Click to listen to this session: Asian_Interest_Forum_language_and_literacy.mp3
Facilitator: Sandy Baba, Professional Development Manager for WestEdÕs
Center for Child and Family Studies (CCSF) E3 Institute.
Lisa Lee, MA, Director of Training and Technical Assistance, Preschool
for All San Francisco First 5 San Francisco Children and Families Commission
lisa@first5sf.org
Jerry Yang, Ph.D., Executive Director with Kai Ming Head Start,
Chinatown, director@kaiming.org
I-Fang Lee. Ph.D., School of Education, University of Newcastle,
Australia (at a distance), i-fang.lee@newcastle.edu.au
Lisa
Supporting Dual Language and Literacy Learning in Preschool for All
1.
SF has universal preschool funded by Proposition
H.
a.
3200 children (4800 Kdgn in SF)
b.
42.2% at Kdgn speak more than one language at home
c.
83% of Kdgn have been to preschool. 89% of Asian
d.
65% speak a language other than English
e.
39% Spanish
f.
Cantonese 37%
g.
Vietnamese 3%
h.
Tag 3%
i.
Mandarin 2%
j.
16% linguistically isolated families
k.
240 preschool classrooms
i. 4 Mandarin immersion 2 private
serving middle- and upper-class families
ii. 3 Cantonese heritage cultural
and linguistic appreciation
iii. 30 home language and English
dual language learning
iv. Vast majority English dominant
w possible DLL support
2.
Exposure to preschool increased the risk of language loss
(Lily Wong Fillmore),
a.
Bilingual children demonstrate higher levels of mental
flexibility and cognitive abilities compared to monolingual children.
b.
Early bilingual exposure does not negatively impact the
linguistic, cognitive, or literacy development of young children.
c.
Studies consistently show that the native language acts as a
foundation upon which a second language is built.
3.
Equality doesnÕt mean Justice. How do we deliver on the
promise of a quality education to our immigrant dual language-learning
children? Universal preschool in SF: ÒLanguage loss should not be on our watch.Ó
4.
Becoming bilingual but not necessarily bilterate in the 21st
century.
5.
What does it take? What are we learning? (Lack of Chinese
print materials for American context)
a.
Core beliefs to support DLLs
b.
Ongoing assessment in L1 & L2
c.
Differentiated tools and supports for teachers & coaches
d.
Resources for classrooms with DLL lens
e.
International language plans for L1, L2, L3
f.
Family Engagement
6.
Focus on emergent literacy skills by creating literacy-rich
environments and nurturing relationships. From perspective of constructivist
learning theory, the process of effective literacy is that children actively
engageÉ
7.
Connect their own previous experiences to the stories or
pictures in written language in L1.
a.
Example: Shoe Project (JerryÕs project. Vygotsky 1978. Make
sense of written language and use it.
8.
Workforce linguistic diversity goals and policies:
a.
Linguistic diversity in the workforce does not ensure
bilingual children.
b.
Strategic use of language is generally absent and undeniably
important.
9.
Training Requirement and opportunities.
a.
Educator knowledge and skills is putting your toe in the
water
b.
All teachers matter. All directors matter. FAMILIES matter
c.
This is not only about strategies. Changing practice takes
time.
10. Training for coaches. Bilingual
Assessors. Resources for Classrooms
a.
We are transforming a system
b.
Academically bilinguals are a rare species
c.
ERS and CLASS are not made for DLLs
11. Focus on Equity for children
and families
a.
Never negate the social and political conÉ.work
b.
The personal is professional. The sticking.. is about
transforming but how we feel, believe and act.
12. Global Reflection on L1 and l2
Learning
a.
Common and uncommon goals
a.
China is starting English as early as preschool.
b.
China expects literacy in English
c.
Value of L1, Value of L2
b.
Social and political realities
13. Challenges for teachers when
issues of power and language arise?
c.
What language is used for positive feedback?
d.
What language is used for discipline?
e.
When cleaning the tables, etc.
14. Next steps: intentional dual
language immersion programs
f.
Developing the language plan for 10 preK DLL classrooms
a.
Identify the specific language and cultures of children and
families in each classroom
b.
Establishing language and literacy goals (for every language
in the classroom)
c.
Strategic use of primary language
d.
Choosing the model for organizing language usage in each
classroom (teacher-based or time-based)
Jerry Yang, www.kaiming.org
1.
Kai Ming Head Start provides Free school
services.
a.
33% Asian, 21.4 Chinese
b.
White 48.5%
c.
African American 6.1%
d.
Hispanic 12%
e.
Others 9%S
2.
Kai Ming = Òinspiration enlightenmentÓ
a.
Ethnicity
i. Asian 91.8%
ii. African American 1.1
iii. White 0.3
iv. Multi-racial 1.8%
v. Other 5%
b.
Primary language
i. Chinese 83.9
ii. English 11.1
iii. Spanish 3.2
iv. Middle Eastern 1.4%
c.
Family income 2012-13
i. Below 100% fed poverty below
23,050 80%
ii. 100-130% < 30K 12%
iii. Over 130% 6%
iv. Public assistance 5%
d.
Staff
i. FT 68%
ii. Cultural background
1.
Chinese 86%
2.
Filipino 5%
3.
Caucasian 7%
4.
