Title: What the Research Really Says about Structured: A Response to Keith Baker
Abstract: Many of Keith Baker's claims are based on unpublished data, Mr. Krashen claims. And when the data have been published, his reports are inaccurate. IN HIS NOVEMBER 1998 article, English Immersion: Breakthrough Teaching Limited-English-Proficient Students, Keith Baker claims that the evidence shows that Structured English Immersion (SEI) is effective. But many of Baker's claims are based on unpublished data. And when the data have been published, his reports are inaccurate. First, Baker cites Russell Gersten's studies of children California and Uvalde, Texas, as examples of successful SEI programs. I discussed these studies two previous publications.1 In the California study, the sample size was very small only 28 students immersion and 16 education.2 No actual scores are provided for the students, the study lasted only up to grade 2 (a follow-up was done with two groups of only nine children), information on socioeconomic status is not provided for the education students, and no description of the education program was given. In addition, Gersten notes that the group included speakers of Korean, Vietnamese, Samoan, and Thai. I know of no district that provides education all these languages. The name of the district which this study was done was not given. In the Uvalde study, children who received structured immersion reached the 30th percentile on the reading comprehension subtest of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests at the end of grade 3, then dropped to the 15th and 16th percentiles grades 5 and 6, hardly an impressive performance.3 Several other victories Baker claims for SEI are based on unpublished reports. In these cases we have no idea what model of education was used, nor do we have other crucial details. Baker's own (unpublished) Seattle study compared one year of ESL/native language support with submersion. We are given no detailed description of this program. Baker claims that in the mid-1980s, seven local education agencies Texas conducted a multi-year trial comparing SEI to education, which was evaluated by the state education agency. SEI was the clear winner (p. 200). In a footnote, he says that Pro-bilingual education political pressure Texas makes it almost impossible to learn anything about this study from the state education agency (p. 204). No report or paper is cited, but a major report was issued around this time by the Texas Education Agency.4 The comparison was not between SEI and education but between (English as a Second Language) and education although 62% of the K-6 programs did contain ESL for content, the central element structured immersion. Interestingly, 73.5% of the programs also contained for content.5 Differences achievement between the groups were small, but education students excelled on several important measures: more were reading at grade level (35.5%, compared to 30.2%), and more education students showed mastery of the essential elements language arts (54.1%, compared to 49.9%) and social sciences (67.3% versus 63.7%). There were no differences mathematics and science.6 Baker claims that students the SEI program El Paso with only 30 minutes of Spanish per day outperformed children education on tests for 11 years, with no difference year 12. The program was not limited to 30 minutes of Spanish per day, nor did the research come out the way Baker says it did. The program, which others have called bilingual immersion, is described by the El Paso Independent School District as follows: NLCD [native language cognitive development] is taught for 60 to 90 minutes per day. The objective of this component is to develop concepts, literacy, and critical thinking skills Spanish. …
Publication Year: 1999
Publication Date: 1999-05-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot