Assignment due in 48 hours

assignment due in 48 hours

2 pages

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

instructions are attached

resources attached

48 hours 2 pages

4Assessment and Program Options

iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Articulate the principles that underlie assessment of ELLs.

2. Categorize the different types of assessment according to how they are used to identify and
assess ELLs for the purpose of initial placement.

3. Describe the broad categories of program options for ELLs and the factors that influence which
one a school selects.

4. Summarize what is meant by ESL instruction and compare the major approaches that have
been used in the past.

CO_TX

CO_NL

CO_CRD

CT CN

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 81 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.1 Principles of Assessment

Introduction
Her first day of fifth grade wasnât Ariannaâs first experience with formal education. She had
been homeschooled in Serbia through third grade, and her family had moved several times
during her fourth grade year. Her mother had attempted to continue educating her, but there
had been so much uncertainty and disruption to the familyâs life that Arianna had not spent
much time on academic tasks. The family finally settled into their new U.S. home in the sum-
mer and promptly enrolled Arianna in school. Somehow, Arianna had acquired some spoken
English and, according to her motherâs assessment, had a good background in math as well.
The first decision her fifth grade teacher, Mr. Kane, had to make was whether to keep her in
the mainstream classroom or to send her to a âshelteredâ classroom, or whether another
option would be better for her. What he needed to learn about Arianna in order to make this
choice brings us to the subject of assessment.

When an ELL first arrives at school, the first task is to figure out how proficient she is in
speaking, reading, and writing English in order to place her into the appropriate program.
Will she be in a mainstream classroom or will another type of placement suit her better? In
either case, several options exist, all described in this chapter. Once she is placed, her progress
has to be monitored closely to determine how well she is progressing, both in language and
in content. Careful monitoring allows teachers to adjust their instructional plan according to
the learnerâs needs. The major teaching approaches that have been and are currently used are
also described in this chapter.

Both placement and the monitoring of progress involve assessment, and so we begin this
chapter by examining the broad issue of assessment and how it is used to make critical edu-
cational decisions about ELLs. Starting with a description of the two broad categories of
assessment, we continue to a discussion of which assessment tools are most useful in helping
teachers determine the appropriate placement for, judge the progress of, and determine the
most effective program options and instructional approaches for ELLs.

4.1 Principles of Assessment
Assessing language competencies in ELLs is complicated by the fact that there are so many
different purposes for assessment. As noted in Chapter 1, No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
requires schools to âprovide an annual academic assessment of English language proficiency
and assure the monitoring of studentsâ English language development. States also must pro-
vide valid and reasonable accommodations to accurately measure ELL studentsâ academic
achievement on state content standardsâ (Wolf et al., 2008, pp. 1â2). Tests that are used for
accountability purposes, typically standardized achievement tests, are often âdeveloped and
field tested for the mainstream student populationâ and âmay not be sensitive enough to the
needs of some subgroups of students, such as English language learnersâ (Abedi, 2010, p. 1).
One of the problems is the confounding of content and language in the tests; ELLs may not be
able to adequately demonstrate their subject-area knowledge because they lack the linguistic
skills to do so. Conversely, the tests are not designed to measure language and any inference
drawn about language ability from ELLs scores on them is likely to be faulty.

Even without the NCLB mandate, however, schools and teachers would need to identify
and place ELLs correctly and monitor their progress. Doing so is simply sound educational

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 82 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.1 Principles of Assessment

practice. It is the job of educators to determine the initial competency of ELLs in order to
place them in the correct program or classroom, and to regularly measure and monitor their
progress.

It is a simple matter to determine whether a child is an ELL. If this is not readily discernible
from the learnerâs speech, the teacher can always ask. Nevertheless, even though they may
be easy to identify, ELLs are by no means a homogeneous group. As we have seen in previous
chapters, they vary according to

1. Linguistic background. Although the majority of ELLs in the United States as a whole
are Spanish-speaking, there are at least 400 different native languages spoken by
ELLs nationally (Educational Testing Service, 2009).

2. Different levels of proficiency in English. ELLs pass through predictable stages
( Chapter 3). Correctly identifying these stages can be a challenge, but it is important
for measuring progress to be able to do so.

3. Different levels of proficiency in the home language. Not all learners come to school
with the same levels of competence in their home language, whatever that language
may be (Chapter 3).

4. Prior schooling in native language. Students who have learned basic skills in one
language have an easier time transferring those skills to the new language and
school.

5. Varying degrees of cultural adaptation to the country and the community. Culture
can affect ELLsâ success in school (Chapter 2). If they have been formally educated
in another country, they may experience some level of school shock in this country.
Also, if the family is struggling to adapt to their new country, the children of the fam-
ily may not get the support they need at home for education in English or may even
bring some of their parentsâ negative attitudes to the classroom.

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) points out that an additional factor that may influ-
ence the assessment process for ELLs is whether learners have had previous exposure to
standardized testing, which is so widely used in the United States. Some will never have
taken a multiple-choice test, for example, while others will not have had to respond to
a short-answer or essay question, which the ETS refers to as a constructed-response
question.

All these variables must be taken into account in assessing ELLs, and they add complexity
to the process, whatever the purpose for the assessment and whatever form the assessment
takes. These variables also inform and underpin the basic principles of assessment for ELLs:

1. Assessments should benefit students. They should, for example, provide data that
inform educational decisions made for the learner.

2. Decisions that have a major impact on the learner should not be based on a single
assessment instrument but on multiple forms of assessment.

3. Assessments should be tailored to the specific purpose for which they are to be used.
4. Assessments must be age- and language-appropriate.
5. School personnel should pay attention to the intended purpose of the test, as well

as to the fairness, validity, and reliability of the instrument for the population of
students for which it is used. (See Validity and Reliability for a description of these
constructs.)

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 83 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

4.2 Categories of Assessment
The term assessment refers to many different forms of evaluation ranging from short oral or
written quizzes prepared by teachers for individuals or classes to lengthy standardized tests
given to large populations of students. In general terms, the two basic kinds are summative
and formative, and these terms refer to a fundamental difference in the purpose for testing.

Summative evaluations are measures taken periodically to determine what students know
and do not know. The most familiar type of summative evaluation used in schools in the United
States is the standardized test, such as the kinds mandated and developed by state boards or
departments of education. Summative evaluations can also be created and used for measur-
ing particular outcomes in the schools, but generally speaking, summative assessment should
be thought of as âa means to gauge, at a particular point in time, student learning . . . relative
to standardsâ (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2014). Although they take many forms, summative
evaluations are very useful for evaluating programs and curriculum or to measure school
improvement goals, but they typically âhappen too far down the learning path to provide
information at the classroom level and to make instructional adjustments and interventions
during the learning processâ (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2014). That is the business of formative
assessment.

Formative evaluations are the ongoing assessments that teachers and schools undertake to
gauge the effectiveness of a lesson, assignment, or unit. Formative evaluations are less formal,
usually created and designed by the teacher, and they help teachers to assess the effectiveness
of student learning, evaluate learning materials, and their own effectiveness as instructors.
Formative evaluation is recursive and can be thought of as part of the ongoing teaching and
learning processâa tool to use in shaping and adjusting curriculum and instruction for the
learner.

Although the two categories of assessment are generally regarded as distinct, there may be
some overlap. For example, a test given at the end of a unit is usually given to measure stu-
dentsâ learning of the material in the unit before moving on to the next unit. As such, it is

Validity and Reliability
Assessment is the answering of questions by collecting and analyzing data. A variety of instru-
ments or tools can be used, depending on the purpose of the assessment. In all cases though,
the assessment must be valid and reliable. These are terms that are often confused, but they
actually answer very simple questions.

Validity answers the question âDoes the test measure what it is intended to measure?â

Reliability answers the question âCan the test results be trusted to represent what they are
supposed to represent?â Two versions of a standardized test should, for example, yield the
same result.

A standardized test designed to assess fourth gradersâ knowledge of science concepts given to
ELLs with limited English would probably not be valid because it would not be clear what was
being measuredâEnglish reading ability or knowledge of science. Neither of the test results
could be considered reliable.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 84 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

considered to be summative in nature. In the case of ELLs, however, the results of a unit test
might be useful in determining the relative difficulty the learner experienced with the lan-
guage and the content, and whether the language level for the next unit needs to be adjusted
or, indeed, if parts of the unit need to be repeated or integrated into the upcoming unit.

Both summative and formative assessments are necessary to get an accurate view of the learn-
erâs progress. âIn a balanced assessment system, both summative and formative assessments are
an integral part of information gathering. Depend too much on one or the other and the reality of
student achievement in your classroom becomes unclearâ (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2014).

Proficiency Testing
All discussions about assessing ELLs rely heavily on
the notion of proficiency. Whether the intent is sum-
mative or formative, whether the primary goal is to
assess content knowledge or language ability, what is
being evaluated is some aspect of the learnerâs pro-
ficiency. For language assessments, âproficiency test-
ing is used to place and exit students and is designed
to determine at what level an individual can speak,
read, write, and comprehend another languageâ
( Pappamihiel & Mihai, 2011, p. 16). Proficiency and
placement, thus, go hand in hand.

The form a proficiency test takesâthe kinds of ques-
tions asked or tasks required of the learnerâdepends
on the underlying assumptions the test writer has
about language learning and assessment. There are
three broad categories of belief resulting in three dis-
tinct approaches to testing:

1. The discrete point approach is based on
the assumption that language consists of a
well-combined set of discrete points of knowledgeâbuilding blocks in the extreme.
Those building blocks are the components of the phonological (sound), morphologi-
cal (words, prefixes, and suffixes), and syntactic (sentence) systems of English. The
assumption is that if students learn the sound system, vocabulary and word forma-
tion processes, and the rules of grammar, they can somehow cobble all these skills
together to form language. âDiscrete point tests measure language in small bits, such
as in multiple-choice questions or fill-in items. Proficiency tests are designed to
assess the separate and discrete aspects of language and a total score is producedâ
(Pappamiehl & Mihai, 2011, p. 16).

2. The integrated approach, in contrast, considers language to entail the simultaneous
use of all levels of language skills. Sounds are not learned nor used in isolation but in
words and phrases. Vocabulary is neither learned nor used in isolation but in larger
structures and in concert with prefixes and suffixes. And the rules of sentence struc-
ture are learned in meaningful sentences used in context. This approach represents
a more holistic view of language and learning, but it still views language somewhat
objectively as an entity, with linked parts, to be learned.

Dejan Ristovski/iStock/Thinkstock

Tests such as this are common in
elementary schools. Is it formative or
summative in nature? How might it
be both?

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 85 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

3. The pragmatic skill or performance approach is broader still. In this approach test
writers view language as a practical skill set linked to real-world knowledge and
experience. In performance-based assessments, learners typically demonstrate what
they can do with the language in a realistic settingâhow well and appropriately
they communicate. âPragmatic tests link language knowledge with studentsâ own
experiences and world knowledge. These types of tasks seek to be more real lifeâ
(Pappamihiel & Mihai, 2011, p. 16).

No one approach to assessment works for every purpose of assessment, and each has its uses
(Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Proficiency testing: Approaches and uses

Approach Summative or
formative

Exemplar test
items

Types of uses Limitations

Discrete Can be used as
either

1. Circle the first
sound in the
word you hear.
[Prompt]: dog.
Responses: t, d,
g, b.

2. Choose the cor-
rect verb form in
each sentence:
I have been, will
be, was being
late many times
before today.

3. A bird is an
animal that: flies,
runs fast, eats
cereal.

1. Assessing the
impact of a
lesson distin-
guishing t/d.
Evaluating let-
ter recognition
ability.

2. Testing
grammatical
knowledge of
verb tense and
aspect.

3. Testing and
comparing a
large number
of students.

1. Does not provide
information about the
learnerâs ability to
recognize or use the
language items in real
communicative tasks.

2. Better suited for test-
ing understanding
than for production.

3. Risk of confounding
what is being tested:
meaning of bird or
meaning of predicate.
Ability to process
complex sentence
structure.

4. Difficult to determine
what the learner actu-
ally knows.

Integrated Either 1. Answer in a
complete sen-
tence: Why is . . .?
How far is it
from Earth to
the moon? What
colors are mixed
to create orange?

2. Circle all errors
in the following
sentence: Jack
and Jill was going
uphill to get a
pale of water.

3. Summarize the
story you just
read (orally or in
writing).

1. Evaluating
effectiveness of
lesson or unit.

2. Spot checking
understanding
of a selected
vocabulary and
structure in
limited context.

3. Checking listen-
ing comprehen-
sion during
lesson.

4. Evaluating
curriculum and
school goals.

1. Slight danger that
content knowledge
might be masked
by lack of language
proficiency.

2. Difficult to use
and interpret with
beginners.

(continued )

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 86 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment
Approach Summative or
formative
Exemplar test
items
Types of uses Limitations

Pragmatic/
performance

Formative

Summative
within class-
room or school
setting

Difficult to
use for large
populations

1. Cut out all the
pictures of fruits
in this magazine
and organize
them according
to color.

2. Retell the story
we read in class
this morning.

3. Based on the data
in this graph,
what can be said
about the rela-
tionship between
the number of
absences in a
year and test
scores in math?
Answer can be
open-ended or
multiple-choice
(a. no rela-
tion; the more
absences, the
higher the
score . . . , etc.)

1. Ongoing
evaluation of
lesson or unit
effectiveness.

2. Assessing
student com-
prehension
and speaking
ability.

3. Evaluating
lesson or unit
effectiveness.

4. Subject-area
assessment.

1. Tests comprehension
only.

2. Cannot be used with
large populations.

3. Risk of confound-
ing language ability
with subject-area
knowledge.

Table 4.1: Proficiency testing: Approaches and uses (continued )

Identifying and Placing ELLs
Identifying the language and academic needs of ELLs is important because it is the basis for
developing an appropriate program of instruction. âWhen ELLsâ needs are not identified, their
program may lack the instructional components necessary for their success in language pro-
ficiency and academic achievementâ (ColorÃnColorado, 2007). In addition to finding out about
the home language and educational background of each learner, the school needs to evaluate
the English proficiency level and academic content knowledge. As we learned in Chapter 1,
many states have processes in place that schools are required to follow in assessing oral and
literacy proficiency:

School districts use a variety of methods to identify students as non-English
proficiency, place them in bilingual programs, and allow them to exit such
programs (or reclassify them as English proficient). These methods include
home language use surveys, criterion-referenced tests, achievement tests, and
language proficiency tests (Esquinca, Yaden, & Rueda, 2005).

It is usually easy to identify true beginners, but correctly assessing learners with some
English ability is more complex. In order to place them in the appropriate grade level with the
appropriate kinds of language support, educators need not only to measure English ability,

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 87 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

but also subject-area knowledge. Summative achievement tests are not generally suitable for
this purpose. The major problem is that achievement tests and most other measures used
for accountability purposes are designed to measure learning, but they are less successful in
helping to improve learning. These assessments provide data that is useful to school leaders
and teachers to evaluate curriculum and, to some degree, instruction, but they are not par-
ticularly useful as roadmaps for improving individual learning. Many educators suggest that a
better approach, especially for placement purposes, is a performance assessment.

As the term implies, a performance assessment allows the student to demonstrate content
knowledge by reducing reliance on language, which is accomplished in a variety of ways,
depending on the grade level and linguistic ability of the learner. They also provide a clearer
picture of the learnerâs academic needs. A performance assessment may be an informal
teacher-devised test or a formal test used throughout the school or school district.

For placement purposes, the school must have
a clear picture of the childâs entering proficiency
levels in oral language and literacy or preliteracy.
Different states and different school districts use
different instruments, but all require some level of
benchmarking of ELLs in order to place them in
the appropriate program and grade level as well as
to track progress.

Oral Language Assessment
Those who are able to communicate effectively
in English in social settings have a head start on
acquiring their new language, but there is a differ-
ence between the language used in social settings
and cognitive-academic language (Chapter 3).
Some of the commonly used measures of oral lan-
guage ability include

1. Language Assessment Scales (LAS, or preLAS for pre-kindergarten). Available in both
English and Spanish, this test can be used with Kâ12 students to identify and place
students in ELL or bilingual programs. The tests provide measures of vocabulary,
listening comprehension, and the ability to retell a story. Test items are of the âname
that pictureâ type and also elicit action verbs. Although the story-retelling is argu-
ably a performance-based measure, critics of the test argue that it focuses on dis-
crete skills and elements and may not be adequate for placing ELLs.

2. IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test (also known as IPT). Available in English and
Spanish, this test is intended to measure language proficiency in pre-K through 12th
grade students

for the purposes of initial identification, program placement, progress
monitoring, and redesignation in school . . . . The IPT oral tests are indi-
vidually administered, structured oral interviews, where the examiner asks
the student questions or gives prompts. The examiner scores the studentâs
answers as correct or incorrect as each item is administered. Some items
are based on pictures while others are based on interaction between the

Fuse/Thinkstock

Chemistry is just one of many subjects
that allow ELLs to acquire and to
demonstrate their content knowledge
with minimal dependence on language.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 88 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

examiner and the student. For example, students identify objects or actions
in pictures, listen to brief stories and answer questions about them, and
answer questions about themselves and their opinions and experiences.
The oral tests assess proficiency in four domains of oral English or Spanish:
vocabulary, grammar, comprehension, and verbal expression. (IPT Inservice
Training, 2001)

3. Basic Inventory of Natural Language (BIN). Used to test Kâ12 students, this test is
available for more than 30 languages. Students view large pictures and are asked to
describe or discuss what they see. Their recorded responses are used to assess pro-
nunciation as well as vocabulary and sentence length and complexity (Krach, n.d.)
Also see http://www.arcassociates.org/files/CAELLRpt9-04

Reading and Writing Assessment
Most states do not require assessment of reading and writing in kindergarten or first grade,
but for older learners it is necessary to ascertain their level of proficiency in order to ensure
correct program placement and to monitor progress. Many reading tests are essentially
vocabulary tests, and while they can be useful, they are not helpful in determining much
about reading or pre-reading skills: phoneme awareness, alphabet knowledge and sound-
symbol correspondence, reading fluency, or comprehension. Most states and districts require
particular tests, and some of the more commonly used ones are listed here:

1. Stanford English Proficiency Test. This is a complete battery of tests included pri-
marily for assessing Spanish speakersâ proficiency in English but useful for other
language groups as well. There is a preliteracy test for pre-K through grade 1.5 and
a full battery of language and content area knowledge tests for use with learners to
12th grade.

2. ACCESS (developed for WIDA) (W-APT). All the member states in the WIDA Consor-
tium require the use of this test to place and benchmark ELLs. Given to ELLs from
kindergarten to 12th grade, it is designed to monitor progress in acquiring academic
English and proficiency in all four domains. See http://www.wida.us/assessment/
access/ for further information.

3. LAS Links. This is a test intended to test proficiency in all four domains in order to
determine the correct placement of newly arrived ELLs. The pre-LAS version tests
oral language only for kindergarten and first grade, and the full battery is available for
grades 2â12.

A complete description of these and other placement tests is beyond the scope and purpose
of this book, but most state departments of education post detailed descriptions of the tests
and administration guidelines online. Whichever test is used, it is important to remember that
these standardized measures are not appropriate for every purpose. For example, in some
states, LAS is not administered until January or February, with test results reported back in
May. In the meantime, the school and the teacher must use other methods for placing and plan-
ning instruction for their ELLs. As we have seen throughout this chapter, many methods exist,
and effective teachers use a combination of formal and informal tests to make early decisions.

Some teachers will administer an informal reading inventory (IRI). An IRI is an individually
administered assessment intended to diagnose and evaluate a number of skills associated
with reading. A typical IRI consists of a word list and a passage ranging from preprimer to
high school reading levels. After reading the passage, the student responds orally to questions

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 89 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://www.arcassociates.org/files/CAELLRpt9-04

http://www.wida.us/assessment/access/

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

designed to assess comprehension and recall. The evaluator uses the information gathered
from the word recognition task and the answers to the comprehension questions, along with
other data such as fluency, prior knowledge, and emotional state (depending on the particu-
lar IRI), to determine the studentâs reading level. Although there are many to choose from
(see Additional Resources at the end of this chapter), there are doubts about the validity of
the tests, especially for ELLs:

One of the assessment options for classroom teachers is the informal reading
inventory (IRI), which is the most frequently used assessment tool for all stu-
dents. Because of disagreement regarding the reliability and validity of IRIs
for use with native English speakers, teachers should exercise greater caution
when using them with ELLs, both in choosing the specific IRI and interpreting
the results based on the influence of studentsâ accents on word pronuncia-
tions, familiarity with culturally specific content, the kinds of questions asked,
and the relevance to classroom instruction and to studentsâ culture. (Gandy,
2013, p. 271)

Even if there were no validity issues with IRIs, they are somewhat labor intensive and are not
specific to the reading task at hand. In other words, an IRI score might indicate that a learner
can read at a fourth grade level on the test passage, but it canât predict how the learner will
do with a different passage assigned by the teacher. One quick and easy alternative to the IRI
that avoids these criticisms and also provides some indication of a studentâs reading level, for
example, is the Cloze test. Cloze is grounded in the Gestalt notion that using prior experience
and knowledge, people will mentally fill in the missing parts when looking at an incomplete
picture or drawing. There are three types of Cloze test, as illustrated in Cloze Procedure. Each
one begins with a passage of text that the learner should be able to read if reading at grade
level. It should be long enough to permit at least ten deleted words, and learners are encour-
aged to guess. The first sentence is left intact to provide context.

Cloze Procedure
Used to assess reading ability, the Cloze test can be constructed in three different ways, defined
and illustrated below:

1. The fixed-ratio Cloze deletes every fifth, sixth, or seventh word. The 7:1 ratio obviously
provides more linguistic context, but whichever method is chosen, at least ten blanks
need to be filled in.

Children learn language in order to express meaning and to communicate
with people around them. The miracle of the infant brain ________ its capacity
to acquire all of ________ structures of any language spoken on ________. Children
do not learn the components ________ language separately or in isolation. They
________ master the sound system and then ________ on to learning words and
then ________. Nor do they learn the structures ________ the language as a cognitive
exercise. ________ order to learn to communicate effectively, ________ master the
complex structures of their language.

(continued)

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 90 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

Scoring is on a percentage basis, and a rough interpretation of the scores is shown in Table 4.2.

Many experienced teachers use some form of Cloze testing to assess their studentsâ instruc-
tional needs in reading, often using two different types of prose to get more information: a
story and an expository or narrative text. Because reading comprehension is at the heart of
academic success and is closely correlated with other language skills (vocabulary and gram-
matical knowledge, for example), Cloze procedure is sometimes used to gauge progress, both
in reading and in overall language skills.

For the assessment of writing, there are a number of standardized instruments, but as with
the other skills, it is sometimes necessary to gather information faster and less formally. For
placement purposes, especially in the elementary grades, writing samples are not usually
required. The reason is that for starting and emerging learners (Chapter 3), writing assess-
ments serve little purpose because writing is the last skill to develop and has to be built upon
a foundation of oral language and at least some proficiency in reading. The learner can be
placed appropriately according to oral language and reading assessments.

Cloze Procedure (continued)
2. The rational Cloze deletes chosen words, not randomly or according to a preset ratio.

Children learn language in order to express meaning and to communicate
with people around them. The miracle ________ the infant brain is its capacity
to acquire all ________ the structures ________ any language spoken ________ earth.
Children do not learn the components ________ language separately or ________
isolation. They donât master the sound system and then move ________ to learning
words ________ then sentences. ________ do they learn the structures ________ the
language as a cognitive exercise. In order to learn to communicate effectively,
children master the complex structures ________ their language.

3. The C-test deletes the last half of every other word. Alternatively, only the first letter is
provided.

Children learn language in order to express meaning and to communicate with
people around them. Th___ miracle o___ the inf___ brain i___ its capa___ to acq___
all o___ the struc___ of an___ language spo___ on ear___. Child___ do n___ learn t___
components o___ language separ___ or i___ isolation. Th___ donât master t___ sound
sys___ and th___ move o___ to lear___ words a___ then sent___. Nor d___ they le___ the
struc___ of th___ language a___ a cogn___ exercise. I___ order to learn to communi-
cate effectively, children master the complex structures of their language.

See also http://sf ltdu.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-cloze-according-to-gestalt-theory.html

Table 4.2: Scoring of Cloze procedure for instructional purposes

Independent (material is too
easy)

Instructional (about the right
level for ELL)

Frustration (too difficult)

60% and above 40%â60% Below 40%

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 91 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://sfltdu.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-cloze-according-to-gestalt-theory.html

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

Monitoring Progress
Teachers are aware of the need to monitor the progress of all their students. States
require progress reports, certain federal programs require progress reports, districts some-
times have their own requirements for reporting progress, and parents expect regular report
cards. Teachers also use various assessment procedures to gauge the effectiveness of their
instruction and determine whether ELLs are making sufficient progress. Assessment of ELLs
for the purpose of monitoring progress is a complicated and time-consuming process that has
serious and far-reaching implications for ELLs, their families, and their schools.

