English Language Learners and the New Standards. Margaret Heritage
become increasingly accomplished at engaging in scientific practices in English. This, they realize, takes effort and perseverance.6
From . . . Conceptualizing language in terms of structures or functions
To . . . Understanding language as action
Traditionally, ELLs have been taught how to use the grammatical forms in the language or how to accomplish individual language functions, such as “suggest” or “introduce.” However, teaching form and function in isolation from real, meaningful, discourse-based communication has not produced generative, transformative learning for ELLs.7 Only an emphasis on language as action, which subsumes form and function, engages students in the meaningful learning of new disciplinary practices while simultaneously strengthening their language uses in those practices.
Language as action embraces the idea that, at its essence, language is a tool we use to act in the world. We talk, listen, read, and write to get things accomplished, and we use all language or language-related resources at our disposal: linguistic—language itself; paralinguistic—the intonation, stress, and rhythm that accompany our expressions to signal emphasis or emotional overtone; and extralinguistic—the gestures and body language that mark, amplify, and accompany our remarks. Learners, for example, emphasize their intentions by accentuating elements of their expressions—slowing down, raising their voices, signaling with their hands, using facial expressions such as smiles or frowns. These paralinguistic and extralinguistic features accompanying expression enhance the power and impact of the strictly linguistic elements of communication. When students are in the process of developing these linguistic tools, communication is imperfect, and intonation, repetition, and facial expressions take on added importance.
The students in Ms. Warren’s class emphasize their intent for clarification by intoning in interrogative ways, so that “because the size is different” can be rightly interpreted as “why is the size different?” The problem for María is that “why” and “because” sound the same in Spanish (por qué/porque). Fortunately in this case, an advantage is that María is from Honduras and José is from Mexico, so they both share Spanish as their native language and recognize the connection.
Whenever the use of their family language is helpful, Ms. Warren encourages students to use it for the benefit of the development of their new language, a practice increasingly advocated in the development of English as a second language.8 In the careful class grouping, however, students are also required to engage in communicative activity with peers with whom they do not share a language. For example, in María and José’s group, one of the students comes from Burma (and speaks Karem) and the other from Iraq (and speaks Arabic).
Language as action emphasizes communication and its impact on language users. This entails using language beyond the production of isolated utterances, emphasizing instead discourse, the verbal interchange of ideas. When José asks his question about why the atoms are together, a discussion of whether the right verb is is or are ensues before José’s question is accepted. Then it is María’s turn to express another question, and she asserts her turn in spite of José’s interest in adding another question of his own, “No, no, why WHY the electron is there round on the neutron and the proton?” María proposes, but—out of turn—José insists with his question, and María responds, “It is MY question . . .” indicating it is her turn to ask a question.
As we see in José and María’s interaction, engagement in discourse takes the form of a to-and-fro between speakers, like tennis players hitting the ball back and forth across the net. José and María’s back-and-forth takes them from negotiating an initial idea to negotiating multiple ideas to arriving at some sort of a conclusion. In their brief interaction, we observe how language can both shape and be shaped by its use in particular social settings. It illustrates how naturally occurring interaction uncovers the practices and processes of reasoning by which students make sense of what they are learning.
The nature of the interaction between the students in Ms. Warren’s class is possible because she has taught them to pay attention to each other, to focus on what their peers are saying, to “listen beyond accents and errors,” and to work hard at making sense of what the other says, improving it if possible. Being deliberately attuned to the other person and what he or she is saying and doing is what sociolinguists call intersubjectivity.9 As Leo van Lier observed, “[It] is construed as the development of increasingly effective ways of dealing with the world and its meanings.”10 Intersubjectivity leads to mutual respect and to students’ efforts being focused on communication rather than on form and function.
From . . . Seeing language acquisition as a linear and progressive process aimed at accuracy, fluency, and complexity
To . . . Understanding that acquisition occurs in nonlinear and complex ways
Most classes for ELLs operate on two erroneous premises: (1) language is learned along a universal progression of linguistic forms; and (2) not correcting student errors (the student knows the grammatical rule but fails to apply it correctly) or mistakes (the student does not know how the rule works, and so his production is ungrammatical) will lead to “fossilization,” the inevitable perpetuation of incorrect forms in the student’s English. Were teachers to revisit their own experience, or their observations as parents or relatives of babies learning to communicate, they would see that language emerges instead in spiraling ways. To quote van Lier again: “The learner is immersed in an environment full of potential meanings. Those meanings become available gradually as the learner acts and interacts within and with this environment.”11
As an apprentice in a language community, the toddler initially asks for the cookie she wants by directing her sight to the cookie jar and smiling at her mother. Mother then responds appropriately, “Ah, so you want a cookie,” and gives her one. Over time, the child learns to say “cookie,” “want a cookie,” “Can I have a cookie,” and, much later on, “I know I shouldn’t have this cookie, but . . . ,” inviting reassurance by others. Because the child has apprenticeship opportunities, her range of possibilities to engage in the same requests appropriately across a wide variety of social circumstances gradually increases.
The same process occurs in second-language learning when students are invited and supported to engage in valuable activity, which provides them with practice and the opportunity to develop increasing sophistication in their linguistic uses. Just as the young child learned and practiced language according to the context of the language use, requesting cookies, the sequencing of the language that ELLs learn and practice is determined by the conceptual and analytical development required, not by the assumed complexity of the grammatical forms of the language.
In this vein, let us reflect for a moment on an often-seen practice in American classrooms. How stimulating can it be for second-language learners to be restricted to learning expressions in the present simple tense, or to filling in blanks with the correct form of the verb in the past simple tense in an exercise consisting of ten unrelated sentences? Even worse, based on the assumed inevitability of this sequential understanding of English as a second language, when students do not produce a given percentage of the correct (although meaningless) forms of English in a test, they may have to repeat the same low-level course, and for another semester continue doing the same meaningless exercises that were not helpful in the first place.12
It is likely that this pedagogical orientation sustained year after year contributes to the existence of “long-term English language learners” (LTELLs) in middle and high school, those students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for more than six years who are not progressing to English proficiency. However, the practice of focusing on discrete pieces of language is difficult to counteract, because teachers have developed this habit over many years during the “apprenticeship of observation.”13 The net result of this kind of apprenticeship is often evident in the reactions of other teachers who see videos of Ms. Warren or her colleagues engaged in similar work in other disciplinary areas with ELL newcomers. Many of them comment that the students they watched “cannot be beginning ELLs.” Their belief in the sequential development of English tells them that in week 6 of learning English,