Core Strategies to Support English Language Learners

This article was downloaded by: [Marshall University]On: 19 September 2013, At: 01:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Core Strategies to Support EnglishLanguage LearnersSheldon Barr a , Zohreh R. Eslami a & R. Malatesha Joshi aa College of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University,College Station, Texas, USAPublished online: 14 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Sheldon Barr , Zohreh R. Eslami & R. Malatesha Joshi (2012) CoreStrategies to Support English Language Learners, The Educational Forum, 76:1, 105-117, DOI:10.1080/00131725.2011.628196

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2011.628196

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00131725.2011.628196

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2011.628196

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Educational Forum, 76: 105–117, 2012Copyright © Kappa Delta PiISSN: 0013-1725 print/1938-8098 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00131725.2012.628196

Address correspondence to Sheldon Barr, College of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University, 12506 Fern Vale Ct., Houston, TX 77065, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Reading and vocabulary instruction can serve as an instructional process

to respond to English language learner (ELL) needs. The purpose of this

review of literature was to determine whether reading and vocabulary

instruction should be used as core strategies for supporting ELLs requiring

interventions as a response to the Texas English Language Profi ciency

Assessment System. This review of the literature included peer-reviewed

journals and other published studies.

Key words: elementary education, emerging literacy, English language learners, English as

a second language, reading, Texas English Language Profi ciency Assessment System.

The two fastest-growing populations in the United States consist of the Asian/Pacifi c Islander group and Hispanics. Of the 308 million people, 50.5 million constitute the Hispanic-origin population, and 11.8 million are the Asian/Pacifi c Islander population (U.S. Census Bureau 2010), and both populations are anticipated to continue their near double-digit growth. It is estimated that 76 percent of Hispanics and Asian/Pacifi c Islanders fi ve years and older speak their mother tongue (a language other than English) at home (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). These population groups in the United States that speak languages other than English are identifi ed as English language learners (ELLs), those with English as a second language, or those who are limited English profi cient (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES] 2009a). The designation ELLs is utilized from this point forward. The results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicated that on the fourth-grade reading scale, only 30 percent of ELLs were at or above basic (partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills at each grade assessed), compared to 69 percent of not English language learners (NELLs). The report also showed that only seven

Core Strategies to Support English Language LearnersSheldon Barr, Zohreh R. Eslami, and R. Malatesha JoshiCollege of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13

106 • The Educational Forum • Volume 76 • 2012

Barr, Eslami, and Joshi

percent of ELLs scored at or above profi cient (solid academic performance for each grade assessed), compared to 34 percent of NELLs (NCES, 2009b). The ELLs on a national basis are performing well below the NELLs.

The Southern part of the United States had the largest increase in population, along with the largest increase in the Hispanic population, and this statistic was also true for the state of Texas (Texas Education Agency [TEA] 2010; U.S. Census Bureau 2010). According to the Texas state accountability report (TEA 2009a), a little over one-half (56 percent) of ELLs met all of the standards on the 2008 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, compared to 74 percent of all students in Texas meeting the same standards. At Grade fi ve, 59 percent of ELLs met the standard on the state English reading assessment, compared to 85 percent of total students. At Grade nine, 42 percent of ELLs met the standard on English reading, compared to 87 percent of total students. At the exit level (graduation) at Grade eleven, 40 percent of ELLs met the English Language Arts standard, compared to 96 percent of total students. On mathematics, 44 percent of ELLs met the standard, compared to 89 percent of total students. On science, 38 percent of ELLs met the standard, compared to 91 percent of total students. On social studies, 69 percent of ELLs met the standard, compared to 98 percent of total students meeting the same academic standards. The annual dropout rate for Grades nine through 12 was 7.6 percent for ELLs, compared to 3.9 percent of total students. The completion/graduation rate was 39.3 percent for ELLs, compared to 80.4 percent of total students. On the Higher Education Readiness Component, six percent of ELLs met the standard, compared to 57 percent of total students meeting the standard (TEA, 2009a).