Federal and state legislation require that yearly progress reports be submitted, and the choice
of the instrument is mandated. For teaching purposes, large-scale achievement tests are not
especially helpful. These tests are normally given only once a year, and teachers cannot wait for
the end of the year to find out whether their ELLs are acquiring language at an appropriate pace.
Rather, teachers need to track individual studentsâ progress on a regular basis, usually monthly.

There are many resources available for teachers to assist them in devising monitoring systems
(see Additional Resources at the end of this chapter), but the task is really straightforward.
Each month teachers fill out an assessment form evaluating overall language performance as
well as skills in oral and written language. A sample form for monitoring oral language skills
is shown in Monitoring Oral Language Skills. Many of the assessment instruments used for
placement purposes can be administered at regular intervals to inform the progress report,
along with teachersâ observations and review of performance on assignments.

Although it is important to keep track of progress in all the language domains, it is especially
important to monitor reading progress, because a student who falls behind in reading will fall

Monitoring Oral Language Skills
Oral Language Skills

Learnerâs name __________________________________________ Grade ______________

Date ___________________________ Teacher ________________________________________

General ability to communicate

o Communicates very effectively in social and academic English.
o Communicates with some difficulty but can convey meaning.
o Understands little or no English.

Vocabulary skills

o Uses appropriate content vocabulary.
o Uses content vocabulary with difficulty or errors.
o Can identify and name concrete objects.

Grammar skills

o Correctly uses and understands basic grammatical structures.
o Attempts some grammatical forms but has problems with verb tenses and agreement.
o Forms few sentences.

(continued)

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 92 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

behind in all subjects. Reading progress can be monitored in a variety of ways. For example,
the Cloze procedure can be used to assess progress. To monitor fluency, the teacher can use a
measure of words correct per minute:

For progress monitoring, passages are selected at a studentâs individu-
ally determined goal level. For example, if an eighth grade studentâs
instructional level is at the fifth grade level, the teacher may conduct the
progress monitoring assessments using passages at the sixth grade level.
(Hasbrouck, 2006)

Students then read the passage aloud, and the number of correct words per minute is cal-
culated. Results may be interpreted in two waysâin terms of improvement over the previ-
ous month, or as measured against published tables of norms such as those developed by
Hasbrouck and Tindal (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).

No monitoring procedure is complete without an ongoing assessment of progress in writing.
For older learners, rubrics are available or can be created by teachers to evaluate a piece of
writing. For most classroom purposes, a short writing sample in response to a prompt such
as a question about a story or other text familiar to the learner can be gathered on a regular
basis. For all ages and levels, however, the most effective monitoring of writing development
is the portfolio. By keeping samples of the learnerâs work (or making the learner responsible
for doing so), over time, the teacher can evaluate progress and design interventions to assist in
moving the learner closer to proficiency. With portfolios, teachers â. . . can systematically col-
lect descriptive records of a variety of student work over time that reflect growth toward the
achievement of specific curricular objectives. Portfolios include information, sample work, and
evaluations that serve as indicators for student performanceâ (ColorÃnColorado, 2007).

After the overall language proficiency level of an ELL has been determined, but before prog-
ress can be monitored, it is necessary to place that learner in the appropriate ELL program.
Several are available, as described in the next section.

4.3 ELL Program Options
An ELL has been identified and the teacher has some indication of her language abilities.
What are the options? They depend to a large degree on the resources of the school, but
broadly speaking the possibilities are either to place the learner in a mainstream class at
the appropriate grade level or to place the learner in a specialized ESL program, which may

Monitoring Oral Language Skills (continued)

Fluency

o Speaks with few pauses or hesitations.
o Speaks in short utterances with frequent hesitations.
o Speaks one or two words in response to questions or prompts.

Source: Adapted from ColorÃnColorado online at http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 93 6/30/15 12:09 PM

ELL Program

Options

Mainstream
Classroom

ESL Classroom

In-room support
from ESL teacher

or assistant

Pull-out Programs

Classroom teacher
works with individuals

or small groups

With
Support

Without
Support

Bilingual

English
Learning
Center

âShelteredâ
Class

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

take several forms. The decision tree shown in Figure 4.1 illustrates these ELL program
options.

English Mainstream Classroom
The policy of many, if not most, schools in the country is to accommodate their ELLs in
the mainstream classroom. This choice is solidly grounded in theory and in practiceâif it
is done appropriately. Consistent with our knowledge of how children learn language, it
makes sense to expose students to peer group English so that they will learn the conven-
tions of social speech and interaction in much the same way that they learned their first lan-
guage. In addition, they will learn the academic English appropriate to their grade level or
subject, and early experience with academic English appropriate to content becomes more
important with each year of schooling. But does this mean that ELLs should be put into
the classroom and ignored? No. Even if there is no specialized option such as an in-room
assistant or ELL teacher, the classroom teacher must make some adjustments for the ELLs
by working with individual students or small groups, modifying assignments, and simplify-
ing explanations. Depending on the learnersâ proficiency level, teachers often pair them or
place them into groups with English speaking children who can help them understand and
can serve as language role models.

Other options for ELLs who are primarily mainstreamed include the pull-out program and
in-room assistance. The pull-out program involves removing children from the classroom for
some portion of the day to get help, sometimes with learners from other grades, in areas that

Figure 4.1: ELL program options

School resources may determine which ELL program options are available for learners.

ELL Program
Options
Mainstream
Classroom
ESL Classroom
In-room support
from ESL teacher
or assistant
Pull-out Programs
Classroom teacher
works with individuals
or small groups
With
Support
Without
Support
Bilingual
English
Learning
Center
âShelteredâ
Class

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 94 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

the classroom teacher has identified as needing particular attentionâvocabulary, regular
verb tenses, or even a content area such as social studies.

The ideal model, however, may be the mainstream
classroom with in-room assistance. This assis-
tance can come from an aide or teacher assistant
who spends extra time with the learners, adapt-
ing what is happening in the classroom to their
language level. It can also come from a specially
trained ESL teacher who works in collaboration
with the classroom teacher to work more intensely
on those areas of language that both teachers have
identified. For classrooms with a high percentage
of ELLs, in-room support is particularly effective.
If ELLs are not assigned immediately to a main-
stream classroom, they will be placed in an ELL (or
ESL) classroom.

ELL Classroom
There are a number of program options that can be considered for ELLs, and the particular
choice a school makes is often governed by school district policy. Nevertheless, it is important
that everyone involved in the education of ELLs understands the alternatives to placement in
a mainstream classroom in order to help to inform policy decisions. It might be possible, for
example, to import some of the more successful practices of a program without adopting it
in its entirety. Some of the more commonly used ones are the bilingual program, the learning
center, and the sheltered program.

Bilingual Programs
As the name suggests, bilingual programs are those in which learnersâ home language and
English are both used for instruction as the learners are gradually transitioned into a fully
English program. There are three types of bilingual programs that are used in this country.
In early-exit bilingual programs, also known as transitional bilingual education (TBE),
learners are given initial instruction in their first language:

Teaching English learners in all-English classes as soon as they begin school-
ing, it is argued, impedes their academic development because they cannot
speak or understand English sufficiently to benefit from academic instruction
through English. Thus, learners are put at academic risk. TBE is designed to
avoid this pitfall. As students acquire proficiency in oral English, the language
in which academic subjects are taught gradually shifts from the studentsâ
home language to English. Content instruction through English is often pro-
vided in individualized and specially designed units. . . . The transition to Eng-
lish instruction typically starts off with math, followed by reading and writing,
then science, and finally social studies. Once they acquire sufficient English
proficiency, TBE students make the transition to mainstream classes where all
academic instruction is presented in English; often this occurs at grade three
(Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010).

Kathy Yeulet/Thinkstock

ELLs in pull-out programs are often
taken to learning centers, which are
sometimes located in the school library.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 95 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

Unlike two-way bilingual programs, the goal in early-exit is not to develop the home language
at all, but to accelerate the learnerâs placement in the mainstream classroom. Early research on
the effectiveness of this type of bilingual program was damning. Researchers Christine Rossell
and Keith Baker reviewed 300 program evaluations conducted between the late 1970s and
1995. Of these, 72 were found to be methodologically sound enough to trust the conclusions.
Their analysis showed that only 22% of learners in transitional bilingual education (TBE) fared
better than their peers in reading for whom no special language accommodation was madeâ
33% fared worse in reading than their submersion counterparts, and for 45% there was no
difference. When the measure was language proficiency, the numbers looked even worse for
TBE: 64% did worse than those in the submersion group (Rossell & Baker, 1996). Despite the
absence of evidence that such programs were effective, many school districts, especially those
in heavily Hispanic areas, refused to abandon the early-exit programs. Instead, they improved
the quality of the materials and instruction used in both languages with these learners and
more strictly sequenced their entry into English-only classrooms. In schools where early-exit
bilingual programs have been thoughtfully implemented and monitored, there is some evidence
of success, but it is important to note that there is little data to support the superiority of this
program over English immersion or other well implemented options (Faltis, 2011).

Late-exit bilingual programs, also known as developmental bilingual education (DBE), dif-
fer from early-exit not only in the duration of the programs, but in their intent. The primary goal
of early-exit programs is not to maintain or facilitate the home language but to ease and even
hasten the learnersâ learning of English. In contrast, late-exit programs are considered to be

. . . an enrichment form of dual language education that uses English learnersâ
home language and English for literacy and academic instruction throughout
the elementary grade levels, wherever possible, high school as well. . . . Most
current DBE programs begin in kindergarten or grade one and add one grade
level each year. They teach regular academic subjects through English and the
studentsâ native language for as many grade levels as the school district can
and will support. . . . DBE programs aim to promote high levels of academic
achievement in all curricular areas and full proficiency in both the studentsâ
home language and English for academic purposes (Lindholm-Leary &
Genessee, 2010, pp. 3â4).

Built on the understanding that there are benefits to bilingualism and that content and skills
can transfer from language to language, late-exit bilingual programs, then, are more respect-
ful of ELLsâ home language. Both early- and late-exit bilingual programs are intended for
minority students in English language schools.

The third type of bilingual program can serve the needs of minority students, but it also has
the broader goal of providing opportunities for all learners to become bilingual. This is the
two-way bilingual program, also known as two-way immersion and dual immersion.

There are a number of variations on two-way bilingual programs, depending on a number of
factorsâmainly school resources, the diversity of the community, and the interest of English
speakers in learning another language. The duration of the program, for example, can range
from kindergarten through elementary school, while others continue into middle or even
high school. Another difference is how language use is proportioned. In some programs, the
goal is that the non-English language be used for at least 50% of the time every day. In others,

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 96 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

the non-English language is used for up to 90% of the time in kindergarten and first grade,
with more English added each year until the 50/50 proportion is reached in fourth or fifth
grade. All the variants have the same purpose:

Two-way immersion programs provide integrated language and academic
instruction for native speakers of English and native speakers of another
language with the goals of high academic achievement, first- and second-
language proficiency, and cross-cultural understanding (Lindholm-Leary &
Genessee, 2010, p. 5).

Ideally, two-way immersion/bilingual programs consist of 50% language minority and 50%
English speaking children, although percentages vary. Experts agree, however, that neither
group should constitute less than one-third of the class. Why? The reason is that if the pro-
portion is too greatly skewed toward one language group or the other, the desired balance in
language use cannot be achieved. For example, if there are 20 English speaking children in a
class and only five (or even 10) Spanish speakers, English will soon dominate and the main
goal of the programâfluency for both groups in both languagesâwill not be attained.

The program is structured so that academic subjects are taught to all learners in both languages,
but the same subject is not usually taught in both languages in the same year. If the curriculum
requires social studies and math to be taught in English in third grade, the same subjects would
normally be taught in the other language, usually Spanish in the United States, in fourth grade.

Not surprisingly, in the United States these programs exist mainly in districts with large His-
panic populations, although a few others exist. According to the Center for Applied Linguis-
tics, which maintains a directory of two-way programs in the United States, in 405 of the
total 444 programs, Spanish is the non-English language of instruction. Table 4.3 shows the
distribution of two-way bilingual programs by language.

Two-way bilingual/immersion programs can be expensive to offer in districts without a sub-
stantial number of specially trained teachers, and almost impossible to offer in districts with
a very diverse minority population. Fortunately, there are other alternatives. One that is used

Table 4.3 Two-way bilingual programs offered in the United States

Language Number of two-way
bilingual programs

State where most programs
are offered

Spanish 405 California (31% of total programs)

French 7 Florida & California (28.5% each)

Japanese 6 California & Georgia (33% each)

Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin,
or both)

17 California (76%)

German 2 California (50%)
Georgia (50%)

Korean 7 California (86%)

Source: Data from Center for Applied Linguistics.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 97 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

in mainstream classrooms already and can be designed to fit the needs of ELLs is the learning
center.

English Learning Centers
English language learning centers are most effectively employed in conjunction with class-
room support. An English learning center (ELC) concentrates resources in a single place,
in a school or in the district, and learners from different classrooms and different grades
(and sometimes different schools) work with an ESL teacher for part of the school day. Some
schools assign all new ELLs to the learning center for initial assessment and a placement,
creating what is effectively a reception center. Ideally, the ESL teacher works in collaboration
with the classroom teacher to provide supplementary language instruction to support the
academic curriculum in the classroom. Learning centers can provide good support for ELLs,
but the goal should always be to facilitate their language growth so that they can function
effectively in the mainstream classroom. Because ELCs often accommodate learners of dif-
ferent ages, such as beginners in kindergarten, first, and second grade, the ESL teacher will
be limited in how effectively she is able to coordinate the curricula of the classrooms with
the activities of the center. On the other hand, there might be some benefit to social language
learning in having learners of different ages together in the same classroom. Can you think
what they might be?

Another version of the English learning center is the in-room center, a smaller space cre-
ated in a classroom with specially adapted print materials, as well as computers or tablets
and headphones. If there is a second teacher or an assistant in the classroom, this can be
especially effective by providing an opportunity to simplify or practice particular language
skills.

Sheltered Classroom
The focus of sheltered classrooms is content. Unlike bilingual programs that group learners
together according to language, sheltered programs group learners from different language
backgrounds in the same class. Teachers use only English to teach content, but they adapt
their language to the proficiency level of the learners, relying extensively on gestures and
visual aids to facilitate understanding. Learning English is accomplished through the learn-
ing of content; the language is simplified but the content is not. The instructional techniques
and materials used in sheltered classrooms are similar to those used in immersion programs
offered in other languages. In fact, some districts use the term sheltered immersion to describe
the programs they use. Sheltered programs are popular because they do not take time away
from content instruction, an important consideration for schools under increasing pressure
from the accountability movements such as NCLB and CCSS. However the program is desig-
nated, its success depends on teachers being specially trained to teach content to learners,
often with different languages and learning experience.

On Choosing
The choice of program for ELLs is seldom left to the teacher, but is a matter of school, district,
or even state policy. Some of the other factors that determine how schools accommodate their
ELLs are

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 98 6/30/15 12:09 PM

No Yes

Mainstream
Classroom

Assistant or ESL
teacher with

classroom teacher
Pull-out to

Assess to monitor progress

Assessment
to confirm
ELL status

Sheltered
classroom

Mainstream
with support

ESL Program

ELL Program

Learning
center

ESL Class

Bilingual
Program

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

1. The diversity of the community. If the non-English school population is entirely
Hispanic, then there are more options than if several language groups are
represented.

2. The linguistic and educational background of the learners. Some learners whose
families have only recently arrived to the United States may have experienced inter-
rupted or limited schooling. Some will be literate in their home language whereas
others will not.

3. The school districtâs resources. If a school has been enrolling minority language learn-
ers for a number of years, they may have experienced ESL and bilingual teachers and
assistants. They are also likely to have more material resources than schools that are
unaccustomed to ELLs. Schools with burgeoning enrollments will face different chal-
lenges than those with declining resources, and they may be able to dedicate space to
create learning centers or pull-out programs.

Figure 4.2 summarizes graphically the relationship between assessment and program options
described here. Whatever the program option chosen for ELLs, to a large degree their suc-
cess depends on the teacher and what happens in the classroom (i.e., how and what they are
taught).

No Yes
Mainstream
Classroom
Assistant or ESL
teacher with
classroom teacher
Pull-out to
Assess to monitor progress
Assessment
to confirm
ELL status
Sheltered
classroom
Mainstream
with support
ESL Program
ELL Program
Learning
center
ESL Class
Bilingual
Program
+

Figure 4.2: Assessment, placement, and monitoring of ELLs

School, district, or even state policies may determine which program is most suitable for ELLs.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 99 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

4.4 Instructional Methods
Whether they are in mainstream or ESL classrooms, ELLs need specialized instructionâin
fact, that is the subject of Chapters 5 through 10. In this section, we take a look at some of
the approaches that have been used in the past. The chapters that follow will make it clear
why ELLs cannot be put into mainstream classrooms and then ignored. The good news is
that elementary teachers will find that many of the strategies they use with English speakers,
especially in kindergarten and first grade, can be adapted for use with second language learn-
ers. Later in this book we will examine some of these, as well as the techniques, materials, and
strategies that can be used with ELLs.

Teaching students a new language is not new. Nor is there consensus about the best way to do
it. Over the decades, many ideas, some of them fairly strange, have emerged. We will examine
a few of those very carefully, not because they are recommended but to stress three important
points:

1. There is no single best way to teach everybody.
2. The ânext best thingâ may not be the best. It may not even be better.
3. Even very bad approaches are likely to have a kernel of something useful.

But first, letâs consider some terminology. Methodology, approach, method, and technique are
all terms that are used to talk about how to teach. The latter three are sometimes used inter-
changeably, but to be accurate, there are differences. These differences are best understood
as a hierarchy. Methodology encompasses all of the other three. It is the general category
term for what we do, rather like plant is the category we can use to talk about hydrangeas,
palm trees, and okra. In research, it refers to everything the researcher does to explore the
research hypothesis. Approach refers to the intersection of theory and practice. It consists
of the principles that follow from a theoretical stance. For example, if the second language
learning theory is that second language learning is exactly the same as first language learn-
ing, one approach that might be tried would be to give learners a lengthy exposure to oral
language without expecting them to speak (and such an approach exists, as we shall see).
Method refers to the overall plan for instruction, whereas techniques drill down to the spe-
cifics of what happens in the classroom. In summary, techniques implement methods that are
consistent with approaches that, usually, have a theoretical underpinning. Not all educators
ascribe to these distinctions in practice, but it is useful to understand why some approaches
or methods might be vague on details about how to apply them in the classroom.

The approaches to language teaching that have been followed for the past two centuries fall
into three categoriesâstructural, functional, and interactive. Each has several methods asso-
ciated with it, but we will examine only a few.

Structural Approaches
These approaches stressed the importance of grammar, and sometimes they appeared to
work, in large part because expectations were low. The grammar-translation method, for
example, was the dominant method used to teach second or foreign languages until the late
1940s. The target language is taught in the learnerâs home language and consists of memoriz-
ing lists of words and learning enough grammar to translate text from the target language into
the home language. Following this method, a student could study language for years without

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 100 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

having any kind of a conversation or even having to understand the language spoken. It is the
method that generations of U.S. students used to learn enough French or German to pass the
second language requirement in high school or college. In fact, it is still used in classrooms
in Europe and Asia today, and a few may exist in the Americas. Many ESL teachers have seen
evidence of that first hand, as Marcia Kennedy describes in My First ESL Class.

Two wars in the early 20th century meant that large numbers of service personnel found
themselves in foreign countries. Having âlearnedâ French, German, or Spanish by methods
similar to grammar-translation, they struggled when confronted with real language. The
U.S. Army intervened in the 1940s and developed the audio-lingual method (also known
as the Army method and the aural-oral method), which was further developed during the
1950s and made popular with the help of several U.S. universities, including the University
of Michigan and the University of Texas, which developed extensive training programs. It
was to a large extent reactionary to the grammar-translation method because it sought to
remedy the void of oral skills in grammar-translation. The audio-lingual method relied in
part on comparative analysisâcomparing the learnerâs home language with English (or
other language being taught) to discover what the differences were and what difficulties
they would likely pose to the learner. It was firmly grounded in structural linguistics and
behaviorist learning theory.

According to B. F. Skinner, the infant is a âblank slateâ and all learning results from stimulus-
response behavior. Learning language is a process of habit formation. The child utters a word
or a phrase and someone reinforces it positively if it is correct and negatively if it is not. The
child repeats those utterances that receive positive responses, which leads to habit formation.
The same theory applied to second language learners, but in their case the native language
represented, in the context of learning a new language, a set of bad habits that had to be eradi-
cated. It was best to prevent errors by practicing well-formed utterances and then practicing

My First ESL Class

With my shiny new degree in English, I got a job teaching ESL at a local community college at
night. Because I was inexperienced, I was assigned the advanced learners, or those who had
had three or more years of English language classes. I began the class by introducing myself and
explaining where they could buy the textbooks and generally taking care of first-night house-
keeping details. I was met with blank stares. I handed out the course outline I had brought, and
after a few minutes I could see many heads nodding. âDo you have questions?â I asked. âYes,â
a young man replied. I waited. âWhat is your question?â He pointed at the name of one of the
books on the outline and said, âWhere buy this?â I explained. He signaled for me to write it on
the board, which I did. I noticed everyone writing it down. I tried to converse with the class.
âWhere are you fromâ at first elicited only one shy hand, but after she responded correctly,
the others guessed at the question and named their home countries. I handed out copies of
a passage that I had thought would be too easy for âadvancedâ learners. They took it eagerly
and started to write. As I walked around the room, I saw that not one of them was writing in
English. As I eventually learned, although they had all studied English in their homelands, the
method was to learn a lot of words and a lot of grammar rules. Theyâd use these to translate
English text, but they had no communication skills at all. None. It was a long semester.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 101 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

them again and again and again. Audio-lingual methods, thus, were structured to minimize
the occurrence of errors so that only correct forms were practiced and learned. Mimic and
memorize were the two words that best described the method.

Although the audio-lingualism approach dominated much of the 20th century, it was not the
only one in use. The oral approach, also called situational language teaching, was developed
in Great Britain between 1930 and the 1960s, partly in reaction to the perceived inadequa-
cies of the audio-lingual method. The method was based on research showing that most
languages have a core vocabulary of about 2,000 words that appear in written text and on
an analysis of the most common sentence patterns found in spoken language. The meth-
ods that grew out of these observations focused on reading and the carefully controlled
introduction of vocabulary in âsituations,â usually short narratives. This method allowed
little methodological variation and the techniques were prescribed as well: PPP, or present,
practice, and produce. In class, the teacher or a recorded voice presented the material to
be learned. The students read as they listened, and then they were led through a number of
practice drills before âproducingâ the language in a slightly less formal way (Howatt, 1984).
It was an approach widely used and as recently as the 1980s in this country, primarily in
foreign language classrooms.

Behaviorist-rooted audio-lingualism fell into dis-
repute as a result of a major theoretical shift in
linguistics led by linguist Noam Chomsky of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rejecting
the behaviorist explanation of language acquisi-
tion (Chomsky, 1968), he put forward a very dif-
ferent theory of language acquisition (Chapter 5).
This theoretical shift led to the development of new
approaches to the teaching of second languages,
approaches that emphasized real language used for
real purposes.

Functional Approaches
The notional/functional approach grew out of the
work of British linguist David Wilkins in the 1970s.
He proposed replacing grammar and vocabulary as
the basis for organizing the language teaching curric-
ulum with a set of ânotionsâ and a set of âfunctionsâ
that learners would need in order to communicate
effectively. Functions included greetings, leave-
takings, apologies, making requests, and all the other
uses for which language is used (see Additional

Resources at the end of this chapter). Organizing the curriculum according to notions and func-
tions marked a sharp departure from the orderly presentation of grammar according to supposed
level of difficulty. A typical textbook, for example, would introduce the functions of introductions
and making requests in early lessons. Those lessons would include the language needed for mak-
ing introductions and requests without regard for the supposed linguistic complexity.

Flirt/Flirt/Superstock

Outside the United States, the audio-
lingual approach is still widely used to
teach languages.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 102 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

A less common approach was the directed practice approach. The curriculum was planned
around the phrases that students were likely to need in various situations. Used by the dip-
lomatic corps as a quick way to prepare employees for overseas postings, the approach was
functional in the sense that it was designed to meet certain identified functional needs, and in
that sense it was compatible with the notional/functional approach. The techniques, however,
were far different. Directed practice required the same kind of repetition drills that character-
ized the audio-lingual method, while the notional/functional approach used communicative
exercises such as role plays and group work.

With their focus on teaching language needed for real purposes, and away from grammar, the
functional approaches represented a severe departure from the carefully ordered structural
approaches. They were, in fact, a precursor to the communicative/interactive approaches in
use today, which also emphasize the functional use of language.

