teaching ells golden berg american educator

8/14/2019 Teaching ELLs Golden Berg American Educator

1/19AMERicAN EdUcATOR | SUMMER 2008

Should students who are learning English spend the school day in classes where only English is spoken? Or should they be taught reading and other academic skills and content in their nativelanguage? Or should their classes be primarily in English, but include some explanations or materials in their native language? I their native language is to be used, how much native languageinstruction should they receive and or what purposes? And arent there other issues we need to consider, aside rom language o

instruction? Tese are important questions, and anyone who canprovide a quick answer is surely oversimpli ying the issues. SomeEnglish language learners (ELLs) do not speak a word o Englishand are not literate in their native language. Others have someconversational English, but are not yet uent, and in their nativelanguage they are not only literate, but have mastered a great deal o academic content. Tere will probably never be a ormula or educating ELLs, just as there is no ormula or educating stu-dents who already know English. What we can do is provide guidelines based on our strongest research about e ective prac-tices or teaching ELLs.

Its time to move beyond charged debates and all-too-certainanswers. What students need is or educators and policymakersto take a more in-depth look, starting with what existing researchdoesand does notsay. In this article, Claude Goldenberg walksus through the major ndings o two recent reviews o the researchon educating ELLs. Given all the strong opinions one sees in news-paper op-eds, readers may be surprised to discover how little isactually known. Whats certain is that i we conducted moreresearch with ELLs, and paid more attention to the research that exists, we would be in a much better position.

And so, we bring you this article with our goals in mind. First,we hope that everyone who engages in debates about educating

ELLs will become a little more knowledgeable and, there ore, will start taking a little more nuanced positions. Second, we wish tospur more research (and more unding or more research). Tird,to keep the snake-oil salesmen at bay, we think its best or edu-cators to know what existing research cannot support. And ourth, we believe that what has been reasonably well established is worth knowing.

E ditors

By Claude Goldenberg

Im i i s c . T h-

t th mi ht xp ct t i sp i p tt s, iph-

th s, s ic ti s, i p s, c mm p fx s s -

ix s, t ms s ms; h w tw w itt i st cti s, i t p t w s

with m tip m i s, c t i m -ti i xp sit t xts, s c mp h sist t i s ck k w t

st wh t , stc s ct, i ti it ti

h m , st st ct t s t xtss ch s th m , p t, s tti ; t

c ct t st 80 w s p mi t , pp xim t 3,000 w s t v c ,

t s i t h s th s s w sm i t t p s t xts; w it tiv s i tt s si pp p i t ms, -

iz ti , c itic m ts, c pit iz ti , p ct -ti , visi s .

A th ts j st c ss.

A t c ss wi h v simi ist m th. A it t h t tt sch wh i st cti h

c mp t c ips i m th, t ch t ck i s ch thi s s m ti , m tism, i c c s,

m ts, w th , ; i t p ti i m ti i ms, phs, ch ts; c mp i c t sti jsi th i ph sic tt i t s; t ci mi hist ,

p i th iv s p ts p ts t p tti imp t t v ts i tim i ; i th c tth st t wh iv , m t i s, m j iv s,

m p N th Am ic ; i h w imp t t histc f s s ch s M ti L th Ki , J ., A t Ei st i , A

Teaching EnglishLanguage Learners

Wh t th R s ch D s D s N tS

Claude Goldenberg is pro essor o education at Stan ord University. Pre-viously, at Cali ornia State University, Long Beach, he was associatedean o the College o Education and executive director o the Center or Language Minority Education and Research. He served on the National Research Councils Committee or the Prevention o Early Reading Dif-culties in Young Children and on the National Literacy Panel, whichsynthesized research on literacy development among language minority children and youth. Tis article is adapted with permission romImproving Achievement or English Language Learners, a chapter inE c ti th Oth Am ic : p Exp ts ck P v t , Lit c ,

Achi v m t i O Sch s , edited by Susan B. Neuman, orth-coming in August 2008, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. Te author wishes to thank Rhoda Coleman, Ronald Gallimore, Patricia Gndara,Fred Genesee, Michael Graves, Peggy McCardle, Patricia Mathes,Michael Kamil, Bill Saunders, imothy Shanahan, Jessie Sullivan, Rob-ert Rueda, and Sharon Vaughn or their help ul comments. i L L

U S T R A T E d b Y E R i c W E S T b R O O K
http://www.brookespublishing.com/store/books/neuman-69063/index.htmhttp://www.brookespublishing.com/store/books/neuman-69063/index.htmhttp://www.brookespublishing.com/store/books/neuman-69063/index.htmhttp://www.brookespublishing.com/store/books/neuman-69063/index.htm


2/19AMERicAN EdUcATOR | SUMMER 2008

ham Lincoln, Cesar Chavez, and Sally Ride made a di erence inthe lives o others. Te expectations created by state and districtacademic standards can be a bit overwhelming or studentsand or teachers. 1

Now, imagine that you dont speak English very well. Your jobis to learn what everyone else is learning, plus learn English. Andits not sufcient to learn English so you can talk with your riendsand teacher about classroom routines, what you are having orlunch, where you went over the weekend, or who was mean to whom on the playground. You have to learn what is called aca-

demic English, a term that re ers to more abstract, complex, andchallenging language that will eventually permit you to partici-

pate success ully in mainstream classroom instruction. Aca-demic English involves such things as relating an event or a serieso events to someone who was not present, being able to makecomparisons between alternatives and justi y a choice, knowingdi erent orms and in ections o words and their appropriateuse, and possessing and using content-speci c vocabulary andmodes o expression in di erent academic disciplines such asmathematics and social studies. As i this were not enough, youeventually need to be able to understand and produce academicEnglish both orally and in writing. 2 I you dont, there is a realchance o alling behind your classmates, making poorer grades,getting discouraged, alling urther behind, and having ewer


3/1910 AMERicAN EdUcATOR | SUMMER 2008

educational and occupational choices.Sound intimidating?

his is the situation aced by millions o students in U.S.schools who do not speak English uently. Teir number hasgrown dramatically just in the past 15 years. In 1990, one in 20public school students in grades K-12 was an English languagelearner (ELL), that is, a student who speaks English either not atall or with enough limitations that he or she cannot ully partici-pate in mainstream English instruction. oday the gure is 1 in9. Demographers estimate that in 20 years it might be1 in 4. Te ELL population has grown rom 2 million to5 million since 1990, a period when the o erall schoolpopulation increased only 20 percent. 3 States not typi-cally associated with non-English speakersIndiana,North Carolina, South Carolina, and ennesseeeachsaw an increase in the ELL population o at least 300percent between 1994-95 and 2004-05. 4

ELL students in the U.S. come rom o er 400 di er-ent language backgrounds. What may come as a sur-prise to many readers is that most ELLs were born inthe United States. Among elementary-age ELLs, 76

percent were born in the U.S. Among middle- and high-school students, 56 percent were born in this country.Howe er, about 80 percent o ELLs parents were bornoutside o the U.S.5

By ar, the majority o ELLs80 percentare Spanish speak-ers. his is an important act to bear in mind, since Spanishspeakers in the U.S. tend to come rom lower economic andeducational backgrounds than either the general population orother immigrants and language minority populations. 6 Forexample, nearly 24 percent o immigrants rom Mexico andCentral America are below the po erty le el, compared with 9to 14 percent o immigrants rom other regions o the world (and11.5 percent o the U.S. nati e-born population). Fewer than 40percent o immigrants rom Mexico and Central America ha ethe equi alent o a high school diploma, in contrast to between80 and 90 percent o other immigrants (and 87.5 percent o U.S.-born residents). Consequently, most ELLs are at risk or poorschool outcomes not only because o language, but alsobecause o socioeconomic actors.

Speakers o Asian languages (e.g., vietnamese, Hmong,Chinese, Korean, Khmer, Laotian, Hindi, agalog) comprisethe next largest groupabout eight percent o the ELL popula-tion. Students o Asian origin tend to come rom amilies withhigher income and education le els than do other immigrant

amilies. For example, among immigrants rom the major

world regions, the po erty rate o Asian immigrants is thesecond lowest (at 11.1 percent); only immigrants romEurope ha e a lower po erty rate. O er 87 percent o Asian immigrants ha e the equi alent o a highschool diploma, the highest among immigrants

rom major world regions. 7 But these gureshide the tremendous di ersity within the Asian populations in the U.S. For exam-ple, 50 percent or ewer Cambodian,Laotian, and Hmong adults in the U.S.ha e completed the equi alent o highschool and ewer than 10 percent ha e

a college degree. In contrast, Filipinos, Indians, and Japanese inthe U.S. ha e high school completion rates around 90 percent.O er 60 percent o aiwanese and Indians in the U.S. ha e collegedegrees. 8

What sort o instructional en ironments are ELLs in? Tisquestion is difcult to answer, partly because o de nitional andreporting inconsistencies rom state to state. 9 Te most recentnational data come rom a 2001-02 school year sur ey. 10 o theextent the portrait is still accurate six years later, a majority o

English learnersapproximately 60 percentare in essentially all-English instruction: one- th o these studentsabout 12percent o all ELLsapparently recei e no ser ices or supportat all related to their limited English pro ciency;* the other our-

thsnearly 50 percent o all ELLsrecei e all-English instruc-tion, but with some amount o LEP ser ices. (ELLs were or-merly called LEP or limited English pro icient; the term issometimes still used.) LEP ser ices can include aides orresource teachers speci cally or ELLs, instruction in English asa second language (ESL), and/or content instruction specially designed or students with limited English pro iciency. heremaining ELLsabout 40 percentare in programs that makesome use o their home language, but it is impossible to say whatis typical. In some cases, students recei e one o se eral orms

On the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress, fourth-grade ELLsscored 36 points below non-ELLs inreading and 25 points below non-ELLsin math. Te gaps among eighth-graders were even larger42 points in reading

and 37 points in math.


4/19

o bilingual education, a term that describes any instructionalapproach that teaches at least some academic content (e.g., read-ing or science) in the native language in addition to teachingstudents academic content in English. Sometimes teaching aca-demic content, such as reading, is just or a year or two as stu-dents transition to all-English instruction; sometimes it is orseveral years (e.g., through the end o elementary school or intomiddle school) to develop bilingualism and biliteracy. In othercases, students are taught academic content in English, but theirprimary language is used or support, such as translations by an aide, explanations during or a ter class, or to preview materialprior to an all-English lesson. 11 Currently, there is no way to know the amount o support students receive or, most critically, thequality o the instruction and whether or not it is help ul or stu-dent achievement.

What we do know is that on average, ELLs academic achieve-ment tends to be low. On the 2007 National Assessment o Edu-cational Progress (NAEP), ourth-grade ELLs scored 36 pointsbelow non-ELLs in reading and 25 points below non-ELLs inmath. he gaps among eighth-graders were even larger42points in reading and 37 points in math. Tose are very large

gaps. In act, the gaps between ELLs and non-ELLs are 3 to 18points larger than the gaps between students who are and arenot eligible or ree or reduced-price lunch. 12

Tese discrepancies should be no surprise since ELLs arelimited in their English profciency, and the tests cited here arein English. But there is no way to know whether ELLs tested inEnglish score low because o lagging content knowledge andskills, or because o limited English profciency, or because o other actors that inter ere with their test per ormanceor somecombination. Whatever the explanation or these achievementgaps, they bode ill or English learners uture educational and vocational options. Tey also bode ill or society as a whole, sincethe costs o large-scale underachievement are very high. 13 each-ers o ELLs are thus under tremendous pressure. It is imperativethat they, as well as administrators and other school sta , under-stand the state o our knowledge regarding how to improve theachievement o these students. Un ortunately, the state o ourknowledge is modest. But what is known o ers some use ul guid-ance or educators to improve the academic success o Englishlanguage learners.

M y aim in this article is to summarize key fndingso two major reviews o the research on educatingEnglish learners that were completed in 2006one by the National Literacy Panel, or NLP, 14 the

other by researchers associated with the Center or Researchon Education, Diversity, and Excellence, or CREDE. 15 Tese reviews represent the most concerted e orts todate to identi y the best knowledge available and set thestage or renewed e orts to fnd e ective approaches to

help English learners succeed in school. As needed, I willalso re erence additional research that appeared a ter the

* Th s fgur m ght b a u d r st mat . it om s rom s hool a d d str t o f alswho ould b r lu ta t to r port that eLLs r v o s rv s, wh h s l k ly tob a v olat o o th 1974 Supr m court d s o Lau v. Nichols (414 U.S. no.72-6520, p. 563-572) r qu r g s hools to t a h eLLs so that th y hav am a g ul opportu ty to part pat th publ du at o al program (p. 563).

years covered by the NLP and CREDE reviews. As companions to this article on what we do know about

educating ELLs, sidebars explore critical questions that have yetto be answered (see p. 12) and possible instructional modifca-tions that might help ELLs achieve at levels more comparableto that o their English-speaking peers (see p. 18). I encourageeducators to read these sidebars as care ully as they read thisarticleespecially be ore adopting programs that promiseextraordinary results.

Te NLP comprised 18 researchers with expertise in literacy,language development, the education o language minority stu-dents, assessment, and quantitative and qualitative researchmethods. Te NLP, whose work took nearly three years, identi-fed over 3,000 reports, documents, dissertations, and publica-tions produced rom approximately 1980 to 2002 as candidates

or inclusion in its review. Fewer than 300 met the criteria orinclusion: they were empirical (that is, they collected, analyzed,and reported data, rather than stated opinions, advocated posi-tions, or reviewed previous research), dealt with clearly identi-fed language minority populations, and studied children and youth ages 3-18.

Te CREDE report was produced over two years by a coregroup o our researchers (and three co-authors), all o whomhad been engaged in language minority and language research

or many years. As did the NLP, the CREDE panel conducted lit-erature searches to identi y candidate empirical research reportson language minority students rom preschool to high school,but their searches were not as extensive as the NLPs. Approxi-mately 200 articles and reports comprised the inal group o studies the CREDE panel reviewed and upon which they basedtheir conclusions. Te studies the CREDE panel reviewed were

published during approximately the same period as the studiesthe NLP reviewed.

Although they covered a lot o the same terrain, the CREDEand NLP reports di ered in some ways. For example, the CREDEreport only examined research conducted in the U.S. and only took into consideration outcomes in English; the NLP includedstudies conducted anywhere in the world (as long as they werepublished in English) and took into consideration outcomes inchildrens irst or second language. he CREDE panelistsincluded quantitative studies (experiments or correlationalresearch) almost exclusively, whereas the NLP also included a

(Continued on page 14)

Whatever the explanation for theseachievement gaps, they bode ill forEnglish learners future educationaland vocational options. Tey also bodeill for society as a whole, since the costsof large-scale underachievement are

very high.

AMERicAN EdUcATOR | SUMMER 2008 11


5/19

As s usse throughout the ma n art le,urrent resear h o ers some soln ormat on that shoul help e u atorsn rease Engl sh learners a h evement.

but many r t al quest ons rema n

unanswere . What ollows s n no way anexhaust ve l st. Rather, t s a r e look atthree groups o quest ons that e u atorsan others requently ask, an that neeto e answere .

Bilingual Reading Instructionhelps, but in W at Settings? WitW ic Students? For how Long?beyon the n ng that pr mary languagerea ng nstru t on promotes rea nga h evement n Engl sh (an n thepr mary language), there are morequest ons than answers. The NLP ancREdE syntheses shoul e atalysts tountangl ng the role o pr mary language

nstru t on n ELLs e u at on an serve asthe plat orm rom wh h to ask mportantquest ons. is pr mary language nstru t onmore ene al or some learners than orothers? or example, those w th weakeror stronger pr mary language sk lls?Weaker or stronger Engl sh sk lls? is tmore e e t ve n some sett ngs an w th

erta n ELL populat ons than others? Whatshoul e the relat ve emphas s etweenpromot ng knowle ge an sk lls n the

pr mary language an evelop ng Engl shlanguage pro en y? What level o sk ll

n the stu ents pr mary language oesthe tea her nee to possess n or er to ee e t ve? in an Engl sh mmers ons tuat on, what s the most e e t ve wayto use the pr mary language to support

h l rens learn ng? We presently annotanswer these quest ons w th on en e.in v ual stu es m ght po nt n erta n

re t ons, ut we la k a o y o solstu es that perm ts us to go eyon thegeneral n ng a out the pos t ve e e tso pr mary language nstru t on onrea ng a h evement n Engl sh.

We also annot say w th on en ehow long stu ents shoul re e ve

nstru t on n the r pr mary language. Th ss a key eren e etween the NLP an

cREdE reports. The cREdE synthes son lu e that more pr mary languagenstru t on over more years lea s to

h gher levels o ELL a h evement nEngl sh. Th s on lus on was strongly

nfuen e y stu es an evaluat ons otwo-way l ngual e u at on, n wh h

h l ren rom two language groups (e.g.,Span sh an Engl sh) part pate n aprogram es gne to evelop l ngual-

sm an l tera y nboth groups. Thereare erent two-way mo els, ut they

all nvolve some om nat on o rst anse on language nstru t on throughoutelementary s hool; some go throughm le an h gh s hool. Evaluat ons have

een very pos t ve, an ELLs n theseprograms seem to o very well, poss ly

etter than stu ents n shorter-terml ngual programs (three or ewer

years). 1 Thus, cREdE resear hers on-lu e that the longer ELLs re e venstru t on n a m x o the r rst language

an Engl sh, the etter the r a h evementn Engl sh.

The NLP, however, not n lu ethese longer term stu es e ause they

not have a equate exper mentalontrols. The pro lem s that these stu es

not make sure that the a h evemento h l ren n ontrast ng programs (e.g.,two-way l ngual, trans t onal l nguale u at on, or Engl sh mmers on) wasequ valent at the start o the stu y or that

h l ren n erent programs ha thesame emograph hara ter st s (e.g.,parental e u at on an level o Engl shuse n the home). Pre-ex st ng eren es

oul reate the alse mpress on that one

program s etter than another. or th sreason, the NLP only n lu e well-

ontrolle stu es n ts meta-analys s; ane ause the well- ontrolle stu es were

relat vely short term, the NLP rea he noon lus ons a out the mpa t o length o

t me stu ents are n pr mary languagenstru t on.

Can ELLs Oral Englis Develop-ment Be Accelerated? how?The NLP an cREdE reports rea hes m lar on lus ons regar ng e e t ve

nstru t onal pra t es or ELLs. Th s sgoo news. We nee to n po nts oagreement n th s omplex an onten-t ous el . but there s st ll a great ealthat we o not know. There s one area npart ular n wh h more resear h s

esperately nee e : oral Engl sh evelop-ment, an spe ally, whether an how t

an e a elerate . it shoul e apparentthat prov ng ELLs w th Engl sh language

evelopment nstru t on s r t allymportant. There are some stu es that

have looke at promot ng var ous aspe ts

o oral language, su h as vo a ulary orl sten ng omprehens on ( oth o wh h

an e enhan e through nstru t on), utthe cREdE rev ew not n any stu esthat a resse how or even whether

progress n the a qu s t on o Engl sh ane a elerate . (The NLP not a ress

th s ssue.)ELLs are thought to progress through a

ser es o levels o Engl sh pro en y. Theexa t nature o th s progress on has not

een ully mappe out, ut generally weth nk o our or ve levels o Engl shlanguage evelopment (ELd), rom totalla k o Engl sh to nat ve-l ke pro en y.in one nfuent al on eptual zat on, thereare three phases n the eg nner to early

nterme ate per o : prepro u t on(somet mes alle the s lent per o ),early pro u t on (stu ents an say one- ortwo-wor utteran es), an spee hemergen e (longer phrases an sen-ten es). in the s heme use y cal orn aan other states, there are ve levels

eg nn ng, early nterme ate, nterme -ate, early a van e , an a van e .

Progress rom the eg nn ng (orprepro u t on) stage to the po nt wherestu ents are approa h ng nat ve-l kepro en y seems to take at least s x years

or most stu ents (e.g., rom k n ergartento gra e 5 or later; there s var a l ty

rom one person to the next, so thesenum ers represent general tren s). ELLsseem to progress rom eg nn ng to

nterme ate levels more rap ly ( nroughly two to three years) than they o

rom nterme ate to ull pro en y,wh h an take an a t onal three, our,or more years. in other wor s, stu ents

eg nn ng to learn the language anmake what appears to e a rly rapprogress, ut then slow own on e theyrea h nterme ate pro en y. A or ngto the cREdE report, even stu ents whoare n all-Engl sh nstru t on o not eg nto show h gher nterme ate levels oEngl sh pro en y or at least our years( .e., gra e 3 or later). The ea that

h l ren (at least those represente ystu es one to ate) w ll qu kly e omefuent n Engl sh mmerse n all-Engl sh

nstru t on s ontra te y the resear hl terature, yet some states languagepol es ( or example, cal orn as anAr zonas) requ re that stu ents enterma nstream Engl sh nstru t on a tera year o s hool. certa nly n v ual

Critical QuestionsWhat the Research Does Not SayYet

12 AMERicAN EdUcATOR | SUMMER 2008


6/19

ex ept ons an e oun , ut fuen yw t n a year o Engl s mmers on ns ool s not t e norm.

W y oes ga n ng ull pro en y takeso mu longer t an nterme atepro en y? T ere are pro a ly tworeasons. rst, t e vo a ulary an senten epatterns requ re to e an nterme atespeaker o Engl s are s mpler t an t oserequ re or a van e pro en y levels.Se on , nterme ate speakers an rely ont e mme ate ontext o a onversat onw ere gestures, po nt ng, ntonat on, anot er nonl ngu st ues ass st ommun a-t on. interme ate pro en y l kely meanst at t e stu ent as su ent ommano t e language to engage e e t vely n

am l ar s tuat ons, su as play, a lya t v t es, an normal onversat ons w t

r en s. Su language s tuat ons areg ly ontextual ze , a rly re urrent an

am l ar, an supporte y gestures,ntonat on, an s are re eren es. T ey

t ere ore requ re less pre se vo a ularyan senten e stru tures.ull pro en y l kely means t at a

stu ent as su ent omman o t elanguage to engage e e t vely n more

omplex ntera t ons t at nvolve a stra ton epts an re eren es to t ngs t at are

not n t e mme ate v n ty. in t eses tuat ons, t e vo a ulary an senten estru tures requ re or a equate ommu-n at on w ll e more alleng ng. ina t on, po nt ng an gestur ng w ll elpmu less, at all. L ngu st eman s are,t ere ore, ar greater on e a speaker tr esto get eyon an nterme ate pro en ylevel. T e speaker an l stener must knowt e mean ng o t e wor s an un erstant e senten e stru tures an ot er nuan est at ommun ate t e nten emessage. A a em s tuat ons(e.g., le tures, s uss ons, angroup work) are o ten l ke

t s, ut so are many onversat ons a outmov es, pol t al events, or a omplexpersonal s tuat on. Su languages tuat ons ten to e less ontextual ze

y t e so al an pragmat r umstan esan more o use on a stra t eas an

on epts t at we are less l kely to omea ross n our every ay a a rs.

Stu ents must learn an stu y many ot ese on epts, an t e language nee eto talk a out t em, n s ool. A a emEngl s t e type o language t at sessent al or s ool su ess s part ularly

ult to master e ause t s generallynot use outs e o t e lassroom an t

raws on new vo a ulary, more omplexsenten e stru tures, an r etor al ormsnot typ ally en ountere n nona a emsett ngs. Know ng onversat onal Engl sun ou te ly elps n learn ng a a emEngl s , ut t e latter s learly a more

alleng ng task t at requ res more t me.

What Is the Best Way to TeachEnglish Language Development?T s s anot er area a out w t ere sl ttle agreement. in a t, unt l a rlyre ently, resear ers were v e on t equest on o w et er a se on language

oul even e taug t re tly, as opposeto e ng a qu re t roug mean ng ul

ntera t ons w t ot er speakers. however,we now are pretty on ent t attea ng t e language re tly elpslearners learn t e language, ut learnersalso nee to e n s tuat ons w ere t ey

an use t e language or genu neommun at on. Several pu l at ons ave

appeare s n e t e cREdE report wasomplete t at support t s perspe t ve. 2

E e t ve se on language nstru t onprov es a om nat on o a)

expl t tea ng t atelps stu ents re tly

an e ently

learn eatures o t e se on languagesu as syntax, grammar, vo a ulary,pronun at on, an norms o so al usagean ) ample opportun t es to use t ese on language n mean ng ul anmot vat ng s tuat ons. We o not knoww et er t ere s an opt mal alan e,mu less w at t m g t e. but t ere severy reason to el eve t at su ess ulse on language nstru t on ompr seselements o ot . W at we nee s a newgenerat on o se on language researt at exam nes t e nature o t s alan ean a resses w et er, an w at k n o ,

nstru t on an s orten t e t me requ reor ELLs to ga n nat ve or near-nat ve

Engl s pro en y.A nal po nt. E u ators o ten won er

w et er Engl s language evelopment(ELd) s oul e taug t as a separatesu je t at a st n t t me n t e ay or ts oul e ntegrate t roug out t e

ay, taug t alongs e t e regular

urr ulum. A re ent stu y suggests t atELd pro a ly ene ts rom a separateper o . 3 Resear ers oun t at w en aseparate ELd lo k was use , stu entss ore g er on a stan ar ze measureo Engl s oral language. Tea ers spentmore t me on oral Engl s an were moree ent an o use n t e r use o t me.T e ELd lo k was, y es gn, targete atoral Engl s language evelopment, antea ers taug t a or ngly. in ontrast,w en t ere was no ELd lo k, less t mewas spent o us ng on Engl s per se anmore on ot er language arts a t v t essu as rea ng. T s stu y was l m te tok n ergarten, an t e e e t was small.but t e n ngs are a urate, t e

umulat ve e e t o a separate lo k oELd nstru t on over many years oul esu stant al. At t e moment, owever, t s

s spe ulat on.ELLs language nee s are omplex, an

w le t ey ene t rom ELd nstru t onper se, t ey also nee nstru t on n t euse o Engl s n t e ontent areas (mat ,

story, s en e, et .). Tea ng otontent an language s a allenge or

tea ers; t s s urrently also an area oa t ve resear . 4 but w et er we solatean tea expl tly t e language anvo a ulary o a a em su je t areas nELd nstru t on or ntegrate t e tea ngo language w t n ontent lessons, wes oul re ogn ze t at o ng e t er or

ot requ res very are ul plann ng ane e t ve nstru t onal pra t es n or erto a eve t e es re language anontent o je t ves.

c.G.(Endnotes on page 44)




I. Teaching students to read in their frstlanguage promotes higher levels o readingachievement in English. Whether English learners should be instructed exclusively inEnglish or in their native language and English has been, with-out question, the single most controversial issue in this area. 17

Dozens o studies and evaluations have been conducted andreported over the past 35 years comparing reading instructionthat uses students frst and second languages with second lan-

guage immersion (which in the U.S. would, o course, be Eng-lish). he NLP conducted a meta-analysis with 17 o thesestudiesthe others did not meet the panels stringent method-ological criteria. Te analysis concluded that teaching ELLs toread in their frst language and then in their second language,or in their frst and second languages simultaneously 18 (at di -

erent times during the day), compared with teaching them toread in their second language only, boosts their reading achieve-ment in the second language . And the higher-quality, more rig-orous studies showed the strongest e ects.

For example, ive o the most rigorous studies the NLPreviewed involved random assignment o Spanish-speakingstudents either to English-only instruction or to instruction that was in both English and Spanish. Te fve studies were varied interms o students who participated and the use o Spanish oracademic instruction. O these fve studies, three were with ele-mentary-age students (including one study with special educa-tion ELLs), one was with middle-school students, and one was with high-school students. In one o the elementary studies,students in grades one through three received all their academicinstruction (reading, math, writing, science, social studies) inSpanish until they knew enough English to transition to Eng-

large number o qualitative studies.* Te CREDE panel reviewedresearch that addressed childrens English language develop-ment, literacy development, and achievement in the contentareas (science, social studies, and mathematics). In contrast, theNLP only looked at in uences on literacy development (andaspects o oral language that are closely related to literacy, suchas phonological awareness and vocabulary). A fnal and very important di erence between the two reports was the criteriaused to determine which studies o bilingual educationto include. Te NLP used more stringent criteria, result-ing in a di erence in the two reports fndings regardingthe e ects o di erent lengths o time in bilingual edu-cation on ELLs academic achievement. I describe thisdi erence in the Critical Questions sidebar (p. 12).

