Fundamentals of Literacy
Instruction and Assessment, 6– 12

edited by

edited by Martha C. Hougen, Ph.D. University of Florida

Contents

About the Editor.....vii About the Contributors.....ix Foreword Carol Jago.....xiii Preface.....xv Acknowledgments.....xvii

1 Teaching Literacy and Content .....1 Martha C. Hougen

2 Social and Emotional Consequences of Reading Disabilities .....15 Leslie C. Novosel

3 Features of Effective Instruction .....27 Jennifer B. Wick Schnakenberg and Martha C. Hougen

4 Academic Vocabulary Development: Meaningful, Memorable, and Morphological .....41 Susan Ebbers and Martha C. Hougen

5 Fluency Development for the Older Student .....61 Jan Hasbrouck and Martha C. Hougen

6 “Now It Makes Sense!”: Best Practices for Reading Comprehension .....75 Stephen Ciullo and Colleen Klein Reutebuch

7 Learning to Write and Writing to Learn .....97 Joan Sedita

8 Understanding the New Demands for Text Complexity in American Secondary Schools .....115

11 Teaching Disciplinary Literacy in History Classes ... 153 Abby Reisman and Bradley Fogo

12 Teaching Secondary Students to Read and Write in Science ... 165 Dolores Perin

13 Reading and Writing as a Mathematician ... 179 Brian R. Bryant and Diane Pedrotty Bryant

14 Literacy in the Arts ... 191 Neva Cramer

15 Teaching Adolescent English Language Learners ... 205 Desirée Pallais

16 Response to Intervention and Multi-tiered Systems for Support in Secondary Schools ... 223 Pamela Bell

17 Microblogging: An Example of Using Technology to Increase Engagement ... 233 Hannah R. Gerber

18 Current Laws, Policies, and Initiatives ... 239 Martha C. Hougen, Susan M. Smartt, and Jane M. Hunt

19 Ten Tips for Becoming an Effective Teacher ... 251 Martha C. Hougen

Appendix A Formative

About the Editor

Martha C. Hougen, Ph.D., CEEDAR Center, University of Florida, 1403 Norman Hall/Post

Office Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611-7050 Dr. Hougen is Teacher Education Professional Development Leader at the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR Center) at the University of Florida. CEEDAR’s mission is to implement systemic reform to improve the achievement of students who struggle with learning, particularly students with disabilities. As a general and special education teacher, public school administrator, and university faculty member, Dr. Hougen has dedicated her work to improving teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Dr. Hougen earned degrees from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, American University, and The University of Texas at Austin. Her recent work at the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas at Austin focused on improving teacher education by providing teacher educators with professional learning and collaborative

teacher education by providing teacher educators with professional learning and collaborative opportunities. Awards Dr. Hougen has received include the National Educator of the Year, 2007, from the Council for Exceptional Children, Division of Learning Disabilities, and the Outstanding Administrative Leadership in Reading Award from the Texas State Reading Association, 2006. She is an active member of the International Dyslexia Association, the International Reading Association, the Council for Exceptional Children, and the Council for Learning Disabilities. In addition to peer-reviewed articles, curricular documents, and numerous presentations, Dr. Hougen co-edited the college textbook Fundamentals of Literacy Instruction and Assessment,

About the Contributors

Pamela Bell, Ph.D., has over 40 years of experience in special education and in national, state, and regional school improvement initiatives. Dr. Bell directs the Response to Intervention Institute at the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas at Austin. She is interested in preventing learning difficulties through effective response to

intervention implementation and in improving educational outcomes for youth in foster care. Brian R. Bryant, Ph.D., is a research professor at The University of Texas at Austin. He served as Research Director at PRO-ED, Inc., in Austin, a university instructor, and a classroom teacher in Maine. His research interests are in reading, writing, and mathematics learning disabilities; support needs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities; and assistive

technology applications across the lifespan. Diane Pedrotty Bryant, Ph.D., holds the Mollie Villeret Davis Professorship in Learning Disabilities in the Department of Special Education and is a project director for the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin. She is the co-editorin-chief of Learning Disability Quarterly. Her research interests focus on interventions in reading and mathematics for students with learning disabilities and difficulties. Dr. Bryant is the author of numerous peer-reviewed articles and coauthor of several textbooks and educational

assessments. Stephen Ciullo, Ph.D., a former teacher, is currently an assistant professor of special education at Texas State University and a research fellow at the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk. His research interests include interventions to enhance content learning and literacy

the director of education. Susan Ebbers, Ph.D., is an educational consultant, author, and researcher. After 15 years in public and private education, she began writing research-aligned vocabulary, morphology, and decoding curricula, published by Sopris West. Vist her blog, Vocabulogic, created to connect teachers with reserachers and to diminish the verbal gap that separates students of high and

Hannah R. Gerber, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Language, Literacy, and Special Populations at Sam Houston State University. Her scholarship focuses on the ecologies and pedagogies afforded through video-gaming practices among adolescents. She is the author of forthcoming books Game Night at the Library (Gerber & Abrams, VOYA Press) and Qualitative Methods for Researching Online Learning (Gerber, Abrams, Curwood, & Magnifico, Sage) and the edited volume Building Literate Connections Through Video Games and Virtual Environments: Practical Ideas and Connections (Gerber & Abrams, Sense Publishers). She is the found-

ing co-editor of the Sense book series Gaming Ecologies and Pedagogies. Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D., has worked as a reading specialist and coach, a university professor, and a consultant. Her research in reading fluency, assessment, and coaching has been widely published. She currently works with schools in the United States and internationally to help

increase the academic success of students with reading difficulties. Elfrieda “Freddy” Hiebert, Ph.D., has had a long career as a literacy educator, first as a teacher’s aide and teacher of primary-level students in California and, subsequently, as a teacher educator and researcher at the University of Kentucky, University of Colorado–Boulder, University of Michigan, and University of California– Berkeley. Her research, which addresses how fluency, vocabulary, and knowledge can be fostered through appropriate texts, has been published in numerous scholarly journals and books. Through documents such as Becoming a Nation of Readers (Center for the Study of Reading, 1985) and Every Child a Reader (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, 1999), she has contributed to making research accessible to educators (also see her web site www.textproject.org). Dr. Hiebert’s contributions to research and practice have been recognized through awards including the American Educa-

tional Research Association’s Research to Practice Award (2013). Jane M. Hunt, Ed.D., is a clinical assistant professor in the Teaching, Learning and Leading with Schools and Communities Teacher Preparation Program at Loyola University, Chicago. She has over 30 years of experience in education, including teaching in elementary and middle school classrooms, serving as a reading specialist and consultant, and working with teacher candidates and school partners as a university professor. Dr. Hunt’s research and teaching focuses on preparing literacy teachers to enter the field with the knowledge, skills, and commitment required to be able to meet the needs of all learners, primarily those in at-

reform efforts in Latin America. Dolores Perin, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Education in the Department of Health and Behavior Studies at Teachers College, Columbia University. She directs the Reading Specialist master program, which prepares students for state certification as teachers of literacy. Her research interests include the education of struggling readers and writers through the