The ELLs, according to the Texas English Language Profi ciency Assessment System (TELPAS; TEA 2006; 2007; 2009b), are required to be annually assessed to determine their academic level and literacy profi ciency, so that appropriate academic and literacy processes can be implemented as needed. A thorough review of the literature shows that reading and vocabulary instruction continues to point the way to English language learning and literacy. This review of literature grounds the argument for reading and vocabulary instruction, particularly for elementary students who need instructional process for the English language as identifi ed through the TELPAS process. Reading and vocabulary instruction and other appropriate strategies support the improvement of English language profi ciency.

There appears to be a gap between what the state of Texas requires to be implemented by teachers and what is actually supporting student learning relative to the desired outcome of increased English language profi ciency. Reading researchers, such as Washburn, Joshi, and Binks Cantrell (2010), along with others (McCutchen et al. 2002; Spear-Swerling and Brucker 2003), have attributed poor classroom instruction to the teachers’ lack of basic understanding of the concepts related to English language needed to teach reading skills. According to various researchers (National Reading Panel [NRP] 2000; Buly and Valencia 2002; Carlo et al. 2004), one major determinant of poor reading comprehension for ELLs and other struggling readers is low reading vocabulary. Additionally, the majority of struggling ELLs have inadequate literacy skills, such as fl uency, vocabulary, and other specifi c skills, affecting their text comprehension and their ability to learn new concepts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Strategies to Support English Language Learners

The Educational Forum • Volume 76 • 2012 • 107

and content (Buly and Valencia 2002; Proctor et al. 2005; Biancarosa and Snow 2006; Lesaux, Lipka and Siegel 2006).

According to Aaron, Joshi and Quatroche (2008), literacy is very complex, and involves coordination of many different reading and literacy skills and attributes, including phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fl uency, vocabulary, text comprehension, and spelling. Targeted instruction aimed at improving performance in any of these components can enhance overall literacy achievement.

PurposeReading and vocabulary instruction can serve as instructional processes that respond

to the literacy needs of ELLs. The purpose of this review of literature was to determine whether reading and vocabulary instruction should be used as core strategies for supporting ELLs requiring literacy instruction as a response to TELPAS. This review of the literature included peer-reviewed journals and other published studies. The main question guiding the literature review was as follows: What is the best way to support the ELLs needing instructional process support and intervention?

Literature ReviewInstructional processes and strategies include both broad and narrow support

factors. Some broad factors include community resources, sociocultural factors, and psycholinguistic and cross-linguistic factors. Some of the narrower support factors include, but are not limited to, research-based strategies, attitudinal factors, reading instruction, spelling instruction, vocabulary instruction, and specifi c action steps that research studies indicate increase literacy.

Once children fall behind, they seldom catch up. At any age, poor readers, as a group, exhibit weaknesses in phonological processing and word recognition speed and accuracy (Moats 2001). Reading comprehension is impacted by listening comprehension. Teaching older students to read with comprehension is a challenge: They cannot read well, so they do not like to read; reading is labored and unsatisfying, so they have little reading experience; and because they have not read much, they are not familiar with the vocabulary, sentence structure, text organization, and concepts of academic or conversational written language. Over time, their comprehension skills fall further behind because they do not read, and they also become poor spellers and poor writers. What usually begins as a core reading skill (phonological and word recognition) defi cit, often associated with other language weaknesses, becomes a diffuse, debilitating problem in all areas of language—spoken and written (Moats 2001). If students do not know the words they are reading and cannot derive meaning from context, they must expand their vocabularies and learn a repertoire of comprehension strategies (Moats 2001).

Current research provides guidance about how to most effectively teach literacy to this varied population of learners—whether in English-only classes, dual-language programs, or other variants. ELLs, like other children (Resnick 2004; Francis et al. 2006), can quickly learn to decode words on a page. With skilled, explicit instruction, many children who start school speaking little or no English can gain word reading and spelling skills equal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



to those of native speakers in two to three years. The second part of becoming a profi cient reader (Dressler and Kamil 2006; Gottardo and Mueller 2009)—developing the vocabulary and comprehension skills needed to understand the meaning of texts—is much harder and takes longer. Understanding written texts depends on gaining competence in spoken English (Resnick 2004). There are variables to address when making decisions for ELLs.

In a recent study, Goodwin and Ahn (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of numerous studies with children, including ELLs, which determined that specifi c instructional processes made profound connections in reading, vocabulary, and related reading skill areas. If children receive instruction in phonological and alphabetic skills, and learn to apply that knowledge to decoding words, they are very likely to succeed at reading (Moats 2001). A study by Jongejan, Verhoeven, and Seigel (2007), looking at the impact of basic reading (literacy) and vocabulary skills relative to literacy development for both ELLs and native English speakers, found that many literacy skills are highly correlated to each other and to increased English literacy development. The fi ndings indicate that reading (literacy skills) and vocabulary increased with direct teaching and learning experiences for both the native English speakers and the ELLs.

Reading strategies that can be offered include teaching vocabulary, cross-age instruction, cooperative learning, and reciprocal teaching (Klingner and Vaughn 1996; Gottardo, Yan, Siegel and Wade-Woolley 2001; Carlo et al. 2004; Francis et al. 2006; Genesee and Geva 2006; Gersten et al. 2007; Snow and Kim 2007; Moats 2009; Podhajski, Mather, Nathan and Sammons 2009; Goodwin and Ahn 2010). The research provides input on the many interventions that positively affect ELLs’ learning. Reading instruction strategies help identify and diagnose the diffi culties with reading. Knowing the ELLs’ level of literacy also allows the teacher to work within the student’s “zone of proximal development”—that area between what the student is capable of at the moment and the point you want the student to reach next (Vygotsky 1978). A teacher can work in a student’s zone of proximal development by “scaffolding” literacy developmen, or providing the support a student needs as he or she progresses. Scaffolding is essentially a way to nudge a student toward a higher level of performance. This can be done by providing direct instruction in literacy skills, modeling correct grammar or pronunciation, asking challenging questions, or providing opportunities for reading and vocabulary development (Francis et al. 2006; Hill and Flynn 2006; Carlisle 2007; Coleman and Goldenberg 2009).

In order to respond to the needs of ELLs as required by TELPAS, what is the best way to support literacy and reading development? There is growing body of evidence that there are defi nitely skills and knowledge that must be taught explicitly and implicitly. Teaching students to read in their fi rst language promotes higher levels of reading achievement in English (Short 1991; Moats 1999; NRP 2000; Snow, Griffi n, and Burns 2005; Goldenberg 2008). A substantial amount of research suggests that literacy, along with associated skills and knowledge, transfers across languages—that is, if you learn something in one language, you either already know it in (i.e., transfer it to) another language or can more easily learn it in another language (Short 1991; Moats 1999; NRP 2000; Carlo, August, and Snow 2005; Snow et al. 2005; Dressler and Kamil 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson et al. 2006; Vaughn, Mathes et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



Does what is known about good instruction and curriculum in general hold true for ELLs? ELLs learning to read in English is just like English speakers learning to read in English; thus, they benefi t from explicit teaching of the components of literacy, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing (Short 1991; Moats 1999; NRP 2000; Gottardo et al. 2001; Carlo et al. 2004; Dickson et al. 2004; Proctor et al. 2005; Snow et al. 2005; Tam, Heward, and Heng 2006; Goldenberg 2008).

When instructing ELLs in English, should reading teachers modify instruction to take into account students’ language limitations? Teachers need to consider the students’ language limitation and, thus, provide explicit teaching of basic literacy skills (such as phonological awareness, syntax, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and norms of social usage) and ample meaningful opportunities to use English academically and authentically (Short 1991; Moats 1999; NRP 2000; Carlo et al. 2005; Snow et al. 2005; Lesaux and Geva 2006; Calhoon et al. 2007; Goldenberg 2008; Cirino et al. 2009).

What does the research say about effective instructional processes and reading intervention? There are research studies (Short 1991; Moats 1999; NRP 2000; Snow et al. 2005; Goldenberg 2008) that reported increased English learning and acquisition. The interventions identifi ed included direct teaching of decoding, literature appreciation, phoneme awareness instruction, systematic and explicit instruction in the code system of written English, incentives for children to read (independently and with others), vocabulary instruction (that includes a variety of complementary methods designed to explore the relationships among words, the relationships among word structure origin, and meaning), comprehension strategies (that include prediction of outcomes, summarizing, clarifi cation, questioning, and visualization), frequent writing of prose to enable a deeper understanding of what is read, and daily exposure to a variety of texts, all leading to increased English language learning (Dickson et al. 2004; August et al. 2005; Francis et al. 2006; Carlisle 2007; Kieffer and Lesaux 2007; Goldenberg 2008; Moats 2009; Podhajski et al. 2009).

Studies have found that a large oral vocabulary is a signifi cant factor in a child’s later reading success. Oral vocabulary facilitates understanding words in print. A weak or underdeveloped vocabulary may exacerbate diffi culties in decoding while reading (Nation and Snowling 2004). Oral language comprehension usually indicates the maximum level of reading comprehension, and ELLs know fewer words than native English speakers in the same classes (Nation and Snowling 2004; Wallace 2008). They are usually unfamiliar with connotations, detonations, idiomatic phrases, and so forth. Specifi c targeting of oral vocabulary has been determined to be benefi cial to ELLs (Dressler and Kamil 2006; Lesaux and Geva 2006; Tam et al. 2006; Cárdenas-Hagan, Carlson, and Pollard-Durodola 2007; Lesaux and Kieffer 2010).

What can be done to encourage participation among students who seldom ask questions or initiate interaction? One area where interaction is crucial, especially for less profi cient learners, is seeking clarifi cation of message content. It might be important to keep in mind that individual learners have their own way of making the classroom an environment conducive to their literacy and second language learning. The environment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



is a major stimulus for vocabulary development (De Temple and Snow 2003); the setting provides a process from which children learn to talk and to experience language structures. Language input is a major predictor of speed of vocabulary learning. It has been determined that words that have a high affective value are also more easily learned. Words heard in semantically rich linguistic contexts are learned more easily. Semantic support often comes in the form of physical contexts (pictures or activities) or linguistically informative contexts (emotional or affective connections; De Temple and Snow 2003). Where environments lack suffi cient meaningful experiences with a language, the literacy development is impeded or delayed (Carlo et al. 2004; Dong 2004; Dressler and Kamil 2006; Cárdenas-Hagan et al. 2007; Lesaux and Kieffer 2010).

Teachers need to encourage independent learning by allowing students to self-select vocabulary to be studied; this process helps them become independent word learners (Harmon, Hedrick, and Wood 2005). Key vocabulary must be taught explicitly, and the teacher needs to provide opportunities for struggling readers to learn vocabulary incidentally through the wide reading of appropriate level material. Direct approaches, such as illustrating the word in context and showing relationships among other words using a graphic organizer, appear to be helpful in many subject areas—particularly mathematics, where the vocabulary terms are both technical and symbolic (Harmon et al. 2005; Shanahan and Shanahan 2008).

Structural analysis should be emphasized when teaching vocabulary. Providing students with word histories (etymology) has shown much promise in the teaching of social studies terminology. Focusing on meanings of Latin and Greek roots is benefi cial in all subject areas (e.g., pent-, oct-, dia- in mathematics, micro-, bio-, and gene- in science), and has the potential to assist readers of all ability levels unlock the meanings of new words encountered in text (Harmon et al. 2005). Establishing oral communication and developing levels of oral language profi ciency are critical to ELL students’ learning and achievement; this is foundational to literacy achievement (Joshi et al. 2008; Coleman and Goldenberg 2009).

Students must develop content area vocabulary. Each content area has its own language or vocabulary. Content area reading materials present students both with new and often diffi cult words, as well as with familiar words that may be used in new ways. If a student does not know the meanings of a suffi cient proportion of the words in these reading materials, he or she may become frustrated and skip important words, which can make comprehension impossible. To comprehend their content area reading materials, students must be able to determine the meanings of general, specialized, and technical vocabulary (TEA 2002; Dong 2004; Lesaux and Geva 2006; Shanahan and Shanahan 2008).