Communicative/Interactive Approaches
Most of the approaches to English language teaching in use today can be classified as
communicative or interactive. In all likelihood, the shift to the approaches involving natu-
ral language used in real communicative settings was born of necessity as much as out of
a new theoretical stance. Not to diminish the importance of theory, but it often takes a lot
of time for theory to inform teaching practice, meaningfully anyway. Sometimes teachers
canât wait. As more and more immigrants arrived in U.S. classrooms, deficiencies in previous
approaches became more apparent, and teachers became very creative in their approaches,
often borrowing from best practices they had learned as elementary school teachers. As it
happened, theories of how language is acquired or learned were evolving simultaneously,
and these provided a rationale for developing teaching approaches that recognized the
importance and the urgency of developing both social and academic language proficiency.
Communicative approaches had as their goal and their method the use of real language for
real purposes.

As Richards observes, most ESL or ELL teachers today, if asked, would say that their meth-
odology was communicative, many without any clear notion of what the term really meansâ
which is not to diminish the effect of their teaching. He goes on to point out that

Communicative language teaching can be understood as a set of principles
about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds
of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers
and learners in the classroom. (Richards, 2006, p. 2)

At the heart of this approach is its goal: communicative competence. Communicative com-
petence differs from grammatical competence, which was the focus of structural approaches,
although some grammatical proficiency is necessarily an important componentâa learner
can hardly be described as communicating effectively if his syntax is mangled. Communica-
tive competence implies proficiency and the ability to function in all the settings relevant to
the learner. It is also the guiding principle for teaching ELLs in all four domains, whatever
their language proficiency level and whatever instructional method or techniques are used
(Chapter 5).

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 103 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

âAmerican students may be the most tested kids in the world, taking more than 100 million
standardized tests every year, according to Teachers College at Columbia University in New
York Cityâ (Clovis, 2014). As we have seen in this chapter, however, standardized tests, many
federally mandated, are not the only tests that students take. There are nonstandardized
proficiency tests, placement tests, and tests to monitor progress, given by teachers, and
sometimes mandated by school districts. It is important, therefore, to understand the prin-
ciples that should govern assessment and to distinguish among the different categories of
assessment. The major objectives of this chapter were to clarify some of the confusion sur-
rounding assessment and then to describe the program options that are available for ELLs
so that they can meet the proficiency requirements that most of these tests are intended to
measure. With all of this emphasis on testing in todayâs schools, pressure is on teachers to
find the best ways of teaching their ELLs so that they will become fully functioning bilin-
guals, with the academic and linguistic proficiency in English that they need to succeed. As
we saw in Panic Time for Jorge, a beginning teacher found this out the hard way.

No approach to teaching arises independent of all that has gone before it, and so we exam-
ined a few of the major ones that have been used and which have influenced those methods
in use today. As we have seen, many approaches used to teach language in the past have
failed, but even failed approaches have left behind something of value. Few of us can claim
that in the business of teaching, we are methodologically âpure,â rigorously and exclusively
following the dictates of one approach or method. Rather, we adopt that approach which
most closely aligns with our best understandings of human learning, develop a plan that
accords with those understandings and then use techniques that we have devised ourselves
or that others have found useful. In Chapter 5, we will delve deeper into instruction, with a
particular focus on communicative competence and the teaching methods associated with it.

Why I Teach: Panic Time for Jorge
After graduation, my first teaching assignment was to a âshelteredâ English class. I had my
TESL certification and so I knew what that was, not that Iâd actually ever done it! The class was
a third grade/fourth grade split, with five third graders and seven fourth graders. Knowing
they had limited English, I started to prepare myself to teach them English. Somehow I had it
in my head that they would all be at more or less the same level of English proficiency. I also
assumed they would all speak Spanish, since that was the dominant minority language in the
community, and if all else failed, I could resort to translation since I am bilingual. Imagine my
surprise when I discovered how wrong I was. I learned quickly that I was responsible primar-
ily for teaching the content for their grades and that only four of the 12 children spoke Span-
ish, and while some of them communicated fairly well, three of them were clearly struggling
and one was an absolute beginner. To make matters worse, I found out that the third graders
had to write the state achievement test that year and that the results could have serious impli-
cations for the school. And for me! To be continued . . . .

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 104 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

approach to teaching The intersection of
theory and practice. This approach consists
of the principles that follow from a theoreti-
cal stance.

assessment The collection and analysis
of data in order to answer questions about
learners.

audio-lingual method An ELL teaching
method that relies in part on comparative
analysis, comparing the learnerâs home lan-
guage with English (or other language being
taught) to discover what the differences are
and what difficulties they will likely pose to
the learner. Also known as the Army method
and the aural-oral method.

benchmarking Setting a point of reference
against which progress can be measured.

Cloze test A test in which a reader is asked
to supply words or letters that have been
removed from a passage in order to assess
the readerâs understanding of context and
vocabulary.

communicative competence The level of a
learnerâs language proficiency and the abil-
ity to function in all of the settings relevant
to the learner.

communicative or interactive approach A
teaching approach that involves natural lan-
guage used in real communicative settings.

Key Ideas

1. Assessment of ELLs is done mainly for placement and to monitor progress, both
linguistically and academically.

2. Factors such as language proficiency, degree of cultural adaptation, prior schooling,
and prior experience of test-taking can negatively impact ELLs scores on assess-
ments created for native speakers.

3. Test instruments used for assessing ELLsâ content knowledge should be as linguisti-
cally undemanding as possible.

4. Formative evaluations tend to be less formal and to provide more useful information
for teachers to use to intervene or modify their instructional plan.

5. Although there are some standardized measures that can be used for placement pur-
poses, proficiency tests may be more helpful because they allow learners to demon-
strate what they can do with language rather than what they know about language.

6. Keeping accurate and detailed progress reports is important not only to meet dis-
trict and government requirements, but to allow teachers and learners to monitor
achievement and plan future instruction.

7. Although it is important to keep track of progress in all the language domains, it
is especially important to monitor reading progress, because a student who falls
behind in reading will fall behind in all subjects.

8. ELLs can function well in mainstream classrooms, particularly with appropriate and
adequate support for teacher and learner.

9. Sheltered language programs offer opportunities for ELLs to get grade-level content
instruction using simplified language.

10. Whatever program is chosen, the goal should always be to add (rather than to
replace) proficiency in a new language.

11. Most current approaches of ELL/ESL teaching are based on the goal of achieving
communicative competence through the use of real language for real purposes.

Key Terms

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 105 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

constructed-response question Ques-
tion that requires a short-answer or essay
response.

early-exit bilingual program or transi-
tional bilingual education (TBE) An ELL
teaching method that utilizes ELLsâ home
language for up to two or three years as a
transition to mainstream classrooms.

English learning center (ELC) An
ELL teaching method that concentrates
resources in a single place where learn-
ers from different classrooms and different
grades (and sometimes different schools)
work with an ESL teacher for part of the
school day.

formative evaluation An ongoing assess-
ment that teachers and schools undertake in
order to gauge the effectiveness of a lesson,
assignment, or unit.

grammar-translation method An older
method of ELL teaching that is based on
explicit instruction in the grammatical
analysis of the target language and
translation of sentences from the native
language into the target language, and vice
versa.

informal reading inventory (IRI) An indi-
vidually administered assessment intended
to diagnose and evaluate a number of skills
associated with reading.

late-exit bilingual programs or develop-
mental bilingual education (DBE) An ELL
teaching method, normally lasting through
the elementary years and sometimes into
high school, that use about 10% English in
kindergarten and increase every year until
about 60% of instruction in fourth grade is
done in English.

method of teaching The overall plan for
instruction consistent with the chosen
approach.

methodology The theory-driven approach
to language teaching, together with associ-
ated methods and techniques.

notional/functional approach An ELL
teaching approach that organizes the lan-
guage teaching curriculum with a set of
ânotionsâ and a set of âfunctionsâ that learn-
ers need in order to communicate effectively.

performance assessment An opportunity
for students to demonstrate content knowl-
edge by reducing reliance on language.

pull-out programs An ELL teaching
method in which ELLs are placed in main-
stream classrooms but taken out to special-
ized ESL classes for part of the day.

reliability The degree to which test results
can be trusted to represent what they are
supposed to represent. If two versions of the
same test do not yield the same result, the
reliability of both is questionable.

rubric A standard of performance for a
defined population.

sheltered classroom An ELL teaching
method in which classes for ELLs that focus
on content are presented in language simpli-
fied to their level of proficiency.

summative evaluation A measure taken
periodically to determine what students
know and do not know.

techniques of teaching Specific plans for
implementing a teaching method.

two-way bilingual or two-way immer-
sion or dual immersion An ELL teaching
method that provides integrated language
and academic instruction for both native
speakers of English and ELLs.

validity The degree to which a test or
assessment tool measures what it is
intended to measure.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 106 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Why might standardized tests not accurately measure what ELLs know?
2. A test should measure what it is intended to measure and be used only for that

purpose. For example, a math achievement test should be used to assess only math
knowledge or skills. Why is this an especially important fact to keep in mind for ELLs
taking English proficiency tests?

3. Choose a passage of text appropriate for a second grader or older and construct
three Cloze tests, as described and illustrated in the Cloze Procedure box. What dif-
ferent types of information would you derive from each test?

4. Based on what you know about which states have the highest population of Spanish
speakers, list the states that you would expect to have higher percentages of two-
way bilingual programs. Now, go to the Center for Applied Linguistics website at
http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/index.html and use their searchable database to
check your predictions. Any surprises? What are some possible reasons for what you
found?

5. A teacher wishes to test her fifth gradersâ understanding of a geography lesson she
has just taught. She gives them a written quiz with questions such as this one from
the National Geographic Geography Bee:

The North Atlantic current brings warm waters from the tropics to the
west coast of which continent?

Nine of the 10 English speakers in the class answer correctly, but only three of the
seven ELLs get the answer right. What are the possible explanations?

6. Within the communicative/interactive approach to teaching, can you think of any
situations in which a teacher might appropriately use practice drills requiring learn-
ers to repeat particular words or structures over and over out of context?

7. Under what circumstances might a teacher use techniques associated with the struc-
tural approach to language teaching?

8. What is meant by the âcollaborative construction and negotiation of meaning?â

Additional Resources
For an overview of what assessment is and how it is used for ELLs, see Andrea Hellmanâs
presentation at TESOL 2011, available online at
http://www.academia.edu/466047/Assessment_with_P-12_English_language_learners

For a good discussion of classroom assessment, see the Association for Middle Level
Education at
http://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/Assessment/AsDet/TabId/180/ArtMID/780/
ArticleID/286/Formative-and-Summative-Assessments-in-the-Classroom.aspx

For an excellent description of performance based assessment, with specific examples of
performance tasks included, see
https://scale.stanford.edu/system/files/performance-assessments-english-language-
learners and http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/tannen01.html

For practical tips on informal assessment, see
http://www.colorincolorado.org/educators/assessment/informal/

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 107 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/index.html

http://www.academia.edu/466047/Assessment_with_P-12_English_language_learners

http://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/Assessment/AsDet/TabId/180/ArtMID/780/ArticleID/286/Formative-and-Summative-Assessments-in-the-Classroom.aspx

https://scale.stanford.edu/system/files/performance-assessments-english-language-learners

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/tannen01.html

http://www.colorincolorado.org/educators/assessment/informal/

Summary & Resources

For a critical analysis of eight commonly used informal reading inventories, see
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/23373

For a template useful for monitoring progress in reading skills, see
http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit

For a description of functional approaches in language teaching, see Bowenâs âTeaching
approaches: Functional approaches in teaching EFL/ESLâ online at
http://www.onestopenglish.com/support/methodology/teaching-approaches/teaching-
approaches-functional-approaches-in-ef l/-esl/146492.article

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 108 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/23373

http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit

http://www.onestopenglish.com/support/methodology/teaching-approaches/teaching-approaches-functional-approaches-in-efl/-esl/146492.article

135

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Analyze the importance of reading to academic success.

2. Summarize the reading process from decoding through comprehension.

3. Demonstrate how to make use of ELLsâ existing knowledge and skills in literacy using methods
of instructional scaffolding.

4. Define content-area literacy and describe the language elements that ELLs need to acquire if
they are to meet Common Core State Standards.

5. Explicate the principles that determine how communicative approaches to teaching are imple-
mented in methods for teaching reading to ELLs.

6Learn to Read, Read to Learn

YanLev/iStock/Thinkstock

CO_TX

CO_NL

CO_CRD

CT CN

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 135 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.1 Why Reading Matters

Introduction
Fifty years ago, many Americans learned French or Spanish or German by translating text.
Although it was not an effective way to learn conversational skills or even writing skills, many
did acquire a âreading knowledgeâ of the language. Today ELLs are in a very different situa-
tion. They need to acquire both social and cognitive/academic language abilities. Although
they might be able to rely on oral language skills for many social situations, oral language
ability is not sufficient for academic purposes. Moreover, a âreading knowledgeâ is precisely
what many are lacking. It is usually the failure to acquire adequate literacy skills that causes
ELLs to become long-term English language learners (Chapter 5).

Beginning with a review and further discussion of the centrality of reading to language and
content learning, we delve deeper into what the process of reading entails. What do we know
about the reading process that helps us understand the task that confronts ELLs in learning
to read English? As we have seen in earlier chapters, if ELLs are able to read in their native
language(s), they have a head start on learning to read in English. In this chapter we examine
how teachers can take advantage of learnersâ prior knowledge by using a variety of methods
to build skills in English reading and writing.

In school, children learn to read so that they can read to learn. Content-area literacy, then, is
not only the goal of but also a major component of reading comprehension. What is reading
comprehension? Can reading and writing be taught simultaneously? Does content or aca-
demic literacy differ from âotherâ reading and writing? If so, how is it learned?

The final section of the chapter synthesizes the different perspectives weâve used to look at
ELL literacy within the communicative approach to teaching (Chapter 4). Recognizing that
there is no one method that works for all learners (or for all teachers), we conclude the chap-
ter with guidelines and principles that characterize effective methods for teaching reading
to ELLs.

6.1 Why Reading Matters
An excellent predictor of academic success for all children is reading ability. Itâs a common
sense claim, but it also happens to be one supported by research. Table 6.1 summarizes some
of the more significant findings of the past two decades. Although all of the studies conclude
that the level of reading ability (by third grade) is a strong predictor of later academic suc-
cess, another finding is somewhat more surprising. Specifically, three studies all showed that
an even better predictor is math ability in kindergarten. This finding does not mean that we
should abandon reading to children or that reading is not important. Rather, they were uni-
fied in their results and their conclusions: Kindergarten math ability is a predictor of third
grade reading ability, and it is this ability that leads to further engagement in reading, which
in turn improves comprehension.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 136 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.1 Why Reading Matters

Table 6.1: Selected research findings on the importance of early reading ability

Researchers Studied . . . And concluded that . . .

Cunningham &
Stanovich (1997)

First graders followed
up as 11th graders

â¢ Early exposure to print and comprehension
ability both predict the level of reading
engagement in 11th grade (p. 941);

â¢ Third grade is pivotal year. Children who lag
behind in first grade but catch up by third or
fifth are likely to be engaged readers in 11th
grade (p. 942);

â¢ Early success at reading acquisition is one
of the keys that unlocks a lifetime of reading
habits; and

â¢ âThe subsequent exercise of this habit serves
to further develop reading comprehension
ability . . .â (p. 943).

Hernandez (2012) 4,000 children from
first grade through
age 19

â¢ Children who do not read proficiently by third
grade are four times more likely to leave school
without a diploma than proficient readers (p. 4);

â¢ For the worst readers, those who could not
master even the basic skills by third grade, the
dropout rate is nearly six times greater (p. 4);

â¢ Children with the lowest reading scores
account for one-third of students, but for more
than three-fifths (63%) of all children who do
not graduate from high school (p. 6);

â¢ About 33% of Hispanic students who did
not achieve third grade proficiency failed to
graduate on time, a rate higher than for white
students with poor reading skills; but

â¢ The ethnic gap disappears when Hispanic
children do read at grade level by third grade
and were not living in poverty (p. 5).

Duncan et al. (2007) Data from 35,000
children in the United
States, Canada, and the
United Kingdom

â¢ The strongest predictors of later achievement
are school-entry math, reading, and attention
skills (p. 1,428); and

â¢ Early math skills had the greatest predictive
power, not only of later achievement in math,
but also of later achievement in reading.

Romano et al. (2010) Canadian data on 1,500
school children

â¢ Kindergarten math skills are best predictor of
reading ability in third grade (p. 995); and

â¢ Kindergarten literacy also predicted later
academic achievement.

Hooper et al. (2010) African-American and
white children in the
United States

â¢ Kindergarten math skills are the best predictor
of later academic achievement in both groups;
and

â¢ There are indications that early expressive
language skills are important to later
achievement in both reading and math
(p. 1,018).

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 137 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.1 Why Reading Matters

The reason that reading is so crucial to academic achievement goes beyond the obvious
fact that content learning requires reading at a high level of competence. There are long-
term cognitive consequences of learning to read, and to reading, and they are significant.
At the early stages of learning to read, a great deal of cognitive activity goes into decoding
as readers try to figure out how the marks on the page relate to the language they know. As
they become more proficient at decoding, the process becomes automated, and when this
happens readers have more cognitive resources to devote to â . . . more general language
skills, such as vocabulary, background knowledge, familiarity with complex syntactic struc-
tures, etc.â (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2001, p. 138). The faster the process becomes auto-
mated, the better, because children who struggle with decoding and word identification
are exposed to less text than skilled readers, and they often find the materials too difficult
for them. Their deficiencies in decoding skills, lack of reading practice, and materials that
are too difficult significantly impact their ability to develop the automaticity they need to
develop the higher order cognitive skills. In contrast, skilled readers acquire decoding skills
very quickly, and with these ârunning on automaticâ they can devote attention and cognitive
resources to extracting meaning, increasing vocabulary, and acquiring content knowledge.
It is a spiral, either upward or downward.

Because ELLs face the dual challenge of acquiring language and content area knowledge, often
to catch up to their grade level, it is especially important for them to learn to read quickly and
well. It is important that they learn the lower-order skills (decoding and word identification)
so that they can move onto the higher order skills as soon as possible. To learn content, they
need to be able to:

â¢ understand sentence structure,
â¢ have a large vocabulary on which to draw,
â¢ understand how different kinds of writing (e.g., narrative, factual, biographical) are

structured,
â¢ comprehend ideas,
â¢ follow an argument,
â¢ understand the writerâs purpose for the text,
â¢ detect implications of the material, and
â¢ integrate what they read into their prior knowledge of the subject.

English language learners will not acquire all these skills by being left alone in the back of a
classroom to figure things out or by being handed a textbook and a dictionary. The develop-
ment of reading skills must hold a prominent place in instructional plans for ELLs from the
beginning. The reason is simple: Academic success depends on it. Once an ELL learns to read,
she can read to learn. What is needed is targeted instruction. The remainder of this chap-
ter explores what teachers need to know about the reading process and how to build on a
learnerâs prior knowledge, about content-area reading, and about how reading instruction is
implemented within a communicative approach to teaching.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 138 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.2 What Is Involved in Learning to Read?

6.2 What Is Involved in Learning to Read?
Understanding the characteristics of proficient readers is helpful for understanding the
process of reading but does not constitute a road map for teaching reading (Chapter 2).
Kenneth Goodmanâs definition of reading helps us to understand why. Goodman, one of the
preeminent researchers to study the reading process in the last several decades, defined
reading as âa psycholinguistic guessing gameâ involving âan interaction between thought
and language.â

Efficient reading does not result from precise perception and identification
of all elements, but from skill in selecting the fewest, most productive clues
necessary to produce guesses which are right the first time. (1976, p. 2)

Native speakers have more âcluesââtheir linguistic- and content knowledgeâon which to
base their guesses. And yet, ELLs also bring something to the task, raising the question we
will address shortly: What transfers? Before attempting to answer that, however, it will be
useful to consider in a little more depth what is available to transfer. In other words, what
does the reading process require of the reader?

In recent decades, researchers have made progress toward understanding the cognitive pro-
cesses involved in learning to read, and while the neurological and psychological bases are
not yet fully understood, there appears to be agreement that there are certain necessary pro-
cesses required. We know, for example, that reading begins with decoding and word identifi-
cation, but also has to involve comprehension.

Decoding
Humans have been speaking for tens of thousands of years. During this time,
genetic changes have favored the brainâs ability to acquire and process spoken
language, even setting aside specialized areas of the brain to accomplish these
tasks . . . . Speaking is a normal, genetically hardwired capability; reading is
not. In fact, reading is probably the most difficult task we ask the young brain
to undertake. (Sousa, 2011, Ch. 4)

From birth, and possibly before, infants can distinguish speech from other sounds. Shortly
after birth, they begin to comprehend that those sounds have meaning corresponding to
some real-world object or event. This is the beginning of phonological awareness and it
happens naturally in all hearing infants no matter what language is spoken around them.
The second phase of phonological awareness is phonemic awareness, which is the under-
standing that words are made up of individual sounds and that these sounds can be reor-
ganized or manipulated to form new words. As soon as infants realize that the family feline
is a cat, which differs from the thing that keeps their heads warm, and that neither is the

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 139 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.2 What Is Involved in Learning to Read?

same as a cup, bowl, banana, and so on, they have begun to be aware of phonemes. The
ability to isolate one sound from others in a word is another aspect of phonemic aware-
ness. Early evidence of this awareness is found in childrenâs rhyming. Notice that so far
no print is involved. ELLs with prior exposure to reading in an alphabetic language will
usually have acquired both aspects of phonological awareness, and all learners will have
acquired the first phaseâthat speech is made up of individual soundsâlong before they
reach school age.

The next step in learning to read is to figure out the relationship that exists between sounds
and what initially appear to be squiggles on the page. Phoneme-grapheme awareness,
commonly referred to as sound-symbol correspondence, is a necessary step for learning any
alphabetic language. It is also used by very young Chinese children learning to read pinyin
before moving on to characters. To get some idea of how difficult the task can be for young
children, consider the following string of symbols:

The cat wore his hat in the heat.

Each symbol corresponds to a sound (yes, in English!). But unless you can read Wingdings,
you wonât know that the sentence is represented in standard orthography, or the conven-
tional spelling system, as

The cat wore his hat in the heat.

For a child encountering print for the first time, the two âsentencesâ are equally meaning-
less, so the first task is to figure out what the squiggles mean. Those of us who already
know how to read might approach the Wingdings task differently than beginners. In all
likelihood we would look for patterns or repeated symbols, a or at, for example. This
would be essentially a phonics approach, but it is not the only one. We could also approach
the problem from a whole word recognition perspective, looking at larger chunks: the
which appears twice, or cat and hat which have very similar features. However, with
both approaches, without some context we have little chance of cracking the code. Once
someone utters the sentence aloud, however, we can figure it out pretty quickly using either
method.

It is in the sound-symbol correspondence task that different processes may be involved,
depending on the language. As we saw in Chapter 2, not all languages have alphabetic writ-
ing systems, and when children learn to read logographic languages, there is no sound-
symbol correspondence to learn. Rather, they have to learn a different character or symbol for
each word or morpheme. Chinese children normally do learn an alphabetic system initially
( pinyin), but they have to learn to recognize characters in order to become proficient readers,
and processing characters is cognitively different from processing alphabet-based text. The
difference is schematically shown in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 140 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Phonological
Awareness

Phonological
awareness

Sound to Symbol Correspondence
(Phonemes to Graphemes)

Sound to Symbol (pinyin)
used in initial instruction only

/mÃ¢o/â /bÃ¢o/â /dÃ´u/

/mÃ¢o/= =mÃ¢o

/kÃ¦t/= /mÃ¢o/=

/kÃ¦t/= =cat /hÃ¦t/= /hit/=

/kÃ¦t/â /hÃ¦t/â /hit/

=heat=hat

Figure 6.1: Learning to read:
The beginning

Phonological
Awareness
Phonological
awareness
Sound to Symbol Correspondence
(Phonemes to Graphemes)
Sound to Symbol (pinyin)
used in initial instruction only
/mÃ¢o/â /bÃ¢o/â /dÃ´u/
/mÃ¢o/= =mÃ¢o
/kÃ¦t/= /mÃ¢o/=
/kÃ¦t/= =cat /hÃ¦t/= /hit/=
/kÃ¦t/â /hÃ¦t/â /hit/
=heat=hat
Phonological
Awareness
Phonological
awareness
Sound to Symbol Correspondence
(Phonemes to Graphemes)
Sound to Symbol (pinyin)
used in initial instruction only
/mÃ¢o/â /bÃ¢o/â /dÃ´u/
/mÃ¢o/= =mÃ¢o
/kÃ¦t/= /mÃ¢o/=
/kÃ¦t/= =cat /hÃ¦t/= /hit/=
/kÃ¦t/â /hÃ¦t/â /hit/
=heat=hat

Figure 6.2: Learning to read:
Chinese

Regardless of an individualâs native language, reading requires that the brain match symbols with
sounds. To be successful, this process requires the cooperation of three neural systems, working
together to decode the sound-to-symbol relationships peculiar to the language. This is not an easy skill
to develop and does not occur for most people without direct instruction (Sousa, 2011, Ch. 4).