Her research interests include the education of struggling readers and writers through the lifespan. Dr. Perin received a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Sussex in the United Excerpted from Fundamentals of Literacy

Kingdom and is a licensed psychologist with practical experience with individuals who have

reading and writing difficulties. Abby Reisman, PhD., is an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania who focuses on historical thinking and adolescent literacy. Her most recent inquiries center on teacher preparation around high-leverage practices, such as text-based discussion, and the design and interpretation of Common Core aligned history assessments. With Brad Fogo, she developed the Reading Like a Historian curriculum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWz08mVUIt8), a document-based curriculum that engages students in historical inquiry. She works with dis-

tricts across the country on helping teachers implement the Reading Like a Historian approach. Colleen Klein Reutebuch, Ph.D., is a senior research associate at The University of Texas at Austin and director of the Literacy Institute at the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk. She is a former secondary special and general education teacher. Dr. Reutebuch coordinates and directs intervention and professional development experimental studies. She

currently serves as coinvestigator on two Institute of Education Sciences– funded grants. Leslie S. Rush, M.Ed., Ph.D., is Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs in the College of Education at the University of Wyoming. An experienced English teacher and English teacher educator, Dr. Rush is the co-editor of English Education, the journal of the Conference on English Education.

Her research interests include disciplinary literacy, literacy coaching, and adolescent literacy. Joan Sedita, M.Ed., has been a literacy specialist and nationally recognized teacher trainer for over 35 years. She is the author of several content literacy professional development programs, including The Key Comprehension, The Key Vocabulary, and The Key Writing routines. Prior to founding Keys to Literacy, Joan worked at the Landmark School for 23 years, was a lead trainer for Reading First, and was a national LETRS author and trainer. She received her M.Ed. in reading from Harvard University and her B.A. from Boston College. Dr. Sedita is also an adjunct

research is on disciplinary literacy. Timothy Shanahan, Ph.D., is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Education at the University of Illinois–Chicago, where he was Director of the UIC Center for Literacy. Professor Shanahan is a former director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools, and he is Past President of the International Reading Association. He is the author of more than 200 publications on reading and writing instruction and assessment.

Pre-K–6 (Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 2012). Jennifer B. Wick Schnakenberg, Ph.D., is the principal investigator for the Texas Literacy Initiative at the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts and the project director for Preventing School Dropout with Secondary Students: The Implementation of an Individualized Reading Intervention and Dropout Prevention Intervention at the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests include teacher effectiveness, the impacts of professional development on teacher learning and student achievement, interventions for students with reading difficulties at all ages, and how leadership

15 Teaching Adolescent English Language Learners

Teaching Adolescent English Language Learners

Classroom Scenario

Classroom Scenario Mrs. Peterson is wondering how to help the English learners in her seventh-grade classroom learn from nonfiction passages. Recently, to learn to compare and contrast, she had students read an article that discussed similarities and differences between life in the city and life in the countryside. She started the lesson with a brief discussion on the topic. Then she asked students to take turns reading the article. She stopped after each paragraph for students to summarize and ask questions. None of her English language learners (ELLs) participated. For homework, students were asked to read the article again, answer two questions, and share their answers in class. Three ELL students displayed very different levels of skill on this assignment. Tran, a recent immigrant, wrote answers that were short and hard to understand. Manuel, born in the United States and classified as an ELL since first grade, produced lengthy responses consisting of his opinions, citing little information from the article. Ana, who recently passed an English as a second language (ESL) exit exam, copied exact phrases from the text in her writing. None of the students demonstrated the literacy skills Mrs. Peterson was expecting. How can Mrs. Peterson help these students so that they can

Many children in secondary classrooms, including native English speakers, experience a

Objectives: After studying this chapter, you will be able to:

Objectives: After studying this chapter, you will be able to:

1. Understand the developmental process of second-language proficiency and the

2. Describe language-based challenges and research-based approaches for English language learners (ELLs) in the disciplines.

3. Analyze the challenges for ELLs inherent in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

4. Select and apply instructional supports for ELLs that address specific language

5. Select and apply instructional supports for ELLs that address specific language components.

6. Design, implement, assess, and reflect on a lesson for ELLs targeting specific lan- when they are considered English proficient, tend to show even lower scores on standardized tests, and the achievement gaps between students of different cultural and linguistic 1 backgrounds remain significant. There are many reasons why ELLs struggle to learn English. For some students like Tran, short or inadequate responses to basic questions may suggest a temporary problem of learning a new language. On the other hand, Manuel seems stuck in a permanent and frustrating state of trying to acquire English and not succeeding, resulting in a devastating impact on his motivation. These “long-term” ELLs are becoming an increasing 2 focus of research and instructional concern. The problems that confront students like Ana are not so obvious. These students may no longer be designated as ELLs, but the quality of their schoolwork and their grades are not acceptable. This lack of academic English portends future

schoolwork and their grades are not acceptable. This lack of academic English portends future challenges to their success in higher education and related professional opportunities. Second-language learners are now expected to reach higher levels of academic achievement than in the past. Most states have rigorous standards for all secondary students to better 3 prepare them for college and careers. All ELLs, regardless of their levels of English proficiency, are accountable for the same end-of-year goals. Thus your instruction of ELLs needs to address second-language dev elopment and demanding content requirements. In previous chapters, you learned techniques to help all students learn, including ELLs. This chapter focuses on additional

ideas and tools designed to support ELLs when confronted with complex text and concepts.

