TEACHING

Teaching

Teaching

Teaching English

First, teaching linguistically diverse students can be a challenge for educators who may not have the necessary expertise in this area. Many teachers feel inadequately prepared for addressing linguistic, academic and cultural differences when teaching ELLs. It is important to study mainstream teacher attitudes toward ELLs because teacher attitudes impact student performance. The achievement level for ELLs is considerably lower than students who are native speakers of English. In nationwide assessments administered by The National Assessments of Educational Programs (NAEP), reading outcomes for ELLs in 4th grade were 36 points less than native English speakers and math outcomes were 25 points less than native English speakers. Statistics have shown that differences are greater between ELLs and non-ELLs when students are compared based on their eligibility for free or reduced lunch.

These outcomes can be linked to challenges facing ELLs: learning English for (a) communication and (b) academic purposes. Mainstream teacher attitudes toward ELLs can strongly influence the type of instruction that their students receive. To date, little research has focused on mainstream teacher attitudes and how teachers view their roles toward ELLs in their classroom. Teachers who have greater exposure to courses and training that focus on working with second language acquisition and ELLs typically have more positive attitudes. There are five main hypothesis in Krashen (1982) theory of language acquisition; (a) acquisition/ learning hypothesis, (b) natural order hypothesis, (c) monitor hypothesis, (d) input hypothesis, and (e) affective filter hypothesis.

The acquisition/learning theory indicated that there were two ways to learn language: acquisition - which is a subconscious process and learning - which is conscious.

The natural order hypothesis suggested language acquisition follows a natural predictable order. Krashen (1982) rejected grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.

The monitor hypothesis proposed that acquisition was responsible for language fluency and learning (where one knows the rules) functions to edit and correct when three specific functions are met: (a) the learner has sufficient time at their disposal, (b) time is available to focus on form and correctness, and (c) students know the rule. The role of the monitor hypothesis was to give a more polished appearance. Individual student characteristics also factored into the monitor hypothesis. Students who use the monitor hypothesis all the time are considered over users, while students who had not learned and preferred to use their conscious knowledge are under users. Students who monitor as needed are optimal users. Psychological profiles also factor into types of users. For example, extroverts typically are under users and perfectionists tend to over use.

The input hypothesis is the ways in which a learner acquires a second language; acquiring meaning first and structure second. When a learner receives instruction that is one step above their competence (level i+1), leaning typically occurs (Krashen, 1982). Teachers need to incorporate input appropriate to the level of the students, as ELLs are at the different proficiency levels.

The affective filter hypothesis suggested that a number of variables can impact second language ...