Microsoft Word Pub Series 004 # Kamil doc

 

 

15

to L2 learners is that children need to develop oral proficiency in L2 first before they can be 

taught to read and write in their L2. In many elementary classrooms, it has been observed that 

virtually no teaching of reading and writing in L2 occurs while oral and listening skills are 

emphasized (e.g., Durgunoglu, 1998). The focus on oral language in the early elementary grades 

is also evident in the basal reading materials that are commonly used in instruction (Garcia, 

Montes, Janisch, Bouchereau, & Consalvi, 1993). Furthermore, oral language proficiency is 

usually used as the main criterion for redesignating a student in transitional bilingual programs. 

It might be counterintuitive to propose teaching reading to children who are not yet able 

to speak the language, but the situation is somewhat different for children who are already literate 

in their L1 or minimally have had some print exposure and literate experiences in L1. However, 

research has not been able to determine the degree to which children need to be literate in their L1 

before they can benefit from L2 reading instruction while they are developing L2 oral 

proficiency. While oral proficiency does affect reading in any language, we do not know what 

level of oral proficiency is needed before children can benefit from L2 reading instruction. What 

we do know is that a single measure of oral proficiency by itself is not a sufficiently accurate 

indicator of readiness to read in the target language (L2). Researchers have found that other 

variables, such as phonological awareness and word recognition skills, are better predictors of 

young children’s reading in either L1 or L2 (Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Geva, Wade-Woolley, & 

Shany, 1993; Verhoeven, 1994). One possible reason is that it is difficult to measure accurately 

young children’s receptive linguistic knowledge. 

 

Model 2: Support L1 literacy while developing L2 skills 

The second model grows out of the literature on language transfer and is often referred to 

as the knowledge transfer model. It is believed that teaching children to read, write, and learn 

content in L1 will help them develop cognitively, as they are developing L2 skills. Late exit 

bilingual education programs normally adopt this approach. This model of instruction, like the 

---

 

 

16

first, is still predicated on transitioning children to L2 eventually. The main difference is that 

children’s content and conceptual knowledge is being developed through their dominant language 

(L1) while they are in the process of acquiring their L2. The rationale for this is that providing 

continuing instruction through students’ native language will ensure that they do not fall behind 

their English-speaking peers in subject matter knowledge. Their English-speaking peers are in 

fact continuously developing more language skills and acquiring new knowledge. It is believed 

that once students develop English proficiency, concepts and skills learnt in L1 can be 

transferred. However, Chamot and O’Malley (1996) point out that such transfer may not take 

place automatically without instruction. Many programs place more emphasis on developing L2 

oral proficiency than on L2 literacy skills. In fact, L2 oral proficiency is often used as the main or 

only criterion for exiting a student. In this respect, this model resembles the first model described 

above.  

 

Model 3: Maintain L1 while developing L2 language and literacy 

This model is also known as the interdependency model. In this model, most aptly 

exemplified by the two-way immersion bilingual program, the emphasis is on maintaining L1 

language and literacy skills while developing L2 skills. The underlying premise is that there is an 

interdependent relationship between L1 and L2 language and literacy (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; 

Cummins, 1979; Verhoeven, 1994). Instruction is given in both languages throughout the 

program, with balanced bilingualism as the ultimate goal—that is, proficiency in both L1 and L2. 

Some researchers (e.g., Cazabon, Nicoladis, & Lambert, 1998) have called this type of education 

a case of additive bilingualism, as opposed to subtractive bilingualism, whereby children’s L1 is 

gradually replaced by their L2, which is usually the dominant language of society. It is argued 

that additive bilingualism leads to better academic achievement because it gives due recognition 

to children’s native language and culture, and in so doing, strengthens their self-concept and 

sense of achievement (see Lambert, 1974). The French immersion programs in Canada, where 

---

 

 

17

English-speaking children are given instruction primarily in L2 (French), are normally 

characterized as additive bilingualism. The reason is that the children’s L1, English, is the 

dominant and prestige language of the wider society. Hence, it is in no danger of being replaced 

by the L2. In one study of U.S. bilingual education (Thomas & Collier, 1997), the authors 

concluded that two-way bilingual programs were more likely to lead to long-term academic 

success than other types of bilingual programs. They analyzed the data for children from middle-

income and low-income homes separately, and found similar trends for both groups. 

 

Model 4: Develop L2 literacy explicitly 

This approach, a modified version of the interdependency model, mainly provides 

explicit and systematic instruction in reading skills, and builds on children’s knowledge, bilingual 

ability, and L1 literacy skills. Padron (1994) noted in a comparative study of reading instruction 

in elementary schools with predominantly Hispanic/LEP students and other inner-city schools 

that the major activities taking place in both settings were watching and listening. Passive 

instruction in whole-class settings was observed in both settings; but in the predominantly 

Hispanic/LEP schools, the students did more watching and listening than in the other inner-city 

schools with ethnically diverse students. She also noted that students in the observed reading 

classes did very little reading. An ethnographic (Valdes, 2001) study of middle-school bilingual 

students learning English also noted that little reading took place during reading instruction. 

What does systematic and explicit instruction mean? It means teaching by focusing on 

those skills and knowledge that all children need in order to learn how to read, and to teach them 

in meaningful contexts (Delpit, 1995). In addition to focused and contextualized instruction, 

attention needs to be paid to the teaching and modeling of cross-linguistic strategies, such as 

cognate recognition, translation, and code-switching. We know that these are skills that are 

unique to bilinguals and that good bilingual readers use them (Jimenez, Garcia, et al., 1996). In 

essence, instruction seeks to utilize students’ linguistic and literacy knowledge in L1 as resources 

---