Stag es o f S eco nd-L a ng uag e Acq uisit io n Acquiring a second language involves developing skills in listening, reading, speaking, and writing. ELLs move through a continuum as they develop English knowledge and skills in these four domains of language. Whereas there are some predictable characteristics of each stage of the continuum, ELLs’ second-language acquisition trajectories vary depending on many factors, such as previous language and school experiences, amount of English exposure, and

factors, such as previous language and school experiences, amount of English exposure, and 4 motivation. In the first stages of second-language acquisition, ELLs acquire a receptive vocabulary based on high-frequency words and routine expressions. They comprehend only a few phrases, usually needing visual or graphic support. They tend to remain silent in social interactions, understanding only a few isolated words. When they begin to use keywords and a few short phrases,

structures. They may display strong basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), social conversational skills supported by nonverbal cues, concrete references, and shared experiences. However, language proficiency for social interactions is insufficient to learn from subject area text; the latter requires acquiring formal academic language, referred to as cognitive aca- 7 demic language skills (CALP). CALP involves knowing specialized vocabulary, abstract concepts, and language structures common in complex text. Second-language learners who have

Excerpted from Fundamentals of words within a discipline; they can manipulate language forms with fluency and communi-

words within a discipline; they can manipulate language forms with fluency and communicate ideas with precision. For example, students easily select the conditional tense to construct an argument in science, as in “If your hypothesis had been true, we wouldn’t have obtained these unexpected results.” They have a strong command of the functional language to ask specific questions using complex phrases such as “What would happen if we tried the experiment with more accurate measures?” When reading, they grasp complex ideas with ease, such as when sentences begin with subordinate conjunctions (e.g., “Because the sum of the two angles must equal 180, we can figure out the unknown angle”) or when complex phrases contain a relative pronoun (e.g., “An exothermic reaction, which

In sharp contrast to how social English skills are acquired, academic language is learned in school environments as a result of meaningful interaction

a relative pronoun (e.g., “An exothermic reaction, which releases energy in the form of heat, has many practical 8 applications”). They quickly recognize the organizational pattern in a passage suggested by cohesive words such as notwithstanding, nevertheless, or additionally. In writing, they adeptly apply their knowledge of genres to produce a lab report, a book summary, or an essay, address-

Second-Language Challenges of Learning in the Disciplines

S econd-Language Challenges of Learning in the Disciplines

Underdeveloped Academic Vocabulary Knowledge Due to underdeveloped academic vocabulary knowledge and lack of English language skills, ELLs face specific challenges during academic discussions and when trying to construct mean-

ELLs face specific challenges during academic discussions and when trying to construct meaning from subject area text. For adequate listening and reading comprehension, 9 out of 10 words need to be known. However, ELLs tend to show large vocabulary gaps compared to their English-only peers. smaller vocabulary size hinders both oral and written comprehension. During classroom discussions, ELLs may struggle more with frequently used words than native English students. In addition, due to insufficient depth of vocabulary knowledge, many ELLs struggle with words that have multiple meanings, such as square, right, and angle in math or energy, field, and space in science. For the same reason, figurative phrases like shed light on the subject, boils down to, or the crux of the matter is can be problematic. Underdeveloped oral language and vocabulary may lead to word-by-word interpretation of expressions like least common multiple, multiply by, look up, cut it out, clear off, or build on. In all these situations, vocabulary weaknesses can lead to

Nat ive La ng uag e I nt erferenc es Some ELLs, especially at the intermediate stages of English proficiency, struggle with grammar conventions in English. It is important for teachers to understand these differences so that they can explicitly teach students how English differs from their native language. Table 15.1 suggests some areas that pose language challenges for speakers of Chinese and Spanish: irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement, noun/adjective conventions, and articles. Spanish-speaking ELLs have

challenging for ELLs who are learning complex content in a language they are also learning.

Table 15.1. Syntax differences among English, Spanish, and Chinese

Articles Rules for definite and indefinite articles are different.

differences. For example, in English there are more irregular verbs, and the verbs are less conjugated than in Spanish. Sometimes in English, an s is attached at the end of a verb— as in “he reads”— to indicate it is the third person singular doing the action (whereas for I, you, we, or they, the word is conjugated as “read”). In Spanish, it is much more common to attach endings to verbs to indicate who is doing the action. In the verb to read, for example, the verb is conjugated for every person: yo leo, tú lees, el lee, nosotros leemos, ustedes leen, ellos leen. In addition, Spanish has a more flexible word order than English. In an English sentence, the subject usually 13 goes before the verb. In a Spanish sentence, the subject can just as often go after the verb. Syntax differences pose more challenges for speakers of nonalphabetic languages. For example, in Mandarin Chinese, adverbs, rather than verbs, are markers for the timing of an action. Word order conventions also are different in Chinese. For example, it would be acceptable to say or 14 to write, “We to lunch went after school.” As a result, it may be particularly challenging for

many speakers of this language to assimilate English tenses. Language E xpectations for E nglish Language

Language Arts (ELA) 6– 12, and the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading. • Receptive language skills: Ten cross-disciplinary standards in the Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects 6–12 reflect a concern to acquire a common set of reading skills across all subjects for all secondary students, including ELLs. These 10 standards address 4 areas: gathering key ideas from text, craft and structure, integration of knowledge and ideas, and text complexity. To meet the expectations in these 10 standards, ELLs need to acquire new receptive language skills in vocabulary, syntax, and discourse patterns. Receptive language skills are also involved in the ELA standards, which address

patterns. Receptive language skills are also involved in the ELA standards, which address learning conventions, grammar, general and domain-specific vocabulary, and spelling. • Productive language skills: The CCSS promotes interaction and collaboration skills. The ELA Speaking and Listening Standards expect students to engage effectively in a range of collab-

Speaking and Listening Standards expect students to engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions, follow rules, pose questions, respond, and delineate the arguments of other speakers. Moreover, these standards require students to demonstrate understandings via presentations of claims and findings, including the adaptation of speech to a variety of contexts. Many ELLs will need practice using concept words, complex phrases, functional vocabulary, and academic expressions within the context of the disciplines. The productive language skills taught must include an applied knowledge of the pragmatics of communication and conversation, which involves knowing how to talk in various situations and with different people. For example, students may use informal slang when talking with peers

different people. For example, students may use informal slang when talking with peers in the hallways, but they should use formal English when giving classroom presentations. • Language for higher-level thinking: The CCSS outline an explicit commitment to academic rigor and higher order thinking activities for all students, including, of course, ELLs. For example, the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading expect students to analyze how and why individual ideas and events develop and interact, interpret words, analyze text, assess points of view, integrate and evaluate content, delineate and evaluate arguments, and compare approaches, among other expectations. To demonstrate these advanced academic abilities, ELLs need to develop sophisticated thinking skills and familiarity with the