In doing their reviews, both sets o panelists paidparticular attention to the quality o the studies and thedegree to which reported fndings were adequately sup-ported by the research undertaken. he goal o bothreviews was to synthesize the research and draw conclu-sions that would be help ul to educators and that would

also identi y areas or additional uture study. Readersshould be aware o the dramatic discrepancy betweenthe research base or English speakers and English learners. Forexample, eight years ago the National Reading Panel (whichexcluded studies o language learners) synthesized fndings romover 400 experimental studies o instruction in phonologicalawareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading uency, and readingcomprehension. 16 In contrast, the NLP could identi y only 17experimental studies o instructional procedures, even thoughthe NLP considered more topics and used looser inclusion crite-ria. Te amount o research with ELLs has increased greatly, evenin the two years since these reports were published. However,

more research on educating ELLs is clearly needed.It would be impossible to ully summarize the reports here,and educators are encouraged to obtain and study them. Buttheir key conclusions can help us orge a new oundation orimproving the education o children rom non-English-speakinghomes. Te fndings can be summarized in three major points:

eaching students to read in their frst language promoteshigher levels o reading achievement in English ; What we know about good instruction and curriculum ingeneral holds true or English learners as well; but When instructing English learners in English, teachersmust modi y instruction to take into account students

language limitations.Lets take a closer look at each point.

a m t - n lys s s st t st l t hn qu th t llows r s r h rs to omb n drom m ny stud s nd l ul t th v r g t o n nstru t on l pro du

it s us ul b us stud s o t n om to onf t ng on lus ons. Somnd pos t v ts o progr m, oth rs nd n g t v ts o th

s m typ o progr m, nd y t oth rs nd no ts. ev nmong stud s th t r port pos t v nd ngs, th ts n

b sm ll or l rg . Th qu st ons m t - n lys sddr ss s r th s : T k ng nto ount ll th

r l v nt stud s on top , ov r ll, s th tpos t v , n g t v , or z ro? and t s ov r ll pos t vor n g t v , wh t s th m gn tud o th tl rg , nd th r or m n ng ul; sm ll, nd th r oro l ttl ons qu n ; or som th ng n b tw n? ar th r

dd t on l tors, .g., stud nt h r t r st s, th t nfu nwh th r ts r l rg or sm ll?

Te NLP was the latest o fve meta-analyses that reached the sameconclusion: learning to read in thehome language promotes readingachievement in the second language.

(Continued from page 11)

*exp r m nt l stud s r ons d r d th gold st nd rd on w nts tod t rm n th t o p rt ul r progr m or typ o nstru t on. exp r m nts ustr tm nt nd omp r son groups, s w ll s oth r ontrols d s gn d to nsur th t

ny mp ts ound n b ttr but d to th tr tm nt ( s oppos d to d r n s,or x mpl , b tw n two groups o stud nts). corr l t on l stud s n st bl sh

th t th r s r l t onsh p b tw n two th ngs (l k n nstru t on l m thod ndstud nt h v m nt), but th y nnot b us d to d monstr t th t on th ng

us d noth r. Qu l t t v stud s g n r lly tt mpt to d s r b nd n lyz r th rth n m sur nd ount. Pr s nd h ghly d t l d qu l t t v stud s n

st bl sh us t on ( .g., p rt o l sson th t l d to stud nt l rn ng), butb us th numb r o subj ts n qu l t t v study s typ lly low, th y r notgood or st bl sh ng g n r l z b l ty.


8/19AMERicAN EdUcATOR | SUMMER 2008 15

lish instruction. Students in the control condition received noinstruction or support in Spanish. In the study with special edu-cation students, second- and third-graders received readinginstruction either in English only or in Spanish combined withEnglish as a second language instruction or one year, ollowedby gradually more instruction in English and less in Spanish overthe next two years. Te middle-school study included two groupso low-achieving seventh-graders who received equivalent Eng-lish instruction, but one group received additional instructionin Spanish that ocused on reading skills. And the high-schoolstudy involved students with low reading achievement whoreceived either English-only instruction or instruction in Englishand Spanish. All fve studies ound positive e ects o bilingualeducation on students reading achievement on various mea-sures o reading in English.

Tis consistent fnding might surprise some readers. But theNLP was the latest o fve meta-analyses that reached the sameconclusion: learning to read in the home language promotes read-ing achievement in the second language. 19 Readers should under-stand how unusual it is to have fve meta-analyses on the sameissue conducted by fve independent researchers or groups o

researchers with diverse perspectives. Te act that they all reachedessentially the same conclusion is worth noting. No other area ineducational research with which I am amiliar can claim fve inde-pendent meta-analyses based on experimental studiesmuchless fve that converge on the same basic fnding.

o some people this fnding might seem counterintuitive. Aew years ago a air-minded colleague expressed disbelie :

Doesnt it just make sense, she asked, that the earlier andmore intensively children are placed in all-English instructionat school the better their English achievement will eventually be? Tats when it hit me: when the goal is English profciency,delivering any instruction in the frst language probably does not make sense to some people. But this is why we do scienti icresearch: common sense does not always turn out to be the truth.I we only relied on common sense, we would still think the sunrevolves around a at earth.

How does learning reading skills in their frst language help

students read in their second language? Although several expla-nations are possible, a likely one is based on what educationalpsychologists and cognitive scientists call trans er. rans er isone o the most venerable and important concepts in education. With respect to English learners, a substantial body o researchreviewed by both CREDE and NLP researchers suggests that lit-eracy and other skills and knowledge trans er across languages.Tat is, i you learn something in one languagesuch as decod-ing, comprehension strategies, or a concept such as democ-

racyyou either already know it in (i.e., trans er it to) anotherlanguage or can more easily learn it in another language.

We do not have a very precise understanding o exactly whattrans ers across languages, but there are numerous candidates.Phonological awareness might trans eronce you know that words are made up o smaller constituent sounds, you canprobably apply that understanding to any language. Decodingskills, as well as knowledge o specifc letters and sounds, prob-ably trans er also. he letter m , or example, represents thesame sound in many languages. But while the concept o decoding probably trans ers across alphabetic languages, stu-dents will need to learn which rules should trans er and whichshould not. Spanish, or instance, has no inal silent e thatmakes a preceding vowel long. Tus, a Spanish speaker apply-ing Spanish orthographic rules to English words would think the word tone has two syllables (since he would pronouncethe e ). In all l ikelihood, English learners are helped by instruc-tion that points out both what does and does not trans er romtheir home language to English. Numerous other aspects o reading probably trans er, or example, comprehension skillsand knowledge o concepts (background knowledge) that are

essential or comprehension.rans er o reading skills across languages appears to occur

even i languages use di erent alphabetic systems, althoughthe di erent alphabets probably diminish the degree

o trans er. For example, studies o trans erbetween English and Spanish fnd relatively high correlations on measures o wordreading, phonological awareness, and

spelling. Some studies o English and non-

A substantial body of research suggeststhat literacy and other skills and knowl-edge transfer across languages. Tat is,if you learn something in one language, you either already know it in (i.e., trans-fer it to) another language or can moreeasily learn it in another language.

S http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htm for a h lpful docum nt id ntifying l m nts

of english and Spanish sp lling that do and do not transf r.
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htmhttp://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htmhttp://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htmhttp://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htmhttp://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htmhttp://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htmhttp://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/MetaLingResearch.htm


9/19

Roman alphabets (e.g., Arabic), in contrast, fnd much lower cor-relations. However, comprehension skills appear to trans erreadily between languages with di erent alphabets, such as Eng-lish and Korean.

eachers cannot assume that trans er is automatic. Studentssometimes do not realize that what they know in their frst lan-guage (e.g., cognates such as elefante and elephant, or ejemplo and example ; or spelling and comprehension skills) can beapplied in their second. One researcher puts it this way: Lesssuccess ul bilingual readers view their two languages as separateand unrelated, and they o ten see their non-English languagebackgrounds as detrimental. 20 Ideally, teachers should be awareo what students know and can do in their primary language sothey can help them apply it to tasks in English.

Lets be clear: the e ects o primary language instruction aremodestbut they are real. Researchers gauge the e ect o a pro-gram or an instructional practice in terms o an e ect size thattells us how much improvement can be expected rom using theprogram or practice. Te average e ect size o primary languagereading instruction over two to three years (the typical length o

time children in the studies were ollowed) is around .35 to .40;estimates range rom about .2 to about .6, depending on how thecalculation is done. What this means is that a ter two to three years o frst and second language reading instruction, the aver-age student can expect to score about 12 to 15 percentile pointshigher than the average student who only receives second lan-guage reading instruction. Tats not huge, but its not trivialeither. Tese e ects are reliable and, as mentioned previously,have been ound with secondary as well as elementary students,and special education as well as general education students.Primary language reading instruction is clearly no panacea, butrelatively speaking, it makes a meaning ul contribution to read-ing achievement in English . We are less clear, however, on thee ects o di erent lengths o time in bilingual education; that is,do more years o bilingual education produce higher levels o English achievement? (See the Critical Questions sidebar,p. 12, or more on this.)

In addition, the meta-analyses ound that bilingual educationhelps ELLs become bilingual and biliterate. Te NLP, whose cri-teria or including studies were very strict, concluded that chil-

Remember the warm eeling you had as a child when you reached the end o a avorite story and read and they lived happily ever a ter? Thats where the name o this in ormative Web site comes

rom, Y colorn, colorado, este cuento se ha acabado. Theres nodirect translation rom Spanish, but in concept its similarand ftting. This site is about ELLs academic careers having happy endings. Its primary objective is to deliver research-based in orma-tion, or teachers and parents, on teaching ELLs to read.

Currently, the site contains extensive in ormation in both Englishand Spanish, but the developers are beginning to add in ormation in other languages. So ar,theyve created literacy tip

sheets or parents in nineadditional languages:

Arabic, Chinese, HaitianCreole, Hmong, Korean,Navajo, Russian, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.

The educators portion o the site o ers everything rombasic in ormation on the ELL

population to practical teaching

and assessment suggestions to summaries o recent research.While much o the in ormation ison early reading, teachers o other subjects and o older

students will also fnd a great deal they can use in the classroom. Be

sure to check out the Webcasts.These 45-minute programs combinevideos o nationally recognized experts with PowerPoint presenta-tions, recommended reading, and

discussion questions; they o er an in-depth look at important issues such as ELLs with learning disabilities and assessing ELLs. All o theseresources are ree, and teachers are welcome to share them in

pro essional development sessions.The three sample pages below o er a glimpse o the site. For the

real thing, go to www.ColorinColorado.org .E ditors

Colorn Colorado A Research-Based Web Site for ELLs Teachers and Parents




dren in the bilingual programs studied ... also developed literacy skills in their native language. Tus, they achieved the advantageo being bilingual and biliterate. 21 Knowing two languages con-

ers numerous obvious advantagescultural, intellectual, cogni-tive, 22 vocational, and economic (some studies have oundincreased earnings or bilingual individuals 23).

