«A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education in the Graduate Division of ...»
As with any study using qualitative methods, this study is susceptible to certain weaknesses. The subjects of interviews and the focus group may have responded to questions in ways that they thought I wanted them to. Students may have acted differently in classrooms and at El Molino because they knew they were being observed.
Because I am the parent of a former SI student from this program, teachers, administrators and students may have responded to me differently than they might have to someone not associated with the program. I attempted to mitigate these issues by adhering as closely as I could to a research plan and interview protocols, including asking the subjects the same interview questions.
Because this study focused on the particular problems of the Midville School District’s SI program, the findings may not be generalizable to other populations of students. It points to the need to carry out more research of this type in other TWI settings, and to consider other types of TWI programs, including ones that do extend from K-12th grade, to understand similar problems or questions raised in those environments.
“Not what you want to know for Spanish”: Language Learning and Use in the Lives of TWI Students By the time Midville’s TWI students reached high school, they were already thinking about where their language learning and use would take them, and considering future directions as Spanish speakers, and as speakers of other languages as well. Some were considering study abroad as an option in college, others envisioning Spanish as something to use for everyday purposes in conversing with other Spanish speakers, or in business or other employment settings. While some of them had absorbed the deficit view of their orthographic and grammatical errors, some rejected the view of language presented to them in high school World Language classes as unnatural and artificial, representing encapsulated school forms, like completing assignments for teachers and taking exams, or as Virginia put it “not what you want to know for Spanish” (Focus group, 5/5/09). Where they would go with and how they would use their two languages was not clear to them. Little, if any research has been done to test out the view of lifelong language learning and use, or the language ideologies and attitudes of former TWI students, so Mr. Foster’s and Ms. Gomez’s vision of students using language for pleasurable, socially responsible purposes long into the future may or may not be coming true in the lives of their and other former TWI students. It has been my impression that many parents of TWI students hope for them to love their second languages, and use them not only for instrumental purposes, for their own social and economic benefit, but for the benefit of their families, communities and society as a whole, as people whose horizons have been expanded, as Ms. Gomez said of the social consequences of her work.
As the number of TWI programs continues to grow, only time and much more research will tell whether this language policy project has the sort of social benefits so many hope for.
Epilogue: What Might the Future of the SI Middle School Program Be?
Though Midville School District personnel may have felt satisfied with the SI middle school Program Review process and the new program it led to, whether the program has improved is still up for debate.
Several factors point to the possibility that very little has changed in the new program, other than how the SI middle school classes are structured within the larger school structures. Indeed, the policy document drafted by the Program Review group pointed toward the continued dominance of the high school Spanish classes in determining the focus of the SI middle school program. Though the main middle school curriculum developers, Ms. Gomez, the fifth grade teacher, and Ms Fisher, the district administrator strongly defended and promoted the middle school’s literacy-based and elementary-TWI-oriented approach, Ms. Gomez explained to me in December 2010, that she believed that none of the middle school teachers fully implemented the curriculum.
Instead, given their training as Spanish language teachers, they tended to orient to a World Language model that prevailed in the high school classes. It is the case that there is some variation in how strongly they apply the World Language model but the bottom line is that the new approach did not take hold as Ms. Gomez and Ms. Fisher had hoped it would. The nature of language learning and use in the SI middle school classes continues to depend upon the ideologies of language learning and use held by the teachers.
A second factor in the long-term development of the SI middle school program was the loss of institutional memory (and, therefore, of understanding the nature of the historical crisis in the program) because of significant changes in administrative personnel. At the district level, Mr. Bell and Ms. Fisher retired in June 2009, having never seen the new program implemented. At the school level, Mr. Worth left as principal in June 2010, taking a position with the district as Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education; his role at the district level would potentially put him in touch with the middle school SI program, however, given the breadth of concerns at the district’s secondary school, and the relatively small size of the SI middle school program, his attention to the program could be easily overwhelmed. Even Mr. Foster, much to the surprise of his school community, left the principalship of Midville Elementary to take a position as principal at another elementary school in the district. These changes in many of the primary administrators who led the Program Review and were responsible for the SI Middle School Program implementation raise the question of what actions their replacements will take, and what ideologies of language learning and use might guide their decisions.