Prepa ring Lesso ns with Sp ec ific

I nst ruct io nal S uppo rt s fo r E ngl ish La ng uag e Lea rners The more rigorous expectations of the CCSS require dedicated attention to instructional supports for all students. In this section, we discuss essential considerations for ELLs when preparing lessons to address the CCSS: teaching vocabulary, language constructs and functions,

instruction of idiomatic expressions such as give me a break, boils down to, or the crux of the matter is. Refer to Table 15.2 for some considerations when selecting words to teach ELL students. A second aspect to consider when teaching vocabulary to ELLs is how to present the new meanings. As discussed in previous chapters, students learn vocabulary best if you follow these

meanings. As discussed in previous chapters, students learn vocabulary best if you follow these guidelines:

1. Provide a student-friendly definition.

to connect ideas. For example, you may consider teaching the following mortar words used in many contexts: analyze, pattern, parameter, or characteristic. Teachers should teach and model Tier 2 words to help ELLs develop academic language, 15 using emerging instead of coming out or elaborate instead of tell me more. In addition, teachers need to determine if there are any Tier 1 words— usually not a concern with native English speakers— that should be taught to ELLs. Consider idioms and everyday expressions that may be unfamiliar to these students. At times, teaching these words can be very basic, such as highlighting the different meanings of simple homophones (to and two) or presenting a label for a familiar concept. In other cases, you may find that before reading a passage, ELL students need explicit instruction of idiomatic expressions such as give me a break, boils down to, or the crux of the matter is. Refer to Table 15.2 for some considerations when selecting words to teach ELL students.

1. Provide a student-friendly definition.
2. Use nonlinguistic supports— a visual or a graphic— to illustrate a word’s definition.
3. Highlight common Latin or Greek origins. Many ELLs can transfer knowledge for cognate words consisting of Latin or Greek word parts from high-frequency vocabulary in their

Table 15.2. Considerations when selecting words for English language learners

Simple idioms: Make up your mind. Some basic words: staple, bug

17 native language, especially in Spanish. For example, the word interact corresponds to the Spanish term interactuar. In this case, teach students that the prefix inter means between

Spanish term interactuar. In this case, teach students that the prefix inter means between and that the root act means to do in order to help them understand the word interact. 4. Share two kinds of sentences, one that will help students relate the new meaning to the 18 text and another one that is relevant to their experiences. For example, when teaching the word compromise, you could use the following sentences: To settle the border conflict, Mexico and Texas reached a compromise, and We negotiated a compromise with the seller to buy

Mexico and Texas reached a compromise, and We negotiated a compromise with the seller to buy 19 the car at a lower price. 5. Involve students in a dialogue about the new vocabulary before, during, and after reading. Before reading, encourage students to examine pictures, graphics, and bold print and to share predictions about the text. During reading, provide opportunities for students to notice new words in the context of the passage, to interact among one another using the new meanings, and to discuss their prior knowledge of the word. After reading, have students use graphic organizers to internalize new meanings. Promote deep-processing activities, where students generate sentences with the new words, using word diagrams,

Teach Language Constructions in Academic Text Explicitly teaching the language forms behind sophisticated sentences can help ELLs (see Table 21 15.3). For example, ELLs benefit when teachers model, emphasize, and point out the adjectives in the phrase: Volume is three dimensional, but surface area is two dimensional. As you prepare to use a textbook passage, notice if there are long noun phrases, complex sentences, or other advanced constructions that may pose challenges. For long noun phrases, give students opportunities to expand terms incrementally. Renaissance Mannerism, the eccentric sculptures in High-

Teach Language Constructions in Academic Text Explicitly teaching the language forms behind sophisticated sentences can help ELLs (see Table For example, ELLs benefit when teachers model, emphasize, and point out the adjectives in the phrase: Volume is three dimensional, but surface area is two dimensional. As you prepare to use a textbook passage, notice if there are long noun phrases, complex sentences, or other advanced constructions that may pose challenges. For long noun phrases, give students opportunities to 22 expand terms incrementally. For an art history class, an example could be Mannerism, High- Renaissance Mannerism, the eccentric sculptures in High-Renaissance Mannerism, and the distorted

Renaissance Mannerism, the eccentric sculptures in High-Renaissance Mannerism, and the distorted and eccentric sculptures in High-Renaissance Mannerism. To promote awareness of syntactical

activities, where students generate sentences with the new words, using word diagrams, cloze exercises, and/or word walls. 6. Incorporate the background experiences and personal viewpoints of your students. Word generation researchers have demonstrated increased achievement and motivation when 20 incorporating topics relevant to the students into vocabulary building experiences.

generation researchers have demonstrated increased achievement and motivation when 20 incorporating topics relevant to the students into vocabulary building experiences. 7. Create short passages that are controversial and of interest to your students, using the targeted words. Teach these words in the context of the passage. To assess the students’ mastery of the new vocabulary, write a passage leaving blanks and have the students

Table 15.3. Sample academic expressions in the different disciplines

History: perspective taking Science: generating a hypothesis

TEACH LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS

Teach La ng uag e F unct io ns When teaching ELLs, consider the language involved in classroom procedures and academic 23 tasks, such as describing, comparing, or hypothesizing. Experts recommend direct teaching of the language associated with these language functions to ELLs. Teachers need to explain the process, model the academic language involved, provide guided practice, and provide oppor-

tunities for students to practice using the terms.

Promote Academic Discussions Several chapters in this book discuss the benefit of peer discussions for all students, including ELLs. With ELLs, interacting with other students as part of learning is an essential consider- 24 ation. Social settings can create a bridge between ELLs’ prior concepts and new learning. encourage participation by ELLs, insert pauses for language practice at all stages of a lesson. Allow ELLs to use language to activate prior knowledge, react to new information, process and discuss concepts, give and get feedback, and synthesize ideas. Provide ample oral language opportunities before reading activities and before asking ELLs to demonstrate new learning. 25 “Think, pair, share” can be used during whole-class discussions. Class-wide peer tutoring— 26 students working in pairs— promotes engagement and meaningful learning with ELLs. Refer to Table 15.4 for other examples of peer-based discussion techniques from ESL contexts to support the development of fluency with academic terms and to promote thinking in meaningful

for examples of some instructional supports for beginner, intermediate, advanced, and advanced 31 high ELLs. An example of an instructional accommodation for listening with students in the early stages of English proficiency is the cloze dictation task. After discussing new vocabulary, dictate

stages of English proficiency is the cloze dictation task. After discussing new vocabulary, dictate

Excerpted from Fundamentals of

from Fundamentals

Table 15.4. Peer-based techniques that can help English language learners develop fluency with academic language

Interview grids Students move around the whole class talking to other students and taking notes. With the information acquired, they fill out an interview grid.

