s WIDA ACCESS Oral Exam
in Jan. 2012. He scored a 3 (Developing)
in Instructional Language and a 2 (Beginning) in both the Social Studies and
Science sections
Attitudes about language: At home, he uses Spanish exclusively. He speaks Spanish with his Mexican friends
and English with all of the others, and he has quite a few English-dominant
friends. José bridges the cultures extremely well, and
Krashen would say that “affective factors” are having a positive rather than an
adverse effect on Jose’s language acquisition.
Oral assessment- Spanish: Jose is in my Spanish Language Arts class
(DBE), and I asked him to summarize a chapter from the novel we are reading,
Cajas de Cartón. Employing the
strategies based on the Six + One Traits of a Good Reader, he was able to
deduce information from the text, paraphrase, summarize and defend a point of
view with reasons. I can conclude from
my evaluation and recording, along with his class participation, that Jose’s
vocabulary usage is at Level 5 Bridging.
He
used academic vocabulary to describe situations from the text: “Yo puedo deducir que su madre estaba muy
preocupada y no quería hablar.” Also, in
describing a grammar mini-lesson, he said “Este verbo está en pretérito porque
describe algo que pasó una vez en un momento preciso.” He is probably high 4 – low 5 in
linguistic complexity, given that he used sentences of varying lengths, some
long and complex, including with dependent and independent clauses, for
example. “Panchito quería su propio costal de
algodón para mostrar que era un hombre. El costal,
para el, significaba ser hombre. “ Jose’s language control is also Level 5, given that he completed 4th grade in
Mexico and given his fluency. He speaks using correct
and complex grammatical structures, “Creo que la curandera no curó a
Torito. La familia de Torito rezó durante un año a la Virgen De Guadalupe, y
fue eso que lo salvó.”
English: I asked Jose to discuss two of the scary
stories (Lexile 350-400) that we read recently in class. I did not see examples of code-switching,
linguistic blending or semantic extensions.
Jose is capable of thinking in English.
From this evaluation, I’d argue that his vocabulary is a high 2
Beginning, but really pushing a 3 Developing.
He can re-phrase ideas from speech, “The wicked wooden maidens wanted to
eat the boy.” He can express time
through multiple tenses, “They gave him ice cream so he would be fat so they
could eat him.” I also saw the
beginnings of academic vocabulary, “The two stories are different because one
had a reindeer, and the other had a lamb.
They were similar because both children didn’t supposed to open the
door.” He can connect ideas in discourse
using transitions, “They took him to their cave, and then they gave him
candy.” I would put Jose’s linguistic
complexity at a level 3 (Beginning-Developing) since most of his ideas were
expressed in short, simple sentences.
“The wicked maidens wanted him to open the door.” “They wanted him to go their cave.” He expressed only a few expanded complex
sentences. His weakest point is
language control. He is relatively
strong with “the bricks” (nouns, verbs), but, as is common with ELLs, he is
still struggling with usage and prepositions, for example (“the mortar”). Here, I would argue that he is a 2-3. He is perfectly comprehensible, but he still
struggles with control “They took him for eat.
The reindeer didn’t heard him, and he finally find him and saved
him.”
Reading Assessment- Spanish: I began by
interviewing Jose, first in Spanish, then in English, about his attitude,
motivation, strategies and habits related to reading in both Spanish and
English. I then asked him to read an
excerpt from Cajas de Cartón, the novel we are reading in DBE class. Cajas de Cartón is Francisco Jimenez’s autobiographical account of his childhood of
a migrant worker. This is clearly an
authentic text, and one that my students can identify with. I would argue that Cajas is of “situational
interest” to José, as defined by Hidi and Anderson in 1992 as “interest that is
elicited by text through topics or ideas that are of universal or archetypal
appeal.” In this case, the “topics of
universal appeal” are social justice and the importance of education and
family. For English, he read from two
different English language texts, one non-fiction text entitled “Ruler in the
Desert” from the New Practice Reader and another fictional text called “Don’t
Touch That!” I took a running record
while I listened to him read and recorded the readings for analysis.
I.
Interview: Attitudes about
Reading/Motivation: Jose is clear
that the objective of reading is to obtain meaning, but he defines this more
precisely when he states “I read because I want to know about the story. I like to read the wars because I want to
know what happened in the second war. I
like to read sports because I’m an athlete.
I like to read action because it’s so fun. I like to read about animals because I think
they’re cute.” Krashen would be pleased
that Jose is reading “..something he is really interested in, that he would
read in his first language.” (Krashen, 1982, p. 164.)
Attitudes about Reading/Motivation: When asked which language he prefers to read
in, he said, “En español, puedo leer más.
Me
gusta leer en los dos idiomas, pero prefiero leer en inglés para aprender más
en inglés. Una vez que aprendo más en
inglés, volveré al español.” “If I read
now, I will be a good student and a great person in the future.”
Strategies: When asked what strategies he uses when he
has trouble comprehending while reading in Spanish, he said, “Divido las
palabras en partes para pronunciarlas. Las busco en el diccionario
y las escribo en mi cuaderno.” When asked
the same question with regard to English, he said, “If I don’t understand, I
look in the dictionary to find the words and then I write in my book for don’t
forget the word.” The fact that he was
specific about dividing Spanish words into syllables shows that he is aware
that the syllable is “the most important unit of phonological awareness in
Spanish..” (Escamilla, 2000, Mora, 2009, Myer 2010).
Reading as a Metacognitive Process: When asked what he thinks about when he
reads, he said, “Pienso en lo que está pasando o lo que va a pasar. Pienso en como se siente el autor. Pienso en sus sentimientos.”
II.
Running record: Fluency: The Colorín Colorado rubric defines fluency
as 1) accuracy in decoding, rate (automatic recognition) and expressive
and meaningful interpretation. The MMSD
rubric rates expression, phrasing, pace and word recognition and accuracy from
one to four (highest). According to the
Spanish running record, Jose read 134 words in 60 seconds with no miscues. As a confident, Spanish language dominant
student, he monitored his reading, quickly and adeptly self-correcting on the
words “algondero” and “cultivadores”, saying “algo-algodonero” and “cult-cultivadores”. According to the Colorín Colorado rubric, he
read at 100%, at an independent level, which I fully expected. According to the MMSD rubric, he scored a
four in all four categories, “consistently reads aloud with appropriate and
varied intonation…”, in phrasing, “reads aloud using larger meaningful phrases,
in pace, “varies speed to match purpose”, and in word recognition, “reads aloud
with high word recognition..and smoothly self-corrects miscues.”
English running record: In English, Jose read 96 words in 60
seconds. He had three miscues, so he
read 93 words correctly for a 97% accuracy/rate score (borderline
instructional/independent). His miscues
included “digging” (he asked me, “Ms. Scott, what is this word?” before beginning to read. He read “watch-ed” for “watched”. He hesitated, and I helped him with “dug”, and
he said, “pi-i-i-pe.”, and I confirmed that it was “pipe”. He showed more hesitancy in English, and
while he did self-monitor in English (he is not content with guessing—he wants
to be correct), he was not able to adeptly self-correct as in Spanish. He asked me on two occasions, and he mumbled
approximations (as in “pipe”) which I then confirmed. This is normal, of course, given that he has
only been in the US a year, and Spanish is his dominant language.
On the realistic fiction text that he
was familiar with, he scored a 2 in expression “attempts to change
intonation..comprehension not always apparent”, and 3s in phrasing, pace and
word recognition (“resolves most miscues through self-correction”), for an
overall score of 2.75 (MMSD rubric, nearing a 3, full understanding and
application.)
On the non-fiction text with which he
was very unfamiliar, he scored 2s in all categories. (Phrasing: “two and three
word phrases…often sounds choppy, inconsistent attention to text structures..”
Pace: “reads at an inconsistent rate”..Word recognition: “reads aloud with developing accuracy.
Occasionally attempts self-correction.”).
I am certain that this discrepancy is due to prior knowledge and
familiarity with one text as opposed to the other. Jose’s comprehension is very strong on the
fictional text “Don’t Touch It!” He
re-told the story in detail, using precise vocabulary from the story. “Marcos and Leon wanted to watch the men
work. They dug a ditch and lay a pipe.” While Jose shows excellent fluency and
comprehension while reading aloud in Spanish, in English, he also demonstrates
good comprehension, despite his less than proficient fluency (rate and
accuracy). I am theorizing that this is
because Jose has some of the excellent skills found among the “6 traits of a
Good Reader” (he can infer, deduce, and use context clues..) His oral skills in English are still
developing and while he sometimes has trouble pronouncing and recognizing words
while reading aloud, he can still comprehend the text through his use of the
above-mentioned strategies.
This leads me to question the
assertion of Barone and Xu, (2008, p. 108), who find that “..as students increase
their reading and writing proficiency, there is similar increase in oral language
proficiency. I challenge this finding
because, while it is logical that if students can use language in reading and
writing, then they should be able to use it orally, as well, I would say not
necessarily if they do not practice. In
my own experience, I have seen students who read and write quite well, but who
cannot produce the same level of proficiency orally because they are shy and
reluctant to practice speaking. Even if
they are potentially able to produce a certain level of proficiency, they must
practice in order to actually be able to produce the language. Knowledge without practice is nearly
useless! Conversely, “as students
increase their oral proficiency, they simultaneously increase their reading and
writing proficiency.” I also challenge
this finding. I currently have a student
in Jose’s Newcomer class who has progressed enormously in terms of oral and
listening proficiency, but who has not made visible gains in reading and
writing. He has trouble grasping
phonemic concepts and memorizing and recognizing sight words, and he
will be evaluated for a learning disability.
While Barone and Xu’s general observation holds true, and also holds
true in the case of José, his oral proficiency will not improve without oral
practice. This is especially important
when it comes to shy individuals, who tend to speak very little.
In conclusion, I can confidently predict that Jose will be an excellent
reader in both languages due to his already well-developed skills and
strategies, due to his excellent attitude and reading habits and due to his
strong motivation and supportive home environment. Citing Krashen’s “affective factors” and
Cummins’ “literacy engagement”, I can
say that Jose is a happy, highly-motivated learner and a very engaged
reader. He must, however, have practice
in all three domains of English, and oral practice is the most elusive due to
his Spanish language home environment.
In large classes of 25, José is bound to get more practice reading and
writing than speaking. Oral practice in
my class thus becomes crucial.
Jose’s Writing Analysis
I
asked Jose to write a short essay about immigrating to the United States in
both languages. He wrote the Spanish
essay first and then asked me if he could use it to write the English
essay. I politely declined, explaining
that I preferred that he think in English rather than use his Spanish essay to
“translate”. I was not surprised to see
that his essay focused heavily on soccer, which is his great passion in
life. Both essays were clear and
comprehensible. It is clear that Jose
understands that the purpose of writing is to convey meaning.
Rubin
and Carlan /Vocabulary/Sentence Structure/Grammar/Spelling: The transitional stage, as defined by
Rubin and Carlan, is characterized by knowledge of common spelling patterns as
well as sounds they hear in words (Gentry, 1982,2000) One example of demonstrating knowledge of
spelling patterns would be adding silent e at the end of words. This is where Jose’s written English falls
(the transitional stage), as is evidenced by only two errors in his one-page
writing sample (“Inglesh” and “United State”).
His spelling accuracy was nearly the same in both languages, and his use
of vocabulary was slightly more developed in Spanish than in English
(“llegamos” as opposed to “came”)(“empece a jugar “ as opposed to “I played
with another team”.)
The
transitional stage, which has no
equivalent in Ferreiro and Teberosky’s scheme (probably because most Spanish
words are spelled phonetically, and students thus move directly to the
conventional stage), also features more complex sentence structure and syntax
as compared to the phonetic stage. In
the English sample, Jose’s placement of adjectives was correct, but he omitted
the article “the” in one instance “came from Mexico to United State”. Apart from that one instance, the two samples
were not very far apart. Jose’s written
Spanish is definitely at the conventional (Level 5) stage of development. In terms of grammar, Jose uses four
grammatical tenses in his Spanish sample, (“me sentí, “estaban en Mexico”,
“quisieron que yo jugara con ellos” y “he aprendido”, while in his English
sample, he used only the present tense and the past simple tenses. He definitely shows greater language control
in Spanish, which is why I place him in the conventional L5 stage. He did, however, omit most of the accents in
his writing, a fact which has informed my instruction. We have been studying the accent rules for
the past month.
Writing Miscue Analysis
Jose,
surprisingly, showed no evidence of spelling approximations or code
switching. He is able to form fairly
complex sentences in English without borrowing vocabulary and without blending
except for his placement of periods, which I believe qualifies as copying as it
applies to punctuation.
It seems that Jose is confused about the
placement of periods, and I am theorizing that, as a Mexican who is used to
writing long sentences with dependent clauses and additive relationships, he
has been corrected and asked to shorten his sentences by inserting periods (in
his English writing.) His English essay
consists of three very long sentences (the last consisting of 43 words), while
his Spanish essay consists of six sentences (the longest of which was 89
words).
His
placement of periods indicates confusion in both languages. (“Cuando me mude de Mexico a Estados Unidos me senti
triste. Porque mis amigos estaban en Mexico.” “..cuando llegamos a los Estados
Unidos.Entre en un equipo de mexicanos…” When I came from Mexico to United
State.I was sad because my friends are in Mexico.” I am theorizing that his teachers’ entreaties
to write simpler, shorter sentences have resulted in confusion with regard to
punctuation in both languages.
Smith/Discourse
pattern: He also seems to have transferred his Spanish discourse style,
characterized by long, run-on sentences characterized by additive, explicative
and causal relationships, according to Smith) to English. (“Mi mejor amigo se llama Elviz y el me regalo un
balon de futbol que tanto queria y cuando llegamos a los Estados Unidos….” “And I was happy and when we came to
United State I played with a mexican team and then I played for another team
the problem is when…”).
While
Jose’s English writing is at the transitional stage, I have some useful data to
help form my instructional plan.
His
English and Spanish writing are both steadily progressing given that he had
step-by-step instruction in Newcomers (phonics and sight words, which then gave
way to reading 400 lexile books and writing essays). He is progressing simultaneously in Spanish
through DBE-Spanish Language Arts, where we focus heavily on reading, research
and writing.
Jose’s
confusion with regard to the placement of periods in both languages and the
related issue of discourse patterns in the respective languages will definitely
continue to inform my instruction. I have worked with him on these issues, and
I have seen improvement, but more practice is required.
Over
the domains of English, José is generally a 2-3 (according to the ACCESS
scale), while in his native/dominant Spanish, he is a 5-6. Practice and cross-language transfer continue
to be very important, as are the explicit and distinct features of each
language.
