11-15-68 ERIC REPORT RESUME ERIC ACC. NO, ED 0.3,3248 1 S DOCUMENT COPYRIGHTED? YESECk NO CH ACC. NO. P.A.PUBL. DATE ISSUE ERIC REPRODUCTION RELEASE? YES ET NO AA 000418 Dec 66 RIE Mar 70LEVEL OF AVAILABILITY !ET 11 111 AUTHOR Finocchiaro, Mary; King, Paul F. TITLE Bilingual Readiness in Earliest School Years; A Curriculum Demonstration Project. Bilingual Readiness in Primary Grades; An Early Childhood. Demonstration Project. Final Report. SOURCE CODEINSTITUTION (SOURCE) QPX14775 City Univ. of New York, N. Y. Hunter College SP. AG. CODESPONSORING AGENCY EDRS PRICE CONTRACT NO. GRANT NO. 1.25; 13.70 OEG-',7-10-101 REPORT NO. BUR EAU NO. BR - 3-0379 AVAILABILITY JOURNAL CITATIONTATION DESCRIPTIVE NOTE 272 p. DESCRIPTORS*Bilingual Education; Bilingual Teachers; *Early Childhood Education; *Curriculum Development; Comparative Analysis; Low Income Groups; Spanish; Negroes; Middle Class; Self-Concept; Status Need; *Language Programs; Language Experience Approach; *Intercultura1, Programs; Acculturation; Story Telling; Story Reading; Dramatic Play; ulti ensory Learning; Parent Attitudes; Instrumentation; Group NTI Fl ER S ABSTRACTThese two curriculum demonstration projects on bilingual readiness in the earliest school years contain many similarities. Both were formed on the thesis that young children can and will learn a second language readily and that the urban classroom mixture of Spanish-speaking, Englih-speakingtand Nero-dialectg speaking children can be capitalized on to further bilingual and intercultural development of all groups. The objectives of the projects were to (1) foster bilingual development in children ata prime readiness age (4 to 8),(2) promote positive attitudes among native English speaker3 toward the language and culture of other groups, and (3) enhance the self-concept and pride n heritage of chil speaking Spanish while teachivthemn Engliish. In, both studies aBilingualilingual Specialist met with classes rf Kindergarten and 1st grade children 15 to 20 minutes per day. Both English and Spanish were used during these periods. Much of curriculum activity involved listening to stories, story-telling, singing, dramatization, and game playing; however, Finocchiaro took a more g%-oup-oriented approach, whereas King's more individualized approach relied on the use of instrumentalization for repetitive reinforcement during the lesson and after the lesson as an aid to the teacher. The Reading Readiness program was also integrated into the King project. Both studies concurred in the conclusion that bilingual readiness can be developed at this age level. (BF) 4 7:777,47T='41WP FINAL REPORT Project No.D-107 Grnt No.OE 7-10-101 S----037q BILINGUAL READINESS INEARLIEST SCHOOL YEARS A Curriculum DemonstrationProject Part F -Mary Finocchiaro Part K -Paul F. King December 1966 EDUCATION & WELFARE U.S. DEPARTMENT Oi HEALTH, OFFICE OF EDUCATION REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM THE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATINGIT. REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OfEDUCATION STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY POSITION OR POLICY. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Bureau of Research 00 r 0 0 -" BILINGUAL READINESS IN EARLIEST SCHOOL YFARS A Curriculum Demonstration Project Herbert SChueler, President, Richmond College (Formerly Director of Teacher Education, Hunter College of the City University of New York) Section F Mary Finocchiaro, Project Co-Director Section K Paul E. King, Project Co-Director Note: The contents of the separate reports will be found under each section. FOREWORD The two projects reported herein were initially plannea as one and were funded by the United States Office of Education as one. That they are now reported as two separate and distinct projects with no ostensible relationship except in title and some rather interesting similarities in objectives and conclusions, merits someexplanation. When I ras still Director of Teacher Education at Hunter College, raul King, a pioneer in language laboratory work, came to Hunter College with an idea for a project in bilingualism for young children for which he was seeking institutional sponsorship. I was sufficiently impressed with his proposed plan to suggest that he and Professor Mary Finocchiaro of the College Staff, who had done work in this area, collaborate in preparing a detailed plan for a project to be submitted for funding to the U. S. Office of EdUcation. Out of this collaboration and the suggestions of several members of the Department a well-conceived demonstration study evolved which was finally funded by the U. S. Office for a two year period September 1964-1966. The first year was to be devoted largely to the development of materials and methodology of