The neural systems involved are the visual processing center, the auditory processing center,
and the executive system. This is how it is thought to work:

â¢ Continuing with the examples in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, the visual processing center
records the word cat and then works with the auditory processing system (Brocaâs
area of the brain), and the two systems together analyze the phonemes that com-
prise the word.

â¢ If the combination of phonemes exists in the mindâs lexicon (mental diction-
ary), the information is moved to the executive system in the frontal lobe, which
consolidates the information from the two areas as a representation of the family
pet with whiskers and a long tail.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 141 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.2 What Is Involved in Learning to Read?

â¢ Logographic writing systems require that the brain also activate an area of the right
hemisphere associated with graphical or pictorial representations.

Taken together, these processes constitute decoding. Keep in mind that this process is only
the beginning of the reading process. The brain also has to learn how to speed up or auto-
mate the recognition process so that it becomes less laborious. And the next time the reader
encounters the word, it is recognized without having to go through being fully processed in
each area of the brain.

A Teacherâs Story: The Codebreaker

I asked to meet with Maiâs parents to discuss Maiâs lack of progress in literacy. They came, bring-
ing with them one of Maiâs teenaged cousins to act as interpreter because their English was very
basic. I learned that before coming to the United States, Maiâs education had been sporadic at
best. The family had spent time in three different overseas camps en route to the United States.
I also learned that although her parents were themselves literate, educated people, they had not
taught Mai to read in Vietnamese because they were convinced that it would interfere with her
ability to learn English. The interpreter also said that although there had been English classes in
some of the camps, the instructors concentrated on basic spoken English.

After that meeting, I decided that Mai needed special assistance if she were ever to catch up
with others in her class, and so I consulted a district reading specialist. She was overwhelmed
with requests, but she sent me an intern, Casey, who worked with Mai for 40 minutes a day. I
had assumed that Casey would use simplified materials, but she said that no, she would use
the same materials I used in the class. One day a few weeks later, Mai held up her hand in
class, volunteering to read a passage aloud from our social studies lesson. She read it almost
perfectly, and I was amazed. I was even more amazed when she couldnât answer a simple ques-
tion about what sheâd read. I asked her to read it again, silently, and then I asked her the same
question, and again she couldnât answer. After a few more similar incidents, I understood: Mai
had mastered sound-symbol correspondence and could decode very effectively. But her com-
prehension was almost entirely lacking.

Ellenâs experience with Mai in A Teacherâs Story: The Codebreaker reminds us of an obvi-
ous but important fact about reading: All reading is about comprehension. Yes, decoding is
important, but it is not safe to assume that because an ELL has a good command of spoken
English and is able to identify and pronounce written words, that comprehension follows.
In Maiâs case it had not, and it is a mistake to assume that what appears to be a neces-
sary condition for readingâbasic sound-symbol correspondenceâis a sufficient one for
reading comprehension. In fact, we know that it is not a necessary condition. Nonhearing
people learn to read; proficient hearing readers understand the meanings of words they
cannot pronounce; people learn to read a foreign language without knowing how to speak
it or how it sounds. Nevertheless, in normal, hearing children, the easiest path to reading
begins with understanding the relationship between the language they see in print and the
language they hear and speak.

Maiâs story also illustrates the relationship between prior educational experience and suc-
cess in academic language learning. Because her previous schooling was only sporadic,
Mai likely did not have the background knowledge to make sense of the social studies

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 142 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.2 What Is Involved in Learning to Read?

text she was reading. Proficiency in reading means that the reader can understand indi-
vidual sentences and how they âfit togetherâ in the overall structure of a piece of writing.
It means that the reader can comprehend the purpose of the text and the ideas presented
as well as follow the argument and understand implications. Proficiency in reading means
that a reader who understands the meanings of some of the words in a text can sometimes
figure out the meanings of unfamiliar words from the context provided by the known
words. Perhaps most importantly, proficiency means that a reader can distinguish what
is important and what is not related to the task at handâthe writerâs purpose and the
readerâs purpose. In other words, reading proficiency means that a reader is able to focus
on those elements that carry meaning and ignore those that do not. Consider the following
pair of sentences:

He had two reasons to move to Oregon.
His two reasons to move to Oregon had just evaporated.

The phrase two reasons has a different level of significance in the two contexts. In the first,
the phrase signals the reader that what is coming next is very likely the identification and
perhaps some explanation of the two reasons. The second sentence also demands that
the reader pay attention to what comes next, but in this case, what the proficient reader
expects to see is what happened, what âevaporated.â The second sentence also illustrates
how a proficient reader needs to be able to work out the meaning of a familiar word used
in an unfamiliar context. Learning a new meaning for a familiar word is the same as learn-
ing a new word. Proficient readers increase their vocabularies by reading, which in turn
makes them better readers, which in turn makes it easier for them to learn academic
content.

Word Recognition
Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers have been able to see
which parts of the brain are the most active at any particular point in time. In addition to
verifying that there are three areas in the left side of the brain that are activated during read-
ing, research has revealed that the left hemisphere of the readerâs brain has a dedicated area
with the unique highly specialized function of recognizing whole written words. This âbrain
dictionaryâ is not something that the species evolved, but is learned in each individual (Glezer
et al., 2009). If each word that a reader learns is associated with its own set of neurons, then
it is possible that:

â¢ the brain is organized in much the same way for reading alphabetic and logographic
languages;

â¢ in teaching children pinyin, the Chinese have made it easier for children to learn to
read an alphabetic writing system later; and

â¢ the initial learning processes might be even more similar than they appear in
Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

Understanding what is involved in decoding and word identification, however useful, does
not immediately lead us to an understanding of how comprehension develops, because com-
prehension involves more than decoding, identifying and then matching the printed word to a
word in the mental dictionary. Without comprehension, there is little point to any of the prior
processing.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 143 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.2 What Is Involved in Learning to Read?

Comprehension

At the heart of the matter is the question, How does the reader interact with the text to extract
the writerâs intended meaning?

In order to read with clear comprehension, students also need to under-
stand the words they read, construct an interpretive cognitive model of what
the author is trying to say, and have the requisite background knowledge to
categorize, interpret, and remember what an author is saying in relation to
established facts or a field of understanding (such as a content-area subject).
(Lawrence et al., 2011)

We saw in an earlier example that it is possible to âreadâ a passageâdecoding, identifying,
and correctly pronouncing most if not all wordsâand still have little understanding of the
meaning. This is especially true for ELLs, as research has shown.

. . . by and large for language-minority children, word-level components of lit-
eracy (e.g., decoding, spelling) either are or can be (with appropriate instruc-
tion) at levels equal to those of their monolingual peers. However, this is not the
case for text-level skills, like reading comprehension, which rarely approach
the levels achieved by their monolingual peers. (August & Wan, 2007)

In the text that follows, we can see that comprehension involves much more than knowing the
meanings of words.

Messy ninth end for Sweden

A measurement in Canadaâs favour in the eighth end and a trio of misses by
Sweden in the ninth sealed the win for Jones.
In that ninth end, Swedenâs Maria Wennerstroem had her final rock pick up
debris, opening up a pair of takeouts by Lawes. That, coupled with a miss by
Christina Betrup, left Canada lying three with skip stones remaining.
An in-turn raise by Prytz only gave Sweden second shot rock before Jonesâs
last shot of the end drew onto the button.
Prytzâs final chance to salvage a point evaporated when her attempt to knock
Canada off the button nicked her own stone in the four-foot, giving Canada a
steal of two and a three-point lead heading into the final end.
âOf course itâs disappointing,â Sigfridsson said. âI know we won silver, but it
really just feels like we lost gold.â
Canada simply ran the Swedes out of rocks in the final end, and the Canadian
celebration was on. (Piercy, 2014)

How much of this did you understand? In terms of the reading process just described, how far
did you get? In all likelihood, every reader knows the meaning of every word with the excep-
tion of proper nouns. Some will even know that the topic is something that happened in the
sport of curling. A few might understand exactly what actions were described. For many read-
ers, however, the text is almost incomprehensible because we have no background knowl-
edge, no experiential context upon which to reconstruct the writerâs meaning.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 144 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Reader

Text

Comprehension

Sociocultural
Context

Section 6.2 What Is Involved in Learning to Read?

Reading comprehension is what hap-
pens at the intersection of reader and
text, within a sociocultural context,
as represented in Figure 6.3. It is an
active process of extraction and recon-
struction of meaning. Understanding
what comprehension entails means
understanding first that reading is an
activity that takes place when a reader
encounters text, but that the process is
not staticâit changes as a reader gains
practice and becomes more proficient
and also learns to approach the read-
ing of different texts in different ways.

The Reader
The reader brings to the activity a wide
range of capacities and abilities, knowl-
edge, and experience, as well as moti-
vation. Cognitive capacities include
attention, memory, linguistic, and ana-
lytical ability. Knowledge includes lin-
guistic knowledge such as vocabulary,
morphology, and sentence structure, as
well as content knowledge, knowledge of how texts are structured, and some degree of awareness
about what has worked in the past as a comprehension strategy. Motivation refers to the purpose
for reading. If it is for pleasure, the reader will usually approach the task differently than when
reading for information or to learn a skill. Whether the purpose is externally imposed or a choice
made by the reader can also impact motivation and thus comprehension. High stress situations
such as taking a test or learning how to give CPR to a co-worker in distress may affect how well
the reader comprehends and how quickly. The readerâs motivation can also be influenced by her
degree of reading fluency. A fluent reader will experience less stress and have developed more
effective comprehension strategies than a nonfluent reader. All the capacities, knowledge, and
abilities that a reader brings to the task of reading change with experience and with instruction.

The Text
Text can be thought of in terms of purpose, format, and delivery mode. Writers have many
purposes for creating textâletters, reports, opinion pieces, advertising copyâto tell stories
that are real, as in biography, or imagined, as in fiction. The list goes on. Writers also have a
variety of formats in which to present their writingâmagazines, newspapers, books, novel-
las, journals, billboards, and so onâand they have a choice whether to use paper or electronic
means or, as in the case of this text, both. Text can be difficult or easy depending both on
inherent factors such as sentence length and the use of specialized or uncommon vocabulary
and on what the reader brings to the task. The mode may also interact with the readerâs moti-
vationâreading articles discovered in an internet search may cause the reader to read more
quickly, looking for key information, while articles that the reader has taken the time to find
in the library and copy to take home may demand more time and attention.

Reader
Text
Comprehension
Sociocultural
Context

Figure 6.3: Interactions involved
in comprehension

Reading comprehension, the intersection of reader and
text, occurs within a sociocultural context.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 145 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.3 Transfer of Existing Skills

Sociocultural Context
Cultural factors influence learners in many different ways (Chapter 2). An important aspect
of sociocultural context for reading comprehension is instruction, because how ELLs learn to
read is shaped, to a large degree, by what happens in the classroom.

When we think about the context of learning to read, we think mostly of class-
rooms. Of course, children bring to their classrooms vastly varying capacities
and understandings about reading, which are in turn influenced, or in some
cases determined, by their experiences in their homes and neighborhoods.
Further, classrooms and schools themselves reflect the neighborhood context
and the economic disparities of the larger society. (Snow, 2003, p. 16)

For ELLs, the most significant cultural factors are the attitudes of home and of community to
reading (Is it strictly a utilitarian activity or is it valued for other purposes?); the value the
community places on formal education (Is it strictly job preparation or a place for learning
that has value in itself ?); and school or culture shock (Is the classroom too far outside the
ELLâs experience for comfort?).

Extracting and reconstructing meaning from the written word, reading comprehension is thus
a highly complex cognitive process influenced by many factors both internal and external to
the learner. The question for teachers is how do we take advantage of the reading skills that
ELLs bring to the task of learning to read in English? We explore this topic in the next section.

6.3 Transfer of Existing Skills
Language-minority students are not blank slates. They enter classrooms with
varying degrees of oral proficiency and literacy in their first language. There is
clear evidence that tapping into first-language literacy can confer advantages
to English-language learners. (August & Shanahan, 2006, p. 5)

Finding the best ways to use the knowledge that ELLs bring to the reading process helps
teachers to guide ELLs along the path toward literacy. Each learner brings different experi-
ences, but all can serve as the foundation on which teachers can support learning by scaffold-
ing learning activities.

Prior Knowledge and Experience
Language proficiency, whether in the first language or English or both, is the foundation upon
which the ELL teacher helps ELLs build their English literacy skills. The stronger the profi-
ciency, the better. Similarly, the greater a learnerâs content-area knowledge, the better chance
the learner will have for developing both content-area and language proficiency. Unfortunately,
ELLs arrive at school with varying levels of first language reading ability, and they are more
likely than their English-speaking peers to lack the background knowledge needed for under-
standing subject-area texts (Irujo, 2007). Many ELLs arrive at school with some degree of read-
ing ability, even if only print awareness. If their first language is an alphabetic one, they may
have knowledge or at least awareness of sound-symbol correspondence. Teachers can build
upon that experience. If ELLs have learned to read a non-alphabetic language such as Chinese

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 146 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.3 Transfer of Existing Skills

Jack Hollingsworth/Digital Vision/Thinkstock

This young boy is learning that words can be
represented by marks on paper and that they
tell stories. By the time he gets to school, he
may even have learned something about sound-
symbol correspondence. This early start will be
very important when he begins to read in English
at school.

or Japanese, teachers will have to teach
sound-symbol correspondence but they
will be able to take advantage of other
cognitive skills that readers use to extract
meaning from text. Depending on their
level of oral language development, ELLs
may need work on oral language skills
first, but children such as Mai or others in
second grade or above can benefit from
simultaneous work on literacy and oral
language. Even kindergarten and first
grade ELLs can benefit from seeing how
familiar words are represented in print.

Whatever language and literacy abilities
learners bring to the classroom, they
will need instructional support to build
further skills. One widely used approach
for supporting learners is instructional
scaffolding.

Building Reading Skills with Scaffolding
Instructional scaffolding refers to the ways in which an appropriate level of support is
provided for learners to help move them toward independence. First introduced in the mid-
20th century, scaffolding is a well-established practice in education. Jerome Bruner used the
term to describe how parents help young children to acquire language by providing informal
teaching and other kinds of support needed for learning (Bruner, 1966; Wood et al., 1976).
The purpose of scaffolding is to help learners become independent by figuring things out for
themselves, and can be thought of as the helpful interactions between teacher and learner
that help the learner move beyond the current level of independence to the next stage. Then
the scaffolding is taken away and recreated for the next stage of teaching and learning. There
are a number of ways in which teachers can use ELLsâ prior knowledge of reading as a founda-
tion on which to scaffold the learning that eventually leads to independence in reading.

Use Prior Content Knowledge
We have seen the importance of background knowledge to reading comprehension. Estab-
lishing what they know about the topic of the text they are about to read and then expanding
on that knowledge helps them to know what to expect and make better predictions as they
read. Making notes that everyone can see, especially if they are organized in a way that paral-
lels the structure of the text, not only helps connect oral and written language, but helps to
build necessary vocabulary.

Another way to take advantage of prior knowledge is to select materials that are culturally famil-
iar to ELLs. Using multicultural materials can in fact have many benefits not only for ELLs, but
for all students in the class. The most obvious benefit is that good literature from or about other
cultures helps to build a true community in the classroom. Using diverse literature also helps
expand learnersâ perspectives and build understanding and respect for diversity by reducing
ethnocentrism. Moreover, through â. . . reading, hearing, and using culturally diverse materials,

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 147 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.3 Transfer of Existing Skills

young people learn that beneath surface differences of color, culture, or ethnicity, all people
experience universal feelings of love, sadness, self-worth, justice, and kindness (Dowd, 1992,
p. 220). For ELLs, in particular, reading stories and books about their own culture can be very
important to minority studentsâ sense of self-worth and in helping them make important con-
nections between the two cultures and languages in which they live. For all learners, good qual-
ity literature from and about people of other cultures gives them insight into the universality of
the human condition and the diversity that exists in how people in different cultures cope with
issues and problems that touch most peopleâs lives. Choosing the right literature, whether as a
text for use in the curriculum or as a supplemental text in a classroom or school library, requires
some care. Selecting Multicultural Texts elaborates on this idea.

Selecting Multicultural Texts
Finding out about and then finding materials that relate to learnersâ backgrounds allows
teachers to engage them in literacy experiences that relate to their background knowledge,
thereby building on this knowledge. Before looking for multicultural texts, it is helpful to build
a classroom culture of interest in and respect for diversity:

1. Become a student of the different cultures represented in your classroom.
2. Engage students in teaching you and others about their culture, but do not expect them

to be the sole source of information about an entire culture. Also, do not put students in
uncomfortable positionsâask them beforehand if they are willing to share experiences
or information with the class.

3. Build bridges between topics introduced in class and the studentsâ experiences.

Use stories and folktales from other cultures to encourage students to make the connections
between what they are reading and their own experiences. Choosing these texts can be a chal-
lenge, but over time teachers learn which ones stimulate interest and which ones do not. In
general, multicultural literature should have the following characteristics:

1. It avoids negative attitudes or representations. The material should acknowledge the
diversity of experiences within a particular cultural group and not overgeneralize or
stereotype.

2. The author of the story or book is from the culture being depicted.
3. The material related is historically accurate.
4. It inspires, amuses, or takes on themes important to learners with well-crafted prose

and good storytelling.
5. If the book is written in English, it includes words and phrases used in the culture being

depicted.
6. The material is nonjudgmental and does not set different cultures in opposition to one

another.
7. The values of the culture depicted are accurately reflected.

Source: Edward, n.d.

Introduce Unfamiliar

Vocabulary

While eliciting and expanding on what ELLs know about the topic, teachers have an oppor-
tunity to see what vocabulary must be introduced to make the text comprehensible. This is
a good time to introduce new words, because there is a built-in context and learners will be
able to hear the pronunciation before they encounter the words in print.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 148 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.3 Transfer of Existing Skills

Use Mixed-Ability Grouping
Combining learners with stronger language skills
with less proficient learners for certain activities
can benefit both groups. Learners with weaker skills
may be more receptive to peer assistance because
they are closer in communicative language ability.
If they speak the same first language, the more pro-
ficient learner may assist with translation if needed.
The more proficient learners may more accurately
gauge the language abilities and gaps in knowledge
than the teachers. Both groups are engaged in a com-
mon activity, but they will require different kinds of
support. The teacherâs interaction with the more pro-
ficient learners provides one level of scaffolding, and
the proficient learners in turn provide a more acces-
sible level of scaffolding for the less proficient.

Use Visual Scaffolding
Teachers like to talk! But ELL learners benefit from âdual input,â or having a visual represen-
tation as well as oral. Seeing a visual image helps them to understand and remember what
the teacher is explaining, thus making the input more comprehensible. It helps them access
prior knowledge by finding any connections that exist between what the teacher is explain-
ing about the text and what they already know. Whether the visual consists of words, graphs,
pictures, outlines, diagrams, drawings, or maps and whether they are presented on paper,
chalkboards, smart boards, or computer monitors does not necessarily matter. The medium
is not as important as the visual itself.

Motivate!
ELL teachers will usually find their classrooms filled with learners of mixed ability and some-
times with different language backgrounds. Their interests will also be different. Motivating
such a diverse group is a challenge, especially in readingâeven majority language children
have different tastes and interests in reading matter. As we see in A Teacherâs Story: Read-
ing, Mai makes progress and motivation can be critically important. As her teacher, Ellen
Rodriguez, learned, allowing learners to have some choice in what they read is one way of
motivating them to want become active participants in reading.

Johncopland/iStock/Thinkstock

Do you understand what this sign says?
Is it because you can read Arabic? Prior
knowledge and context help readers
predict the meaning of text.

A Teacherâs Story:

Reading

Soon, Mai tired of âreading.â What had been something of a game for herâmatching the
sounds with the squiggles on the pageâwas no longer fun, probably because I kept pushing
her in activities to improve her comprehension. Maybe I pushed too hard, because Mai became
very resistant. She simply didnât want to read. Then one day, another child was telling a story
and I was writing it down and I noticed that Mai was paying close attention. The story the

(continued)

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 149 6/30/15 11:12 AM

Section 6.4 Content-area Literacy

Fourth Grade CCSS for Reading Informational Text
Key Ideas and Details

â¢ Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly
and when drawing inferences from the text.

â¢ Determine the main idea of a text and explain how it is supported by key details;
summarize the text.

(continued)

JordiDelgado/iStock/Thinkstock

Content-area literacy in math means
knowing the vocabulary of the discipline
as well as the oral and written language
necessary for reading relevant texts,
taking notes, and participating in class.

A Teacherâs Story: Reading (continued)

other girl told was about a little girl who got into trouble because she lost one of her motherâs
necklaces that she had borrowed without permission. They had combed the path to the play
area, the play area itself, the girlâs book bagâeverywhere they could think to look but to no
avail. The story teller finished her story by saying that her character had gone to bed that night
without finding the necklace. That ending did not suit Mai, though. She insisted on knowing
what happened next, and so I asked her what she thought happened. With a little encourage-
ment, Mai told a fanciful tale about a bird who saw the shiny object and carried it away to a
nest. Others in the group added a few suggestions for details, which Mai accepted. I wrote
the story down on a flip chart. Mai copied it down into her book, and it became her first real
reading experience.

6.4 Content-area Literacy
Content-area literacy refers not only to read-
ing and writing, although reading is at the cen-
ter of academic competency. In fact, âeven when
teachers base their instruction on content area
instruction, they still need strategies for dealing
with language itself, as content is not separate
from the language through which it is pre-
sentedâ (Schleppegrell & Achugar, 2003, p. 21).
To be literate and competent, a learner needs to
be able to demonstrate knowledge and under-
standing of the subject area in reading, writ-
ing, speaking, and listening. In other words, the
ELL should be able to read and to demonstrate
comprehension of informational text orally and
in writing. A good place to start in understand-
ing what is required for content-area literacy
is to look at the Common Core State Standards
for reading informational text. Fourth Grade CCSS for Reading Informational Text outlines the
standards that would be expected of fourth graders in Maiâs class.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 150 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Section 6.4 Content-area Literacy

Fourth Grade CCSS for Reading Informational
Text (continued)

â¢ Explain events, procedures, ideas, or concepts in a historical, scientific, or technical text,
including what happened and why, based on specific information in the text.

Craft and Structure

â¢ Determine the meaning of general academic and domain-specific words or phrases in a
text relevant to a grade-four topic or subject area.

â¢ Describe the overall structure (e.g., chronology, comparison, cause/effect, problem/
solution) of events, ideas, concepts, or information in a text or part of a text.

â¢ Compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic;
describe the differences in focus and the information provided.

Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

â¢ Interpret information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively (e.g., in charts, graphs,
diagrams, timelines, animations, or interactive elements on web pages) and explain how
the information contributes to an understanding of the text in which it appears.

â¢ Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text.
â¢ Integrate information from two texts on the same topic in order to write or speak about

the subject knowledgeably.

Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

By the end of year, read and comprehend informational texts, including history/social studies,
science, and technical texts, in the grades four through five text complexity band proficiently,
with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
Source: Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2015.

Literacy in the content areas depends on ELLs acquiring the following:

â¢ Vocabulary. Understanding the words relevant to the subject area is particularly
important for comprehension and thus learning.

â¢ Question formation. Knowing how to construct, orally and in writing, the appropriate
question to clarify or gather further information is necessary if ELLs are to advance
their understanding of the subject matter.

â¢ The purpose of the text. History books and novels are written for different purposes
than business letters and thank-you notes. Understanding what the author is trying
to accomplish helps readers establish context for vocabulary as well as understand
how the text is organized.

â¢ How text is constructed. Math texts differ from science texts, which in turn
differ from social studies texts in language, organization, and style of
presentation. It is important to learn the orientation of text construction in
order to make sense of the material. A learner who has read or heard only
stories may have difficulty in solving word problems, as required, for example, by

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 151 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Section 6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach

the CCSS for fourth grade mathematics. Similarly, story and mathematics
text structures differ from the structure of social studies texts in that
students need to be able to read the description of an historical process,
such as how a bill becomes law, as required by sixth grade Common Core
standards.

â¢ Note taking and summarizing. It is important that ELLs learn to summarize,
orally and in writing, what they have learned (from listening or reading), not
only as a memory device and as a way of learning how to study and learn, but
to assist the teacher in identifying gaps in the learnerâs understanding. To meet
the CCSS standard âDetermine the central ideas or information of a primary or
secondary source; provide an accurate summary of the source distinct from
prior knowledge or opinions,â a sixth grader would need to be proficient at
taking notes, and in order to take notes efficiently would have to know how to
summarize.

6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach
We have analyzed and discussed reading from a variety of perspectivesâits importance for
academic success, its relation to learning in the content areas, the process itself, and how to
help students to build on their first language literacy skills and background knowledge to
become proficient readers in English. How do we now synthesize all this information into a
coherent approach to the teaching of reading?