The personnel who have remained in place are the teachers, Ms. Gomez in the SI 5th grade class, Mr. Mann, in the Spanish Language AP class, and Mr. Sanchez and Ms.
Morelli at the middle school, joined by one of two new middle school teachers hired in
2010. Given the lack of resolution in their differing ideologies of language learning and use, the same conflicts potentially exist, and only time will tell if they will surface again.
In June 2011, Ms. Gomez invited me to come see what the SI teachers at Midville Elementary had developed for implementing K-5 assessment of students’ Spanish language development. Since Mr. Bell, who had been in charge of assessment efforts during the Program Review year, had left the district, it is easy to imagine that the language assessment effort was put aside temporarily. However, the SI teachers took up the challenge, and Ms. Gomez was enthusiastic about their efforts. She relayed, “We [teachers] are just itching to get this thing rolled out K-5 so that the parents and we, the teachers, have a better idea about where the students are with their oral language development and participation in Spanish” (electronic correspondence, 6/29/11). Given the historical conflict over the quality of the SI middle schoolers’ Spanish language knowledge and skills, the information they would gain from this effort would mean the power to be able to counter the deficit messages they have heard about their students.
In the end, all the same historical tensions exist between the Midville Spanish Immersion Program and the Midville High School World Language program. There is a strong possibility that another crisis will erupt in the future, especially since there is so little coherence across the school years surrounding the ideologies about what using and learning Spanish should look like in the lives of Midville students.
Alanis, I. (2000). A Texas two-way bilingual program: Its effects on linguistic and academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 225-248.
Amrein, A., & Peña, R. A. (2000). Assymetry in dual-language practice: Assessing imbalance in a program promoting equality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(8).
Arabbo, M. A. (2006). Why bother with immersion language proficiency assessment. The ACIE Newletter, 9(2).
Arce, J. (2000). Developing voices: Transformative education in a first-grade two-way Spanish immersion classroom, a participatory study. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 249-260.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.).
Austin, Texas: Univeristy of Texas Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Broner, M. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 493-525.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Introduction to language policy theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Carrigo, D. L. (2000). Just how much English are they using? Teacher and student language distribution patterns, between Spanish and English, in upper-grade, Two-way immersion Spanish classes. Unpublished Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Cazabon, M., Lambert, W. E., & Hall, G. (1993). Two-way bilingual education: A progress report on the amigos program (research report 3). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, D. C.: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Cummins, J. (1979). Language functions and cognitive processing. In J. P. Das, J. Kirby & R. F. Jarman (Eds.), Simultaneous and successive processing (pp. 175-185).
New York: Academic Press.
de Jong, E. J. (1996a). Integrating language minority education in elementary schools.
Unpublished Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
de Jong, E. J. (1996b). Integration: What does it mean for language minority students?
Paper presented at the National Association for Bilingual Education, Orlando, FL.
Delgado-Larroco, E. L. (1998). Classroom processes in a two-way immersion kindergarten classroom. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engestrom, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243-259.
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Freedman, S. W. (1994). Exchanging writing, exchanging cultures: Lessons in school reform from the united states and great britain. Cambridge, MA/London, England: NCTE/Harvard University Press.
Freedman, S. W. (1999). Inside city schools: Investigating literacy in multicultural classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Freeman, R. D. (1994). Language planning and language identity: An emergent understanding. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 10(1), 1-20.
Freeman, R. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, England:
Freeman, R. D. (2000). Contextual challenges to dual-language education: A case study of a developing middle school program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31(2), 202-229.
Garcia, P. A., Lorenz, E. B., & Robison, R. E. (1995). Reflections on implementing middle school immersion programs: Issues, strategies, and research. In R. T.
Donato, R. M. (Ed.), Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime (pp.?).
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Garrett, P. (2005). What language is good for: Language shift, language socialization and the persistence of code-specific genres in st. Lucia. Language in Society, 34(3), 327-361.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games can teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Gort, M. (2001). On the threshold of biliteracy: Bilingual writing processes of Englishdominant and Spanish-dominant first graders in a two-way bilingual education program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Gutierrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity:
Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303.
Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp.
24-43). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Horner, B., Lu, M.-Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Opinion: Language difference in writing: Towards a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303-321.
Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English only and U.S. college composition. College Composition and Communication, 53(4), 594-630.
Howard, E. R., Christian, D., & Genesee, F. (2003a). The development of bilingualism and biliteracy from grades 3-5: A summary of findings from the CAL/CREDE
study of two-way immersion education. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, D. C.:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence and Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2007). Realizing the vision of two-way immersion:
Fostering effective programs and classrooms (Vol. 5). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003b). Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of the research. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
Jackson, J. E. (2001). Thoughts behind the work: Teacher thinking and the implementation of a complex curricular innovation. Unpublished Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Kellman, S. G. (2003). Switching languages: Translingual writers reflect on their craft.
Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents' perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695-712.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate.
White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual-language education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2002). Impact of two-way immersion on students' attitudes toward school and college. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
McCollum, P. (1994). Language use in two-way bilingual programs. IDRA Newsletter, 21(2), 9-11.
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Moll, L. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
Montague, N. S., & Meza-Zaragoza, E. (1999). Elicited response in the pre-kindergarten setting with a dual language program: Good or bad idea? Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 2-3.
Montone, C., & Loeb, M. I. (2000). Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary schools (epr 5). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, D. C.: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Mora, J. K., Wink, J., & Wink, D. (2001). Dueling models of dual-language instruction:
A critical review of the literature and program implementation guide. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 417-442.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed. Vol. 16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Oxford:
Potowski, K. (2002). Languge use in a Spanish-English dual immersion classroom: A sociolingistic perspective. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Reddy, M. J. (1979/1993). The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284-324). Cambridge, England/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 13-20.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National Association of Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15-34.
Schiffman, H. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge.
Schiffman, H. (2003). Tongue-tied in Singapore: A language policy for Tamil? Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2, 105-126.
Schneider, K., & Jarmel, M. (Writer) (2009). Speaking in tongues. U.S.A.: Patchwork Files.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209-231.
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with "context" in interlanguage theory.
Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 190-204.
Shohamy, E. (2004). Expanding language policy; mechanisms affecting de facto language policies. In The hidden agenda of language policy (pp. 45-109).
Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Stein, M. (1997). Integrating language and content in an experiential setting: Focus-onform in the Spanish partial immersion program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University, Washtington, D.C.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sterponi, L. (2007). Clandestine interactional reading: Intertextuality and double-voicing under the desk. Linguistics and Education, 18, 1-23.
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 143-163.
Tarone, E. (2000a). Getting serious about language play: Language play, interlanguage variation, and SLA. Paper presented at the Interaction of social and cognitive factors in SLA: 1999 Second Language Research Forum, Somerville, MA.
Tarone, E. (2000b). Still wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182-198.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, D. C.: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391-429.
Valdés, G. (2004). The teaching of academic language to minority second language students. In S. W. Freedman & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 66-98). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wei, L. (2000). Dimensions of bilingualism. In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 3-25). London: Routledge.
Wright, M. W. (2001). More than just chanting: Multilingual literacies, ideology, and teaching methodologies in rural Eritrea. In B. V. Street (Ed.), Literacy and
development: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 61-77). London/New York:
Appendix A: Map of Ms. Gomez’s classroom, 1/13/09, with focal students
(All probe material is hypothetical and will be adapted to particular subjects being interviewed).
The purpose of this interview is to understand:
Fifth grade Spanish Immersion Teacher
• the goals for your two way immersion class, about
• how the curriculum and practices you are using fit into those goals and
• how you feel about students’ interactions with both target languages and the curriculum through which they are presented and which they mediate.
High School Spanish Language AP Teacher
• what you know about two way immersion education
• how you see TWI students fitting into your foreign language classroom
• what you see as the goals for your AP Spanish Language class (both those proceeding from the ETS and from your own philosophy)
• how you feel about students’ interactions with Spanish and the AP curriculum Administrators from Middle School Program Review
• the goals for a two way immersion program
• your understanding of the role of the middle school component in the program
• your understanding of the challenges facing the middle school program as it is reconstituted Your participation in this interview is voluntary and the contents of your responses will be kept strictly confidential.
I. Teaacher and Administrator background
a) All: How long, where and in what situations have you been teaching?
Probe: I know this is your _____ year at the elementary/middle/high school, and that you have/have not taught in the SI program before, but I don’t know the details of your teaching background.
b) Teachers: How did you become a bilingual/biliterate in Spanish?
Probe: I know that each of the teachers in the program has an interesting history with their first/second language.
Administrators: Tell me a bit about your own experience with language learning and teaching
c) All: What is your definition of being bilingual?
Probe: Theorists and researchers in bilingualism say that when we say we are bilingual, it’s not always clear what we mean. Tell me how you would define being bilingual.
II. Immersion Education
a) All: What do you see as the goals of two way language immersion education?
Probe: I know that you have had a lot of experience teaching language and other experience teaching in this program. How have you come to understand the purpose and goals of SI programs?
b) All: What are some ways you have seen this program change and/or develop since you first came to know it?
c) All: How do the goals of this immersion program compare with those you’ve experienced in teaching in other language arts/second language?
Probe: Tell me a bit about your experience in teaching language arts or foreign language.
e) All: Would you say ideal immersion teachers differ from ideal foreign language teachers? If so, how?
III. Foreign Language vs. Immersion Education
a) All: How do you feel that teaching the core curriculum in the target language affects the language learning that the kids do?
Probe: I know that immersion education is very different from traditional foreign language education and that many parents are happy that their kids are receiving core curriculum in Spanish.
b) All: Are there special ways in which using the core curriculum as the mechanism for learning Spanish supports language learning?
Probe: You have several years’ experience with this program in classes that focus on core curriculum rather than elective classes.
c) All: Are there any ways in which teaching core curriculum complicates/interferes with/prevents language learning?
d) All: What are some ways in which you feel a Spanish as a World Language class differs from a Spanish Immersion class in how it interacts with the target language? (aside from how knowledgable and experienced they are)
e) Teachers: What are some of the practices you have developed that you feel most benefit language development goals of the class?
Probe: I’ve noticed you’ve used a variety of classroom practices this semester.
f) Teachers: How have you developed those practices? Have other teachers been involved? Have you attended any special professional development events?
IV. Students and Language Performance
a) All: What are some of the ways you see students using Spanish/English either inside or outside the classroom?
Probe: I’ve been very interested in how and when students are using their English and Spanish in your classroom and would like to later find out how they are using it outside of it as well.
b) All: What are some of the ways you wish students would use Spanish/English in or out of class?
c) All: What are some of the experiences with language you wish students could have before they come into your class?
Probe: I’m sure that you’ve had some conversations with the elementary/middle school teachers about what they are doing in their classes and about students whom they have received from /are sending on to your class.
d) Teachers: What are some of the experiences with language that you try to encourage/enable in your class?
Administrators: What are some of the experiences with language that you think should be encouraged/enabled in SI students?
e) Spanish Immersion Teacher: What do you hope your students have learned or experienced before you send them on to high school Spanish classes?
Probe: What experience have you had with teaching/learning Spanish as a foreign language in the high school context?
f) Teachers: What do you feel the class I observed is doing particularly well in its use of Spanish? or English?
[All this could lead to a discussion of spoken Spanish/English so I also need to be prepared with questions about Spanish/English literacy if we don’t touch on it]
g) All: How do you think your students feel about becoming/being bilingual?
about being Spanish learners? about being English learners?
Probe: I am interested in how students of language develop identities around those languages.
i) Spanish Immersion Teacher/Administrators: What do you think are the main reasons kids would want to leave the program?
V. History of middle school program
Thanks for your participation in this interview. Do you have any questions for me?
Appendix F: Protocol for choosing talleres to observe at El Molino, Winter 2009 List of typical talleres offered each year with 2009 offerings
Rationale for choosing talleres to observe:
• Looking for a range of “spheres of human activity” or language domains in science/technology (producción de radio, biología), arts/handicrafts (alebrijes, deshilado, sombreros), domestic (cuidado de animales, deshilado).
• Domestic activities in which boys (cuidado de animales) and girls (deshilado) would be likely to participate.
• Looking for minimum of 2 boys, 2 girls as focal students.
Appendix G: Protocol for Spanish 4 AP Exam Focus Group Selection of subjects: Focus group will include any and all former Midville TWI students who take the AP exam in May 2009. Total of 14 students invited.
Recruitment will take place through their Spanish AP classes and through individual contact with researcher.
Subjects will be offered a pizza lunch/snack immediately following the Spanish 4 AP exam. (Had to change to after school because students are in class in the pm.) Researcher will make an effort to hear from as many students as possible, and be aware of the gender, ethnicity and language dominance of respondents. She will also ask whether group would prefer to conduct discussion in English, Spanish or both languages.
The one-hour group meeting will be video taped.
Preliminary questions for group:
1. Let’s discuss the exam that you just finished. In general, how was it? (looking for their general characterization of level of difficulty, probing for particular areas of interest, confusion, ease, difficulty.)
2. Then on to more specific areas of the exam:
a. What was the theme of the writing sections of the exam? Have you ever written about those subjects before? How did that writing compare with the writing you have done in your AP class? How did it compare with writing you have done in your middle school or elementary school TWI experience? What was difficult or easy for you in completing the writing?
b. What were the themes of the listening sections of the exam?
(dialogue/narrative) How familiar did you feel with that subject matter?
What was difficult or easy for you in completing that part of the exam?
c. What were the themes of the speaking sections of the exam? How familiar did you feel with that subject matter? What was difficult or easy for you in completing that part of the exam?
d. How about the language knowledge, grammar section of the exam? How did you feel your AP class prepared you for that section?
3. Let’s talk about the AP course you took this year.
a. Why did you all decide to take this course? What did you feel would be the benefit to you? (wondering if any will mention parents’ expectations) b. What were some of the highlights of the course for you?
c. What did you find particularly interesting?
d. What were some parts of the course that didn’t interest you as much?
e. How did you feel about your performance in the course as a former TWI student? How did you feel your experience with Spanish compared with that of the other students in the course?
f. I know the emphasis of the course is on grammar and composition—how well did you feel prepared for the course?
g. What difficulties did you have in understanding and learning about Spanish grammar?
h. How do you feel the language learning in this course compares with the language learning you were doing when you were a TWI student?
i. If a different kind of Spanish course had been offered to you, one that focused less on grammar and more on reading, writing, speaking about some specific subject matter, would you have been interested in taking it?
What sort of subject matter would you have been interested in?
4. Now let’s go back in time to talk about your experience at a TWI student.
a. What do you recall as some of the highlights of your experience in middle school TWI? In elementary school? (both social and academic) b. Tell me about a writing assignment that stands out in your memory. Why was it an important assignment to you?
c. Tell me about your reading habits in middle and elementary school in both your languages. What’s a Spanish-language book that stands out to you?
d. What important experiences in social studies and science do you recall?
Were those experiences in which you used Spanish or English?
e. In TWI education, students learn IN and ABOUT two languages at once.
Can someone tell a story about a time when you felt you were really learning in or about either language?
f. What are some of the things you think you learned about using Spanish and English in elementary and middle school?
g. What do you wish you could do better with either of your languages now?
h. How do you imagine using your two languages in the future (college or beyond)?
Will finally collect contact information for all students to follow up with future online survey after high school graduation.
Appendix H: “Leer es Pensar”
VIVIR EN EL CUENTO
• Visualizar y Hacer una Película en tu Mente
• Conexión Personal
• Reacción Emocional
• Predecir ENTENDER
• Detective de Palabras
• Resumir las Acciones Principales Continuamente
• Recolectar información importante
• Conexión T-Texto o T-Información General
• Inferencias ANALIZAR
• Caractarísticas de los Personajes
• Conexión T-Temas Universales
• Componentes de Cuentos (Escenario, Enganche, Problem Central etc.)
• Estilo de Autor (Cuento dentro de Cuento, Prefigurar, Metáforas, etc.)
• Opinión APLICAR
• Ahora pienso/siento diferente de… Lo que leí y aprendí me inspira a hacer… • Appendix I: Betsy’s List of books by genre