Black 2%
iii. Education
1.
Grad 11
2.
BA 21
3.
AA 9
4.
Below AA 59
3.
Chinese TeacherÕs Belief survey (N=32)
a.
I am bringing my cultural value from home to teach children
or work with families (high percentage)
b.
I want my students to maintain their diverse cultural
heritage 93.9
c.
I want students to learn skills that lead them to succeed in
Caucasian culture (high percentage)
d.
The purpose of school education to cultivate children moral
development (high percentage)
e.
The purpose of school education is to foster academic
excellence (least)
f.
The purpose of school education is to encourage freedom and
individualism (right in the middle)
4.
Curriculum. Multi-culturally competent pedagogy (in
development, searching for best model)
a.
Learn skills in order to be successful in the US
b.
Maintain their home culture
c.
Language acquisition is affected by many factors. From the
program operation perspective, we focus on social context.
5.
Philosophy
a.
Educational Philosophy (7 points drafted for staff input)
b.
Parent involvement philosophy
6.
Chinese-English bilingual assessment tool. None available
(lots in Spanish). Collaborating with U Colorado Dr. Pui Fong Kan on assessment
and Dual language learning pedagogy
7.
DRDP CaliforniaÕs Desired Results Development Profile.
DOMAIN: Language and Literacy Dev.
a.
ELD1 Comprehension of English (receptive English)
b.
ELD2 Self-expression in English (expressive English)
c.
ELD3 Understanding and response to English literacy
activities
d.
ELD4 Symbol, letter, and print knowledge in English
I-Fang Lee
1.
Global childhoods: becoming literate in the 21st
a.
PISA 2009
(announced in 2010) literacy Tests done in L1
b.
Shanghai 556 in first place
c.
Korea
d.
Finland
e.
HK
f.
Singapore
g.
Canada 524
h.
NZ
i.
Japan 520
j.
Australia 51
k.
É
l.
US 50
m.
Taipei 495
2.
What PISA tells us
a.
How students performed in assessment domains: literacy,
math, science, core 15 years old
b.
Provides regular info on educational outcomes within and
across countries
c.
Provides insight into range of skills and competencies in
different assessment domains
d.
ItÕs a measure of average performance (what they do and what
they know)
3.
What PISA does not and cannot tell us
a.
CanÕt tell how different countries conceptualizing pedagogical
considerations
4.
Project background: investigating what experiences of
childhood across six geopolitical spaces in Asia look like.
a.
Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong
b.
Initial focus point is Literacy
c.
Ethnographic approach to describe childrenÕs contemporary
lives.
5.
Key research questions
a.
How is literacy located in school curriculum? (h m credit
hours)
b.
In what ways is literacy taught and practiced in local
schools?
c.
What do parents and teachers regard as their role in
children becoming literate?
d.
What does literacy teaching look like in schools and
classrooms?
e.
What literacy practices do children engage withÉ contexts?
f.
How do home and school literacy practices intersect?
g.
How do literacy learning activities shape children
6.
Literacy has different meanings. In English read &
write. In China, read, write, and become civilized.
7.
Some cultural observations and notes
a.
Multiple teachers of different subject areas (English
teacher Mandarin/Putonghua teacher)
b.
Strict timetable
c.
Textbooks
d.
Worksheets/homework
e.
A typical question from the ÒwestÓ What about ÒplayÓ in
early childhood education? How is play interpreted in HK?
f.
Cultural dimensions and interpretationÉ ÒPlayÓ Éand the
notion of ÒstructuredÓ play.
g.
Observed > 300 students in-service teachers in HK.
Timetable very common. Highly structured. 15 to 30 minutes. I-Fang finds it too
short, too many changes, hurry up, moving
8.
How literacy is defined in Hong Kong
a.
Formal reading (encoding) and writing (decoding)
b.
Biliteracies (Chinese and English) and trilingual
(Cantonese, Putonghua, English)
c.
Understanding the links between oral language (Cantonese)
and written language (traditional Chinese)
d.
Becoming literate by drill and practice starts at young age
e.
Mastering the languages through using the classrooms with
different language teacher. (medium of instruction)
9.
How is Chinese taught and learned?
a.
Oral (Cantonese) vs. Written language (traditional forms of
characters)
b.
Formal writing vs. reading
c.
Meaning making vs. copying forms
d.
Cantonese vs. Putonghua
10. How is English taught and
learned?
a.
Listening vs. Speaking
b.
Memorizing words vs. meaning making
c.
Phonics (pronunciation and spellings) hooked on phonics Vs.
Using the language for communication and meaning making
11. Vignette: Morning routine for
the five-year children
a.
On the whiteboard, three items have been listed as the
homework
i. Chinese: Hong Kong has a lot of
houses.
ii. English: it is a frog (No
connection between Chinese and English)
iii. Arithmetic: 1-5
12. Complexities and dimensions of
multiliteracies and multi-languages in childrenÕs life worlds
a.
Binary construction of formal and informal literacies and
languages
b.
Political and cultural status of the biliteracy and
trilingualism in and out of school settings
c.
Dichotomies of life worlds (school vs. home)
d.
Academic formal but narrowed) notions of xxx (reading and
writing rather than meaningÉ)
e. A focus on academic achievement
rather than É language(s) as the tools of the mind