Stacey Washburn offers strategies to increase bilingual proficiency and biliteracy in dual language programs
Imagine getting ready for the return of your students from PE to Spanish Language Arts. A few minutes later, they enter your classroom, chatting to one another as they take their seats. What language do you hear?
Imagine reviewing standardized assessment materials in preparation for testing your second-grade Mandarin Chinese dual language students. What language do you see?
Imagine reading an informational text related to a science unit you are teaching during French instructional time. Pausing for comprehension checks, you prompt your students to turn and talk prior to sharing with the whole class. What language do they use?
If you answered “English” to the questions above, you are not alone. Like me, you recognize that, even in additive bilingual/ dual language programs dedicated to the goal of bilingualism and biliteracy, English receives more attention than the partner language (Morita-Mullaney et al., 2022). Besides being the prioritized language inside of school, English is also prioritized outside of school. In fact, the shift toward monolingualism for emerging bilinguals can begin as early as preschool due to social pressure, English association with economic opportunities, and social media influence (Surrain, 2018; Winnes, 2022).
Dual language student proficiency outcomes seem to reflect this imbalance of influence and attention to English over the partner language. Research consistently demonstrates that dual language students perform as well as or better than their monolingually educated peers on English measures of achievement (Thomas and Collier, 2004; Genessee and Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Morales, 2024). Research also demonstrates, however, that dual language students’ partner language proficiency is lower than expected (Tedick and Fortune, 2015) and characterized by grammatical errors and lexical insufficiencies (Tedick and Lyster, 2020).
Despite the need to increase partner language proficiency, it remains challenging in an education system and society that favors English (Morita-Mullaney et al., 2022). It is, however, possible. In the remainder of this article, I want to ex-plain why low levels of proficiency in the partner language are problematic; how my colleague, Lilah Ambrosi, and I increased partner language proficiency; and the resulting impact for students and teachers.
Background
As school leaders in two of the first dual language programs in our region, Lilah and I began collaborating in the early 2000s. With limited resources available in our area to support dual language education, our collaboration provided us an outlet for sharing ideas and solving problems. Though both of our programs were considered “successful” given that students were performing as well as (or better than) their mainstream peers on state standardized assessments in English, we had concerns about the levels of proficiency our students were attaining in the partner language.
We had learned from programs further articulated than our own that student proficiency growth stagnated in late elementary and middle school. And most students’ productive skills only reached intermediate-low to mid levels of proficiency. That meant students were able to “write short, simple communications, compositions, or requests for information in loosely connected texts… about… personal topics.” And that their writing, as well as speech, consisted “of discrete sentences that are loosely strung together with little evidence of deliberate organization” (ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 2024, p. 17).
This level of proficiency would not allow students to produce the partner language in ways that aligned with grade-level expectations at the secondary level. Clearly, students only capable of producing “short, simple communications” using sentences that were “loosely strung together” and disorganized would be ill-equipped to “Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.2). Unable to keep pace linguistically with the cognitive demands required by more complex academic requirements, students would need to be placed in traditional world language classes. Doing so would call into question whether or not we were still providing students with a dual language immersion experience at the secondary level (Tedick and Lyster, 2020). Furthermore, it would send a message about the efficacy of dual language programming if students who had received partner language instruction throughout the primary grades were placed in the same classes with those who hadn’t. Above all else, however, we were concerned that by accepting different academic expectations for English than for the partner language, we would be perpetuating the very message we had hoped to change: English has more value than other languages.
It was this realization that shaped the next two decades of our work. Beyond the cognitive, social, and potentially economic benefits of high levels of bilingualism (Tedick and Lyster, 2020), we wanted our students to recognize the inherent value not only of languages other than English but also of the people who spoke them. Ultimately, we believed dual language programming that prioritized the development of minoritized languages in the US could foster more equitable practices in dual language education and promote global empathy, the ability to understand and relate to linguistically and culturally diverse people.
The Hypothesis
Increasing partner language proficiency to reach more parity with English would require overemphasizing or prioritizing the partner language to counteract the value placed on English. To test our hypothesis, we began implementing practices that prioritized the partner language.
Practices That Prioritize the Partner Language
Increase Instructional Time in the Partner Language
First, we increased instructional time in the partner language. We knew that doing so would improve bilingual proficiency outcomes without negatively impacting English development (Collier and Thomas, 2004; Tedick and Fortune, 2015; Morita-Mullaney, 2022). We delayed the introduction of formal English instruction until midway through third grade, providing all literacy and content instruction in the partner language. We also increased instructional time in the partner language in third through eighth grades. The firm foundation in partner language literacy and increased instructional time in the partner language resulted in students being able to keep pace with the academic content in the higher grade levels at no cost to English development.
Implement a Partner Language Policy and Timeline
With sufficient instructional time in the partner language, we turned our attention to protecting it from “English take-over.” Our observations made us aware that despite teachers’ best efforts, it was difficult to encourage sustained use of the partner language. During small-group work or when a teacher wasn’t directly involved with the interaction, students used English.
Knowing that language production was key to developing not only oral language proficiency but also literacy skills (Kowal and Swain, 1997; Pannell et al., 2017), we decided to implement a part-ner language policy and timeline (PLPT). The purpose of the policy was not only to protect partner language instructional time but also to encourage use of the partner language for academic and social interaction. The timeline explains at what point in a given grade level students would be expected to use the partner language with their teachers and then also with their peers.
To implement the PLPT, we worked with teachers to develop a series of lesson plans that encouraged student buy-in and commitment to the partner language. While one lesson introduced the whole-class incentive plan for partner language use, another explained strategies such as circumlocution that students could rely on to communicate unknown words. To support implementation, we also explained the PLPT to families and English-speaking colleagues in the building. Once they understood why it was important to protect partner language instructional time, they happily relied on the “key phrases charts” we had hung outside of class-rooms to help them communicate in the partner language.
When the PLPT was fully implemented, teachers no longer had to remind students to use the partner language in class. It was simply the expectation. In fact, students even used the partner language outside of class in the hallways and during recess. A study conducted by one of my teachers on student outcomes pre-and post-PLPT implementation also revealed that students in the post-PLPT implementation group were more likely than students in the pre-PLPT implementation group to choose reading materials in the partner language outside of school. Increased student output, according to this same study, also positively impacted reading gains, not only in the partner language, but also in English (Koop and Vanden Bosch, 2012).
Though we deeply appreciate and respect the need for culturally and linguistically sustaining pedagogies such as translanguaging, we advocate for partner language instructional time that is completely English free. Because it is important for students to make connections between their languages of instruction, however, we suggest that translanguaging pedagogies take place during time allocated for
English instruction.
Focus on Language Throughout Content Instruction
Once students were extensively producing the partner language, we considered how to improve accuracy, an important component of proficiency. To do so, we turned to the research on counterbalanced instruction (Lyster 2007; Tedick and Lyster, 2020). Counter-balanced instruction encourages students to shift their attention between academic content (meaning) and language features during classroom discourse. According to Lyster and Tedick (2020), “The effort expended to shift attention between form and meaning increases depth of processing and develops students’ metalinguistic awareness” (p. 81). Depth of processing is important because it allows students to move new information from short- to long-term memory (Lyster, 2024). Metalinguistic awareness is important because it helps students find language patterns while speaking, reading, and writing (Tedick and Lyster, 2020).
We quickly learned, however, that it was difficult and time consuming for teachers to identify which language features students should attend to and when. To address this, we developed a partner language scope and sequence that highlighted and defined what language features to focus on each week from preschool through eighth grade. To complement the resource, we created an “introduce→notice→practice→produce” cycle of instruction based on Tedick and Lyster’s counterbalanced instructional cycle (2020) so teachers would know how to integrate language and content instruction. So, for example, after noticing possessive adjectives in math story problems, teachers might then show students a story problem with the possessive adjectives removed and help students fill in the blanks. After noticing and practicing possessive adjectives in math, teachers would then move into the produce phase of instruction. To encourage students to produce the language feature in more open-ended ways, teachers might ask students to then write their own story problems and monitor students’ use of possessive adjectives.
Implementing weekly language targets and consistent counterbalanced pedagogy within and across grade levels was transformative. Not only were students producing more language because of the PLPT, they were analyzing language and engaging in metalinguistic reflection (Pannell et al., 2017). Talking about the partner language as they used the partner language to navigate academic content was contributing to their overall proficiency (LaPierre, 1994).
Furthermore, our teachers breathed a collective sigh of relief. For the first time, they knew what language features were being addressed each week in every classroom. That made it easier for them to plan for instruction and collaborate within and across grade levels. Besides supporting effective planning time and collaboration, implementing consistent language targets and pedagogy empowered our teachers. Instead of feeling confused about which language features to focus on and how to make it happen while also being responsible for teaching subject content matter, they knew exactly what to do.
Provide Effective Corrective Feedback
Adopting consistent language targets and counterbalanced pedagogy across grade levels made it easier to also adopt the practice of providing corrective feedback (CF)—teacher responses to errors during oral interaction (Lyster, 2024). Having had many opportunities to observe in classrooms, we noticed a reluctance on the part of teachers to correct any student errors during oral communication. When questioned, teachers explained they didn’t want to interrupt the flow of communication or damage their students’ self-esteem by pointing out errors.
To address their concerns, we explained that CF was not about preventing language errors but about providing feedback students needed while testing their hypotheses about which language forms to use during communication. And the most effective CF encouraged students to correct their own errors (Lyster, 2024). To support teachers, we shared examples of prompts that would lead to student self-repair. A favorite of everyone became to simply raise an eyebrow and say, “Hmmm, I don’t understand. Try again.”
As teachers implemented CF to support counterbalanced instruction, they were amazed by their students’ ability to self-correct. Teachers also reported that, almost unintentionally, they had modeled for their students how to provide effective corrective feedback to one another as well. So, during small-group time, they noticed their students lifting eyebrows and making comments such as “try again, please.” Consistently providing CF created a class-room culture that valued and supported “comprehensible output” (Swain, 1985). It also sent the message to students that growth in the partner language was being monitored and attended to by their teachers.
Though this is not an exhaustive list of the practices we implemented to prioritize the partner language, these practices were pivotal in increasing levels of partner language proficiency so that students were able to meet grade-level expectations, reach high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy, and continue to perform on English measures of achievement. Since those early years, Lilah and I have had the privilege of further developing our approach and sharing it with educators around the country. Though it is satisfying to hear from educators that students are reaching higher levels of bilingual proficiency as a result of the approach, it is not what inspires us to continue our work. What inspires us is the hope that by increasing our expectations for bilingualism and biliteracy, we take a positive step toward righting the inequities in education that privilege English and those who speak it.
References
Alt, M., Arizmendi, G. D., & DiLallo, J. N. (2016). The Role of Socioeconomic Status in the Narrative Story Retells of School-Aged English Language Learners. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 47(4), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0036
Boyle, A., August, D., Tabaku, L., Cole, S., & Simpson-Baird, A. (2015). Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Dual Language Education Programs: Current State Policies and Practices, Washington, D.C., 2015.
Buckingham, Jennifer; Wheldall, Kevin; & Beaman-Wheldall, Robyn. (2013). Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 190-213. doi.org/10.1177/0004944113495500
De La Rosa, Shawna. (2020, May 26). Districts seek distance ed ELL improvement ahead of fall. https://www.k12dive.com/news/districts-seek-distance-ed-ell-improvement-ahead-of-fall/578563/
Fortune, T.W., & Tedick, D.J. (2015). Oral proficiency development of English proficient K-8 Spanish immersion students. Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 637-655. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12275.
Kearney, Melissa S., and Phillip B. Levine. 2019. “Early Childhood Education by Television: Lessons from Sesame Street.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11 (1): 318-50.
Kuhfeld, Megan; Soland, James; Tarasawa, Beth; Johnson, Angela; Ruzek, Erik; &, Liu, Jing. (2020). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Academic Achievement. Educational Researcher, (51)8, 549-565.
Lightbown, P.M. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, Roy. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2008). Instructional counterbalance in immersion pedagogy. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 71-96). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Means, Barbara; Toyama, Yuki; Murphy, Robert; Bakia, Marianne;, & Jones, Karla. (2010). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Evaluation of evidence-vased practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, Washington D.C., (2015).
Seymour PH, Aro M, Erskine JM. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. Br J Psychol. 94(2), 143-174.doi: 10.1348/000712603321661859. PMID: 12803812.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68-83.
Tedick, Diane J., & Lyster, Roy. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. New York & Oxford: Routledge.
Stacey Washburn has worked in the field of dual language education since 2003, first as educator and later as cofounder of addalingua. As cofounder of addalingua, she helps educators align to principles that raise the status of languages other than English and adopt practices that increase bilingual proficiency and biliteracy.