The quick answer is an easy one: An approach that is content-based and consistent with the
broader communicative approach discussed in Chapter 5 will work best for all learners. Drill-
ing down into the methods and techniques for implementing such an approach is more dif-
ficult. No single method works for every teacher or every learner, and there are a great many
techniques that can be used within each method.

Some of the methods used for native speakers of English can be adapted for use with sec-
ond language learners, but generally, without adaptation they are not effective, as noted
by the National Literacy Panel in their report on developing literacy in language minority
children:

Instructional approaches found to be successful with native English speakers
do not have as positive a learning impact on language-minority students. It is
not enough to teach language-minority students reading skills alone. Exten-
sive oral English development must be incorporated into successful instruc-
tion . . . . Literacy programs that provide instructional support of oral language
development in English, aligned with high-quality literacy instruction, are the
most successful. (August and Shanahan, 2006, p. 4)

Although August and Shanahan use the term approaches, a closer reading of the report
suggests that the focus of the underlying research was on methods and techniques (recall
the distinction drawn in Chapter 5). The goals of reading in the elementary school are the
same for ELLs as for other children, although there is more emphasis on the simultaneous

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 152 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Section 6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach

building of oral and literacy skills for ELLs, and so a communicative approach can be
broadly applied. The actual methods and techniques may be very different or at least
adapted.

. . . while approaches that are similar to those used with native-language
populations are effective, the research suggests that adjustments to these
approaches are needed to have maximum benefit with language-minority
students. For example, young Spanish-speaking students learning to read in
English might make the best progress when given more work with particular
phonemes and combinations of phonemes in English that do not exist in their
home language. (August and Shanahan, 2006, p. 3)

There is no one method that works for all ELLs, but research and practice over several decades
provide us with guidelines and principles that characterize effective methods for teaching
reading to ELLs.

Engage Parents Whenever Possible
Parents of minority language children are sometimes overlooked as resources for helping
their children to read. This is a mistake.

The majority of the parents of ELLs have come to the United States in order
that they and their children will have a âbetter life.â And many of these fami-
lies quickly come to believe that supporting their childrenâs educational
attainment is central to turning this dream into a reality. (Waterman & Harry,
2008, p. 15)

Even though communicative teaching
approaches do not rely on use of the home
language, we have seen that the more ELLs
know about and have experienced literacy
in any language gives them a head start on
learning to read in English. Reviewing rel-
evant research, the National Literacy Panel
found that âbridging home-school differ-
ences in interaction patterns or styles can
enhance studentsâ engagement, motivation,
and participation in classroom instructionâ
(August & Shanahan, 2006, p. 7). Although
the same research could not establish a
clear, direct relationship between such
bridging and later levels of literacy, the
finding is nevertheless significant because
it emphasizes the importance of instruc-
tion. Teachers are thus wise to work with
parents to engage them in their childrenâs
learning.

Digital Vision/Photodisc/Thinkstock

Involving parents in the education of their
children is beneficial to the entire family.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 153 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Section 6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach

Ultimately, the possibilities are promising and compelling. If schools devote
time and resources toward developing new ways of understanding and
approaching parent-school collaboration, they will generate a strong and
cohesive source of support for increased ELL school engagement and success,
as well as increased satisfaction for parents and school staff. (Waterman &
Harry, 2008, p. 16)

Donât Forget Oral Language
In recent decades we have come to understand that for children, reading skills in any lan-
guage are best built on a solid foundation of oral language, and at least one of the studies,
summarized in Table 6.1, supports that view. Ellen Rodriguez learned, however, that excel-
lent oral language skills do not necessarily mean an easy path to literacy. In A Lesson for the
Teacher (Chapter 2), Ellen introduced us to Mai, a Vietnamese girl with good oral language
skills who struggled with beginning reading skills. In A Teacherâs Story: Reading, we learned
more of Maiâs story.

We learned in Chapter 5 that one of the defining characteristics of communicative approaches
is the focus on listening and speaking. In this chapter, we have stressed the importance of
reading. Not only is emphasizing oral language consistent with a communicative approach,
it is consistent with research findings that for ELLs, âwell-developed oral proficiency in Eng-
lish is associated with English reading comprehension and writing skillsâ (August, 2008,
p. 10). Teachers should work on listening comprehension, as well as sentence production
and increasing vocabulary, not as separate from but as integral to the teaching of reading and
writing.

A good rule to follow with all ELLs is âlisten first.â Before they even look at the written text,
tell them about what they are about to read. If the text is a story, write the names of the char-
acters so that they can see them and practice pronouncing them. Tell them that there may be
some new words in the text. Write them and elicit what they already know about the words
before defining them. Questions such as âWhat else would you like to know about . . .?â pro-
vide opportunities for them to learn and practice question formation for an authentic pur-
pose. Then read the text aloud. By the time the text is read aloud, the learners will be better
prepared to understand what they are hearing. For beginning readers, they are now ready for
the text itself, but it is often useful to let them follow along as it is read aloud one more time.
Later, they can listen to recordings or online readings for stories. (See Additional Resources
at the end of this chapter for suggested sites.)

Oral language should play a leading role in classroom reading activities. One way is to pro-
vide advance organizers that combine oral language with text. Figure 6.4 shows one type of
graphic organizer that would support oral and literacy development for kindergarten or first
grade ELLs.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 154 6/30/15 11:13 AM

What do we know about dogs?

Harry the Dirty Dog
by Gene Zion

growl

bark

wag tail

like to play

like bones

donât like cats

large
small

many sizes
brown
spots
black
white

many colors

What do we know about this dog?

harry dirtywhite spots

What do we want to know about this dog?

How did he get dirty?

Will he get clean?

How?

Section 6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach
What do we know about dogs?
Harry the Dirty Dog
by Gene Zion
growl
bark
wag tail
like to play
like bones
donât like cats
large
small
many sizes
brown
spots
black
white
many colors
What do we know about this dog?
harry dirtywhite spots
What do we want to know about this dog?
How did he get dirty?
Will he get clean?
How?

Figure 6.4: Preparing for Harry

An advance organizer blends together oral language and text to help learners with classroom reading
activities. This particular organizer would work well when combined with a reading of Gene Zionâs
book Harry the Dirty Dog.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 155 7/1/15 12:25 PM

Section 6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach

Table 6.2: Before we read

Who?

What?

Where?

When?

Why?

How?

Older learners will benefit from a more structured language-based story guide (Table 6.2)
that prepares them for listening or reading and can be used to elicit written or oral responses.
Normally the teacher guides the students to pay attention to the who, what, where, when,
and so on, before the lesson, filling in any known information. After the reading, the teacher
encourages learners to fill in the remaining blanks on their own before doing comprehen-
sion checks to see how they have fared in the task. It is also important that ELLs learn how to
define words, first orally and then in writing, as this metalinguistic ability is also associated
with good reading comprehension (August & Shanahan, 2006, p. 4). New words are practiced
orally, defined, and immediately written down. Definitions should be at the learnerâs level of
proficiency or just beyond. They may be a one-word synonym for beginners and very young
learners but be more grammatically sophisticated for older learners.

One word of caution, however: Although oral language and literacy development are interre-
lated, and although activities that encourage both are ideal, reading aloud is not a substitute
for authentic oral language use. Oral reading is useful way for a teacher to determine if an
ELL has a problem with word identification. But it does not give any good indication of true
reading ability because it requires the reader to pay particular attention to pronunciation and
other relatively low-level skills and not to the meaning of the text. Nevertheless, most ELLs
need help in making the connections between sounds and symbols that are a critical part of
word identification.

Most ELLs Need Word Identification Strategies
Although one of the pillars of communicative language is to create natural, authentic opportu-
nities and contexts for language acquisitionâand targeted decoding and word identification
activities donât appear to be ânaturalââwe have seen that they are essential for learners to
acquire as a prerequisite to reading comprehension and content-area literacy. For many ELLs,
this process begins with phoneme-grapheme correspondence. It is easy to understand why.
Spanish has approximately 35 phonemes, depending on the dialect, with only 38 different
ways of spelling those sounds. The correspondence is almost one to one. In contrast, English
has 44 different phonemes with an alphabet of 26 letters to represent them, and yet there are
more than 1,100 different ways of spelling the sounds (Sousa, 2011, Ch. 4). It is no wonder
that ELLs typically require more assistance than majority language students. It is sometimes
necessary to target particular problem areas, such as the th, ch, and sh digraphs, for example,
or the different pronunciations of ough. But these activities should be done mostly in the
context of vocabulary development and the building of background knowledge in pre-reading

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 156 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Section 6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach

activities, in part because there are so many exceptions to phonics ârulesâ that second lan-
guage learners find them less than helpful. Eventually they learn to take advantage of context
to figure out that rough and tough are pronounced in one way and through, trough, and ought
in others.

Even within a communicative approach, it is perfectly acceptable to target the specific sound-
symbol problems and to work with learners to learn the distinctions between similar sounds
and what they look like in print, but remember that communicative language teaching is also
learner centered. Whenever possible, these activities should not be isolated from but be con-
textualized within other language activities. Examples include the vocabulary needed before
starting a new text, the questions asked in preparation for or following reading, and stand-
alone mini-lessons such as a humorous story about what happens when cheap, chip, sheep,
and ship get confused. The point is to practice, not to drill.

Vocabulary Development
Learning words, the pronunciation of words, the spelling of words and, of
course, the meaning of words is crucial to all English language learning, but it
is especially important for learning to read. If readers know the meanings of
the nouns and verbs in a sentence, they can often predict the meaning before
they know much about sentence structure because they know the real-world
relationship between the objects or ideas the words represent. (Lawrence
et al., 2011, p. 1)

Reading comprehension, especially in content-area reading, depends to a large extent on
word knowledge. For the purposes of teaching reading comprehension, the purpose of teach-
ing vocabulary is twofold:

a) To link the words that learners may have heard and used orally with how they are
written and used in text, and

b) To expand the learnerâs lexicon by introducing new vocabulary.

Therefore, methods that provide ample opportunities for vocabulary development will be
more successful when integrated simultaneously into oral and literacy activities rather than
in isolation.

Methods that focus on key vocabulary for specific academic texts will provide a useful and
meaningful context. Expanding vocabulary isnât always about introducing new words. Draw-
ing learnersâ attention to the root of the word and then eliciting or introducing other words
with the same root not only expands their inventory of words, but serves as a memory aid.
Drawing their attention to the affixesâthe morphemes that change one part of speech to
another or serve a grammatical functionânot only increases the learnerâs inventory, but also
provide the opportunity for grammatical learning without a grammar lesson.

Methods that extend the vocabulary introduced for one purpose to other uses will expand
learnersâ ability to understand both oral and written language. Methods that use visuals to
support language will improve understanding and retention of word meanings. Increasing
the number of words an ELL recognizes, understands, and can use is not the only way, but
it is the single best way to improve reading comprehension. Knowing the meanings of key

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 157 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Section 6.5 Implementing a Communicative Approach

words allows learners to make better predictions and better guesses in the âpsycholinguistic
guessing gameâ that is reading. Effective vocabulary development, then, helps to ensure that
learners:

â¢ can correctly identify and spell the word,
â¢ are able to use the word,
â¢ are able to define the word, using synonyms and sentences,
â¢ know other meanings of the same spelling,
â¢ can recognize the word in other contexts, and
â¢ can use the words in other contextsâin other words, can make it their own.

It is also very helpful to vocabulary growth to introduce antonyms and homonyms. It often
helps learners to remember the meaning of a word to know that it is ânot Xâ or âthe opposite
of Y.â For ELLs, it is also helpful and less confusing to know that words that sound the same
can have very different spellings and meaningsâwait/weight, ate/eight, be/bee, deer/dear,
and so on.

The environment in which all these methods work is necessarily filled with language of all
kinds. ELLs need exposure to and practice with oral language for social and multiple aca-
demic purposesâthey need to learn the language for carrying out routine classroom busi-
ness, to learn to listen productively, to read and to write stories, and to practice with the
language of math, social studies, science, and all the other content in the curriculum. What
they need, in short, is a language-rich environment.

Create a Language-Rich Environment
Children learn their first language because they are surrounded by people talking and they
are included in the conversation in varying degrees, depending on the culture. The job of
the teacher working within a communicative approach is, broadly, the same as that of any
teacherâto create an environment that is filled with talk and text about all manner of subjects
and in many different formats. We saw in Chapter 5 that the interaction hypothesis stresses
the importance of the communicative environment and the opportunities ELLs have to inter-
act with native speakers. We saw too that classrooms can be organized in ways that optimize
interaction, which helps learners develop oral language skills. We have seen in this chapter
that oral language and literacy acquisition are interactive and mutually supportive.

For reading, it is especially important to provide more than the text. In addition to the pre-
reading and scaffolding activities described earlier, it is helpful for learners to have access to
computers or other means to listen to stories or texts being read while they follow along. It is
also helpful to have classroom walls hung with posters and student work; labels on objects,
books, reference books (including grade-level appropriate dictionaries); word wallsâall
kinds of print materials that are changed frequently to reflect what the class is studying or
focusing on. Having students tell or retell stories while the teacher or other learners write
them down adds another opportunity for reading and writing practice, one with familiar
vocabulary. The same principles that kindergarten and elementary teachers use for creating
language- and learner-centered classrooms can guide ELL teachers. For example, kindergar-
ten teachers often label classroom items so that their students can see how familiar words are
written. Beginning ELLs can use those same labels as a memory aid to remember the names
of the objects and, simultaneously, start to learn sound-symbol correspondence.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 158 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Summary & Resources

Why I Teach: Katarina
Katarina has an undergraduate degree in math and a graduate degree in computing science.
After working for three years in the private sector as part of a team that developed and beta
tested educational games for middle schoolâaged children, Katarina quit her job and returned
to class to earn her teaching certificate. She now teaches second grade in an urban Florida
school. Why? In her own words,

I teach because I believe that the classroom is one of the few places where you know you can
make a difference. Sure, itâs frustrating sometimes. Just the other day, I was scrambling to figure
out another way to help one of my little fellows who is struggling with reading, which means heâs
struggling with a lot of the curriculum. His mother assured me that he could read in Spanish, but
if he can, it hasnât transferred over to English yet. But I asked him to bring me one of his favorite
books in Spanish. The next day, he did. I sat with him and the other children in the class and asked
him to read it to us. He was hesitant at first, but a page or so in he began to read the story fluently.
I would interrupt him from time to time and ask him to tell us in English what he was reading.
With a little help from other Spanish-speaking children in the class, he did. As he told me the story,
I wrote down what he was saying. Then after school I sat down at my computer and created a
book from my notes. I even added a few stock pictures that I found on the web. The next day, that
book was our text and Carlos was eager to try. Using the same techniques I had been using with
him but with âhis book,â he made real progress that day. I used a similar technique, transcribing
stories he or other children would tell me and turning them into books. By the end of that year,
Carlos was reading at grade level. Itâs progress that you can see and itâs why I teach.

Summary & Resources

Summary
To become proficient in English, ELLs have to acquire competency in all four language
domainsâspeaking, listening, reading, and writing. For succeeding in school, the core com-
petency is reading, not only because content is usually presented in text form and ELLs are
assessed on their knowledge with written tests, but learning to read has a cognitive effect on
all other aspects of learning. In school, children learn to read so that they can read to learn.
If reading is at the core of academic learning, comprehension lies at the core of readingâ
whatever the purpose for readingâfor pleasure, for information, for instructionâit cannot
be achieved unless the reader understands or comprehends what the writer created. Decod-
ing and word identification skills are prerequisites to comprehension. One of the goals of
reading instruction is to help learners reach the stage at which these skills are automatic so
that their attention and cognitive resources can be devoted toward extracting meaning and
gaining comprehension.

This chapter has examined the reading process and how teachers can make use of ELLsâ
existing knowledge and skills, both linguistic and content-related, to support their learning,
using instructional scaffolding techniques to facilitate reading and thus learning in the con-
tent areas. How do we synthesize what we have learned from all these different perspectives
on literacy into a coherent framework for teaching? Building on what we learned in Chap-
ter 5 about communicative language, we identified five features that guide teaching within a
communicative framework. We concluded this chapter by personalizing some of this chap-
terâs major themes through the words of a second grade teacher named Katarina.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 159 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Summary & Resources

Key Ideas

1. The best predictor of academic achievement is an ELLâs reading ability at the end of
third grade. The lack of reading skills is the major language barrier to ELLs achieving
academic success.

2. Learning to read fluently has long-term cognitive consequences: The faster the read-
ing process becomes automated, the more cognitive resources a learner has avail-
able for other learning.

3. A major goal of reading instruction, therefore, is to help learners reach the stage at
which their decoding and word identification are automated.

4. The ability to read in any language is an asset when learning to read in a new language.
5. Learners with literacy skills in logographic languages may need assistance with sound-

symbol correspondence, even if they are proficient readers in their own language.
6. Comprehension is the goal of reading, and it involves a reader interacting with the

text to extract meaning.
7. Language proficiency, oral and written in either the first language or English, is the

foundation upon which literacy skills are built.
8. Scaffolding is a kind of instructional support that builds on prior knowledge to help

learners become independent by figuring things out for themselves.
9. Knowledge of content-area vocabulary is a critical component of comprehension,

and teaching lessons that integrate vocabulary into other oral and written language
activities are most effective.

10. A language-rich environment is the cornerstone of a communicatively based classroom.

antonym A word opposite in meaning to
another.

content-area literacy A learnerâs ability to
demonstrate knowledge and understanding of
the subject area in all four language domains:
reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

decoding The process of translating a
printed word into sound, specifically the
appropriate spoken word.

homonyms A group of words that share
pronunciation and sometimes spelling but
that may have different meanings. Hom-
onyms that share the same spelling are also
considered homographs, although some
homographs, such as invalid (meaning both
not valid and a person who is ill), may have
different pronunciations.

instructional scaffolding The ways in
which an appropriate level of support is
provided for learners to help to move them
toward independence.

logographic languages Languages in
which a character or asymbol represents a
word (or morpheme) in print.

metalinguistic ability A personâs aware-
ness of language as an object or a thing and
the ability to reflect on the process of lan-
guage and the use of language.

phoneme-grapheme awareness The
relationship that exists between sounds and
written symbols.

phonemic awareness The understanding
that words are made up of individual sounds
and that these sounds can be reorganized or
manipulated to form new words.

standard orthography The conventional
spelling system.

Key Terms

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 160 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Text

L1 â L2

Reader

L1 = L2

Text
L1 â L2
Reading

Does L1 = L2?

Summary & Resources
Text
L1 â L2
Reader
L1 = L2
Text
L1 â L2
Reading
Does L1 = L2?

Figure 6.5: A definition for reading

Critical Thinking Questions

1. How does the graphic shown in Figure 6.5 define reading? How would you answer
the question posed?

2. Assuming that both children have acquired basic literacy in the first language, what
differences are likely to exist between a Mandarin speaker and a Spanish speaker in
learning to read English?

3. How does the notion of scaffolding relate to Krashenâs input hypothesis (Chapter 5)?
4. Suggest two different ways of providing visual scaffolding for first grade ELLs pre-

paring to read a story commonly read in first grade. (You choose!)
5. Explain the role that advance organizers can play in activating an ELLâs prior

knowledge.

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 161 6/30/15 11:13 AM

Vocabulary

The
Writerâs
Purpose

How
Questions

are Formed

Structure of
Text

Summarizing
and Note

Taking

Summary & Resources

6. Look at the graphic shown in Figure 6.6. Based on what you have read in this chap-
ter, who do you think is doing the juggling, the ELL or the teacher? What factors did
you take into consideration when answering?

Vocabulary
The
Writerâs
Purpose
How
Questions
are Formed
Structure of
Text
Summarizing
and Note
Taking
Vocabulary
The
Writerâs
Purpose
How
Questions
are Formed
Structure of
Text
Summarizing
and Note
Taking

Figure 6.6: Skills for content-area reading

7. In what sense can reading be considered a âpsycholinguistic guessing game?â
8. Why is vocabulary development so important to academic achievement?

Additional Resources
For an excellent graphic showing how areas of the brain function during word recognition, see
http://content.time.com/time/covers/1101030728/brain/brain.swf

Examples and help for creating visual organizers for narrative text can be found at
http://schools.dcsdk12.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid
=194160&linkid=nav-menu-original-4-19314

For a readable account of dyslexia in âThe new science of dyslexia,â Time, see C. Gorman
(2003) online at
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047912,00.html

A good site to find celebrities reading quality childrenâs stories aloud is

Home

Kristina Robinson discusses the importance of and provides ideas for creating a language
friendly classroom at
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/33047/

pip82223_06_c06_135-162.indd 162 6/30/15 11:13 AM

http://content.time.com/time/covers/1101030728/brain/brain.swf

http://schools.dcsdk12.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=194160&linkid=nav-menu-original-4-19314

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047912,00.html

Home

http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/33047/

231

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the following objectives:

â¢ Describe the importance and challenges of appropriately evaluating ELLs and why it takes a team to identify
the problems.

â¢ Dispel myths and discuss likely reasons why ELLs are often misidentified as having communication disor-
ders or learning disabilities.

â¢ Explain how to recognize gifted ELLs and adapt instruction to realize and develop their abilities.

â¢ Describe the importance and process of pre-referral interventions.

9Learners with Special Needs

Robin Bartholick/Getty Images

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 231 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Introduction

Introduction
English language learners tend to be overrepresented in special education programs for
students with disabilities and underrepresented in programs for the gifted. Many factors
contribute to the disproportionate representation, ranging from imprecise or conflicting fed-
eral regulations to unconscious bias and inappropriate assessment. The most fundamental
one, however, is that many professionals have an inadequate understanding of second lan-
guage acquisition and confuse typical developmental âerrorsâ with those caused by language
impairment or learning disability. In this chapter we begin with the distinction between
developmental language, or language-in-process, on the one hand, and specific language
impairments (SLI) and learning disabilities on the other. Wrongly diagnosing ELLs can
have a negative impact on academic achievement as well as negative social consequences
(see Why Getting it Right Matters.) Thus, it is very important that when professionals refer
ELLs for special education, they do so with a high degree of certainty. We turn, then, to the
pre-referral process, which involves assessment, multiple levels of intervention, and regular
progress monitoring designed to confirm that observed behavior affects both languages and
is not caused or exacerbated by inadequate instruction. The goal is to ensure that by the time
a dual language learner is referred to special education, every effort has made, every possible
opportunity created, for her to succeed.

Why Getting it Right Matters
Ms. Hayward put down the pencil she had been using to mark her sixth grade studentsâ
social studies test. It was clear that Max hadnât understood most of the questions. Here it was
February, and his reading comprehension hadnât improved much since she first met him in Sep-
tember. She hadnât been able to have his reading ability tested in his home language, Serbian,
but his family insisted that he had been reading when they left the country two years earlier.
Ms. Hayward had worked with him on the English alphabet, which heâd picked up quickly
enough, and his word identification skills were excellent. He was also good in math. Although
Max didnât say much in class, she had heard him on the soccer field with his classmates, and he
was communicating pretty well. But he struggled with reading, whatever the language. Should
she send him for a special education assessment, she wondered. What harm could it do?

The answer to Ms. Haywardâs question is that it could potentially do a great deal of harm for
many reasons:

â¢ once students begin to receive special education services, they tend to remain in those
classes;

â¢ special education classes tend to be based on a less demanding and more limited
curriculum;

â¢ there is a danger of a double stigma because both ELLs and special needs students are
more likely socially stigmatized. Lower expectations of special needs students often
lead to diminished academic achievement. Segregation from academically able peers
impedes language development, academic development, and social development; and

â¢ inappropriate placement can be directly harmful; a study in 1986 showed that Spanish-
speaking ELLs in special education classes showed no academic improvement and some
scored lower on IQ tests after three years (Harry & Klingner, 2006; Ralabate, 2007;
Donovan & Cross, 2002; Wilkinson & Oritz, 1986).

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 232 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

At the other end of the spectrum of learners with special needs are gifted students. Although
the consequences of failing to identify gifted ELLs correctly may be less dramaticâthey
are less likely to drop out of school than ELLs wrongly assigned to special education, for
exampleâthey are significant. The purpose of schooling is to help students to realize their
potential to the fullest possible extent, and if ELLs who should be in gifted programs are not,
the school has not done its job. This chapter concludes with a discussion about and some
pointers for accommodating diverse languages, diverse abilities, and diverse needs, within
the mainstream classroom.

9.1 Difference or Disorder?
As we have seen in previous chapters, although second language learning follows a fairly
predictable path, there is a great deal of variability among individual learnersâsome learn
faster than others, some exhibit a long silent period, while others begin to speak immediately.
Generally speaking, there is also a great deal of commonality that characterizes the process.
Sometimes dual language children have language impairment or learning disabilities, and it
can be challenging to determine whether one of these is the cause of the difficulties a dual
language learner is experiencing or whether they are simply manifestations of a developmen-
tal stage. Disabilities are broadly classified as either low-incidence or high-incidence. In
the low-incidence category are those rare conditionsâsevere mental retardation, blindness,
cerebral palsy, and complex health issues, among othersâwhich are normally diagnosed by
teams of medical personnel and which are generally found in 1% or less of the school popu-
lation at any given time. The high-incidence category includes specific learning disabilities,
speech/language impairments, emotional or behavioral disorders, as well as mild to moder-
ate mental retardation. Although all are important, we will focus our attention on specific
learning disabilities, and especially language and reading impairment, because more confu-
sion surrounds the cause of these disorders in dual language learners.