Sources: Archer and Hughes (2011); Herrell and Jordan (2012); Vaughn et al. (2009); Walqui and van Lier (2010).

two or three paragraphs containing the new vocabulary. All students write what you dictate; in this way, the content is kept the same for all students. Native speakers write on blank paper, while ELL students get specific linguistic supports. Students at an intermediate level of English proficiency and at lower levels get the same passage but with some target words and/or sentences removed, or they may get a copy of the passage with blanks only for the new vocabulary words (the rest of the words in the paragraph are provided). This listening/writing activity will

viding additional time to process the language. Use a chart or a graphic organizer to reinforce the vocabulary and the organization of ideas in the text. To scaffold the oral or written responses of students who are still acquiring English, vary the language complexity you expect in responses, depending on their language lev- 33 els. For example, students in the beginning levels may respond by thumbs up/thumbs down, yes/no formats, single-word responses, or labeling components in a picture. For students in the intermediate levels, prepare simple sentence frames; for advanced students, allow them to use more sophisticated language frames. To scaffold writing at the end of lessons, select a paragraph of four to six sentences, write each sentence on a strip of paper, and scramble the sentences. Direct the students to place the sentences in order to create a

Table 15.5. Suggested teacher behaviors to accommodate instruction to English language learners’ different proficiency

Display sample sentences illustrating specific language features Create word walls and require students to use them during class activities

language development and encourage teachers to establish language objectives as well as content objectives for each lesson, to use sentence frames to scaffold academic oral language, and

tent objectives for each lesson, to use sentence frames to scaffold academic oral language, and to promote peer discussions to provide ample language practice.

to promote peer discussions to provide ample language practice. In conclusion, when preparing lessons for ELLs, consider the following ideas:

In conclusion, when preparing lessons for ELLs, consider the following ideas: • ELLs benefit from explicit teaching of the language features involved in academic tasks. • Vocabulary teaching should be a priority; it is important to carefully select Tier 1, Tier 2, and

• Vocabulary teaching should be a priority; it is important to carefully select Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 words for ELLs. • In order to learn from complex text, ELLs need to understand sentence constructions and

students who are in the lower levels of English proficiency. A Sampl e Lesso n with Sp ec ific

teacher scripts reflect ideas discussed by Hollingsworth and Ibarra when crafting explicit 35 instruction lessons. Mrs. Peterson is preparing a language arts lesson on text structure. As a first step in her

Mrs. Peterson is preparing a language arts lesson on text structure. As a first step in her lesson preparation, she analyzes the following curriculum standards for seventh grade:

language functions. • Inserting pauses at multiple points in lessons allows time for ELLs to process the language. • Language starters and protocols to guide academic thinking during discussions can pro-

• Language starters and protocols to guide academic thinking during discussions can promote disciplinary thinking. • Design linguistic accommodations for listening, speaking, reading, and writing tasks for

Excerpted from Fundamentals of

FOR MORE, go to http://www.brookespublishing.com/fundamentals-of-literacy-instruction-6-12

• Common Core State Standard 5 for ELA: “Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to

(e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole.” • Texas College & Career Readiness Standards, Cross- Disciplinary Standard 7: “Adapt reading strategies

Disciplinary Standard 7: “Adapt reading strategies according to structure of texts.” She establishes content and language goals for her lesson. The content goal is this: Students will learn to identify text structure. To support ELL students, she also has a language objective: to understand and use mortar words,

language objective: to understand and use mortar words, connecting terms that are used to compare text structure. She wants her ELL students to understand the following terms and how they are used in sentences that use comparison text structures: similarly, likewise, as well as, in the same way, both, however, on the other hand, whereas,

as, in the same way, both, however, on the other hand, whereas, despite, and nevertheless. The following are scripts and descriptions of her lesson

The following are scripts and descriptions of her lesson implementation, corresponding to steps 3– 10 in Table 15.6. Presenting the Learning Objectives “Today we will identify the comparison text structure in informational text. Write down the learning objective for today’s lesson. Check your neighbor to make sure he or she is writing it down exactly as I am showing it on the projector. Today, we

to make sure he or she is writing it down exactly as I am showing it on the projector. Today, we will identify the comparison text structure in informational texts.” Activating Prior Knowledge “In the last lesson, we examined how the organization of ideas in a text can help us remember information, and we learned how to identify some key words that can help us identify sequential texts. Your knowledge of how clue words give hints of text structure will help you in today’s lesson. Tell your neighbor how you think knowledge of the comparison text structure can be useful to you in school. Write down at least two clue words that can help you identify sequential text structure. Share your clue word with your neighbor,

remember meanings to use when sharing. The teacher has posted other language frames on the wall for all students:

A comparison text structure organizes information by ______. Two clue words that can be used in a comparison text structure are ______ and ______.

comparison text structure can be useful to you in school. Write down at least two clue words that can help you identify sequential text structure. Share your clue word with your neighbor, and be ready to share with the class. You have 2 minutes.” Engaging Learners During Explicit Instruction and Modeling “Let’s read this sentence together: A comparison text structure organizes information by comparing and contrasting two items or ideas.” The teacher uncovers the next section from the projector, containing two overlapping circles. “When you compare two ideas, you can put them next to each other in your head and inspect what they have in common and what they don’t have in common.” The teacher points at the section where they overlap and where they do not overlap and makes gestures to demonstrate how you can compare two ideas. “A comparison text structure often contains clue words such as similarly, likewise, as well as, in the same way, both, however, on the other hand, whereas, despite, and nevertheless. Now, please whisper to your neighbor how a comparison text structure organizes information and mention two clue words that can be used.” A few ESL students are provided oral language stems adapted to their English proficiency and a list of clue words with native language translations to remember meanings to use when sharing. The teacher has posted other language frames

Two clue words that can be used in a comparison text structure are ______ and ______. To identify a comparison text structure, you ______ and ______.

To identify a comparison text structure, you ______ and ______. I would use the comparison text structure to ______.

