Recognizing the role of collaboration and multilingual literacy as 21st-century skills, the authors used design research methods to present, analyze, and refine a strategic reading approach for bilingual students. The collaborative translation strategy involves students reading an academic text, translating key passages, and evaluating these translations. Student discussions that ensued provided a rich context to support a thoughtful connection to textual concepts. The authors also discuss the development and refinement of domain-specific instructional theory that informs collaborative translation. Findings suggest the strategy holds promise for increasing student engagement and providing a central instructional role for heritage languages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdesopeO. O., LavinT., ThompsonT., & UngerleiderC. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207–245.
2.
AlvermannD., YoungJ. P., WeaverD., HinchmanK., MooreD., PhelpsS. (1996). Middle and high school students’ perceptions of how they experience text-based discussions: A multicase study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 244–267.
3.
AppiahK. A. (2000/2012). Thick translation. In VenutiL. (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 417–429). London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
AugustD., & ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
6.
CalderonM., Hertz-LazarowitzR., IvoryG., & SlavinR. E. (1997). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students transitioning from Spanish to English reading.Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR) at Johns Hopkins University.
7.
CallahanR. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.
CobbP., & GravemeijerK. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In KellyA. E., LeshR. A., & BaekJ.Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 96–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
CohenE. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
11.
ColeM.W. (2013). Rompiendo el silencio: Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of peer-mediated learning at improving language outcomes for ELLs. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), 146–166.
12.
ColeM., PuzioK., KeyesC. S., JiménezR.T., PrayL., & DavidS. (2012). Contesting language orientations: A critical multicultural perspective on local language policy in two middle schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(2), 129–143.
13.
CollinsA. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In ScanlonE., & O'SheaT. (Eds.), Issues in education research (pp. 289–298). Berlin, DE: Springer-Verlag.
14.
CollinsA., JosephD., & BielaczycK. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
15.
CookV. J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209.
16.
CumminsJ. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564–572.
17.
Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
18.
DunstonP. J. (2002). Instructional components for promoting thoughtful literacy learning. In BlockC. C., GambrellL. B., & PressleyM. (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 135–151). Newark, DE: International Reading Association; San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
EdelsonD. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1) 105–121. Education Week, (2009). Quality counts 2009: Portrait of a population–How English-language learners are putting schools to the test. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2009/01/08/index.html
20.
ElbaumB. E., SchummJ. S., & VaughnS. (1997). Urban middle-elementary students’ perceptions of grouping formats for reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 475–500.
EvansK. (2002). Fifth-grade students’ perceptions of how they experience literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 46–69.
23.
EvansK., AlvermannD., & AndersP. L. (1997). Literature discussion groups: A discussion of gender roles. Reading Research and Instruction, 37(2), 107–122.
24.
FountasI. C., & PinnellG. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
25.
GassS., MackeyA., & Ross-FeldmanL. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.
26.
GeneseeF., Lindholm-LearyK., SaundersW., & ChristianD. (2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–386.
27.
GerstenR., & BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454–470.
28.
GerstenR. M., & JiménezR.T. (1998). Promoting learning for culturally and linguistically diverse students.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
29.
GitlinA., BuendíaE., CroslandK., & DoumbiaF. (2003). The production of margin and center: Welcoming-unwelcoming of immigrant students. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 91–122.
30.
GoatleyV. J., BrockC. H., & RaphaelT. E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education “Book Clubs.”Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 352–380.
31.
GravemeijerK. (1994). Educational development and developmental research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 443–471.
32.
JiménezR.T., DavidS., FaganK., RiskoV., PachecoM., PrayL., & GonzalesM.Using translation to drive conceptual development for students becoming literate in English as an additional language. Manuscript submitted for publication.
33.
JohnsonM. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
KellyA. E., LeshR. A., & BaekJ. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching.New York, NY: Rutledge.
35.
KennerC., GregoryE., RubyM., & Al-AzamiS. (2008). Bilingual learning for second and third generation children. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 21(2), 120–137.
36.
KlingerJ. K., VaughnS., & SchummJ. S. (1988). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22.
37.
KoyamaJ. P. (2004). Appropriating policy: Constructing positions for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(3), 401–423.
38.
LantolfJ. P., & ThorneS. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
LeeC. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40.
LightbownP. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431–462.
41.
MalakoffM., & HakutaK. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In BialystokE. (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals (pp. 141–166). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
MartinezR. A., OrellanaM. F., PachecoM., & CarboneP. (2008). Found in translation: Connecting translating experiences to academic writing. Language Arts, 85(6), 421–431.
43.
McQuillanJ., & TseL. (1995). Child language brokering in linguistic minority communities: Effects on cultural interaction, cognition, and literacy. Language and Education, 9(3), 195–215.
44.
MehanH. (2008). Engaging the sociological imagination: My journey into design research and public sociology. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 39(4), 77–91.
45.
MiddletonJ., GorardS., TaylorC., & Bannan-RitlandB. (2008). The “Compleat” design experiment: From soup to nuts. In KellyA. E., LeshR. A., & BaekJ. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 96–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2013). The condition of education: Participation in education: English language learners.Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
47.
NidaE. (2000/2012). Principles of correspondence. In VenutiL. (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 153–167). London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved from http://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf
49.
OrellanaM. F., & ReynoldsJ. F. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 48–65.
50.
PadillaA. M., & GonzalezR. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S.-born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual/English language instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 727–742.
51.
PooleD. (2008). Interactional differentiation in the mixed-ability group: A situated view of two struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 228–250.
52.
PuzioK., & ColbyG. T. (2013). Cooperative learning and literacy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(4), 295–317. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2013.775683
53.
PuzioK., KeyesC. S., ColeM., & JiménezR.T. (2013). Language differentiation: Collaborative translation to support bilingual reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(3), 329–349.
54.
ReevesJ. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 131–142.
55.
ReinkingD., & BradleyB. A. (2008). On formative and design experiments.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
56.
RuizR. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE, 8(2), 15–34.
57.
SlavinR. E., & CheungA. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A best evidence synthesis. A technical report written for the Success for All Foundation.Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
58.
SwainM., BrookL., and Tocalli-BellerA. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.
59.
WalterS. L., DavisP. M., & MorrenR. (1999). Explaining multilingual education: Information on some tough questions.Dallas, TX: SIL International.
60.
WattD., & RoessinghH. (2001). The dynamics of ESL drop-out: Plus ça change…Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(2), 203–222.
61.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
WilliamsJ. D., & SnipperG. C. (1990). Literacy and bilingualism, New York, NY: Longman.