Specific Learning Disability
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) counts among specific learn-
ing disabilities (SLD) conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia that do not result from hearing or motor
disabilities, âmental retardationâ (previously referred to as intellectual disability), emotional
disturbance, or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (IDEA, 2004). The most
recent additions to the law include an attempt to be more specific by stating that a student is
considered to have a learning disability if:

The child does not achieve adequately for the childâs age or to meet state
approved grade level standards in one or more of the following areas, when
provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the childâs
age or state approved grade level standards:

â¢ oral expression,
â¢ listening comprehension,
â¢ written expression,
â¢ basic reading skills,

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 233 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

â¢ reading fluency skills,
â¢ reading comprehension,
â¢ mathematics calculation, and
â¢ mathematics problem solving.
(U.S. Department of Education, 2006)

Six of the eight behaviors involve language and reading, and so the two most common forms
of specific learning disorder are language impairment and reading impairment. Because of
their high frequency of occurrence in general and because ELLs are more likely to be identi-
fied as having them, language and reading impairment will be discussed separately.

Language Impairment
With children acquiring their first language or two languages simultaneously, there are devel-
opmental milestones by which we can judge whether there is an atypical language delay that
may be a symptom of a more significant disability. If a child, by the age of five, is not able to
name some colors or is not asking or answering who, what, and where questions, for example,
there might be some cause for concern because children normally acquire these abilities by
age three or four. It is possible, however, that the child is merely experiencing language delay,
meaning that development is following a normal course but at a slower pace. Most children
with delayed language development will have caught up, or nearly so, by the time they reach
kindergarten; in elementary school, children who have experienced language delay as very
young children are indistinguishable from their unaffected peers (Paradis, Genessee & Crago,
2011, p. 200).

A delay in speech is not in itself cause for concern, although children with specific language
impairment will typically be language delayed as well. Specific language impairment (SLI),
also called developmental language disorder, is a communication disorder such as stut-
tering, impaired articulation, a language or voice impairment that adversely affects a childâs
learning, not caused by hearing loss or other developmental delays.

Children with SLI start out with language delays, but their difficulties and pro-
tracted development of language extend into the school-age years and possi-
bly never completely resolve over time, although they can come close to their
unaffected peers for some language abilities by the end of elementary school.
(Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011, p. 200)

Children with true SLI may not exhibit impairment with all domains of language, but they
typically exhibit deficits in one or more aspects of language processing, and are unlikely to
achieve the same ability levels as their unaffected peers. Some characteristics of SLI include:

â¢ SLI affects between 7% and 8% of children in kindergarten;
â¢ SLI consists of persistent language problems in the absence of other cognitive or

physical problems, although some children with SLI may also have mild cognitive
deficits;

â¢ between the ages of four and seven, children with SLI will exhibit significant general
language delays such as vocabulary size and sentence length, as well as more pro-
found specific language delays such as difficulty with verbs, especially regular and
irregular past tense forms and verb endings;

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 234 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

â¢ the impact of SLI usually persists into adulthood;
â¢ the cause of SLI is unknown, but there is evidence of a strong genetic link; between

50% and 70% of children with SLI have parents or siblings with SLI or significant
delays in speaking; and

â¢ children with SLI are at greater risk for reading problems (Paradis, Genessee &
Crago, 2011; Piper, 2007).

There are four types of specific language disorder:

1. voice disorders affect voice quality and are not temporary;
2. fluency disorders affect the rate, rhythm, and the continuity of speech. The most

common of these is stuttering. Less common is cluttering, characterized by exces-
sively rapid speech which significantly disrupts the flow of speech;

3. articulation disorders comprise a wide range of disorders ranging from
persistent difficulties with a particular sound that have little impact on intelligibility,
to severely impaired phonological systems that render the speaker incomprehen-
sible; and

4. language processing disorders are those afflictions that do not fit into any of the
other three categories but which represent systematic deviations in speech, reading,
writing, or signing that interfere with a speakerâs ability to communicate with their
peers (Piper, 2007, p. 199).

Dual language learners are susceptible to any of these disorders, though no more so than the
monolingual population, but particular care must be taken to ensure that any variations from
the norm are attributable to communicative disorders and not simply communicative differ-
ences associated with the learnerâs home language or culture.

Language Impairment in Dual Language Learners
With imperfect mastery of the language, some ELLs will exhibit communicative differences, some-
times quite marked, but these are developmental; they will disappear as the learner becomes
more proficient with the language. Recognizing the difference between a language impairment
and a developmental delay or difference
requires some understanding of the nor-
mal course of second language develop-
ment as well as some knowledge about
how language impairments are manifest
in dual language children. What, then,
are the characteristics of dual language
children with language impairment?

Simultaneous Bilinguals
As we learned in Chapter 3, children
may acquire their two languages simul-
taneously or in succession. Although
there will be some variability among
individual childrenâs proficiency in
either category, there will generally be

Catherine Yeulet/iStock/Thinkstock

Early detection of hearing loss can help to prevent
language delay and learning problems that result
in reduced academic achievement.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 235 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

little variability among normally developing simultaneously bilingual children by the time
they reach school. Normally developing simultaneous bilinguals bear strong resemblance to
monolinguals in many aspects of development, although there are minor differences.

Researchers have asked whether bilingual children with language impairments exhibit the
same symptoms and follow the same course of development as monolingual children with
SLI. Paradis and her colleagues addressed the question âWhat happens to the language devel-
opment of simultaneous bilingual children who are later diagnosed with SLI?â (Paradis,
Genessee & Crago, 2011, p. 203). Studying a group of French/English bilingual seven-year-
olds who had been diagnosed with SLI after the age of four, these researchers found that the
bilingual children had significant problems with verb forms in both languages, but they were
essentially the same problems experienced by monolinguals with SLI. All of the children in
the study were below age expectation in language development in both of their languages,
had nonverbal IQ scores in the normal range, and had no history of neurological trauma. The
MLU (mean length of utterance) in the bilingual SLI children was shorter in both languages
than unaffected French or English monolinguals, but it was the same as monolinguals with
SLI. They also found that the children used the appropriate language for the person or occa-
sion and that evidence of code mixing was essentially the same as bilinguals without SLI. In
other words, there was nothing to differentiate bilingual and monolingual children with SLI
(Paradis, Genesssee & Crago, 2011, p. 203). These results have been confirmed by research-
ers studying Spanish/English bilinguals in California (GuitiÃ©rrez-Clellen, et al., 2008). The
evidence, then, is that dual language children who learned both languages from infancy will
follow the same course of development as monolingual SLI children.

Successive Bilinguals (ELLs)
Two questions are of concern with learners who are not bilingual from birth but who add a
second language during the school years, that is, the majority of ELLs teachers encounter. The
first is whether there are differences in language development between these learners with
SLI and monolingual English speakers with SLI. The second is what impact SLI might have on
the acquisition of English. Remembering that monolingual children with SLI are delayed in
acquiring language and later develop more profound delays, the question arises whether dual
language learners with SLI also experience developmental delays in the second languageâ
English. Although there is no large body of research examining these precise questions, the
available research is strongly supportive of the position that English language development
proceeds in much the same way for children with SLI, whether English is the first or second
language (Paradis, Genessee, & Crago, 2011; Rothweiler, Chilla & Clahsen, 2009). Neverthe-
less, because research is limited, it is important to remember that many external factors and
individual differences contribute to the speed and ease with which ELLs acquire English;
the fact that many bilingual children with SLI have demonstrated patterns of development
consistent with monolingual children with SLI does not mean that the same success will be
achieved by all bilinguals in all settings. Each learner must be evaluated and monitored indi-
vidually. In A Teacherâs Story: Miguel, second grade teacher Margo Leisey recounts the case of
an at-risk child named Miguel who was struggling with English for reasons that were some-
what unusual.

Children such as Miguel can be helped with specially designed instruction and regular moni-
toring. The plan for Miguel was to spend half an hour each morning and another half hour
in the afternoon with a special education teacher who would coordinate with Ms. Leisey;

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 236 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

both teachers would carefully monitor his language. A few weeks after the plan was put
into action, Ms. Leisey had a visit from Miguelâs mother, described in A Teacherâs Story:
A Tough Question.

Margot Leiseyâs exchange with Miguelâs mother raises an important question about SLI in
bilinguals. In asking whether she should switch to English with her son, she is asking the
larger question: Do bilingual children with SLI benefit from maintaining the minority lan-
guage the same as unaffected bilingual children do? Research indicates that they do, and that

A Teacherâs Story: Miguel

Miguel had been in our school since kindergarten, and heâd struggled with English from the
beginning. He came from a bilingual homeâhis father spoke Spanish and his mother Portu-
gueseâand the family was one of only eight or nine non-English speaking families in the small
city where we all lived. He was one of only three ELLs in his kindergarten class and he lagged
significantly behind them, but his kindergarten teacher attributed it to the fact that English
was his third language and thought that he was just experiencing a delay. He had made some
progress in first grade; his teacher, Mr. Carlton, said that by the end of the year he could name
the letters of the alphabet, although he could not recite them in order, and he could identify
only a few very common words. He could write his name, but the âgâ looked like a âqâ and he
occasionally made a âWâ instead of an âM.â He also seemed inattentive and sometimes slow to
react. The language barrier made it hard to get reliable information from the parents about
Miguelâs language development at home since they were just learning English themselves.
Mr. Carlton suspected dyslexia or a cognitive disorder, so he requested a formal evaluation.
Shortly after the school year started, I was able to talk to the speech-language pathologist who
had led the three-person team that conducted the assessment.

The pathologist spoke Spanish and had a Portuguese interpreter present. She interviewed
the parents about Miguelâs language development and was assured that his Spanish and
Portuguese were âjust fine.â When pressed via the interpreter, his mother said that he still
had some problems with some of the verbs in Portuguese and he confused expressions of
timeâ yesterday, tomorrow, todayâin English. She also said that she thought he had the same
problems in Spanish; the father said he didnât know. On behalf of the speech-language patholo-
gist, the interpreter asked the mother when Miguel had begun to speak. The mother replied
that he didnât say much until he was âthree or so.â She quickly added that she was sure that was
because he heard two languages instead of one. When asked whether he ever confused the two
languages, the mother said, âA little, but then so do I.â When asked what Miguelâs dominant
language was, his mother said she really didnât know. She thought he was âabout the sameâ in
both languages. The parents reported that they read to Miguel every night and that he liked to
look at the pictures in his books but had not shown much interest in reading. After testing him
in English and in Spanish, the pathologist reported that he had specific language impairment,
and her prognosis was that he would make progress, with the right kind of help, but he would
probably never catch up linguistically to his peer group. She also reported that he was good
with number concepts when using manipulatives, and that she wasnât certain but thought he
had perfect pitchâshe said I should have him sing for me because he had a beautiful voice.
Mr. Carlton hadnât mentioned Miguelâs singing, but he had shown me some of his drawings,
which were very good and very colorful. I was nervous about how to proceed with Miguel,
but I was also relieved to have a diagnosis and the assurance of the pathologist that her team
would be available to help Miguel (and me!).

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 237 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

abandoning the home language(s) does not benefit, and could be harmful to the child. After
doing an extensive review of the research literature, Paradis, Genessee & Crago found âthere
is no evidence for thinking that dual language learning is a risk factor for children with lan-
guage delay or impairment and, in turn, there is no basis in evidence for counseling parents to
switch to one language at home . . . .â (p. 208). The best advice to Miguelâs distraught mother
would be to continue to use the languages they have always used at home and also to continue
reading to him and encouraging his efforts. Miguel was already off to a slow start with read-
ing, and research has shown that many children with SLI will also have reading problems,
sometimes serious.

Internationally Adopted Children
Children who are adopted from other countries may be very different from the successive
and simultaneous bilinguals that make up the majority of our ELL classes. If children are
adopted into an English-speaking family as infants, they will in all likelihood have acquired
English and will resemble other ELLs who have learned English from a very young ageâwith
one important distinction: Their first language will almost always have stopped with their
adoption. Some American adoptive parents do make an attempt for their children to relearn
the language of their birth, but this happens necessarily at a later age, and it is the exception
rather than the rule.

Most international adoptees are older, if for no other reason than the government legalities
and procedures in the United States and the other country involved, which can extend the
process of adoption for several years. Children who are adopted at an older age are more
likely to have lived in an institution, sometimes for an extended period of time, to have limited
or no formal education, and, like the infants who were adopted, will lose the opportunity to
function in their first language abruptly upon adoption. Unable to use their first language,
not yet proficient in English, and with a great deal of academic catch-up to do, these learners
are at high risk for failure. They are also more likely than the general ELL population to have
learning disabilities because they are more likely to have been raised in orphanages. Research

A Teacherâs Story: A Tough Question

Miguelâs mother arrived in my classroom after school one day with an interpreter. I could see
that she was upset and I tried to put her at ease by telling her that we were pleased by Miguelâs
progress. The interpreter translated but she remained upset. The interpreter explained that
Miguelâs mother was worried about her son because he wouldnât speak to her in Portuguese
any more. He would only speak English and she was worried because she didnât know much
English. She said she was âstudying hardâ to learn more English so she could help him. She
was convinced, the interpreter said, that his problem was caused by having to speak too many
languages, and since he had to go to school in English, she wanted to speak English, too, but
she was frustrated because it was hard for her. She thought she might be faster at learning
more Spanish and wanted to know if it would help Miguel if they spoke Spanish at home but
no Portuguese. I felt her pain, and at that point I had to admit to myself that I really didnât have
a good answer. I did remember reading that children sometimes stopped speaking their home
language for a time, and I told her this. What I really wanted to say was âIâll have to get back
to you on that.â

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 238 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

on 3,800 children in 19 countries indicated that children raised in orphanages have an IQ
20 points lower than peer age children raised in foster care (van Ljzendoorn, Luijk, & Juffer,
2008). Although the number of children adopted from other countries has decreased in the
last decade (Swarns, 2013), thousands still arrive each year, and they will need special atten-
tion (see A Snapshot of Internationally Adopted Children).

Reading Impairments and SRI
There are many different types of reading impairments and many different causes. For our
discussion, it is necessary to distinguish two broad categories of reading disorder:

1. Acquired reading impairment refers to reading problems that result from imper-
fect mastery of the language, a different alphabet in the home language, low expo-
sure to reading, and inadequate instruction, to name a few.

2. Specific reading impairment (SRI) affects children with normal intelligence and
visual-auditory abilities, adequate learning opportunities, and the absence of neu-
rological and psychological problems. Between 5% and 20% of U.S. school children
are affected. For dual language learners with SRI, the condition will impact both
languages, although not necessarily to the same extent (Paradis, Genessee & Crago,
2011, p. 21).

A Snapshot of Internationally Adopted Children
Internationally adopted children are a unique subset of the ELL population in schools, and
they are more likely to require special attention and even special education services.

â¢ Most internationally adopted children in the United States are from China, Ethiopia,
Ukraine, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo (U.S. State Department, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, 2014)

â¢ After several decades of steady growth, the rate of international adoption has been
declining since 2004 (Voight & Brown, 2013).

â¢ An important difference between these children and other ELLs is that, prior to adop-
tion these children learn a first language, but in most cases their learning and use of that
language is prematurely halted when they are adopted.

â¢ The first language is lost very quickly. Russian children adopted between the ages of
four and eight typically lose their expressive use of that language within three to six
months of adoption, and all functional use of the language within a year (Glennen, 2012)

â¢ Interrupted first language learning is known as arrested language development.
â¢ Loss of the first language before the second language is firmly established leaves them

without a functional language. Unlike the bilingual child who has a functioning first lan-
guage to fall back on, the internationally adopted child may have very little language in
which to communicate.

â¢ Some school districts do not count these children as ELLs, claiming that they are not
truly bilingual because of their first language deficiencies, and label them as learning
disabled instead.

â¢ Most students adopted at older ages will need many years to acquire full proficiency
in English and will require more support than other ELLs to keep from falling behind
academically.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 239 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

Table 9.1: Signs of possible learning, language, and reading
impairments at different ages

Age Signs and symptoms Possibility
of SLD (other
than SLI or SRI)

Possibility
of SLI or SRI

Risk of confusing
with L2 develop-
mental difference

Preschool Problems pronouncing
words

Unknown Yes High

Difficulty rhyming

Unknown Yes Low

Trouble learning alphabet Yes Yes Moderate (higher
if L1 uses different
alphabet)

Trouble finding appropri-
ate word

Yes Yes High

Difficulty following direc-
tions or learning routines

Yes Unknown Moderate to high

Difficulty controlling cray-
ons, pencils, scissors

Yes Unknown None

Trouble with buttons, zip-
pers, snaps, learning to tie
shoes

Yes Unknown None

Ages 5â9 Problems with sound-
symbol correspondence

Unknown Yes High

Unable to combine sounds
to make words

Unknown Yes Low

Confuses basic words when
reading

Unknown Yes Moderate

Heavy reliance on context
(including pictures and
prior knowledge)

Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Trouble learning basic
math skills

Yes Unknown Moderate, depending
on previous formal
education

Problems telling time Yes Unknown Low

Correctly identifying an SRI is a complex process that cannot be accomplished with a single
test, but is largely a process of elimination. A reading specialist, or sometimes a team of spe-
cialists, will need to rule out factors such as inadequate prior instruction, lack of opportunity
to read in either language, visual problems, sociocultural factors, or insufficient familiarity
with oral Englishâthe developmental factors indicative of an acquired reading disorder,
which would require a different set of interventions than a true SRI. There are certain com-
mon behaviors, however, that are indicative of a possible reading problem and the need for
further assessment. See Table 9.1.

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 240 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?
Age Signs and symptoms Possibility
of SLD (other
than SLI or SRI)
Possibility
of SLI or SRI
Risk of confusing
with L2 develop-
mental difference

Ages 5â9
(cont.)

Difficulty remembering
sequences

Yes Yes Moderate in early
stages of second
language learning

Slow to learn new skills Yes Unknown Low

Poor coordination Yes Unknown None

Impetuous behavior Yes Unknown Low

Immature way of speaking Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Absence of strategies for
identification and under-
standing of new words

Unknown Yes Low to moderate
depending on prior
literacy exposure and
instruction

Comprehension problems
including poor understand-
ing of what is read and
inability to relate what
is read to learnerâs own
experience

Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Weak vocabulary skills Yes Yes High

Ages
10â13

Avoidance or dislike of
reading and writing

Unknown Yes High

Avoids reading aloud Unknown Yes High

Spells words differently at
different times

Unknown Yes Moderate to high
Heavy reliance on context
(including pictures and
prior knowledge)
Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Poor organization skills Yes Unknown Low

Poor handwriting Unknown, but
probable in
conjunction with
other deficits

Unknown Low to moderate
depending on prior
learning

Poor coordination Yes Unknown None

Trouble following
directions

Yes Yes Moderate to high

Impetuous behavior Yes Unknown Low
Immature way of speaking Unknown Yes Moderate to high

Table 9.1: Signs of possible learning, language, and reading
impairments at different ages (continued)

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 241 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.1 Difference or Disorder?

What is the relationship between spe-
cific language impairment and specific
reading impairment? Specific language
impairment is not a single disorder but
a category of disorders, as noted earlier.
Similarly, there may be a wide range of
difficulties experienced by children with
reading disorders, and so it is impos-
sible to equate the two. Nevertheless,
there is a strong correlation between
SLI and reading disorder. Children diag-
nosed with SLI often experience reading
difficultiesâbetween 40% and 75%,
according to the Merrill Advanced Stud-
ies Center (Simpson & Rice, 2009)â
and, conversely, more than half of
children who are identified as having
specific reading disorders have also been
identified as having some form of SLI

(McArthur, et al., 2000). The coincidence of SLI and reading disorder is not surprisingâas
we have noted repeatedly, reading is a language-based skill that is heavily dependent on oral
language. What is also possible, however, is that there is a single underlying, and currently
unidentified, condition that causes both. Interventions for Miguel will be aimed, in part, at
preventing further reading difficulties, and the prognosis is hopeful:

It should be noted that, although children with SLI are at substantially
increased risk of reading difficulties compared to other children, they are by
no means destined for poor reading; some youngsters with a preschool his-
tory of SLI go on to achieve normally in school, and those with ongoing dif-
ficulties can certainly be helped. (Spear-Swerling, 2006)

Helping dual language learners with both SLI and SRI will depend on the correct identifica-
tion of the disorders. This is the role of the pre-referral process, as we will see below.

Age Signs and symptoms Possibility
of SLD (other
than SLI or SRI)
Possibility
of SLI or SRI
Risk of confusing
with L2 develop-
mental difference

Ages
10â13
(cont.)

Absence of strategies for
identification and under-
standing of new words
Unknown Yes Moderate to high
Weak vocabulary skills Yes Yes High

Inconsistent school
performance

Yes Yes High

Sources: Eunice Kennedy National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2014 Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011

Table 9.1: Signs of possible learning, language, and reading impairments
at different ages (continued)

Medioimages/Photodisc/Thinkstock

If this child experiences problems learning to read
in Spanish, her grandmother will be able to advise
her English teacher; this information is very
important in the correct diagnosis of any kind of
reading impairment.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 242 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

Assessing any student with a suspected learning disability is a complex process, but when
that learner is a bilingual, it becomes more so. There is no single symptom or profile that is
reliably indicative of a learning disability, but there are some behaviors that serve as warning
signs of possible problems. These may manifest themselves differently at different ages, as
shown in Table 9.1.

While these behaviors are warning signs, they do not constitute sufficient evidence for the diag-
nosis of a learning disability; professional assessment will be necessary. These signs are help-
ful, however, in the process of pre-referral to determine what further evaluation is necessary.

9.2 Disproportionality
Addressing the issue of minorities in special education, Martin Gould wrote in a submission
to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

Disproportionality in special education programs in the United States has
been among the most critical and enduring problems in the field of special
education for many years. Although the presence of overrepresentation has
been consistently documented, it is fair to say that the full complexity of the
problem has not yet been understood, nor has a clear picture emerged at the
national level concerning the causes of disproportionality. (Gould, 2009, p. 26)

Disproportionality matters for obvious reasons: It is important that language or cultural
issues not impede ELLsâ access to special assistance if they are in need of it; it is equally
important that they not receive interventions that are inappropriate and donât work.

In â2009â2010, (minority) students comprised the majority of the population with disabili-
ties in the nation and represented about four million children and youth in U.S. schools, about
69% of the entire special education populationâ (Artiles, 2011, 341). A significant number
of these are English-speaking African American children, but Latino and other minority stu-
dents are also disproportionately identified as having learning disabilities and speech and
language impairments (Waitoller et al., 2010; Lydon, 2013). Although there are data indi-
cating that nationwide, 9.2% of the total population of special education students are ELLs,
compared to 13.5% of the general population (Zehler et al., 2003), it is hard to interpret what
it means because:

1. fewer than 7% of Asian ELLs are in special education programs;
2. Spanish-speaking ELLs account for 80.4% of the ELL/special education population

nationwide, but only 76.9% of the total ELL population; and
3. there is extreme variation across school districts in this country in the proportions

of ELLs in special education. Districts with fewer than 100 ELLs referred nearly 16%,
while larger districts identified an average of 9.1% of their ELLs as requiring special
education (Zehler et al, 2003). These differences may be explained by differences
in the ways in which districts classify both ELLs and learning disabled or language-
impaired students. For example, data from the U.S. Office for Civil Rights reveal that
predominantly white school districts (75% or more) label more than twice as many
Hispanic males as emotionally disturbed as do predominantly minority schools, more
than 80% more as mentally retarded, and more than 42% more as SLI (Ladner, 2007).

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 243 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

There is no a priori reason to assume that bilinguals are more (or less) likely than monolin-
guals to have learning disabilities. In fact, as we saw in earlier chapters, bilingualism appears
to confer certain cognitive advantages. So why are ELLs in some jurisdictions more likely to
be assigned to special education and less likely to be identified as gifted than their monolin-
gual peers?

There are many factors that lead educators to refer ELLs. One is that federal legislation is use-
ful for specifying what has to be done, but it is silent on how.

Identifying these high-incidence disorders does not entail using consistent standards, but
depends on judgments, and is, thus, subject to interpretation. As a result, a learner with mild
or moderate retardation in one jurisdiction can ârecoverâ just by moving to another state.
Where there is vagueness of definition, there is almost certainly vagueness, or worse, in inter-
pretation and application.

For many school districts across the nation, assessment in an ELLsâ native language is not
feasible; they simply do not have access to the resources needed to conduct a valid assess-
mentâassuming that appropriate, reliable, and valid evaluation tools even exist in multiple
languages. If they have to use English language assessment tools, however, they disadvan-
tage ELLs, especially those in the first three stages of learning English. Moreover, there is no
indication given of how long an ELL should be in the United States before being evaluated;
nor is there a requirement that ELLs have any English language instruction before being
evaluated.