Table 15.6. Example of a lesson integrating supports for English language learners

"Now we are going to learn two steps you can use to identify a comparison text structure:

tial type of text. Students have a graphic organizer and continue to work in pairs, sometimes answering questions from the teacher. Monitoring During Practice Most students start to apply the steps with teacher guidance and feedback. The teacher provides more support to some students who are in the low intermediate stage of English proficiency. The teacher monitors students and provides

“Now we are going to learn two steps you can use to identify a comparison text structure:

2. Confirm that ideas are being compared.” The teacher provides an example and a nonexample and models the application of those

ture?’ Allow them to answer the question and then ask, ‘When could you use the comparison text structure?’” After 3 minutes, the teacher asks students, “What do I look for in a text to verify if it has a paragraph, know how to recognize clue words, and only circle clue words in comparison

paragraph, know how to recognize clue words, and only circle clue words in comparison text paragraphs. Checking for Understanding During Lesson Review “Okay, students. Before I give you time to find examples in your science and social science texts independently, I want to make sure you are comfortable describing what a comparison text structure is, how you identify it, and

you are comfortable describing what a comparison text structure is, how you identify it, and why it might help you when you are reading.” The teacher checks for understanding and notices that most students can answer the three questions. Six students, however, need additional support. Two are intermediate students, and

questions. Six students, however, need additional support. Two are intermediate students, and the other four are advanced intermediate but low achievers. Providing Structured Independent Practice and In-Class Intervention The teacher distributes a papers and announces, “Students, you have 15 minutes to determine if the 3 paragraphs on the sheet have a comparison structure, and if they do, circle the clue words. I will be collecting

the sheet have a comparison structure, and if they do, circle the clue words. I will be collecting papers in 15 minutes.” She then invites the six students in need of additional support to join her. The two intermediate ELLs need help understanding the meaning of some clue words: similarly, despite, whereas, and nevertheless. The teacher shares their use in a variety of sentences. Students practice matching clue words to sentences. These students complete sentences inserting the right clue word. Finally, they use clue words to construct one sentence using language frames at their level. To motivate the four advanced intermediate students who are low achievers, the teacher asks these four students to choose from partially completed phrases and examples to write a comparison text structure of their choice. She reviews procedures with them and

ples to write a comparison text structure of their choice. She reviews procedures with them and supports them in preparing short presentations. Assessing and Monitoring Learning As homework, the teacher asks students to select one paragraph using the comparison text structure from their social studies textbook and one from

paragraph using the comparison text structure from their social studies textbook and one from their science textbook and to circle the clue words in each paragraph. The teacher asks students to prepare to share their findings. Some ELL students are pro-

vided language frames:

The comparison text structure I chose relates to the topic of ______.

use language again, this time to paraphrase what they have learned about the comparison text structure. Mrs. Peterson also prepares differentiated language frames to meet the needs of some of her ELL students. Four ELL students are like Manuel in the introductory vignette. There are also two recent immigrants who are low intermediates and are similar to Tran. Based on the individual needs of these students, Mrs. Peterson prepares additional, differentiated supports. Notice that in step 5, the teacher prepares simple sentence frames for the two low intermediate students and also allows the use of native language. In steps 7 and 9, as part of an in-class short intervention, these students get targeted support. They practice inserting clue words in sentences and using

The comparison text structure I chose relates to the topic of ______. I chose it because ______.

these students get targeted support. They practice inserting clue words in sentences and using language frames to produce original sentences. The four students that are similar to Manuel

The clue words I found were ______. The next day, the teacher evaluates the homework, enters progress monitoring data for all students, and writes additional notes to the ESL specialist regarding two low intermediate

from Fundamentals are invited to choose among partially completed phrases and examples as a way of raising their

are invited to choose among partially completed phrases and examples as a way of raising their motivation; they are also given extra supports in preparation for a class presentation. For homework, ELL students are again supported with language frames as they apply and generalize learning while looking for paragraphs in social science and science textbooks that use the comparison text structure. The next day, Mrs. Peterson evaluates the homework and

tracks the language and content progress of her ELL students. Assessing Prog ress o f E ngl ish La ng uag e

Assessing Prog ress o f E ngl ish La ng uag e
Lea rners in Acq uiring E ngl ish a nd Lea rning Co nt ent The progress of ELLs needs to be assessed in two areas: acquiring English and mastering the

The progress of ELLs needs to be assessed in two areas: acquiring English and mastering the content. Sometimes both can be measured with the same instruments. You should have a record of the general level of language proficiency for the ELLs in

You should have a record of the general level of language proficiency for the ELLs in your classroom. All states are required to measure and report annually the growth of ELLs in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Be sure to determine how your district and state assesses ELLs and your role in the assessment process. If you haven’t received the results of the annual assessment of

with established criteria in comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar. You may combine analytic rubrics like the SOLOM with content knowledge assessment by inserting standards for a given unit of study. Thus the same rubric can address content and language outcomes. For example, you could use the language standards to monitor students’ use of specialized vocabulary in the context of a unit on American history. In this case, add a section listing descriptors at the various levels for the language expectation; add other sections with criteria related to the content. In this way, you may create a standards-based rubric that tracks progress in language and content mastery

homework assignments. Portfolio assessments can also help to document the progress of ELL students in both language and content. Summative assessments, completed at the end of a unit, semester, or year, may have to be modified for ELLs to obtain an accurate measure of what they know but may not be able to express well in English. It is important to measure content knowledge without the interference

express well in English. It is important to measure content knowledge without the interference of language, especially when assessing ELLs who are at lower levels of English proficiency.

of language, especially when assessing ELLs who are at lower levels of English proficiency.

Excerpted from Fundamentals of

Table 15.7. Sample English language learner supports

Consider providing language accommodations that are aligned to the instructional supports 37 used during learning. Include word banks, glossaries, electronic translators, visuals, graphic

Note: ELL, English language learners.