General vocabulary consists of words that each student knows and uses as part of everyday activities. However, even familiar words can pose problems if students are not aware that words can have different meanings, or connotations, that are determined by the context in which they appear. Specialized general vocabulary consists of words that have specifi c meanings for content area subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



The conceptual density of math and science materials is one of the major reasons for students’ diffi culties. Mathematics texts can contain more concepts per line, sentence, and paragraph than any other kinds of texts (Barton, Heidema, and Jordan 2002); science texts can be equally concept-laden. A high school chemistry text can include 3,000 new vocabulary terms—more than students are expected to learn in foreign language classes. In addition, reading mathematics and science requires special reading skills—skills that students may not have used in other content areas (Barton et al. 2002; Francis et al. 2006). For example, to comprehend text passages, students must be able to decode and comprehend scores of scientifi c and mathematical signs, symbols, and graphics; students also need to read and interpret information presented in unfamiliar ways—not only left to right, but also right to left (number lines), top to bottom (tables), and even diagonally (graphs; Barton et al. 2002).

Given these challenges, how can teachers help students become more successful at reading and learning from these content texts? To begin, teachers can incorporate reading and learning strategies that help students activate prior content knowledge, master vocabulary, and make sense of unfamiliar text styles (Barton et al. 2002; Jongejan et al. 2007). Instructional practices for teaching students specifi c content-related words and concepts include helping them to create mental or visual images associated with a technical vocabulary word to facilitate recall of its meaning (Dong 2004; Francis et al. 2006; Gersten et al. 2007).

Some of the best strategies to use, identifi ed from the research, are the following:

1. Link new vocabulary with background knowledge by having students brainstorm and describe what they already know about the topic being studied (August et al. 2005; Carlo et al. 2005; Francis et al. 2006; Carlisle 2007).

2. Focus on the semantic relationships of new and familiar words and concepts through activities such as semantic mapping, semantic feature analysis, and categorization (Francis et al. 2006; Cárdenas-Hagan et al. 2007; Goldenberg 2008).

3. Restate dictionary defi nitions of new words in their own words and make up sentences using the new words (Carlo et al. 2005; Stahl and Nagy 2006).

4. Use synonyms, antonyms, and dictionary defi nitions to understand the meanings of specialized and technical vocabulary (Swanson and Sa´ez 2003; Carlisle 2007; Coleman and Goldenberg 2009).

5. Analyze the structure of new words (affi xes, infl ections, compound words, and contractions) to determine their meanings (Goldschneider and DeKeyser 2005; Francis et al. 2006; Kieffer and Lesaux 2007).

6. Use contextual analysis activities that require students to use semantic and syntactic features of sentences to determine the meanings of new words. Such activities include a cloze procedure, rereading sentences without using the new word, reading sentences that appear before and after the sentence with the new word, and using a combination of strategies, such as dictionary defi nitions and contextual analysis (Francis et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008; Coleman and Goldenberg 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



7. Maintain personal content-related word lists or word banks (Francis et al. 2006; Goldenberg 2008; Coleman and Goldenberg 2009).

8. Work cooperatively to fi gure out meanings of new words through contextual analysis (TEA 2002; Harmon et al. 2005; Calhoon et al. 2007).

For most adult learners, direct vocabulary instruction is benefi cial and necessary due to the fact that students are not able to acquire the mass of vocabulary just by meaningful reading, listening, speaking, and writing (Eslami-Rasekh and Ranjbary 2003). Learners can be explicitly taught how to improve their own vocabulary by teaching them appropriate vocabulary learning strategies in contrast to simply letting students learn vocabulary in their own way. Teachers should remember that vocabulary learning also involves the use of individual learning techniques (Eslami-Rasekh and Ranjbary 2003). Research studies show that the growing interest in providing a description of vocabulary learning techniques and strategies aims to enhance understanding of the learning process that takes place in the learners’ minds (Eslami-Rasekh and Ranjbary 2003; Gathercole and Alloway 2008). Therefore, a description of vocabulary learning strategies can be used as a guideline to help learners in their lexical acquisition. Mastering the vocabulary is essential (Barton et al. 2002). Teaching words well means giving students multiple opportunities to learn how words are conceptually related to one another in the material they are studying.

In being learner-centered, the teacher must consider several factors. Motivating students (Sagor 2003) begins by knowing the students, their interests, and their attributes, and then building on those. The instructional tasks, goals, objectives, or student learning outcomes are carefully calculated into the effective instruction formula. The better teachers understand the learning tasks, prerequisites, inputs (curriculums, lesson plans, and instructional strategies), and outcomes (mastery of literacy, reading, and vocabulary; Sagor 2003; Coleman and Goldenberg 2009), the more effective the teaching will become.

The more the teachers know and the better prepared they are, the more effective they can be with implementing instructional processes. Literacy is complex and involves the orchestration of many different skills or abilities, including phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, oral language development, oral reading fl uency, reading comprehension, spelling, writing, and especially vocabulary (Shanahan and Beck 2006). It has been shown that special instruction aimed at improving performance in any of these components can enhance overall literacy achievement (Goodwin and Ahn 2010). The correlation among vocabulary development, spelling, and reading comprehension is high because all depend on a common denominator: profi ciency with language (Joshi et al. 2008). The more deeply and thoroughly a student knows a word, the more likely he or she will be to recognize it, spell it, defi ne it, and use it appropriately in speech and writing.

ConclusionThe goal of teachers, the state of Texas (TEA 2006; 2007; 2009b), and the nation (U.S.

Department of Education 2002) is for ELLs to be provided appropriate instructional processes to address their language learning needs to raise their levels of English profi ciency and academic achievement. The instructional processes are numerous and have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



been well-researched in the literature. Reading with specifi c vocabulary instruction as an instructional process does support the goals, and has continually accelerated language learning and literacy development. Teachers must remember and implement effective instructional process strategies with a reading and vocabulary foundation, so that the ELLs have their language needs met and continue to gain greater reading skills, fl uency, vocabulary, and comprehension, which will accelerate their learning and mastery of English and enable them to be lifelong learners. The teacher must keep in mind current research about reading and vocabulary, as well as other factors, such as phonemic and phonological awareness, orthography, fl uency, and comprehension (NRP 2000; Coleman and Goldenberg 2009; Washburn et al. 2010).

ReferencesAaron, P. G., R. M. Joshi, and D. Quatroche. 2008. Becoming a professional reading teacher.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes.August, D., M. Carlo, C. Dressler, and C. Snow. 2005. The critical role of vocabulary

development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice

20(1): 50–57.Barton, M. L., C. Heidema, and D. Jordan. 2002. Teaching reading in mathematics and

science. Educational Leadership 60(3): 24–28.

Biancarosa, G., and C. E. Snow. 2006. Reading next—A vision for action and research in

middle and high school literacy: A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence Education.

Buly, M. R., and S. W. Valencia. 2002. Below the bar: Profi les of students who fail state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3): 219–39.

Calhoon, M. B., S. Al Otaiba, D. Cihak, A. King, and A. Avalos. 2007. Effects of a peermediated program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual fi rst-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly 30(3): 169–84.

Cárdenas-Hagan, E., C. D. Carlson, and S. D. Pollard-Durodola. 2007. The cross-linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language of instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 38(3): 249–59.

Carlisle, J. F. 2007. Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. In Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension, eds. R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, and K. R. Tannenbaum, 78–103. New York: Guilford.

Carlo, M. S., D. August, B. McLaughlin, C. E. Snow, C. Dressler, D. N. Lippman, T. J. Lively, and C. E. White. 2004. Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research

Quarterly 39(2): 188–215.Carlo, M. S., D. August, and C. E. Snow. 2005. Sustained vocabulary-learning strategies

for English language learners. In Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to

practice, eds. E.H. Hiebert and M. Kamil, 137–53. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cirino, P. T., S. Vaughn, S. Linan-Thompson, E. Cárdenas-Hagan, J. M. Fletcher, and D. J. Francis. 2009. One year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at-risk for reading problems. American Educational

Research Journal 46(3): 744–81.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



Coleman, R., and C. Goldenberg. 2009. What does research say about effective practices for English learners? Introduction and Part 1: Oral language profi ciency. Kappa Delta

Pi Record 46(1): 10–16.

De Temple, J., and C. E. Snow. 2003. Learning words from books. In On reading books to

children: Parents and teachers, eds. A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, and E. B. Bauer, 15–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dickson, D. K., A. McCabe, N. Clark-Chiarelli, and A. Wolf. 2004. Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied Psycholinguistics 25(3): 323–47.

Dressler, C., and M. Kamil. 2006. First and second language literacy, in students. In Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on

Language-Minority Children and Youth, eds. D. August and T. Shanahan, 197–238. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dong, Y. R. 2004. Getting at the content. Education Leadership 62(4): 14–19.Eslami-Rasekh, Z., and R. Ranjbary. 2003. Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary

learning. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 7(2):3–15. Available at: http://

www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej26a5/.

Francis, D., M. Rivera, N. Lesaux, M. Kieffer, and H. Rivera. 2006. Practical guidelines for the

education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and

academic interventions (U.S. Department of Education Grant S283B050034). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Gathercole, S. E., and T. P. Alloway. 2008. Working memory and learning: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Genesee, F., and E. Geva. 2006. Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phonological processes, and oral language. In Developing literacy in a second language:

Report of the National Literacy Panel, eds. D. L. August and T. Shanahan, 175–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gersten, R., S. K. Baker, T. Shanahan, S. Linan-Thompson, P. Collins, and R. Scarcella. 2007. Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary

grades: A practice guide (National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance 2007-4011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/20074011.

pdf.

Goldenberg, C. 2008. Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator 32(2): 8–44.

Goldschneider, J. M., and R. M. DeKeyser. 2005. Explaining the „natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition“ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language

Learning 55(Suppl. 1): 27–77.Goodwin, A. P., and S. Ahn. 2010. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects

on literacy achievement of children with literacy diffi culties. Annals of Dyslexia 60(2): 183–208.

Gottardo, A., and J. Mueller. 2009. Are fi rst- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from fi rst to second grade. Journal

of Educational Psychology 101(2): 330–44.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



Gottardo, A., B. Yan, L. S. Siegel, and L. Wade-Woolley. 2001. Factors related to English reading performance in children with Chinese as a fi rst language: More evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educational Psychology

9(3): 530–542.Harmon, J. M., W. B. Hedrick, and K. D. Wood. 2005. Research on vocabulary instruction

in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly

21(3): 261–80.

Hill, J. D., and K. M. Flynn. 2006. Classroom instruction that works with English language learners.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Jongejan, W., L. Verhoeven, and L. S. Seigel. 2007. Predictors of reading and spelling

abilities in fi rst-and second-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(4): 835–51.

Joshi, R. M., R. Treiman, S. Carreker, and L. Moats. 2008. How words cast their spell: Spelling is an integral part of learning the language, not a matter of memorization. American Educator 32(4): 6–16, 42–43.

Kieffer, M. J., and N. K. Lesaux. 2007. Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher 61(2): 134–44.

Klingner, J. K., and S. Vaughn. 1996. Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language [Special issue]. Elementary School Journal 96(3): 275–93.

Lesaux, N. K., and E. Geva. 2006. Synthesis: development of literacy in language minority students. In Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy

Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth, eds. D. August and T. Shanahan, 53–74. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lesaux, N. K., and M. J. Kieffer. 2010. Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Education Research Journal 47(3): 596–632.

Lesaux, N. K., O. Lipka, and L. S. Siegel. 2006. Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities that infl uence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 19(1): 99–131.

Linan-Thompson, S., S. Vaughn, K. Prater, and P. T. Cirino. 2006. The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of

Learning Disabilities 39(5): 390–98.McCutchen, D., R. D. Abbott, L. B. Green, S. C. Beretvas, N. S. Potter, T. Quiroga, and A.

Gray. 2002. Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35(1): 69–86.

Moats, L. C. 1999. Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should

know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.Moats, L. C. 2001. When older students can’t read. Educational Leadership 58(6): 36–40.

Moats, L. C. 2009. Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and

Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 22(4): 379–99.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



Nation, K., and M. J. Snowling. 2004. Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading 27(4): 342–56.

National Center for Educational Statistics. 2009a. Digest of education statistics: 2009. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Educational Statistics. 2009b. National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP): 2009 glossary. Washington, DC: Author.National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to

read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientifi c research literature on reading and its

implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Available at: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/

upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf.Podhajski, B., N. Mather, J. Nathan, and J. Sammons. 2009. Professional development in

scientifi cally based reading instruction: Teacher knowledge and reading outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities 42(5): 403–17.

Proctor, C. P., M. Carlo, D. August, and C. E. Snow. 2005. Native Spanish speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology

97(2): 246–56.Resnick, L. B., ed. 2004. English language learners: Boosting academic achievement.

Research Points 2(1): 1–4. Sagor, R. 2003. Motivating students and teachers in an era of standards. Alexandria,

VA: ASCD. Shanahan, T., and I. Beck. 2006. Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners.

In Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on

language-minority children and youth, eds. D. August and T. Shanahan, 415–88. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Shanahan, T., and C. Shanahan. 2008. Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Education Review 78(1): 40–59.

Short, D. J. 1991. Integrating language and content instruction: Strategies and techniques.

Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.Snow, C. E., P. Griffi n, and M. S. Burns, eds. 2005. Knowledge to support the teaching of reading:

Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Snow, C. E., and Y. S. Kim. 2007. Large problem spaces: The challenge of vocabulary for

English language learners. In Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension,

eds. R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, and K. R. Tannenbaum, 123–39. New York: Guilford.Spear-Swerling, L., and P. O. Brucker. 2003. Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge about

English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia 53(1): 72–103.Stahl, S. A., and W. E. Nagy. 2006. Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.Swanson, H. L., and L. Sa´ez. 2003. Memory diffi culties in children and adults with learning

disabilities. In Handbook of learning disabilities, eds. H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, and S. Graham, 182–98. New York: Guilford.

Tam, K. Y., W. L. Heward, and M. A. Heng. 2006. A reading instruction intervention program for English-language learners who are struggling readers. Journal Special

Education 40(2): 79–93.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13



Texas Education Agency. 2002. Research-based content area reading instruction. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. 2006. Strategic plan for fiscal year 2007–2011. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. 2007. 74.4 English language profi ciency standards, 19 TAC Chapter

74, Subchapter A. Austin, TX: Author.Texas Education Agency. 2009a. Academic excellence indicator system 2008–2009 state

performance report. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. 2009b. LPAC decision-making process for the Texas assessment

program. Austin, TX: Author.Texas Education Agency. 2010. Enrollment in Texas public schools. Austin, TX: Author.U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010 census briefs.

Washington, DC: Author.U.S. Department of Education. 2002. No Child Left Behind; reauthorization of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Washington, DC: Author.Vaughn, S., S. Linan-Thompson, P. G. Mathes, P. T. Cirino, C. D. Carlson, S. D. Pollard-

Durodola, E. Cardenas-Hagen, and D. Francis. 2006. Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for fi rst-grade English language learners at risk for reading diffi culties. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39(1): 56–73.

Vaughn, S., P. Mathes, S. Linan-Thompson, P. Cirino, C. Carlson, S. D. Pollard-Durodola, E. Cardenas-Hagen, and D. Francis. 2006. Effectiveness of English intervention for fi rst-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School

Journal 107(2): 153–80.Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, trans.

and eds. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, C. 2008. Vocabulary: The key to teaching English language learners to read. Education Digest 73(9): 36–39.

Washburn, E. K., R. M. Joshi, and E. Binks Cantrell. 2010. Are preservice teachers prepared to teach struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia 60(1): 1–23.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

shal

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

1:19

19

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Documents

Core Strategies to Support English Language Learners