In many schools, instruction in the primary language is not

easible, because there is no qualifed sta or because stu-dents come rom numerous language backgrounds or,sadly, because o unin ormed policy choices or political

decisions. English learners can still be helped to achieve at higherlevels. Although the research here is not as solid as the researchon primary language instruction in reading, educators have twoother important principles, supported by research to varyingdegrees, on which to base their practice. We turn to them now.

II. What we know about good instruction andcurricu um in genera ho ds true or Ells.Both the CREDE and NLP reports conclude that ELLs learn inmuch the same way as non-ELLs (although instructional modi-

fcations and enhancements are almost certainly necessary, asdiscussed in the next section). Good instruction or students ingeneral tends to be good instruction or ELLs in particular. I instructed in the primary language, the application o e ectiveinstructional models to English learners is transparent; all thatdi ers is the language o instruction. But even when instructedin English, e ective instruction is similar in important respectsto e ective instruction or non-ELLs.

As a general rule, all students tend to beneft rom clear goalsand learning objectives; meaning ul, challenging, and motivatingcontexts; a curriculum rich with content; well-designed, clearly structured, and appropriately paced instruction; active engage-ment and participation; opportunities to practice, apply, andtrans er new learning; eedback on correct and incorrectresponses; periodic review and practice; requent assessmentsto gauge progress, with reteaching as needed; and opportunitiesto interact with other students in motivating and appropriately structured contexts. Although these instructional variables havenot been studied with ELLs to the degree they have been withEnglish speakers, existing studies suggest that what is knownabout e ective instruction in general ought to be the oundationo e ective teaching or English learners. Tere are, o course,individual or group di erences: some students might bene it

rom more or less structure, practice, review, autonomy, chal-lenge, or any other dimension o teaching and learning. Tis is as

likely to be true or English learners as it is or English speakers.Te NLP ound that ELLs learning to read in English, just like

English speakers learning to read in English, beneft rom explicitteaching o the components o literacy, such as phonemic aware-ness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing. Te NLPreviewed ive studies that as a group showed the bene its o structured, direct instruction or the development o literacy skills among ELLs. A study in England, or example, ound thata structured program called Jolly Phonics had a stronger e ecton ELLs phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge, andtheir application to reading and writing, than did a Big Booksapproach. 24 Other studies also showed similar e ects o directly

teaching the sounds that make up words, how letters representthose sounds, and how letters combine to orm words. Morerecent studies 25 continue to provide evidence o the benefts o directly teaching phonological and decoding skills to Englishlearners, particularly as part o comprehensive approaches toboost early literacy among children at risk or readingproblems.*

Studies o vocabulary instruction also show that ELLs aremore likely to learn words when they are directly taught. Just as

with English speakers, ELLs learn more words when the wordsare embedded in meaning ul contexts and students are pro- vided with ample opportunities or their repetition and use, asopposed to looking up dictionary de initions or presenting words in single sentences. For example, a study 26 reviewed by the NLP involving f th-graders showed that explicit vocabulary instruction, using words rom texts appropriate or and likely tointerest the students, combined with exposure to and use o the words in numerous contexts (reading and hearing stories, dis-cussions, posting target words, and writing words and defni-tions or homework) led to improvements in word learning andreading comprehension. hese are principles o e ective vocabulary instruction that have been ound to be e ective orEnglish speakers. 27 Similarly, a preschool study too recent to beincluded in the NLP or CREDE reviews showed that explainingnew vocabulary helped Portuguese-speaking children acquire vocabulary rom storybook reading. 28 Although children withhigher initial English scores learned more words, explainingnew words was help ul or all children, regardless o how littleEnglish they knew.

Other types o instruction that the NLP review ound to bepromising with ELLs, especially or increasing their reading com-prehension, include cooperative learning (students working

interdependently on group instructional tasks and learning goals),encouraging reading in English, discussions to promote compre-hension (instructional conversations), and mastery learning(which involves precise behavioral objectives permitting studentsto reach a mastery criterion be ore moving to new learning).

* Fo o nfo t on, s enh n d P o t v r d ng t th W b s t b low. Fo o nfo t on, s Vo bul y i p ov nt P og fo engl shL ngu g L n s nd Th cl ss t s, ViP t th W b s t b low. Fo o nfo t on, s B l ngu l coop t v int g t d r d ng ndco pos t on, Bcirc, P -ass st d L n ng St t g s (PaLS), inst u t on lconv s t ons nd L t tu Logs, nd r d ng m st y t th W b s t b low.

ELLs learning to read in English, justlike English speakers learning to read inEnglish, beneft rom explicit teachingo the components o literacy, such asphonemic awareness, phonics, vocabu-lary, comprehension, and writing.

for rev ews o the resear h on several ELL programs, see the What Works clear nghouseWeb s te at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/eng ish_ ang/topic/tabfg.asp .


11/19

Learn ng new ontent n an un am l arlanguage s very halleng ng, so ts

mportant or tea hers to make nstru -t onal mo at onssome o wh h are

a me at u l ng ELLs Engl sh pro en yan some o wh h are es gne to g vethem greater a ess to a a em ontent.Un ortunately, l ttle resear h ex sts to

n ate what onst tutes appropr ate ore e t ve nstru t onal mo at ons. Th ss e ar onta ns many poss le mo a-t ons, ut rea ers shoul note that theyhave vary ng egrees o emp r al support.

Making Text in English More Com-prehensible by Using Texts withContent that Is Familiar to StudentsTea hers o all su je ts nee to help ELLsw th rea ng omprehens on. Rea nga out un am l ar ontent n a languagethat s also un am l ar pla es an n rease

ogn t ve loa on learners. So, an e e t veapproa h appears to e to take ntoa ount ELLs erent exper ent al ases.The NLP oun that when ELLs rea textsw th more am l ar mater al, or example,stor es w th themes an ontent rom thestu ents ultures, the r omprehens on

mproves. (ELLs pro en y n the

language o the text, however, nfuen esomprehens on mu h more than the ram l ar ty w th passage ontent.) Th s

relat onsh p etween ontent am l ar ty

an text omprehens on s not un que toany one group. in general, we all ompre-hen am l ar mater al more rea lythat

s why hav ng w e-rang ng a kgrounknowle ge s so mportant or rea ng

omprehens on. but g ven the orm -a le language hallenges Engl sh

learners a e, tea hers shoul eaware o how they an help stu entsexper en e a t onal su ess yprov ng am l ar rea ng matter.Th s an e a ompl she e ther yhav ng stu ents rea mater al w th

ontent alrea y am l ar to them ory mak ng sure stu ents have

su ent exposure to the ontent nthe text pr or to rea ng the mater al.

or example, tea hers an tea h aun t n wh h stu ents rea a out atop or several ays or weeks.Mater als an e ome progress velymore halleng ng as stu ents e omemore am l ar w th the ontentastrategy that shoul ease omprehen-s on an u l a kgroun knowl-e ge s multaneously.

Building Vocabulary in EnglishWhat onst tutes e e t ve vo a ulary

nstru t on or ELLs an how oes t er

One mastery learning study reviewed by the NLP was particularly in ormative because the researchers ound this approach moree ective in promoting Mexican-American students reading com-prehension than an approach that involved teaching to the stu-dents supposed cultural learning style. (For more on this topic,see p. 21 o the sidebar that begins below.)

Te CREDE report reached similar conclusions, which it sum-marized this way: Te best recommendation to emerge romour review avors instruction that combines interactive anddirect approaches. 29 Interactive re ers to instruction with giveand take between learners and teacher, where the teacher isactively promoting students progress by encouraging higherlevels o thinking, speaking, and reading at their instructionallevels. Examples o interactive teaching include structured dis-cussions (instructional conversations), brainstorming, andediting/discussing student or teacher writing. Directapproaches emphasize explicit and direct teaching o skills orknowledge, or example, letter-sound associations, spelling pat-terns, vocabulary words, or mathematical algorithms. ypically,direct instruction uses techniques such as modeling, instruc-tional input, corrective eedback, and guided practice to help

students acquire knowledge and skills as efciently as possible.Te CREDE report notes that direct instruction o speci c skillsis important in order to help students gain mastery o literacy-

related skills that are o ten embedded in complex literacy oracademic tasks. 30

In contrast to interactive and direct teaching, the CREDEreport ound at best mixed evidence supporting what it termedprocess approaches. Tese are approaches where students areexposed to rich literacy experiences and literacy materials, butreceive little direct teaching or structured learning. In one study,

or example, students were exposed to alternative reading and writing strategies on wall charts, but this was insu icient toensure that students would use the strategies. In another study,Spanish-speaking ELLs who received structured writing lessonsoutper ormed students who received extended opportunitiesto do ree writing. Te CREDE report concludes that processapproaches are not sufcient to promote acquisition o thespeci c skills that comprise reading and writing. [F]ocusedand explicit instruction in particular skills and sub-skills iscalled or i ELLs are to become efcient and e ective readersand writers. 31

III. When instructing English learners in Eng-lish, teachers must modify instruction to takeinto account students language limitations. Although many aspects o e ective instruction apply across theboard or learners in general, or English learners, instructional

Instructional Modifcations or English Learners



12/19

rom e e t ve nstru t on or Engl shspeakers? ortunately, there are manys m lar t es. ELLs eneft rom learexplanat ons, just as Engl sh speakers o.A pres hool stu y (wh h i ment one onp. 17 o the ma n art le) oun that ELLsa qu re more vo a ulary when thetea her expla ne wor s onta ne n astory ook rea to the h l ren. 1 but th sstu y also oun that h l ren who eganw th lower Engl sh s ores learne less than

h l ren w th h gher Engl sh s ores. That s,know ng less Engl sh ma e t har er tolearn a t onal Engl sh. What m ght havehelpe the h l ren w th lower n t alEngl sh prof en y ga n more Engl shvo a ulary? Another pres hool stu y

oun that p tures helpe h l ren w thlow levels o oral Engl sh learn storyvo a ulary (e.g., ent st, mouse, ap). 2 Thevisual representation o on epts, not just

a language- ase explanation , prov eh l ren w th a t onal support n

learn ng the vo a ulary wor s. There ss ant resear h on th s top , ut i woulexpe t that songs, rhymes, hants, ana t onal opportun t es to use an repeatwor s woul also help u l vo a ularyamong young Engl sh learners.