processes of instruction and evaluation, their pilot administra- tion, and the second to the carrying out of the project as refined and established during the first year. After several months of operation it gradually became apparent that several points of view were developing with relation to the underlying philosophy and operation of the Project. It is purposeless at this point to report the specific nature of these divergencies, except to say that they were sufficiently cogent and educationally' significant to suggest the division of the project into two separate and distinct entities. This found immediate favor on all sides since I VKiAciNW"1,141.14. ;Ari, A, it made possible the exploration of morethan one approach while permitting the continuation of a studythat was still considered at that time, and is still considered nowin retrospect, to be eminently well-conceived and with greatpromise for further educational study and application. As a matter of fact, a reading of the two documents herein presented maylead to the realization that this kind of independent working outof essentially the same program with separate schools,teachers, and groups of children, has turned out to be a good idea on its ownmerit regardless of the situation that brought it into being. We have here something in the nature of a simultaneous replicationthat provides the opportunity for greater perspective and comparisonsthan would have been possible with the original plan. A comparison of these reports yieldssignificant similarities and differences. The similarities are largely in the areaof objectives, curriculum, and conclusions claimed. It is under- standable that there exist many similarities in thecurriculum since both Professor Finocchiaro and Dr. Kingworked together with a Project Curriculum Committee from February1964 through March 1965. The differences are largely in the specificsof materials and method. The basic thesis of both projectsis two-fold: 1. that young children are cable oflearning a second language readily, easily, and with greatsatisfaction and enjoyment, and 2. that the urban phenomenon ofSpanish-speaking and English-speaking young children in the sameclassroom can be capitalized tofurther the bilingual and inter- cultural development of both groups. II ' Both the Finocchiaro and King sections of the study claim strong supportive evidence of these theses as a result of the experiences gained in their respective projects. It must be emphasized, however, that these claimed conclusions were not arrived at through empirical methods of controlled research. After all, these were demonstration projects and therefore the authors' support of success through the testimony of children, parents, staff members, and observers must be evaluated within the rationale, not of a controlled scientific research design, but of an exploratory curriculum development project. It will be the responsibility of other projects, conceived within a controlled scientific rationale, to begin where the Finocchiaro-King projects le off, and to test their conclusions empirically. The methodological differences between the two projects, a careful reading of the two reports will show, are not competitive, I _ but rather complementary. For example, the reliance of the King project on instrumentation, and the more group-orientated method- ology employed by the Finocchiaro project should not be judged as being competitive, or even mutually exclusive, but as two potentially compatible elements that may add equally to the establishment of a method of bilingual development for young children. These two studies, taken separately and in concert, are not claimed to be definitive, but are to be considered as contributing measurably to the experience of fostering bilingualdevelopment/ and, feelings of ego enhancement in children in disadvantagedareas) of some of our large cities. It is hoped that they will spark additional replicative efforts in our large cities and set the III IMPRIMICX.447.47.5.F4Wq stage for the necessary fundamental research on bilingualism and its relationship to theevelopment of urban children that is li yet to come. I am certain tat if this stimulation will mark the publication of these studies, both Drs. Finocchiaro and King will be gratified with the results of their labors. Herbert Schueler President, Richmond College of the City University of New York February 04., 1967 IV n't 71 ;'4?: " L. FINAL REPORt. Project No,D-107 Giant No. OE 7-100.101 BILINGUAL READINESS IN EARLIEST SCHOOL YEARS `A Curriculum Demonstration Project December 1966 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Bureau of Research BILINGUAL READINESS IN EARLIEST SCHOOL YEARS A Curriculum Demonstration Project Project No. D-107 Grant No. OE 710.101 Mary Finocchiaro,