Teachers’ Native Languages

There is currently no research in the United States that addresses Native English Speaking Teachers (NESTs) and Non-native English Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) who teach in transitional bilingual (Spanish/English) education programs related to the reading achievement scores of those INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2______________________________________________________________________________________________________ teachers’ English language learners (ELL) at the elementary school level. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between bilingual education teachers’ native languages (either Spanish or English) and their respective native Spanish-speaking ELL students’ reading achievement in Spanish (L1) or English (L2). Sixty-three third grade transitional bilingual teachers and their ELL students were selected from 31 elementary schools in one region of an urban school district in Texas. Results suggested that teachers’ native languages did not relate significantly to their ELL students’ reading achievement in either L1 or L2. Educational implications are discussed. The demands for bilingual teachers continue to grow, and for over a decade, the number of English language learners (ELLs) in the United States has been growing at an average annual rate of five times that of the total school enrollment (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2011). During 2008-2009, NCELA reported the ELL enrollment with over 5 million ELLs in schools across the country, accounting for a 51% growth since the 1998-1999 school year compared to a 7% growth of the total public school population for the same time period. Such large numbers of ELLs have exacerbated the need for school districts to serve these students with qualified bilingual teachers who can address their specific academic and language learning needs. To date, there have been no published studies conducted in the United States regarding any relationship between ELLs’ reading achievement in English or Spanish in transitional bilingual (Spanish/English) classrooms and their teachers’ native or non-native languages. In fact, there are no studies that have been found related to any type of academic achievement outcomes of teachers who are classified as native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) or non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) in bilingual programs. Recently, Moussu and Llurda (2008) reported in their extensive review of the literature related to NEST and NNEST numerous studies, but no studies were reported that addressed outcomes of students taught by NESTs or NNESTs. After thorough review of the literature, the researchers found that studies that do exist on NESTs and NNESTs (a) have involved adult ELLs rather than ELLs at the elementary school level (e.g., Cheung & Braine, 2007; Mahboob, 2001; Moussu, 2002), (b) have been conducted in countries such as Canada, Mainland China, Hong Kong, or Japan (e.g. Amin, 1999; Beckett & Stiefvater, 2009; Liu & Zhang, 2007; Ma, 2012; Moussu, 2010; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999; Tajino & Tajino, 2000), and/or (c) have been focused on perceptions of how NESTs or NNESTs are viewed from either a teachers to teacher (e.g., Amin, 1999; Guo, 2006); Li, 2006; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999; Tang, 1997) or students to teacher perspective (Kamhi-Stein, 2004; Li & Beckett, 2006; Llurda, 2005). Theoretical Framework There is no particular theory related to native language speakers. In the published literature, there have been linguists such as Chomsky (1965) who advocated that the speaker of the native language is the only person who is in an ideal position for communicating with others within a similar speech community, and thus, such native language speakers would be, then, the only NORMA A. RAMOS, BEVERLY J, IRBY, RAFAEL LARA-ALECIO, FUHUI TONG, AND GENEVIEVE BROWN ______________________________________________________________________________________________________3 reliable source for language teaching. However, several scholars challenged Chomsky’s perspective on the native language speaker three decades later. Cook (1997) challenged Chomsky’s comments by indicating that the concept of native language speakers as ideal creates a monolingual bias, and Firth and Wagner (1997) indicated that Chomsky’s model native speaker is placed into an unequal position of dominance over a non-native language speaker. We, the researchers, even recognize the fact that in this study that even the use of the terms, non-native and native English speakers, creates the potential for perceived inequity; however, it is important that the terms are used for practical distinction. Even 50 years ago, Lado (1964) suggested, “it is not enough to speak a language to be qualified to teach it” (p. 9). There are other qualifications needed whether a teacher is a NEST or NNEST (Nayar, 1994; Phillipson, 1996). Macaro (2005) indicated that using only native language (L1) in teaching has not been noted exclusively to improve second language acquisition, and others (e.g., Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Turnbull, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett, 2002) have suggested that the use of the target or second language (L2) is necessary for students to acquire the language. Cummins (2000) further stated that L1 instruction effectively promotes L1 proficiency and that this proficiency transfers to the second language, given adequate exposure to L2 and a determination to learn it. This concept assumes that there is a common underlying proficiency (CUP) -cognitive/academic proficiency that triggers performance in both languages. Therefore, it would stand to reason that when children learn L1 skills in Spanish or another language, they are also learning underlying conceptual, linguistic, and academic skills. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) proposes a teacher as a model. Therefore, perhaps, what Cummins (1981) purported in terms of students who learn concepts in the students’ L1 being able to transfer those skills learned into L2 furthers the basis of this study in terms of researching how NESTs and NNESTs who teach in transitional bilingual classrooms relate to students’ academic achievement. Perhaps, based on Cummins’ and Bandura’s theory, ELL students may benefit from being taught by a NNEST who shares the same L1, because the teacher may serve as a model in L1 for students to follow, and the students’ developed L1 proficiency may then be transferred to the advancement of L2 for academic gain in the second language. The opposite as a model may occur for bilingual teachers who are NESTs as they may serve as models for the students’ L2, but also, they may serve as a model for the students who are learning a second language as they too have had to do the same. However, going back to Nayar, as well as Phillipson, the students’ performance is based on more than a model for the language; they suggested that other credentials matter as well, as do Tong, Lara-Alecio, Irby, Mathes, and Kwok (2008) who highlighted that the quality of instruction is at least equally important. Bilingual Transition Program The Transitional Bilingual Program (TBP) transitions the language – using the native language to support students in their acquisition of the English language (Lara-Alecio, Irby, & Meyer, 2001). The TBP can be defined as a particular school program in which non-native English speakers are taught in L1 as a foundation to acquiring English. In TBP, ELLs are first taught in their L1. As students become competent in L1, the assumption is that their L1 will facilitate the process of L2 acquisition (Cummins, 1984; Krashen & Mcfield, 2005). There are two basic types of transition bilingual education models: (a) the early-exit model where instruction in L1 fades quickly and students are expected to be exited as early as first or INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 4______________________________________________________________________________________________________ second grade; (b) the late-exit model where students are maintained in the program until the end of elementary school and receive 40% or more of their instruction in their L1 (Thomas & Collier, 2002). According to Thomas and Collier (2002), late-exit bilingual models produce much better achievement results for ELLs over the early-exit bilingual programs. In this study, the participants came from a late-exit TBP, and it may be noted that differences may occur if NNESTs and NESTs are studied under an early-exit program.