Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy that provides the social structure for learners to work cooperatively in groups. Although it was developed for use with native English speakers, cooperative learning has been found to be effective for promoting the academic achievement, language acquisition, and social development of English language learners (Calderon & Slavin, 1999; Ovando & Collier, 1998).
This digest discusses a project conducted in the Ysleta Independent School District in El Paso, Texas, that sought to integrate effective practices in literacy education, an empirically based cooperative learning model, and a classroom management model to help teachers develop the English and Spanish language proficiency of their students. The cooperative learning model selected was Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) (Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987). CIRC consists of instructional practices that develop social, academic, and communication skills. It was selected for the following reasons: (1) It integrates oral language development, reading, and writing through all phases of instruction; (2) it enables bilingual teachers to manage their English, primary language, and transitional literacy activities effectively; (3) it develops critical thinking and social skills; (4) it develops self-esteem and self-confidence; (5) it uses children's literature in two languages and a variety of text genres, including student publications and reading texts; (6) it helps students appreciate and become proficient in their primary language while developing proficiency in English; and (7) it provides an English teaching and learning environment in which the subject matter is not watered down, and higher order discourse and thinking are the norm (Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Slavin, 1998). This digest describes the features of the bilingual version of the CIRC model, now called BCIRC, and highlights initial findings from the Ysleta Independent School District.
At the time of the study, 74% of the students in the Ysleta Independent School District were nonnative English speakers; 70% were Hispanic and 24% were limited English speaking. Students were provided with intensive instruction in their native language from kindergarten through Grade 2. Reading and writing in English were given more emphasis in Grade 3, with continued instruction in Spanish. By Grade 4, students were reading and writing in both English and Spanish. However, the transitional phase continued through Grade 4. To study how students make the transition from their first language to English, Grade 2, 3, and 4 classes were selected for the project.
Twelve bilingual experimental BCIRC classes and 12 bilingual control classes were involved. Control and experimental teachers spent 60 to 90 minutes daily on reading and language arts instruction. During this time block, experimental teachers used only BCIRC and heterogeneous grouping. Control teachers grouped students by ability and used more traditional reading instruction approaches such as round robin, oral reading, simple cooperative activities, and workbook practice. They conducted English as a second language (ESL) instruction as a separate 30-minute block using a packaged curriculum. Control teachers alternated instruction in English and Spanish daily. Experimental teachers integrated second language acquisition principles and methods into BCIRC. They taught 2 weeks of Spanish literature followed by 2 weeks of English literature throughout the year. BCIRC students used Spanish for first language reading and English for ESL and transitional reading.
Features and Strategies of Bilingual CIRC
Phase I: Activities Before Reading
Building background, the vocabulary of cooperation, and team building. Interactive structures: Whole class or teams of four with teacher.
This feature is based on the premise that the more familiar readers are with the content and language of a reading selection, the easier it is for them to understand it. To build familiarity with content, it is necessary not only to fill information gaps but also to minimize cultural and vocabulary gaps. For example, without proper background knowledge, a Hispanic child may have difficulty understanding a story about a trip to New York City.
Team building is often incorporated into background-building activities. Before reading a story about a hummingbird, for example, students work in teams to develop posters on birds. This activity generates discussion around the topic of birds and builds a cognitive and factual knowledge base around the upcoming reading selection. At the same time, learning becomes a cooperative, highly interactive venture. This creates a positive learning environment in which students value each others' contributions and work in teams. It also builds unity and appreciation, contextualizes the selection, and identifies content and language that may be new to the students. The secure and supportive environment also motivates students to take risks.
All of the selections in a teaching unit are related to the same theme. The vocabulary and concepts developed for one selection become background knowledge for the next selection. This thematic approach also facilitates the learning of key concepts and vocabulary. Themes allow students to associate words with a topic and make connections between words.
Making predictions Interactive structures:
Whole class or teams of four with teacher.
The teacher shows the reading selection to the students, who then work in groups of four to formulate their predictions about it. One child acts as a recorder in each group, and with the help of the other group members, writes a prediction. If consensus is not reached on one prediction, several predictions may be generated by the group. Later in the process, students are asked to read a story up to a certain point, then stop and make predictions before reading the rest of the story. Asking students to make predictions entices them to read the story more carefully and to use context clues more effectively as they work through the process of confirming or rejecting their predictions. Students appear to remember events in the story better when the events discussed contribute to their prediction making.