We have learned that fair rules and regulations, important though they may
be, are a point of departure and not a destination. When regulatory proce-
dures require tests that are valid for the intended use, for example, the test
instruments must be available and the capacity at the school level to use the
instruments properly must be in place for the rules to matter. Similarly, both
assessing and designing a program that is responsive to a studentâs individ-
ual needs requires a capacity at the school level to observe, understand, and
design responses that are sensitive to student differences. (Donovan & Cross,
2002, p. vi)

Another reason that ELLs are too frequently assigned to special education classes is that edu-
cators accept certain myths about minority students.

Myths
Myths have a powerful influence on practice; they can influence the way we interpret perfor-
mance and behavior, they can affect our responses, and they can impact the decisions that we
make about student placement. Five myths are especially pervasive.

Myth #1: Equating Special Education with Individualized Instruction
Too often, classroom teachers refer ELLs to special education because they believe they
donât have another option (Ralabate, 2007), thinking that something is better than nothing.
They assume that the special education teacher will provide the ELL some kind of indi-
vidual attention. It is easy to see how this myth survives because certain outward behaviors

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 244 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

may be similar to those exhibited by children with SLI or SRI (see Table 9.1); it is also
potentially harmful as we saw earlier in Why Getting it Right Matters. As Mavrogordato &
Paul point out,

Providing an ELL with special education services when the student does not
possess a special learning need is poor practice, period. Services that are
meant to help children with learning, linguistic, or cognitive disabilities are
unlikely to help ELLs acquire English proficiency. In fact, these services may
even limit ELLsâ opportunity to learn since special education interventions
often target discrete skills that are practiced out of context, and a meaningful
context helps ELLs make sense of unfamiliar language. Research has shown
that ELL students, particularly those with limited language proficiency both
in English as well as their native language, are overrepresented for special
education services. (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 5)

Myth #2: Using Only One Language Reduces Confusion for ELLs
It is easy to understand why people with little understanding of bilingualism might conclude
that using only one language will âsimplifyâ matters for the bilingual, but there is no research
evidence to support this too commonly held belief. Rather, research has shown that children with
speech, language, or learning impairments can become fully functioning bilinguals ( Genessee
et al., 2004; Hamayan et al., 2007; Paradis, Genessee & Crago, 2011). It thus follows that bilingual
special needs children can receive specialized interventions without having to abandon either of
their languages. Moreover, in most circumstances, teachers should not discourage students from
communicating in their native language. âDoing so sends the message that ELLsâ native language
and, by extension, their cultural heritage, is not valued at school, which may very well exacerbate
poor academic performanceâ (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 6).

Myth #3: It Takes Up to Seven Years to Learn Enough English to Make
Assessment and Placement Feasible
Technically, this myth might be expected to result in the under-identification of ELLs for spe-
cial education, but it is important to consider here because the point is appropriate identi-
fication and placement. As we have seen in earlier chapters, it may well take five to seven
years for an ELL to become fully proficient in academic English, but this estimate does not
give teachers license to ignore any impairment that might exist. If a student has a learning
or communication (speech/language) disorder, that impairment will affect all the studentâs
languages. The sooner it is detected, the better the studentâs chances for success in school. It
is important for teachers to remember, however, that learning a new language and adjusting
to a new culture both take time. We learned in Chapter 3 that ELLs frequently experience a
silent period during which they have little to say. This period may last from six weeks to six
months, and attempting to assess an ELL for special education during this period will result
in an inaccurate assessment.

Myth #4: For ELLs, the More Accommodations, the Better
Accommodations refer to procedures and materials that are meant to increase the likelihood
that ELLs will understand and be able to function. Many different kinds of accommodation

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 245 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

may be used, depending on a studentâs need and the schoolâs resources. They include:

â¢ providing additional time,
â¢ supplementing oral instructions with written instructions, or vice versa,
â¢ simplified text (see Chapter 8),
â¢ pictures and picture dictionaries,
â¢ bilingual dictionaries, and
â¢ using the native language to check for comprehension of content.

Accommodations do not reduce learning expectations, but are intended to meet specific needs
of ELLs. Generally speaking, it is good practice to provide accommodations during the test-
ing process to ensure that their limited language proficiency does not severely disadvantage
ELLs. Similarly, making adaptations or accommodations to make classroom content acces-
sible to them is also good practice if the accommodations are âaligned with and tailored to
studentsâ specific individual needsâ (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 9). On the other hand,
not all accommodations are appropriate for all learners. Research has shown that â. . . making
as many accommodations as possible available for students may not be the most appropriate
or valid way of providing access to classroom contentâ (Mavrogordato & Paul, 2014, para. 11).
Kopriva, et al., showed that while ELLs who needed and received accommodation â. . . outper-
formed those who needed but did not receive accommodation, ELLs who received inappro-
priate accommodations performed no better on average than ELLs who did not receive any
accommodationsâ (Kopriva et al., 2007, p. 18). Moreover, there could be a danger that using
them inappropriately can slow down the language learning process. For example, teachers
must take care not to over rely on simplified text; as we learned in our discussion on com-
prehensible input, learners need exposure to language that is just slightly beyond their profi-
ciency level in order to make progress.

Myth #5: Classroom Teachers Should Have Lower Expectations of ELLs
Because ELLs sometimes struggle with academic content due to limited English proficiency,
some teachers, consciously or not, lower their expectations of these students. But academic
success for all children begins by creating an environment that fosters learning. Characteris-
tics of positive learning environments for ELLs include:

â¢ respect for linguistic and cultural diversity;
â¢ teachers knowledgeable about second language learning;
â¢ collaborative relationships between home, school, and community;
â¢ academically rich curriculum that teaches basic skills in the context of higher order

thinking and skills;
â¢ a challenging curriculum;
â¢ high expectations of all learners;
â¢ a safe and orderly school environment;
â¢ ongoing, systematic, and transparent evaluation of student progress; and
â¢ strong leadership and a shared commitment to excellence (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002, p. 78).

High expectations for student achievement play a crucial role in creating positive learning envi-
ronments. Although it may be necessary to calibrate expectations in particular circumstancesâ
it would not be reasonable, for example, to expect a newly arrived immigrant learner to pass

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 246 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

an eighth grade test on the U.S. Constitutionâit would be a mistake to assume that the entire
eighth grade curriculum is inaccessible. Not providing a challenging environment through low-
ered expectations may well contribute to lowered outcomes.

Policies and Practice
Other factors that contribute to the misidentification of ELLs as special needs learners are
related to policies and practices that are generally well-intentioned but, for a variety of rea-
sons, disadvantage bilingual students. There are two highly prevalent contributorsâthe
influence of the medical model on education and problematic assessment practices.

The Influence of the Medical Model on Education
In medical practice, diseases are typically identified by a list of common ailmentsâif a person
has skin lesions lighter than normal skin color that have not healed after several months and
are not sensitive to touch, heat, or pain, and if the person is also experiencing muscle weak-
ness and numbness in the extremities, a doctor will test for leprosy, the disease that best
âmatchesâ those symptoms. In medicine, the model usually works. Conceptualizing special
education within a similar framework assumes that disabilities can be âdiagnosedâ based on
the fit with a list of symptoms.

The problem with applying the medical model to special education is that it gives educators
a false certainty that they can easily identify language and learning disorders in a valid reli-
able mannerâfalse âbecause the complexity of the phenomenon and the individuality of the
ELL are often overlookedâ (Hamayan et al., 2007b). The reality is that exceptionality is not an
entirely objective or easily verifiable empirical notion:

Rather, it is a social construct, and the diagnostic criteria employed for various
exceptional traits have been constructed on the basis of a number of sociocul-
tural factors that mirror whatever ideologies are in vogue at any given time.
(Hamayan et al., 2007b)

These criteria are further confounded by the ambiguity and subjectivity in the evaluation
process.

Problematic Assessment Practices
The single most prevalent reason for misidentification of ELLs as SLI or SRI is the difficulty
of assessing dual language learners. Among the many factors that must be considered are the
ELLâs cultural and linguistic experiences, and it may be beyond the capacity of the school to
evaluate either. As a result, a number of biases find their way into the assessment process. We
will consider four:

1. Focus on superficial behaviors. Sometimes the responses that ELLs give are similar to
those given by native speakers with learning or speech disorders. The similarity of
âoutput,â however, does not mean that the underlying causes are the same. There is a
significant difference in cause between a developmental error made by an ELL with
an imperfect command of English and, for example, and an error made by a student
with a language fluency disorder:

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 247 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

Children learning English as a second language, for instance, may speak
with hesitations, false starts, and frequent repetitions that impede the
easy flow of speech. These occur when the child has difficulty in think-
ing of the appropriate word in English, or perhaps doesnât know it,
or when the child is in any way unsure of the language. It would be a
mistake to classify these developmental differences as fluency disor-
ders; they will in all likelihood disappear as the child learns more of
the language. (Piper, 2007, p. 197)

The interventions would be very different for the ELL and the child with fluency
disorderâin fact, the ELL would probably require no particular intervention; the
symptoms are likely to disappear as language skills grow. Referral in this case would
be inappropriate, waste the special education specialistâs time, possibly be outside
her scope of knowledge, and likely have no positive effect on the learner.

2. Inadequate data. We saw in Chapter 4 that assessments intended for native English
speakers are often inappropriate for ELLs. If the data used for referral purposes
relies heavily on standardized or norm-referenced test scores, there could be a
problem of information quality. In the first place, these tests are able to reveal only
a narrow range of the studentâs abilities, even if that student is an English speaker. If
the student is an ELL or comes from a different culture, there will also be a question
of how valid or authentic an indication it is of the studentâs ability. Language and
content are also confounded: ELLs may give a wrong response not because they do
not know the answer but because they did not understand the question. Fortunately,
there are some assessment tools developed in Spanish which might be useful, but
even a good test reveals only a small part of the learnerâs abilities or knowledge. If
they are used at all, tests must be supplemented by other kinds of data, as we will
see in the pre-referral process. As Blatchley and Lau point out,

The focus in academic assessment is generally on the skill areas of
reading, writing, and mathematics, and to a lesser extent, the con-
tent areas (such as science and social studies). The more unique an
individualâs educational experience and background, the more edu-
cators must individually tailor the assessment. Norm-referenced
achievement tests are often not very useful in assessing ELLs because
the norms do not adequately represent ELL populations. Further,
test content does not adequately reflect ELL studentsâ instructional
experience and test formats are often unfamiliar and confusing to the
student. (Blatchley & Lau, 2010, p. 4)

3. Use of inappropriate assessment models. For many years, determining whether learners
needed special assistance was based on a discrepancy model, meaning that there
was a severe discrepancy between the studentâs achievement and their intellectual
ability. By 2004, a consensus emerged among experts from a variety of disciplines
that this amounted to a âwait-to-failâ model, rather than one based on early preven-
tive measures within the regular education system. In other words, learners should
be referred only when they demonstrate serious educational deficits, and before
referral the emphasis should be on interventions to help struggling students before
they accumulate significant educational deficits. This rethinking of special education
led to response to intervention (RTI). The educational community made itself heard,
and in 2004, Congress recognized that many students classified with specific learning

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 248 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.2 Disproportionality

disabilities might not have needed special education if they had had instructional sup-
port and interventions earlier in their education, and built pre-referral requirements
into the law. The RTI is a step in the right direction, but for some schools it has intro-
duced another kind of problem in practice. Adopting the RTI has generated a predict-
able tension between educatorsâ desire to identify and help struggling students through
early intervention and the legal duty to comply with IDEAâs Child Find requirements.

Child Find is short hand for the legal duty for public schools to âfindâ children who
may have a disability and need special education services, imposed by the 2004 itera-
tion of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). This law means that schools
must aggressively locate and identify learners whom they suspect may require special
education services, and evaluate them for eligibility. They cannot wait for parents to
ask for an evaluation, or even for a teacher to report that a student is struggling. School
personnel have to establish procedures for locating potential candidates, and these
procedures should include pre-referral protocols. Once a school has reason to suspect
that the student has a disability and requires special services, they must evaluate the
learner within a reasonable time to satisfy the law and to avoid legal challenges.

It takes time to establish and implement an RTI program, but while school person-
nel are doing so, the Child Find mandate remains in place. Violation can have serious
negative consequences for schools. Hence, the school, through no fault of its own,
is back to the discrepancy model, because two portions of federal law are in con-
flict. The discrepancy model is especially ill-suited for ELLs because of the miscon-
ceptions and lack of knowledge about second language learning (Hamayan, et al.,
2007b). We will discuss RTI in depth later in this chapter.

4. Misconceptions about language learning and bilinguals. It is sometimes difficult to
distinguish developmental errors from disorders. Education professionals who do not
have a good understanding of the nature of second language learning with all its indi-
vidual variability might make the wrong assumptions about the language of ELLs. It is
very likely that a widespread misunderstanding of bilingualism is responsible for the
fact that ELLs are sent for oral proficiency testing in their native language far more often
than native English speakers (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). Why? What are the assump-
tions inherent in requiring Hispanic learners, for example, to âproveâ their competence
in Spanish, when evidence abounds that almost all children routinely learn language as
part of normal development, without being taught? One is a belief that children grow-
ing up on the U.S./Mexican border do not have fully developed skills in either language
because they speak a âhybridâ Spanglish, with mixing of the two languages. Their lan-
guage is not judged to be a ârealâ language and they are, thus, judged to be ânon-nons,ââ
non speakers of English and Spanish (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). This is unfair because:

with regard to language acquisition, we expect children to acquire the
language of the specific speech community in which they grow up . . .
If a child successfully acquires the language of her speech community,
we view the learner as functioning normally from a linguistic point
of view. If not, there may be reason to suspect that the child has a
language-related learning disability. However, whether the childâs lan-
guage is in any way similar to that of another speech communityâ
for instance, the community of speakers that constitute the educated
classesâ is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the child

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 249 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

speaks her language fluently or proficiently. (MacSwan & Rolstad,
2006, p. 2,308)

4. Thirteen states require that ELL students undergo an oral native language assessment
as part of the ELL identification process required by federal law.

Myths and misconceptions about bilingualism, bias in policies and practice, and federal leg-
islation that can be contradictory when applied to ELLsâall these factors contribute to the
inappropriate referral and placement of ELLs to special education. Because misidentification
can profoundly impact the future of ELLs, it is critical to establish procedures to ensure that
learners who need special education receive it, and those who do not receive the language
support they need in the mainstream class or other language class. It begins with the pre-
referral process to determine whether a studentâs struggle is due to language development,
or cultural differences, or to a specific learning disability or communication disorder. It is the
law, as we have seen, but it is also common sense.

9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner
Gifted learners are often overlooked in the public school system. Only 6.7% of Hispanic stu-
dents, for example, are assigned to gifted programs, compared to 9% of white majority lan-
guage students (Harris, 2009, p. 369). Some teachers, already under pressure to meet the
needs of ELLs as well as students with disabilities, may adopt the attitude that âbecause gifted
children appear ânormalâ and do not fit some stereotypical image, teachers often assume erro-
neously that these children do not have any special needs.â In fact, they require âmore rigor,
depth, and breadth in their curriculum along with trained educators who can deliver the cur-
riculum in engaging and challenging waysâ (Lovell, 2011, p. 255).

Many different definitions of giftedness exist, but there is no universally accepted one. In
fact, every state has its own definition, and they range in scope from those very conserva-
tive definitions related to high IQ scores, to more liberal interpretations that involve multiple
criteria. The federal governmentâs Javits Act, which provides grants for bright children from
low-income families, defines giftedness:

The term gifted and talented student means children and youth who give
evidence of higher performance capability in such areas as intellectual, cre-
ative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who
require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools in order
to develop such capabilities fully.

A compatible but more detailed interpretation of the term is provided by the National Asso-
ciation for Gifted Children:

Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude
(defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (doc-
umented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more
domains. Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 250 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

system (e.g., mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills
(e.g., painting, dance, sports). (NAGC, n.d.)

How a school defines giftedness will determine what programs and services they will provide,
and to which students. Whatever definition a state adopts, there are certain factors that should
be taken into account in making those decisions. First, giftedness embodies more than high
intellectual ability; it also includes ability in specific content areas, the performing arts, and
physical dexterity, as well as exceptional leadership skills and social adeptness. Second, pro-
grams for the gifted should be based on the state definition of giftedness and on how the school
operationally defines it. Third, definitions of giftedness are impacted by cultural, political, social,
and economic factors. Giftedness is not restricted to, nor more common in, any one group of
students; males, females, minorities, ELLs, wealthy children, poor children, and students with
physical handicaps are all represented among the population of gifted children (Codd, 2012).

While ELLS are over-identified as having learning disorders, they are also under-identified
as being gifted. âDespite increased awareness of the need to identify more ELLs into gifted
programs, this population remains underrepresented in GT [gifted & talented] programsâ
(Harris, 2009, p. 370). It is somewhat surprising that this is the case given the cognitive
advantages that bilingualism confers; it would be reasonable to expect to find many ELLs
among those designated as gifted. That is not the case; ELLs are vastly underrepresented in
gifted education programs (Lohman, Korb & Lakin, 2008). Why?

One of the main reasons is the difficulty in identifying ELLs as gifted. How students are iden-
tified for gifted programs varies across school districts, but the process generally begins
when a teacher or parent requests an evaluation. With ELLs, however, it is rare for parents
to request an evaluation for giftedness (Lovell, 2011, p. 260). Teachers are also less likely to
request an evaluation for ELLs than for native English speakers. They may view children who
rapidly acquire a new language and are reading at or above grade level within a year or two of
arriving in school as just doing what they should be doing. Conversely, they may not recognize
a particular gift, such as for math or science, because the child has not yet mastered enough
English for it to manifest.

The formal evaluation process itself can disadvantage ELLs. In the past, IQ tests were heavily
weighted in the determination of giftedness. Most IQ tests rely heavily on verbal acuity and, if
given in English, may under represent an ELLâs language facility. In recent years, teacher check-
lists, quota systems, alternative assessments, and nonverbal intelligence tests have been added
to the list of available tools, and these have improved matters somewhat. Still, it is largely the
classroom teacher who is in the best position to observe and evaluate whether a learner might
have exceptional ability in one or more areas. Researchers do not concur on all of the charac-
teristics of gifted ELLs, but some of the more common ones observed by teachers are:

1. demonstrated high level of critical and in depth thinking,
2. ability to perform above the usual standard,
3. ability to learn English quickly,
4. willingness to take risks in using English,
5. quick mastery of subject matter,
6. strong vocabulary skills and general language proficiency,
7. questioning and curious in class,

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 251 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

8. artistic,
9. perfectionistâsets high standards for self,

10. exceptional math skills,
11. ease in switching between two languages and cultures,
12. exhibits curiosity about American culture,
13. likes to work independently,
14. persistence/long attention span, and
15. retains and easily recalls new information (Lovell, 2011; Castellano & Diaz, 2002).

The identification of ELLs as gifted is by no means a precise process with clearly delineated
categories of behavior or ability or any prescribed ways of measuring them. Table 9.2 lists
some of the characteristics of gifted ELLs and some of the questions that need to be asked,
and the actions taken, to gather the information needed to determine them.

Table 9.2: Identifying the gifted ELL

What to do and
what to ask â

Observe
and
document
language
use

Observe
social
behaviors
in both
cultures
(if possible)

Seek
parental
input
about
behavior
at home

Is L1
cultural
behavior
obscuring
potential
giftedness?

Are
standardized
test results
consistent
with other
data?

Frequent
and
ongoing
classroom
assessment

Characteristic
of gifted ELL
â

Rapid L2
acquisition

âââ* ââ ââ âââ

Ease of
learning idioms
and Americanisms

âââ ââ ââ ââ âââ

Exceptional math
ability

â â â âââ

Understands and
appreciates cul-
tural diversity

â âââ ââ â ââ ââ

Ease in switch-
ing between
languages

â âââ âââ â ââ â

Can translate
easily and
accurately

â âââ âââ â ââ â

Behaves/adapts
appropriately for
both cultures

â âââ âââ âââ â ââ

*Number of check marks indicates level of importance; âââ is most important.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 252 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

Whether gifted or talented ELLs are formally identified or not, they deserve to have what
all students haveâhigh quality instruction that is challenging and engaging, allowing them
to realize their full potential. Some school districts have special schools for the gifted; oth-
ers have special enrichment classes. Often, however, gifted ELLs remain in the general
classroom because they have not been identified as gifted, or the school does not have the
resources, or parents or students themselves resist placement in a gifted program. Teacher
Marc Yanovich met such a student in his seventh grade class (see A Teacherâs Story: Gifted?
No Way!)

A Teacherâs Story: Gifted? No Way!

Alex joined the class at the end of September after his family relocated from Argentina. He
came with his parents, who told me that Alex had taken ESL classes in Cordoba, but all his
education had been in Spanish. His mother said that he had taken the TOEFL Junior test and
that we should have the results shortly. I considered having him take the districtwide test,
but decided to spend some time with him first. In class he confirmed my first impression
that he was a quiet boy, but he was also very attentive in class. At first he didnât ask any
questions, and his responses were correct but short. Although it took him a little longer to
read the texts, and I saw him looking up words in his bilingual dictionary fairly often, he
was able to read the same materials that the class was reading. His written work had few
errors, but was not yet at seventh grade level.

When his TOEFL Junior test scores arrived, I was pleasantly surprised. Out of a possible 300
in each category, he had tested at 200 in listening comprehension, 240 in language form and
meaning, and 225 in reading comprehension, for a total of 665âan extraordinary score for
someone who had studied English for only two years in Argentina (600 would have been
excellent). Alex had no difficulty with math, telling me he had already done the same work
in Cordoba. I gave him materials from the eighth grade curriculum, which he tackled easily.
My only concern about Alex was social. He kept to himself except for the occasional exchange
with other Spanish speakers, but he told me that none of them were from Argentina. His
shrug told me that they didnât have much in common. He buried himself in work, breezing
through the eighth grade math curriculum and spending his free time reading science fic-
tion, sometimes in Spanish but often in English. His writing improved rapidly, and although
he made errors in spoken English, he was also adept at self-correction. By mid-March, I was
pretty certain that I was dealing with a very gifted young man, and I started the process of
getting him assessed.

Our district had a special program for gifted middle schoolers, located in a school not far
from his home. I knew the school staff and knew he would flourish there. Because Alex was
bilingual, at first I had a hard time persuading the team to test him. They had some tests in
Spanish but were not confident of their ability to interpret them. The team was impressed
with his math scores, but they were reluctant to assign them too much weight, reasoning
that he had been taught at a more advanced level in Argentina. I didnât understand this

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 253 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.3 The Gifted Dual Language Learner

Mr. Yanovich was an experienced ELL teacher who knew that effective teaching strategies
helped Alex and others like him to thrive in the general classroom. It is especially important
that gifted ELLs with lower language proficiency remain engaged and challenged until their
language catches up with their intellectual abilities. Some of the strategies that have been
proven effective are:

1. role playing, dramatization, and pantomime;
2. games, especially word and math games, that are difficult enough to be challenging;

more able students can be encouraged to devise games appropriate for different
subject matter;

3. music, poetry, rhyme (for younger learners);
4. creating graphic or artistic representations for concepts and material being studied

in class;
5. use of content reading materials at higher-grade level;
6. demonstrations and hands-on activities;
7. supplemental assignments to augment what others in class are doing;
8. opportunities for interaction with others; âpeer teachingâ; and
9. cooperative learning activities.

If these strategies sound familiar, it is because they are essentially the same ones identified
as useful for differentiated and individualized instruction in Chapter 8. Differentiating and

A Teacherâs Story: Gifted? No Way! (continued)

because it seemed to me that it was his ability that allowed him to do advanced work. They
had him retake the TOEFL Junior, but while we awaited the results, I tested his reading com
prehension and found he comprehended social studies texts with a Lexile measure of 670
(the lower range of sixth grade), but he comprehended science texts in the 1000 range, near
the top of the scale for twelfth grade. I showed the team the results, but they still had a wait-
and-see attitude.

In the meantime, he was starting to make friends. His classmates responded to his sense
of humor, which became apparent as his spoken English improved. Finally, just before the
school year ended, the coordinator of the gifted program told me that she had reviewed all
the teamâs documentation and had spent time with Alex. She agreed that he would be well
suited for placement in the gifted program. I had kept his parents informed of the testing
we were doing, and they seemed pleased but unsurprised. I was so excited on the day I was
able to tell Alex that he was going into the enhanced program. I called his parents in for a
conference and broke the news to all of them. The parents nodded and beamed with pride.
Alex, well, that was a surpriseâhe jumped up and said in perfect, unaccented English, âNO
WAY!â The parents started questioning him in Spanish and then explained to me that he
didnât want to go to another school because he didnât want to leave his friends. They said
he had been very lonely for months, and now that he had made friends, he wanted to go to
eighth grade with them. I had taught ELLs and I had had some experience teaching gifted
children, but this was my first experience with middle school. I guess I hadnât realized the
importance of peers and a friendship to adolescents.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 254 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

individualizing instruction are the underpinnings of effective teaching for all ELLs, gifted
or otherwise, because of the linguistic, cultural, and intellectual diversity these students
bring.