37 used during learning. Include word banks, glossaries, electronic translators, visuals, graphic organizers, or extended time (see also Table 15.7). 38 Many second-language learners benefit from monitoring their own progress. Communicate to your ELLs the criteria for grading and the specific language components that are addressed in a lesson or unit. Clear expectations will guide their self-impro vement efforts.

for them to participate in identifying evaluation criteria for their work and in contributing to plans to reach higher standards. Give them time to discuss their progress with peers and to rate

plans to reach higher standards. Give them time to discuss their progress with peers and to rate each other’s work using a rubric. Some experts recommend providing information on both language proficiency and academic achievement on report cards. In this system, the percentage contribution of standardsrelated learning requirements increases as students move up in the levels of English

SUMMARY

S umma ry The scenario at the beginning of this chapter described a teacher who needed help supporting ELLs in a seventh-grad e classroom. After analyzing the stages of second-language development, the language challenges involved in learning content in the upper grades, instructional techniques, and linguistic accommodations, you now have new ideas to promote content acquisition and language development for ELLs in secondary classrooms. Students who are acquiring foundational English knowledge and skills, in particular, will need specific linguistic accommodations in order to learn in the upper grades. A focus on language in the context of challenging and meaningful activities will contribute to high-quality teaching with ELLs in

APPLICATION ACTIVITIES

Appl icat io n Act

I n-Class Assignments

1. In groups, analyze and sort the following words and expressions into vocabulary Tiers 1, 2, and 3 for ELLs: lecture, exit, isotope, search, read between the lines, constitute, satire, itemize, with bells and whistles, cede, boundary, moreover, assistance, claim, expression, declare, running around, formulate, reservation, and meiosis. Select two words and dis-

reading, and use of graphic organizers.

S tudent Assignments (This May or May N ot Be Y our Tutee)

1. Interview an ELL to obtain information about his or her native language, school experiences, and cultural background. What did you learn about the student that could inform

cuss how you would teach them. 2. Analyze the lesson discussed in this chapter and use it to develop a scoring rubric containing essential features to use when teaching ELLs. 3. With a partner, select a standard from your discipline to teach. Adapt the lesson example

ences, and cultural background. What did you learn about the student that could inform your instruction? 2. Obtain a writing sample from an ELL student in the subject you plan to teach. Examine the word choice, sentence structure, and the organization of ideas. Determine areas of

the word choice, sentence structure, and the organization of ideas. Determine areas of linguistic support for this student. Excerpted from Fundamentals of Literacy

FOR MORE, go to http://www.brookespublishing.com/fundamentals-of-literacy-instruction-6-12

Pallais

3. Design an activity to teach five academic words to a group of ELLs, adapting an example from units provided by Word Generation researchers: http://aala.serpmedia.org/index .php/topic-and-words
4. Select a chapter from a middle school textbook in your discipline. Design a lesson with listening, speaking, reading, and writing accommodations to support a beginner and an intermediate ELL. If possible, teach the lesson and reflect on your implementation. Did your students benefit from the linguistic supports? How do you know? What would you do differently the next time you teach this lesson?
5. Observe instruction in a secondary classroom with ELLs and use the rubric you devel- oped (In-Class Assignment #2) to evaluate the lesson observed.

Homework Assignments

1. Analyze the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM), available for download at http://www.cal.org/twi/EvalToolkit/appendix/solom.pdf. 41 What linguistic accommo- dations would you provide for a student who scored 3 in comprehension, 3 in fluency, 3 in vocabulary, 4 in pronunciation, and 2 in grammar?

2. Form groups to analyze the unit developed by Aída Walqui, Nanette Koelsch, and Mary Schmida, titled Persuasion Across Time and Space, available to download from Stanford University at http://ell.stanford.edu/teaching_resources/ela Discuss how the instructional techniques used in the unit promote language profi- ciency while at the same time help ELL meet English language arts standards.

3. Investigate ESL practices in a nearby school. Describe the services provided and how the ESL and classroom teachers work together. Based on what you find, propose how the ESL teacher and the classroom teacher can improve their collaboration to support ELLs.

4. Explore the following web sites and construct a table describing at least one instructional approach from each web site that may help you when teaching ELLs.

• http://www.cal.org/create
• http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/assessment
• http://ell.stanford.edu/teaching_resources/ela
• http://www.wordsift.com/site/about
• http://wg.serpmedia.org/index.html
• http://www.readingrockets.org/research/topic/ell

E nd not es

1. Hemphill, Vanneman, & Rahman (2011). 15. Minaya-Rowe (2012).
2. Calderón & Minaya-Rowe (2011). 16. Calderón (2007).
3. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative (2013). 17. Dressler & Kamil (2006).
4. Gottlieb (2006). 18. Reutebuch (2010).
5. Collier (2008). 19. Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk (2009).
6. Cummins (1979). 20. Snow, Lawrence, & White (2009).
7. Cummins (1979). 21. Scarcella (2003).
8. Zwiers (2008). 22. Fang (2006).
9. Fillmore (2013). 23. Kinsella (2008).
10. Nation (2006). 24. Zwiers (2006).
11. Graves, August, & Mancilla-Martinez (2013). 25. Archer & Hughes (2011).
12. Gibbons (2009). 26. Vaughn et al. (2009).
13. Hill & Bradford (1991). 27. Herrell & Jordan (2012).
14. Soto-Hinman & Hetzel (2009). 28. Zwiers & Crawford (2011). Excerpted from Fundamentals of Literacy Instruction and Assessment, 6-12 by Martha C. Hougen, Ph.D. Brookes Publishing | www.brookespublishing.com | 1-800-638-3775 ' | All rights reserved

29. Zwiers (2008).

30. Goldenberg (2012).

31. Texas Education Agency (TEA)/Education Service Center, Region 20 (2012).

32. Echevarria, Vogt, & Short (2010).

33. Dutro & Moran (2003).

34. Zwiers (2008).

35. Hollingsworth & Ybarra (2008).

36. California Department of Education (2012). Texas Education Agency (TEA)/Education Service Cen-37. Fairbairn & Jones-Vo (2010).

37. Walqui (2000).

38. Gottlieb (2006).

39. Walqui & van Lier (2010).

R eferenc es Archer, A.L., & Hughes, C.A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford. Calderón, M.E. (2007). Teaching reading to English language learners, Grades 6– 12: A framework for improving achievement in the content areas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Calderón, M.E., & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2011). Preventing long-ciation, Center for Applied Linguistics, & Teachers of term English language learners: Transforming schools to meet core standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. California Department of Education. (2012). Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/evaltoolkit/appendix/solom.pdf Collier, C. (2008). Handbook for second language acquisition. Ferndale, WA: Crosscultural Developmental Educational Services. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative. (2013). Common Core State Standards Initiative: Preparing America’s students for college and career. Retrieved from http://www .corestandards.org Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121– 129. Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (pp. 197–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural approach. In G. García (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D.J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for secondary English language learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language learners: A guide for Kteachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491– 520. Fillmore, L.W. (2013). Common Core Standards and English learners. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). Webinar. Retrieved from http:// www.ncela.gwu.edu/webinars/event/37 Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goldenberg, C. (2012). Research on English learner instruction. In M.E. Calderón (Ed.), Breaking through: Effective instruction & assessment for reaching English learners. Bloom-

Archer, A.L., & Hughes, C.A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford. from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Calderón, M.E. (2007). Teaching reading to English language Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 12: A framework for improving achieve-Graves, M.F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). ment in the content areas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Teaching vocabulary to English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, International Reading Asso- Rowe, L. (2011). Preventing long-ciation, Center for Applied Linguistics, & Teachers of term English language learners: Transforming schools to meet English to Speakers of Other Languages. Hemphill, F., Vanneman, A., & Rahman, T. (2011). How His- California Department of Education. (2012). Student Oral panic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Retrieved from and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. http://www.cal.org/twi/evaltoolkit/appendix/solom.pdf (NCES Report No. 2011-459). Washington, DC: National Collier, C. (2008). Handbook for second language acquisition. Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sci- Ferndale, WA: Crosscultural Developmental Educational ences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2011459.asp Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative. (2013). Herrell, A., & Jordan, M. (2012). 50 strategies for teaching Common Core State Standards Initiative: Preparing America’s English language learners (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson students for college and career. Retrieved from http://www Education. Hill, S., & Bradford, W. (1991). Bilingual grammar of English- Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language pro-Spanish syntax: A manual with exercises. Lanham, MD: Unificiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age versity Press of America. question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilin-Himmel, J., Short, D.J., Richards, C., & Echevarria, J. (2009). Using the SIOP model to improve middle school science instrucsecond-language tion. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educaliteracy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing liter-tional Achievement and Teaching of English Language language learners: Report of the National Literacy Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/ Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (pp. 197–238). resources/pubs/siopscience.htm Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S. (2008). Explicit direct instruc- Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language tion (EDI): The power of the well-crafted, well-taught lesson. instruction: An architectural approach. In G. García (Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy. Kinsella, K. (2008). Developing academic language using sentence frames. Keynote presentation made at the 6th Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D.J. (2010). Making content Annual Academic Success Conference, Santa Clara County comprehensible for secondary English language learners. Bos-of the Office of Education. Retrieved from http://www .sccoe.k12.ca.us/depts/ci/ela Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk. (2009). and assessment for English language learners: A guide for K-12 Texas history lessons: Texas revolution through reconstruction. Austin, TX: Author. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk. (2013). in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, Supporting English language learners (ELLs) in secondary classrooms. [Online module]. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from: Fillmore, L.W. (2013). Common Core Standards and English http://resources.buildingrti.utexas.org/CAP/Secondary learners. National Clearinghouse for English Language _ELLs/multiscreen.html Acquisition (NCELA). Webinar. Retrieved from http:// Minaya-Rowe, L. (2012). Effective teaching for ELs and all students: vocabulary, reading, and writing within all sub- Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy, and jects. In M.E. Calderón (Ed.), Breaking through: Effective instruction & assessment for reaching English learners. Bloom- Goldenberg, C. (2012). Research on English learner instruc-ington, IN: Solution Tree.

instruction & assessment for reaching English learners. Bloom- Goldenberg, C. (2012). Research on English learner instruc-ington, IN: Solution Tree. tion. In M.E. Calderón (Ed.), Breaking through: Effective Nation, I.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for instruction & assessment for reaching English learners. Bloom-reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review,

Reutebuch, C.K. (2010). Effective social studies instruction to promote knowledge acquisition and vocabulary learning of English language learners in the middle grades. Houston, TX: National Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/publications/briefs/effective

Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/publications/briefs/effective -social-studies-instruction.html Scarcella, R. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English learner. Oakland, CA: Regents of the University

Scarcella, R. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English learner. Oakland, CA: Regents of the University of California. Snow, C., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effective-

Reutebuch, C.K. (2010). Effective social studies instruction to pro-Vaughn, S., Martinez, L.R., Linan-Thompson, S., Reutebuch, mote knowledge acquisition and vocabulary learning of English C.K., Carlson, C.D., & Francis, D.J. (2009). Enhancing social language learners in the middle grades. Houston, TX: National studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and English language learners: Findings from two experimen- Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from tal studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, http://www.cal.org/create/publications/briefs/effective 2(4), 297– 324. Vogt, M.E., Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2010). The SIOP model Scarcella, R. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on for teaching English-language arts to English learners. Boston, the English learner. Oakland, CA: Regents of the University MA: Allyn & Bacon. Walqui, A. (2000). Strategies for success: Engaging immigrant Snow, C., Lawrence, J., & White, C. (2009). Generating students in secondary schools (ERIC Digest). Washington, DC: knowledge of academic language among urban middle Center for Applied Linguistics. school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effective-Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., & Schmida, M. (2013). Persuasion across time and space: Analyzing and producing per- Hinman, I., & Hetzel, J. (2009). The literacy gaps: Bridge-suasive texts. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/ building strategies for English language learners and standard teaching_resources/ela Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic Strategic Education Research Partnership. (2013). A compan-success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of ion program to word generation series 3. Word generation mate-promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. rials. Retrieved from http://aala.serpmedia.org/index.php/ Zwiers, J. (2006). Integrating academic language, thinking, and content: Learning scaffolds for non-native speakers in Texas Education Agency (TEA)/Education Service Center, the middle grades. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Region 20. (2012). A framework for ELL success. Linguistic 5(4), 317– 332. instructional alignment guide. Austin, TX: ELPS Academy. Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Division for for content classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. P-16 Initiatives and Texas Education Agency Division Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: of Curriculum College and Career Readiness Program. Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content under-

knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325– 344. Soto-Hinman, I., & Hetzel, J. (2009). The literacy gaps: Bridge-suasive texts. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/ building strategies for English language learners and standard

building strategies for English language learners and standard English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA. Strategic Education Research Partnership. (2013). A companion program to word generation series 3. Word generation materials. Retrieved from http://aala.serpmedia.org/index.php/

rials. Retrieved from http://aala.serpmedia.org/index.php/ topic-and-words Texas Education Agency (TEA)/Education Service Center, Region 20. (2012). A framework for ELL success. Linguistic

Texas Education Agency (TEA)/Education Service Center, Region 20. (2012). A framework for ELL success. Linguistic instructional alignment guide. Austin, TX: ELPS Academy. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Division for P-16 Initiatives and Texas Education Agency Division of Curriculum College and Career Readiness Program. (2009). Texas college and career readiness standards. Austin: