MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2992834693

Implementing and Maintaining a Dual Language Program: The Nuts and Bolts of a Pathway to Academic Excellence

2016· article· en· W2992834693 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Audrey Figueroa Murphy

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œDelta Kappa Gamma bulletin · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)EllDual languageBilingual educationExcellenceLatin AmericansFirst languageSociologyPolitical scienceMathematics educationComputer scienceLinguisticsLibrary sciencePedagogyHistoryPsychologyTeaching methodLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dual Language: A Valuable and Achievable GoalIn recent years, the Dual Language (DL) or two-way bilingual program model has been implemented in an increasing number of U.S. schools (Padilla, Fan, Xu, & Silva, 2013; Shannon & Milian, 2002; Soltero, 2004; Torres-Guzman, Kleyn, Morales-Rodriguez, & Han, 2005). Although many of these schools serve populations that include high concentrations of English language learners (ELLs), others simply subscribe to the notion that this model provides an outstanding opportunity for some or all students to develop skills authentically in two languages and to improve their overall academic achievement by working cooperatively with others and by using both languages to learn academic content. In fact, DL programs have flourished for decades outside the United States, particularly in countries where two languages are widely or officially used, such as Canada and several of the European Union countries (Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri, 2005; Lessow-Hurley, 2000). Dual language schools also prosper in Latin America, with prominent examples including the Torres campus of El Instituto Ovalle Monday in Mexico; El Colegio Bolivar in Cali, Colombia; and the Argentinian programs known as doble escolaridad (double schooling), in which instructors use both English and Spanish to teach all classes (Freeman et ah, 2005). In Asia, countries with many languages represented within their borders, such as India (Lessow-Hurley, 2000) and China (Kong, Hoare, & Chi, 2011), have also implemented DL programs.In the U.S. context, DL programs make it possible for native English speakers and speakers of other languages to develop bilingual literacy, learn from each other, and learn academic content in a cooperative, academically rigorous setting. Moreover, research suggests that this experience has a positive impact on growth and achievement for members of both groups (Esposito & Baker-Ward, 2013; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Takahashi-Breines, 2002). Given this evidence of success and their growing popularity worldwide, many educators and administrators are expressing interest in implementing DL classes. Nevertheless, the task may seem daunting to those who lack knowledge of the nuts and bolts of operating such a program. Here, I seek to demystify the process, as well as to explain why launching and maintaining a DL program is a valuable and achievable goal for almost all districts and schools.Bilingual Education: The Models and the ResearchFor many years, the most prevalent form of bilingual education for ELLs in U.S. schools was the early exit or transitional model. Under this approach, once a student had become proficient in the second language (L2), he or she was placed in a monolingual class and received no further instruction in his or her first language (LI). However, evidence has been mounting that there are academic advantages not only to developing skills in two languages, but also to continuing bilingual/biliterate development (Corson, 1993; Cummins & Danesi, 1990; Magruder, Hayslip, Espinosa, & Matera, 2013; Rodriguez, 2015; Veliyeva, 2015). In addition, researchers have shown that LI and L2 literacy are strongly related in childhood L2 learners, as the development of literacy skills in both languages represents the mastery of common underlying principles (Atwill, Blanchard, Gorin, & Burstein, 2007; Cummins, 1984; Leikin, 2013; Verhoeven, 2007; Zhang, Anderson, Li, Dong, Wu, & Zhang, 2010). Thus, continuing to provide such learners with instruction in the LI not only supports proficiency in that language but also serves to promote conceptual development and academic understanding that can be transferred to facility in learning and using the L2 (Cummins & Schecter, 2003; Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013; Martin-Beltran, 2009). In short, strategies taught in two or more languages serve to contribute positively not only to the acquisition of the L2, but to a students overall academic development as well. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,904
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,252
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œDelta Kappa Gamma bulletinMême sujetSecond Language Learning and TeachingTravaux en français237 207