9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI
Federal regulations require that schools provide evidence that all students referred to special
education, including ELLs, have been given every opportunity to achieve academically in the
regular classroom before they are referred. The mechanism for providing these opportuni-
ties is the response to intervention (RTI), which also serves broader purposes. The RTI is
intended as a framework for identifying at-risk students and monitoring student progress
in order to provide data that informs both instructional practice and interventions. It often
serves as the framework for school improvement projects and is touted as being useful for
preventing and remediating behavioral and learning problems before they lead to failure.
There are three different levels of intervention, and each level may consist of one or multiple
interventions. School districts vary in how they design and implement their RTI plans, but
they all have the same four components: assessment for screening purposes, a multilevel pre-
vention system, data-driven decision making, and progress monitoring (National Center on
Response to Intervention, 2010, p.2).

Implementing the RTI
The RTI is a procedure that educators use to identify students who are âat risk.â These stu-
dents fall into three categories:

1. students whose learning style or experience of learning does not match the instruc-
tional style or approach. Many ELLs would fall into this category because of language
or cultural differences, or a combination of the two;

2. students who lag behind their peers and struggle academically but do not have
cognitive deficits or linguistic impairment. Their problems might be a result
of other factors such as hunger, excessive absence, or homelessness, for
example; and

3. students with true cognitive or language problems that require specialized
interventions.

In general terms, the purpose of the screening component of the RTI is to differentiate among
these three categories. Faced with an ELL who is academically or linguistically struggling, a
classroom teacher working within the structure of the RTI, should be able to determine that a
special education referral is appropriate only for those in the third category. It may be tempt-
ing to refer others because they are not faring well in the general classroom, but it is a mistake
to do so without trying other solutions.

The first step is to identify students at academic risk or with problematic behavior. The
RTI process requires a two-stage screening process, the first of which is schoolwide or
districtwide screening of all learners at the beginning of the school year. For learners who
score below the cut point, or the score that educators use to determine whether a stu-
dent requires additional interventions, a second level of screening is done. This objectives

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 255 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

of this screening are to predict with
greater accuracy which students are
truly at risk for poor learning outcomes
and to design and implement preven-
tive measures.

Based on the data they gather through
screening, school personnel will imple-
ment the first level of prevention, pro-
viding high-quality, research-based core
instruction. Presumably, high-quality
instruction is the goal of every teacher
in every class, but student results may
indicate that adjustments are needed to
make it more effective. If, for example,
a significant number of students score
below grade level or the cut point on

basic concepts in math, the core curriculum, and possibly teaching approaches, would need
to reflect a greater emphasis on math. The same initial screening may have identified learn-
ers who appear to be at risk. They will receive the same quality instruction, but they will also
receive an intervention targeted to address the presumed problem or deficitâthis is level
two prevention.

When a student is identified via screening as requiring additional interven-
tion, evidence-based interventions of moderate intensity are provided. These
interventions, which are in addition to the core primary instruction, typi-
cally involve small group instruction to address specific identified problems.
(National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010, p. 6)

Progress is monitored with a formal assessment (progress is usually monitored three or four
times per year for learners who receive first level interventions), and depending on how much
improvement has been made, will either continue with a first level intervention or move on
to a second level intervention and, eventually, a third, if needed. The third level consists of
individualized interventions of increased intensity, and progress is regularly monitored. It is
not a strictly linear process:

. . . students should move back and forth across the levels of the prevention
system based on their success [response] or difficulty (minimal response) at
the level where they are receiving intervention, i.e., according to their docu-
mented progress based on the data. Also, students can receive intervention in
one academic area at the secondary or tertiary level of the prevention system
while receiving instruction in another academic area in primary prevention.
(National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010, p. 13)

Many models of the RTI exist and they evolve as school districts become more familiar with
the purpose and use of the process, but the purpose, essential components, and basic schema
are the same as represented in Figure 9.1.

Shironosov/iStock/Thinkstock

The first step in implementing an RTI is to screen
all students at the beginning of the school year.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 256 6/30/15 11:10 AM

School-wide Screening

Scores above
cut point

Scores below
cut point

Secondary
Screening to

Identify Areas of
Difficulty

None
identified

Potential learning
problem identifiedLearning

disability?

Refer to Special
Education RTI
Ends for now

No High-quality research-based
classroom instruction Target

Targeted intervention
Level 1

Targeted intervention
Level 2

Targeted intervention
Level III

Progress Monitoring (2 to 4 times yearly)

Adjust
interventions

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

Using the RTI for ELLs: Special Considerations for Special Learners
The RTI was not developed specifically for ELLs, but because it focuses on early intervention, it
has great potential for helping educators to distinguish between developmental language behav-
iors and true impairment or disability. Once initial screening is carried out, each of the three
levels of intervention provide opportunities for targeted interventions. The challenge is in the
screening, and with schoolwide monitoring, is in the assessment tools used. Few are sensitive to
cultural and linguistic differences (Chapter 4). The results are subject to misinterpretationâan
impairment instead of a developmental language issue. Brown and Doolittle (2008), in a brief for
the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt), responded to this

School-wide Screening
Scores above
cut point
Scores below
cut point
Secondary
Screening to
Identify Areas of
Difficulty
None
identified
Potential learning
problem identifiedLearning
disability?
Refer to Special
Education RTI
Ends for now
No High-quality research-based
classroom instruction Target
Targeted intervention
Level 1
Targeted intervention
Level 2
Targeted intervention
Level III
Progress Monitoring (2 to 4 times yearly)
Adjust
interventions

Figure 9.1: Implementing the RTI

Schools can implement the RTI process to help identify at-risk students and monitor their progress.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 257 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Level 3
Smaller groups & individualized instruction

More frequent specialized interventions
Enhanced progress monitoring

Level 2
Targeted small group instruction
Regular specialized interventions

Progress monitoring

Level 1

Universal Screening

All students receive high-quality classroom
instruction

Progress monitoring
Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

concern by creating a framework to augment the RTI for ELLs. The âguiding questionsâ they pose
are meant to ensure that assessments are supplemented with additional information and that
interventions are culturally sensitive. Their questions are as follows:

â¢ is research-based instruction being offered that takes into consideration the cultural,
linguistic, socioeconomic, and experiential background of the ELL?

â¢ is instruction targeted to the learnerâs English language proficiency level?
â¢ is any identified concern examined within the context of language of instruction,

degree of acculturation, and educational background?
â¢ have the parents had an opportunity to provide information and their input

documented?
â¢ has accurate baseline data been collected on what the student can do as well as what

she has yet to learn?
â¢ has the âecologyâ of the school and classroom been assessed?
â¢ what were the learnerâs preschool literacy experiences?
â¢ have hearing and vision been tested?
â¢ what tasks can the student perform and in what settings?
â¢ have specific first level interventions that are culturally, linguistically, and experien-

tially appropriate been developed? (Brown & Doolittle, 2008)

The answers to these questions will assist educators in designing appropriate levels of inter-
vention. The exact components of these interventions will differ from class to class, school
to school, and year to year, but the basic configuration of the three levels of intervention is
shown in Figure 9.2.

Level 3
Smaller groups & individualized instruction
More frequent specialized interventions
Enhanced progress monitoring
Level 2
Targeted small group instruction
Regular specialized interventions
Progress monitoring

Level 1
Universal Screening
All students receive high-quality classroom
instruction
Progress monitoring

Figure 9.2: Levels of the RTI

These three levels of intervention are flexible and can also be applied in instruction specific for ELLs.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 258 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

These levels are flexible enough to allow language instruction for ELLs for specialized inter-
ventions for any student lagging behind. They are also flexible enough to allow for enhanced
instruction and activities for gifted students (Table 9.3).

Teacher Paula Gardner learned firsthand how important it is to gather as much information
as possible about a learnerâs past experience before requesting a special education evalua-
tion. See Why I Teach: Paula Gardner.

Table 9.3: RTI for ELLs provides a framework for implementing the RTI
for classrooms with ELLs

Who What How Special considerations for ELLs

All students Initial screening Schoolwide or dis-
trictwide universal
screening tools

Formal assessment augmented by additional
background information

High-quality,
research-based
core instruction

Flexible grouping
and individualized
instruction

Identify areas of weakness in English
(oral, reading, writing) and design learn-
ing activities to provide opportunities for
development; provide ample opportunity for
language practice

Progress
monitoring

Universal monitoring
tools at regular inter-
vals; classroom tests
and assignments;
teacher observation

Teacher logs, portfolios of student work to
document progress, and other informal class-
room evaluations; evaluate ELLs within peer
group (other ELLs of similar ability level)

Students
identified
by progress
monitoring
as needing
further
information

Core instruction
continues supple-
mented by level
two intervention
via curriculum
designed to address
specific needs

Small groups (five or
fewer) in 30 minute
sessions threeâfive
days per week

Consider changing group membership; con-
sider a different curriculum from core; con-
sult with reading, special education, or ESL
teachers about unresolved learning problems

Progress
monitoring

Universal assessment
if within the schoolâs
RTI protocol; class-
room and small group
evaluation

Determine whether student has demon-
strated language growth and if there corre-
sponding improvement in other areas

Students
who
have not
responded
to level two
interventions

Core instruction
continues, supple-
mented by level two
intervention

Groups of three or
fewer; two daily
30 minute sessions
to address targeted
deficiencies

Identify language domain that is causing
most difficulty and target interventions
accordingly; consider alternative research-
based instructional level two teaching
approach/method; consult with reading,
special education, or ESL teachers about
unresolved learning problems

Progress
monitoring

Determine whether student has demon-
strated language growth and if there is cor-
responding improvement in other areas

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 259 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Section 9.4 The Pre-referral Process and RTI

Why I Teach: Paula Gardner
I cried a lot that first month. I was in my second year of teaching and after one day with my
new third grade class, I felt that my teacher education program and first year of teaching hadnât
even come close to preparing me. When the school district closed two of their six elementary
schools, many teachers were relocated, and as a newbie, I didnât get to choose. So I went from
teaching a small fourth grade class with one advanced English language learner, to a class of
21, only seven of whom spoke English. Their English language proficiency was varied, but
most of them appeared to function fairly well in Englishâexcept for one. My first impression
was that Javier was a beginner because he rarely spoke in class and didnât appear to be able to
read, except to identify a few wordsâhis name and common vocabulary words such as see, go,
is, and the. He could write his own name and seemed to understand most of what I said to him,
and he followed classroom routines. He could also print his name and copy words and letters.
It occurred to me that he might be in a silent period, if he really was a beginner.

On the second or third day of the school year, I went with the class out onto the playground
because I knew that I would find the ESL teacher there, and I wanted to talk with her about
having him tested. I was pleased to see that Javier joined in with the other boys in the class in a
game of soccer, but I was totally amazed when I heard him speak, in clear perfect English, âItâs
Raulâs turn to be goalie, so weâre gonna win!â I knew I had to rethink my initial assessment of
his language proficiency, but then also started to fear that he might have some kind of learning
disorder.

I called to schedule an appointment with the special education consultant but was told that
it would be three weeks before she could even talk to me about Javier, much less do an eval-
uation. For the time being, I was on my own. So I called the professor who had been my
internship supervisor two years earlier. She listened and reminded me what I should have
remembered, that there were many things I should do before calling in the special education
teacher. The first was to schedule a meeting with Javierâs parents. Iâm glad I did that. What I
found out was that this was the first time that Javier had regularly attended school. He had
been enrolled in school the previous year in another state, which I knew from his school
record, but his mother said he hadnât really attended for many reasons. I later learned that
the family feared being deported and didnât trust the school system not to report them. Now
that their immigration status was certain, however, they made sure he went to school every
day. Remembering what I had learned in college, I asked about his Spanishâwhen he had
first spoken, whether his mother had noticed anything unusual about his language learning.
She said that he might have been a little slower than his older sister, but she hadnât noticed
anything unusual about his pronunciation or vocabulary development. When I asked about
reading, Javierâs mother said that he liked to be read to, but he didnât know how to read in
Spanish. I asked if she had tried to teach him to read, and she replied that she hadnât because
she wanted him to read in English, not Spanish. I could have hugged her. That small clue
started me down the right path. I suspected that Javier had some sort of specific reading
impairment, and that gave me hope.

Talking to the reading consultant for the district and remembering what his mother had
told me about his interrupted schooling, I suspected that Javier might have an acquired
reading impairment. The reading specialist and I decided to work under that assumption,
and together we devised an instructional plan for Javier. If he did not progress significantly,
we would re-evaluate after a few months. The plan called for Javier to work with a reading

(continued)

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 260 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Summary
In earlier chapters, we discussed problems in assessing and placing ELLs in the appropri-
ate program and grade level. In this chapter, we have seen that the challenge intensifies
when there is a possibility that the ELL has a learning disability, or language impairment, or
intellectual gifts, all of which require special interventions. ELLs are at greater risk for being
misidentified as special needs students or being sent to special education when teachers
believe wrongly that ELLs will get individualized instruction that will help with their lan-
guage learning. We have seen that there are many reasons for misidentification of ELLs, but
the fundamental one is the misconceptions that educators hold about bilinguals and second
language acquisition. The RTI process, if used with thoughtful attention to cultural and
linguistic factors, can be a great help to educators in making the right decisions about ELLs,
whether in special education or in the mainstream classroom.

Key Ideas

1. ELLs are overrepresented in special education classes because they are misidenti-
fied as having special needs.

2. There are many reasons why ELLs are inappropriately placed in special
education classes, but the two which should most concern teachers are
a) misperceptions about second language learning, and b) inappropriate
methods of assessment.

3. The most common misconceptions about second language learning that affect
placement are the length of time it takes to learn a language and the belief that
typical developmental errors are the result of an impairment.

4. ELLs are more likely to be identified as having both language and reading
impairments than the native English-speaking population.

Why I Teach: Paula Gardner (continued)
tutor for 30 to 45 minutes a day. Fortunately, there was one available, and the plan was to
work with him one-on-one for 30 to 45 minutes per day. I also met with his mother again
to explain the plan and to tell her that if she should encourage him to read in Spanish if he
showed any interest.

Just three weeks into the plan, I could already see the difference in Javier. He was more atten-
tive to classroom activities, his writing improved, and I saw him trying to follow along in his
book when we were reading aloud in class. Then, one day just before Christmas, his reading
tutor was sick and so Javier stayed in the classroom while the rest of the class engaged in silent
reading. He had a book that he had been working on with his tutor. When Javier raised his
hand to indicate he needed help, I went to his desk to see what he needed. He had opened the
same book that the rest of the class was working on, and he asked me how to pronounce the
word invisible. I did, and he didnât recognize it, but when I told him the meaning, he nodded
happily and returned to his book. Javier was clearly on his way to being a reader, and he is one
of the big reasons why I teach.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 261 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Key Terms

acquired reading impairment Reading
problems that result from, for example,
imperfect mastery of the language, a different
alphabet in the home language, low exposure
to reading, and inadequate instruction.

articulation disorders A wide range of
disorders ranging from persistent difficul-
ties with a particular sound that have little
impact on intelligibility, to severely impaired
phonological systems that render the
speaker incomprehensible.

cluttering A fluency disorder characterized
by excessively rapid speech, significantly
disrupting the flow of speech.

cut point The score that educators use to
determine whether a student requires addi-
tional interventions.

discrepancy model Assesses whether there
is a significant difference between a studentâs
scores on a test of general intelligence and
scores obtained on an achievement test. This
model was traditionally used to identify stu-
dents with learning disabilities.

fluency disorders A language disorder that
affects the rate, rhythm, and the continuity
of speech.

gifted students Students â. . . who dem-
onstrate outstanding levels of aptitude
(identified as an exceptional ability to
reason and learn) or competence (docu-
mented performance or achievement
in the top 10% or rarer) in one or more
domainsâ (National Association for Gifted
Children, n.d.).

high-incidence disability Specific
learning disabilities and speech/language
impairments, emotional or behavioral
disorders and mild to moderate mental
retardation.

language delay Language development
that follows a normal course but at a slower
pace.

language processing disorders Systematic
deviations in speech, reading, writing, or
signing that interfere with a speakerâs ability
to communicate with their peers.

5. Research supports the belief that bilingual children with SLI benefit
from maintaining the home language just as unaffected bilingual
children do.

6. Gifted ELLs are often not identified as having extraordinary abilities or skills
because of their limited language skills.

7. A mainstream classroom can accommodate a wide range of ELLs, including those
with some special needs and the gifted, if the teacher has support and individualizes
instruction following the principles introduced in Chapter 8.

8. Pre-referral interventions are designed to identify students who are âat riskâ and, for
ELLs, to confirm that observed language or learning problems affect both languages,
and are not caused or exacerbated by inadequate instruction.

9. The most commonly used intervention is the RTI, a procedure that educators use to
differentiate among:

â¢ students whose learning style or experience of learning does not match the
instructional style or approach,

â¢ students who lag behind their peers and struggle academically but do not have
cognitive deficits or linguistic impairment, and

â¢ students with true cognitive or language problems that require specialized
interventions.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 262 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What is the main argument against placing an ELL in a special education class just to
get extra attention for that learner?

2. Hispanic learners are typically overrepresented in special education classes and
underrepresented in gifted programs. What factors in the educational system might
be contributing to these facts?

3. What is the difference between language delay and language impairment?
4. How can a teacher tell the difference between a language delay and a silent period in

a dual language learner?
5. Why does it make sense that there is a strong correlation between SLI and reading

impairment in ELLs?
6. Why is it important to involve parents in the pre-referral process?
7. Look again at Figure 9.1. What adaptations or elaborations might be needed for

internationally adopted learners who had arrived at age eight or older?
8. How do mainstream English speakers benefit from language and ability diversity in

the classroom?
9. What role might educator bias play in the misidentification of ELLs as special needs

or gifted learners?

learning disabilities Disabilities that
occur in people of average or above- average
intelligence who struggle to acquire skills
that impact their ability to function effec-
tively in school, home, community, or
workplace.

low-incidence disabilities Conditionsâ
such as severe mental retardation, blindness,
cerebral palsy, and complex health issuesâ
that are normally diagnosed by teams of
medical personnel and generally found in
1% or less of the school population.

norm-referenced tests Standardized tests
designed to compare and rank test takers in
relation to one another.

response to intervention (RTI) A multi-
tier approach to the early identification
and support of students with learning and
behavior needs.

specific language impairment (SLI) A
communication disorder such as stuttering,
impaired articulation, a language or voice
impairment that adversely affects a childâs
learning, not caused by hearing loss or other
developmental delays. Also called develop-
mental language disorder.

specific learning disabilities (SLD) Condi-
tions such as perceptual disabilities, brain
injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia,
and developmental aphasia that do not
result from hearing or motor disabilities,
âmental retardation,â emotional disturbance
or environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage (IDEA, 2004).

specific reading impairment (SRI) A
disorder that affects children with ânormal
intelligence and visual-auditory abilities,
adequate learning opportunities, and the
absence of neurological and psychological
problems.

standardized tests Tests in which the same
tests are given under the same conditions
to all test takers and are scored consistently
across all learners.

stuttering A communication disorder char-
acterized by disruptions in the production
of speech sounds that, in most cases, have
an impact on at least some of the speakerâs
daily activities.

voice disorders Distortions of voice quality
that are not temporary.

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 263 6/30/15 11:10 AM

Summary & Resources

Additional Resources
To see how the IDEA defines specific learning disabilities, see
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,23,

For a concise summary of the educational issues surrounding gifted education, see the
Rhode Island Advocates for Gifted Education site at
http://www.riage.org/articles/why-do-we-need-to-define-giftedness/

For a good overview of the issues surrounding ELLs with learning disabilities, see Elsa
Cardenas-Hagan on the topic at
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/disabilities/

pip82223_09_c09_231-264.indd 264 6/30/15 11:10 AM

http://www.riage.org/articles/why-do-we-need-to-define-giftedness/

http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/disabilities/

Teaching Reading

[WLOs: 3, 4] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3]

The domain of reading is crucial for ELLs to acquire in English. In this assignment, you will explore the importance and techniques of how help ELLs learn to read in English. Respond to either the K-12 or adult learning questions, but not both.

To structure your writing,

Â· Your audience will be you. Consider this information as someone who is new to teaching/learning about English as a second language and you have learned this information at a workshop or a presentation.

Â· Your role is that of someone who understands the information from a research perspective.

Â· The format will be an essay paper, two to four double-spaced pages in length.

Â· The purpose is to explain the importance of vocabulary development when teaching reading.

Children or Students in a K-12 Learning Context

Adult Learning Context

Read from your primary text:

Â· Chapter 6: Learn to Read, Read to Learn

Watch PCGâs 2012 video
Teaching Reading and Comprehension to English Learners, Grades K-5 (Links to an external site.)

Read Lieshoff, Aguilar, McShane, Burt, Peyton, Terrill, and Van Duzerâs 2008 article
Practitioner Toolkit: Working With Adult English Language Learners (Links to an external site.)
pages II-57âII-65 and Supplemental/Examples: II-66âII-75

Watch: International TEFL Academyâs 2011 video
Teaching Reading in an ESL Classroom
(Links to an external site.)

Address the following items in your original post.

Â· Explain why vocabulary development is so important.

Â· Describe what role BICS and CALP have in vocabulary development. You may need to refer to Week 2âs notes.

o Defend your description using information from the previous weeks.

Â· Examine the role assessment has in reading and vocabulary development?

Address the following items in your original post.
Â· Explain why vocabulary development is so important.

Â· Determine the role of BICS and CALP in vocabulary development. You may need to refer to Week 2âs notes.

o Defend your determination by citing research and course content from previous weeks.

Â· Examine the role assessment has in reading and vocabulary development?

The Teaching Reading Paper

Â· Must be two to four double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Centerâs

APA Style (Links to an external site.)

Â· Must include a separate title page with the following:

Â· Title of paper

Â· Studentâs name

Â· Course name and number

Â· Instructorâs name

Â· Date submitted

For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to

APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.)

Â· Must utilize academic voice. See the

Academic Voice (Links to an external site.)

resource for additional guidance.

Â· Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.

Â· For assistance on writing

Introductions & Conclusions (Links to an external site.)

as well as

Writing a Thesis Statement (Links to an external site.)

, refer to the Ashford Writing Center resources.

Â· Must use at least two scholarly source in addition to the course text.

Â· The

Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.)

table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.

Â· Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Centerâs

Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.)

Â· When submitting the weekly paper, please format submission indicating if you are answering questions from the K-12 or adult perspective by using the following format for your file upload: LastNameAssignmentTitleLevel (e.g., RobinsonReadingAdult or RobinsonReadingK12).

Required Resources

Text

Piper, T. (2015).

Language, learning, and culture: English language learning in todayâs schools

. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

Â· Chapter 4: Assessment and Program Options

Â· Chapter 6: Learn to Read, Read to Learn

Â· Chapter 9: Learners with Special Needs

Article

Lieshoff, S. C., Aguilar, N., McShane, S., Burt, M., Peyton, J. K., Terrill, L., & Van Duzer, C. (2008, March).

Practitioner toolkit: Working with adult English language learners. (Links to an external site.)

Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/caela/tools/program_development/CombinedFiles1

Â· This article provides information about adult language teaching and learning and may assist you in the Assessment discussion and Teaching Reading assignment this week.

Multimedia

colorincolorado. (2015, June 5).

Assessment for ELLs (Links to an external site.)

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/q6fG4FmibEQ

Â· This video provides information about assessing ELLs in the K-12 classroom and will help you on the Assessment discussion..

Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)

International TEFL Academy. (2011, September 22).

How to assess listening in your ESL classroom
(Links to an external site.)

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/A-Ag69w1Hjg

Â· This video provides information about assessing ELLs in the adult learning classroom and will help you on the Assessment discussion..
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)

International TEFL Academy. (2011, September 22).

Teaching reading in an ESL classroom
(Links to an external site.)

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/8wfH99DeKfY

Â· This video provides an example and ideas for teaching reading to adult ELLs. It will help you with the Teaching Reading assignment.
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)

PCG. (2012, October 12).

Teaching reading and comprehension to English learners, grades K-5.
(Links to an external site.)

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/s4A85oOjZW0

Â· This video provides an example and ideas for teaching reading to ELLs. It will help you with the Teaching Reading assignment.
Accessibility Statement (Links to an external site.)

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

Assignment due in 48 hours

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

Preferred Writer

Grammar Check Report

One Page Summary

Plagiarism Report

Free Features $66FREE

Our Services

Academic Writing

Professional Editing

Thorough Proofreading

Thorough Proofreading

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Check Out Our Sample Work

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

Share Your Requirements

Place Order & Deposit Funds

Release Payment to Your Writer

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades