Chapters 2 and 3

I was very surprised to learn that Great Britain and the United States have such a different approach for helping ELL students.  What was even more interesting was the very same rationale was used to validate both approaches.  In the U.S. we  favor pull out programs in the United States (hence the reasoning for needing a TESOL endorsement).  Our programs focus on language and disregard the social aspect of pulling these students out of class.  In Great Britain they argue that pull out classes create social barriers.   I think the approach used in our district works great.  I of course have never seen another program in action.  So now I have this lingering question:  What is better for ELL students pull out or support in the classroom?  Would the students have enough support staying in the classroom?  What would an ELL teacher do to support the students in the classroom? 

Gee (2004) argues that teaching and learning language and literacy is not just about teaching and learning English but also about teaching and learning specific social languages.  Gee also talks about not just learning language but learning the differences in Discourses.  My question is:  How is this taught in the regular education classroom without pulling out?  Right now these are the kinds of things taught in ELL pull out.  There are many things of this nature where native English speaking students understand, but a new speaker of English would not.

Bokhorst-Heng and McKay found that, “teachers cast these students’ ability to communicate in two languages not as a special talent or strength but rather as a disability”.  I think this is a very accurate finding.  I do not think being multilingual is always used to its greatest potential.  How can we change this perception of our ELL students?  How can we support our mainstream teachers to change their attitudes?

Bokhorst-Heng and McKay also learned there is a general belief in some societies that English will provide access to higher education, government, and the national and global economies.  With this knowledge many countries are emphasizing English instruction in their educational institutions.  Many times the teachers have low level English proficiency.  The students also have varying purposes for learning English.  These different purposes for learning English seem to drive the involvement of the students.  With low incentive for learning English; students will achieve a low level of proficiency.  Also if students are only given drill activities and no opportunities to use the language, they will not attain a level of proficiency.  It seems that it’s not simply teaching “English” that allows students to gain proficiency.  The type of teaching makes a large difference.  Are these countries that are mandating English really providing a service to their students?  What changes can be made to enhance learning?