What a out ol er h l ren? Some luesor vo a ulary nstru t on are o ere n a

stu y that exam ne the e e ts o avo a ulary program on Span sh-speak ngELL an Engl sh-speak ng f th-gra ers. 3

The nstru t onal approa h was ase onpr n ples o vo a ulary nstru t on ounto e e e t ve or h l ren who speakEngl sh, or example, expl t tea h ng owor s, us ng wor s rom texts l kely to

nterest stu ents, an mult ple exposuresto an uses o the wor s n numerous

ontexts. The resear hers n lu ea t onal elements: a t v t es su h as

hara es that a t vely nvolve learners nman pulat ng an analyz ng wormean ngs; wr t ng an spell ng the wor snumerous t mes; strateg uses o Span sh(e.g., prev ew ng lessons us ng Span shtexts, prov ng tea hers w th translat onequ valents o the target wor s, an us ngEngl sh-Span sh ognates, su h as super-market an supermercado ); an sele t ono texts an top s on mm grat on thatwere expe te to resonate w th theMex an an dom n an mm grant

stu ents. Overall, the exper mentalprogram pro u e relat vely strong e e ts

n terms o stu ents learn ng the targetvo a ulary. it pro u e mu h smaller, utst ll s gn f ant, e e ts on rea ng

omprehens on. Part ularly noteworthy sthat the e e ts o the program wereequ valent or ELLs an Engl sh-speak ngstu ents. Thus, although the resear hersa knowle ge that they annot eterm newh h o the extra ELL supports expla nthe programs mpa t on these stu ents,the r emonstrat on that w th a t onal

support, a program an have a s m larmpa t on oth ELLs an Engl sh speakerss very mportant.

Using the PrimaryLanguage for SupportPro a ly the most o v ous nstru t onalmo f at on s to use the pr marylanguage or lar f at on an explana-t on. Th s an e one y the tea her, a

lassroom a e, a peer, or a volunteer nthe lassroom. it s easy to see howexpla n ng or lar y ng on epts n thehome language an help ELLs a ess what

s go ng on n the lassroom. but t s alsonot f ult to mag ne owns es. orexample, peers prov e the explana-t ons, they m ght not e a urate; orstu ents m ght e ome epen ent on atranslator who prov es a rut h su h

that stu ents o not exert themselves tolearn Engl sh; or translat ons or per oexplanat ons n the pr mary language areo ere throughout lessons, stu ents antune out ur ng the Engl sh part.

Another way to use the pr marylanguage ut keep the o us on Engl sh

nstru t on s to ntro u e new on epts nthe pr mary language pr or to the lesson

n Engl sh, then a terwar rev ew the newontent, aga n n the pr mary language

(somet mes alle prev ew-rev ew). 4 Th ss erent rom lar f at on an explana-

modifcations are almost certainly necessary. A very importantfnding that emerged rom the NLPs review was that the impacto instructional practices or interventions tends to be weaker orEnglish learners than or English speakers.

For example, the National Reading Panel identi ied eighttypes o reading comprehension strategy instruction that hadreliable positive e ects on the reading comprehension o Eng-lish-speaking students, such as comprehension monitoring,question asking, and summarization. Te e ect sizes o somethese were as high as 1.0, meaning that the average student whoreceived this type o instruction scored 34 percentile pointshigher than the average student who did not receive this instruc-tion. In contrast, the NLP ound the e ects o comprehensionstrategy instruction in English with ELLs so weak that there is areal question as to whether there were any e ects at all. Tere was only one study specifcally targeted at improving ELLs read-ing comprehension that produced statistically reliable results,and it wasnt even a study o comprehension strategiesit wasa study o the e ects o simpli ying a text. But its implications area bit ambiguous: although using simplifed texts can help ELLsaccess content that they would not otherwise have, clearly we

cant (and wouldnt want to) limit ELLs reading to simplifedtexts. o be clear: the NLP did fnd studies that demonstratede ects o reading instruction on reading comprehension among

ELLs, as discussed previously, e.g., cooperative learning, instruc-tional conversations, and mastery learning. But the e ects o teaching reading comprehension strategies per se was not nearly as strong or ELLs as it has been shown to be or English speakers.In act, it might have had no e ect at all.

Why might this be so? And what are some special consider-ations or promoting comprehension with ELLs? here areprobably many actors that in uence the e ects o comprehen-sion instruction on English learners, some possibly having todo with these childrens out-o -school experiences. But anundoubtedly important actor is the double challenge ELLs ace:learning academic content and skills while learning the lan-guage in which these skills are taught and practiced. Readingcomprehension requires not only the skills o readingaccurateand uent word recognition, understanding how words ormtexts that carry meaning, and how to derive meanings romthese textsbut it also requires undamental language prof-ciencyknowledge o vocabulary, syntax, and conventions o use that are the essence o knowing a language. Learners whohave the basic reading skills and know the language can con-centrate on the academic content. But learners who do not

know the language, or do not know it well enough, must devotepart o their attention to learning and understanding the lan-(Continued on page 22)



13/19

t on s n e w at t s oes s rontloa t e new learn ng n t e stu ents pr marylanguage t en rev ew t a ter t e lesson.T ere s no ongo ng explanat on ortranslat on. W en t e real lesson s

el vere n Engl s , t e stu ents arealrea y somew at am l ar w t t e

ontent, ut t ey ave to on entrateto get t e message as t s el vere nEngl s . be ause o t e prev ew ng, t elanguage use n t e lesson s oul emore ompre ens le an , n pr n pleat least, t e stu ents w ll walk awayknow ng more ontent an more lan-guage (vo a ulary, key p rases). T en

y rev ew ng lesson ontent a ter t elesson, t e tea er e ks to see w et erstu ents a ompl s e t e lesson o je -t ve. T e NLP rev ewe a stu y t atprov e some support or t e e e t ve-ness o t s approa . Pr or to rea nga ook n Engl s , tea ers prev ewe

ult vo a ulary n Span s (t e

pr mary language) t en a terwarrev ewe t e mater al n Span s . T spro u e etter ompre ens on anre all t an e t er o t e two ontrol

on t ons: rea ng t e ook n Engl sor o ng a s multaneous Span s transla-t on w le rea ng. A stu y not n lu e

n t e NLP prov es anot er example.Resear ers oun t at tea ng rea ng

ompre ens on strateg es n stu entspr mary language mprove rea ng

ompre ens on w en stu ents rea nt e se on language. 5 (Note t at t s squ te erent t an t e ne e t ve

ompre ens on strategy nstru t ones r e on p. 19 o t e ma n art le,

w ere nstru t on was el vere nEngl s .)

Tea ers an also o er pr marylanguage support y o us ng on t es m lar t es an eren es etweenEngl s an stu ents nat ve language.

or example, us ng t e Roman alp a et,many letters represent t e same soun s nEngl s an ot er languages, ut ot ers

o not. in a t on, as s usse n t ema n art le, languages ave ognates,

t at s wor s w t s are mean ngs romommon etymolog al roots ( geography an geografa , or nstan e). call ngstu ents attent on to t ese ognates

oul elp exten t e r vo a ular es anmprove t e r ompre ens on. however,

we o not know t e e e t o ognatenstru t on per se. 6 Nonet eless, t ere

are a num er o use ul sour es o Span s -Engl s ognates t at tea ers o ELLs

an onsult. 7 The Dictionary o SpanishCognates Thematically Organized 8 o ersan ex aust ve, ook-lengt l st; ut see

also t e Dictionary o Spanish FalseCognates 9 or wor s t at an ausepro lems, su as (my personal avor te)embarrassed an embarazada . T e lattermeans pregnant. W en put n t emas ul ne orm embarazado t anreally l g t up a lassroom o Span s -speak ng a oles ents.

Supporting ELLs in

English-Only Settingsin a t on to a ommo at ons t at makeuse o stu ents pr mary language, anum er ave een suggeste t at onlymake use o Engl s . All o t e ollow ngappear to e gener s a ol s ansupports, t at s, t ere s l ttle o v ouslyta lore to ELLs. T ey m g t, n a t, ee e t ve strateg es or many stu entspart ularly t ose w o nee more learn ngsupport t an s typ ally prov e ntea ng/learn ng s tuat ons w ere ver alex anges o n ormat on pre om nate.

Pre ta le an ons stent lassroommanagement rout nes, a e y

agrams, l sts, an easy-to-reas e ules on t e oar or on

arts, to w t e tea erre ers requently;

Grap organ zers t at make ontentan t e relat ons ps among on eptsan erent lesson elements v suallyexpl t;

A t onal t me an opportun t es orpra t e, e t er ur ng t e s ool ay,

a ter s ool, or or omework;Re un ant key n ormat on, e.g.,v sual ues, p tures, an p ys algestures a out lesson ontent an

lassroom pro e ures;

i ent y ng, g l g t ng, anlar y ng ult wor s an passages

w t n texts to a l tate ompre en-s on, an more generally greatlyemp as z ng vo a ulary evelopment;

help ng stu ents onsol ate textknowle ge y av ng t e tea er,ot er stu ents, an ELLs t emselvessummar ze an parap rase;

G v ng stu ents extra pra t e nrea ng wor s, senten es, an stor es

n or er to u l automat ty anfuen y;

Prov ng opportun t es or exten entera t ons w t tea er an peers;

A just ng nstru t on (tea ervo a ulary, rate o spee , senten e

omplex ty, an expe tat ons or

stu ent language pro u t on)a or ng to stu ents oral Engl spro en y; an ,

Target ng ot ontent an Engl slanguage o je t ves n every lesson.

T s last element s one o t e all-marks o t e S eltere instru t onO servat on Proto ol, or SiOP, urrently

one o t e most popular nstru t onalmo els or ELLs n all-Engl s nstru t on.10 T e SiOP mo el as ma e lear anexpl t a large num er o nstru t onalmo at ons, su as t ose l ste a ove,an ntegrate t em nto a o erent

es gn or plann ng, el ver ng, anassess ng nstru t on. intereste tea ersare en ourage to look nto t s prom s-

ng approa . To ate, owever, only onepu l s e stu y as exam ne t e e e tso t e SiOP on stu ent learn ng, an tsresults were very mo est. 11 T e resear -ers oun a sl g t mprovement n t equal ty o wr t ng pro u e y m le-s ool ELLs w ose tea ers a re e vet e SiOP tra n ng, ompare w t stu entso s m lar a kgroun s w ose tea ers

a not re e ve t e tra n ng.

Assessing Knowledge andLanguage Separatelybe ause language l m tat ons are l kely too s ure w at l ren a tually know an

an o, t s essent al t at ELLs e assessen a way t at un ouples language

pro en y rom ontent knowle ge. A

goo llustrat on o w y t s s mportantomes rom a stu y n w resear ers

use var ous nstru t onal strateg es totea pres ool ELLs r ym ng sk lls, an

mportant aspe t o p onolog alawareness. 12 To evaluate t e ntervent on,t ey assesse r ym ng y prompt ng

l ren w t a wor an ask ng t em toprov e a wor t at r yme . i t e testersa lake, t e l woul e expe teto pro u e, or example, ake. As tturne out, regar less o nstru t onalgroup, all o t e l ren very poorlyon t e assessment. T e average s ore ont e r ym ng test was less t an one,mean ng t at a lot o l ren s mply not respon . W y? Pro a ly e auset e task was s mply eyon t e

l rens Engl s languagea l t es; t ey were una le topro u e a r ym ng wor , s n et e r vo a ular es were sol m te . c l ren were, nessen e, g ven a test t atmeasure pro u t ve vo a u-lary as mu as r ym ng sk ll.



14/19

resear a k ng s t at group ng ELLsan Engl s speakers ur ng nstru t onw ll, n tsel , promote ELLs oral Engl spro en y. Tea ers somet mes assume(not unreasona ly) t at pa r ng ELLs anEngl s speakers w ll prov e ELLs w tpro u t ve language-learn ng opportun -t es, ut t e cREdE synt es s asts ou ton t s. One stu y es r e t e ase oan ELL w ose tea er rel e almostex lus vely on lassmates to support t estu ents lassroom part pat on. be auset e ass gnments were ar eyon t s

l s language an a a em sk lls, erpeers were at a loss as to ow to ass st

er. 16 Anot er stu y, an exam nat on oooperat ve learn ng n one s xt -gra elassroom, oun t at Engl s -speak ng

stu ents an ELLs rarely engage nntera t ons t at we m g t expe t to

promote learn ng. More typ ally, Engl sspeakers ut t e ntera t ons s ort nor er to n s t e ass gnment, as t e

stu ent w o sa , just wr te t at own.W o ares? Lets n s up. 17 T ese anot er stu es rev ewe n t e cREdEreport suggest at least two mportantpo nts a out group ng Engl s speakersw t ELLs. rst, Engl s speakers must

e groupe w t ELLs w o are not sola k ng n Engl s sk lls t at mean ng ul

ommun at on an task engagemente ome pro lemat . Se on , tasks t at

stu ents engage n must e are ullyes gne to e nstru t onally mean ng ul

an prov e su ta le opportun t es orstu ents to part pate at t e r un t onallevels. S mply pa r ng or group ngstu ents toget er an en ourag ngt em to ntera t or elp ea ot er snot su ent.

Adding TimeG ven t at ELLs ave more to learnt eregular urr ulum t at everyone mustlearn, plus Engl s t makes sense to

ons er ways to prov e t em w t extrat me or learn ng. Exten e ay, a ters ool, exten e year, summer s ool, anextra years to earn a ploma are all

poss l t es. A re ent art le nEducationWeek makes a very ompell ng ase ora ter-s ool programs t at prov e ELLsw t a t onal t me an supports to elppromote Engl s language evelopmentan learn ng a a em ontent. 18 i knowo no resear t at as exam ne t ee e ts o extra t me or Engl s learners,

ut t ese are learly poss l t es t ate u ators, pol ymakers, an resear erss oul ons er.

c.G.

T e stu y m g t ave o ta ne erentresults t e resear ers a presentepa rs o wor s an aske l ren to

st ngu s etween r ym ng annonr ym ng pa rs or a l ren sele tt e r ym ng wor rom several poss le

o es. W le tea ers s oul prov el ren w t language-learn ng an

language-use tasks t at allenge t eman stret t e r language evelopment,t ey s oul not expe t l ren to

produce language eyon t e r level oEngl s pro en y.

E u ators an resear ers ave eennvest gat ng mo at ons su as

s mpl y ng test tems an prov ngl ngual t onar es, w oul perm t

ELLs to emonstrate ontent knowle gen sp te o language l m tat ons. T e

resear s ar ly e n t ve, ut onerev ew on lu e t at s mpl y ng test

tems (e.g., us ng as vo a ulary ans mple syntax), ut keep ng t e ontent

t e same, was an e e t ve a ommo a-t on t at s oul e use to preventlanguage l m tat ons rom unne essar lysa r ng ELLs test per orman e.13

Effects of Culturally Accommo-dated Instruction Are UncertainSome e u ators an resear ers avesuggeste t at e ause erent ulturalgroups e ave an ntera t erently orm g t ave erent learn ng styles,e u ators s oul use nstru t onalapproa es t at are ompat le w tstu ents ultural ara ter st s ( .e., t at

u l upon or omplement e av oral anntera t onal patterns stu ents learn atome). Many rea ers may e surpr se to

learn t at t e NLP on lu e t ere s l ttleev en e to support t e propos t ont at ulturally ompat le nstru t onen an es t e a tual a evement oEngl s learners. in a t, as ment one nt e ma n art le (p. 18), a stu y rev ewe

y t e NLP oun t at a mastery learn ng/ re t nstru t on approa pro u e

etter e e ts on Mex an-Amer anstu ents rea ng ompre ens on t an

an approa ta lore to aspe ts ot e r so o ultural ara ter st s.14 Somestu es, most o w are met o olog -

ally weak, ave n ate t at ulturallya ommo ate nstru t on an promoteengagement an g er-level part pa-t on ur ng lessons. T e strongest anmost nfuent al o t ese stu es 15 ount at w en hawa an l ren were a leto speak reely an spontaneouslyw t out wa t ng or tea er perm ss onan ntera t on pattern s m lar to t at at

omet e r a evement-relate

e av ors ( e ne as a a em engage-ment, top al an orre t responses,num er o ea un ts expresse , anlog al n eren es) all n rease ur ngt e rea ng lesson.

T s s a mean ng ul n ng, ut t snot t e same as esta l s ng a onne t on

etween ulturally a ommo atenstru t on an measure a evement.

T e ypot es s s erta nly plaus le, anuture resear m g t esta l s su aonne t on. but or now, t appears t atevelop ng lessons w t sol ontent anlearly stru ture nstru t on s more l kely

to pro u e ga ns n terms o stu entlearn ng. Tea ers s oul , o ourse,respe t an learn a out t e ultural

a kgroun s o t e r stu ents. Ant s n ee poss le t at ta lor ngnstru t on to eatures o stu entsome ulture ( or example, ntera t on

styles) m g t make t em eel moreonne te to t e r lassrooms; t s s

w at t e n ngs a out g erengagement levels suggest. butt ere s l ttle as s at t e moment

or t e propos t on t at mo y ng

nstru t on to su t stu ents ulturalara ter st s as an mpa t ona evement.

Promoting ProductiveInteraction among

ELLs and EnglishSpeakers

Anot erpropos t on

w t weak

(Endnotes on page 44)




guage in which that content is taught. Its an enormous chal-lenge that most ELLs probably have difculty meeting withoutadditional instructional supports.

In the earliest stages o learning to read, however, when theocus is on sounds, letters, and how they combine to orm

words that can be read, English learners can make progress inEnglish that is comparable to that o English speakers, providedthe instruction is clear, ocused, and systematic. In other words, when the language requirements are relatively lowas they are or learning phonological skills (the sounds o the languageand how words are made up o smaller constituent sounds),letter-sound combinations, decoding, and word recognitionELLs are more likely to make adequate progress, as judged by the sort o progress we would expect o English speakers. Tey still probably require some additional support due to languagelimitations.

As content gets more challenging and language demandsincrease, more and more complex vocabulary and syntax are

required, and the need or instructional modi cations to makethe content more accessible and comprehensible will probably increase accordingly. he NLP concluded that high-quality reading instruction alone will be insufcient to support equalacademic success or ELLs, and that simultaneous e orts toincrease the scope and sophistication o these students orallanguage pro ciency is also required. 32 Our knowledge o how to accelerate this development o oral English pro ciency, how-ever, is un ortunately quite limited (see Critical Questionssidebar p. 12).

Nonetheless, it is evident that improving oral English pro -ciency is a must. ELLs language limitations begin to impedetheir progress most noticeably as they move beyond the early stages o reading, and vocabulary and content knowledgebecome increasingly relevant or continued reading (and gen-eral academic) successusually around third grade. Tis is why it is critical that teachers work to develop ELLs oral English,particularly vocabulary, and their content knowledge rom thetime they start school, even as they are learning the reading

(Continued from page 19)

Since theres no one best way to educateEnglish language learners (ELLs), schools haveadopted a wide variety o models. Early exit,late exit, transitional, developmental,

shelteredthe sea o programs and terminology is murky at best. To bring someclarity, turn to CREDEs Progr m altern tivesfor Linguistic lly Diverse Students ( http:// crede.berkeley.edu/pdf/epr01.pdf ), whichincludes descriptions o various approachesand the resources needed to implement

them, as well as short case studies o schools. At the extremes, the options range rom

sheltered instruction, in which English-only teaching and texts are modifed to makethem more comprehensible as ELLs learnacademic English and content, to dual immersion, in which instruction is in twolanguages with the goal o bilingualism or all (not just ELLs). We talked to teachers inboth types o programs.

Richard Quinones, a second-gradeteacher at Oyster Bilingual School inWashington, D.C., co-teaches a class o 26

students with Vanesa Gracia. Richard is anative English speaker and Vanesa is a nativeSpanish speaker. Oyster uses dual immersionto teach its pre-K through seventh-grade

students academic content in Spanish and English. Roughly one-hal the student body iscomprised o native Spanish speakers, whilethe other hal consists o English speakers.

At the other end o the spectrum, KatieKurjakovic provides sheltered instruction to

small groups o ELLs at P.S. 11, the KathrynM. Phelan School, in Queens. The students in

this K-6 school speak 20 di erent languages.In each grade, there is at least one classroomthat consists entirely o ELLs and that istaught by a certifed English as a second language (ESL) teacher. In addition, the

school has three ESL teachers, includingKatie, who provide extra supporto ten inEnglish language development and literacyto ELLs, both those in the ESL classrooms and those who have been mainstreamed.

E ditors

Richard Quinones, Oyster Bilin-gual School, Washington, D.C.The whole ea o the Oyster mo el sthat you have two tea hers n the

lassroomone nat ve Span sh speakeran one nat ve Engl sh speaker. Thestu ents re e ve nstru t on hal the t me

n Span sh an hal the t me n Engl sh.To o a s en e un t on plants, or

example, my partner an i start o ylook ng at the stan ar s; we make sure

we oth have the same un erstan ng owhat the h l nee s to know an ea le to o. Then we ent y key wor s

rom the vo a ulary an plan how weare go ng to n lu e them n the lessonsan homework. (On Mon ays anWe nes ays i g ve out homework nEngl sh; on Tues ays an Thurs ays mypartner g ves out homework n Span sh.)

in se on gra e, stu ents nee toknow not only the omponents o aplant, ut how those omponents

workthe purpose o the leaves, theroots, an the stems. We have the k sgrow plants, use the vo a ulary, anrea a out plants (so as to ntegratewhat they are learn ng nto the rea ng

lo k). We keep wr tten logs o theplants growth an have stu ents raw

llustrat ons w th la els.They learn a out plants n oth

Engl sh an Span sh. i i take the lea nthe frst weeks lesson, my partner w ll

then tou h on that lesson n Span shwh le shes o ng rea ng or wr t ng. butshes not go ng to re o the same lesson,an v e versa. When my partner oes alesson n Span sh hav ng to o w than mals, im not go ng to tea h thatlesson aga n. im just go ng to prov ethe Engl sh wor s that go along w th theSpan sh wor s stu ents learne . i m ghtalso o someth ng to re n or e the lesson

n rea ng an wr t ng.We also talk to our art an mus

tea hers to let them know what were

o ng. currently, my partner an i areo us ng on ograph es, an the arttea her s reat ng ooks w th ourstu ents on the ograph es theyve

een work ng on n our lassroom.desp te the extens ve olla ora-

t on at our s hool, we o a ehallenges w th ualmmers on. As mu h as

my partner an ioor nate an try to

plan so that were not

Two Classroom Views



upl at ng t ngs, t st ll seems l ke weretry ng to tea a years wort o urr u-lum n al t e t me. T e ggest al-lenge s mak ng sure t at were g v ng t esupport t at young rea ers nee .

Katie Kurjakovic, Kathryn M.Phelan SchoolP.S. 11, QueensO t e many languages our stu entsspeak, t e top two are bengal anSpan s . To meet t e nee s o ourstu ents, we ave a two-t ere setup orESL nstru t on. in ea gra e we ave atleast one all-ELL lassroom sta e y a

ert e ESL tea er w o tea es all ot e ma n su je ts us ng extra v suals,

an s-on a t v t es, an ot er supports,an also emp as zes u l ng upknowle ge an vo a ulary. in a t on,we ave ert e ESL tea ers w o,

nstea o e ng ass gne to a lassroom,work w t small groups o stu ents. orexample, i ave a group o t - ans xt -gra ers w o ave een ere or anum er o years, ut t ey st ll ant passt e states ESL test. i pull t em out ur ngt e r rea ng per o to on entrate on

e o ng, vo a ulary, fuen y, anompre ens on.

One o t e great t ngs a out ours ool s were very olla orat ve. i a

lassroom tea er says to me, Weveeen o ng t s un t n so al stu es an

t e k s just arent gett ng t. can youg ve some support? i w ll ra t a lessonto g ve stu ents a kgroun knowle geor work on t e ot er sk lls n t e ontentarea. or example, t ere was a t -gra e lass rea ng t e novel Sarah Plainand Tall . T e ook takes pla e ur ngp oneer t mes n t e M west. T erewere k s w o not ave a k-groun knowle ge to un erstanw at t at per o n story lookel ke. So we looke at maps an a loto p tures rom t at t me to put t e

story nto an un erstan a leontext.be ause o t e erent

language levels among our ELLs,we o ten ave to erent ate

ass gnments w le av ngall o t e stu ents

work on t e

same on ept. or example, we re ently a wr t ng a t v ty w ere t e stu ents

ompare t e ty an t e ountry, ansupporte w y t ey wante to l ve ne t er pla e. Espe ally or t e new om-ers, we a to o some pretea ng

e ause t ey knew t e wor ountryonly n t e ontext o a ore gn ountry.T ey starte ompar ng New York c tyw t bangla es or c na. To tea t e

on ept, we a stu ents sort p tures ot ngs t at are n t e ty or t e ountry.On e t ey a t at ontext, t ey werea le to respon to t e wr t ng a t v ty,t oug at vary ng levels. One t -gra er enrolle n t e s ool just twoweeks e ore t s lesson. T ere was noway e was go ng to e a le to wr te a

ompar son, so we gave m a p e e opaper ol e n al . he la ele one s e

ty an one ountry, an e s mply rewontrast ng p tures. he was eal ng w t

t e on ept even t oug e not avet e language yet. T en we starte totea m t e names o some o t et ngs e a rawn: u l ng, ar, tra n,

et . T e stu ents w o are a l ttle morea van e worke w t t e languagepattern: t e ty as ars, t e ty astru ks, t e ty as people. T e morefuent stu ents wrote ull-fe ge essays.

Even w t all t ese supports, t e ELLso ten nee extra t me. We o er a lot oa ter-s ool lasses just or ELLs so t ey

an get even more elp t an t ey re e veur ng t e ay. or nstan e, one a ter-

s ool lass s Engl s language anvo a ulary just or new omers.

basics. vocabulary de elopment is, o course, important orall students, but it is particularly critical or ELLs. Tere can belittle doubt that explicit attention to ocabulary de elopmente eryday words as well as more specialized academic wordsneeds to be part o English learners school programs.

So, how should instruction be modi ed to help ELLs de eloporal English pro ciency? And how should it be modi ed to takeinto account their language limitations and ensure that they ha e access to the academic content? Se eral instructionalmodi cations or ELLs ha e been proposed. Some ha e support

rom research; others seem like common sense but ha e not yetbeen alidated empirically. Tese are discussed in the sidebar,Instructional Modi cations or English Learners, p. 18.

he instructional modi cations students need will prob-ably change as children de elop English pro ciency and in relation to what they are being expected to learn.Students who are beginning English speakers will need

a great deal o support, sometimes known as sca olding, or

learning tasks that require knowledge o English. For example,at the ery beginning le els, teachers will ha e to speak slowly and somewhat deliberately, with clear ocabulary and diction,and use pictures, other objects, and mo ements to illustrate thecontent being taught. hey should also expect students torespond either non erbally (e.g., pointing or signaling) or in one-or two-word utterances. As they gain in pro ciency, students willneed ewer modi cations or example, teachers can use morecomplex ocabulary and sentence structures and expect stu-dents to respond with longer utterances; when possible, in or-mation can be presented both in pictures and in writing. On theother hand, e en airly ad anced ELLs might require modi ca-tions when completely new or particularly difcult topics aretaught. It might also be that some students in some contexts willrequire more modi cations than others. We are utterly lackingthe data necessary to o er such guidelines. But it is likely thatELLs will need some additional instructional support or mucho their schooling. Con ersational English can be learned to a

(Continued on page 42)


17/1942 AMERICAN EDUCATOR | SUMMER 2008

reasonably high level in just two to three years, but pro ciency in academic English can require six, seven, or more years. 33

* * * Although there are numerous areas in which there is insu -

cient research to guide policy and practice, we can lay claimto some things that matter or the education o ELLs. Chie

among these is that 1) teaching children to read in their primary language promotes reading achievement in English; 2) in many important respects, what works or learners in general also works or ELLs; and 3) teachers must make instructional modi-

cations when ELLs are taught in English, primarily because o the students language limitations.

Practically, what do these ndings and conclus

teaching ells golden berg american educator

Documents