English Learners: A Framework for Robust Literacy Instruction for English LearnersAuthor(s): Patrick C. ManyakSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Oct., 2007), pp. 197-199Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204571 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 22:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:56:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENGLISH LEARNERS

A Framework for Robust Literacy Instruction for English Learners

Patrick C. Manyak

For the last 16 years, I have been a teacher and

researcher of young English learners (ELs) and

thus immersed in the issues surrounding the

language and literacy instruction of these children.

My years as a bilingual teacher in southern California

taught me about the great privilege and the tremen

dous challenge of teaching ELs. I was surrounded by

bright, respectful children who earnestly applied themselves to the task of learning in two languages. At

the same time, while my colleagues and I worked

hard to help our Latina/o students, they lagged far be

hind our native English speakers (NS) in reading and

writing. Thus, my own teaching experience mirrored

what years of results from the National Assessment of

Educational Progress reveal: A significantly lower per

centage of Latina/o ELs reach proficiency in reading than their white NS peers. Nevertheless, during the

last decade, I have come to believe that our current

research base offers important guidance that could

dramatically improve the literacy achievement of all

ELs. It will not be simple, however, to translate the

relevant research insights into practice; it will require a multifaceted form of classroom instruction that ad

dresses the cognitive challenges of literacy, accounts

for ELs' special language needs and abilities, and in

cludes their unique cultural experiences. In this col

umn, I outline a framework for this kind of robust

literacy instruction for ELs. The framework consists

of four complementary elements: (1) explicit code

and comprehension instruction, (2) language-rich in

struction, (3) socioculturally informed instruction,

and (4) additive literacy instruction. Drawing on key research findings and successful classroom inter

ventions, I provide a brief rationale for each of these

elements.

Explicit Code and

Comprehension Instruction Recent research demonstrates that explicit instruction

in phonemic awareness and phonics is very beneficial

for ELs learning to read in English. Consider the find

ings from two important studies. First, Lesaux and

Siegel (2003) examined the reading development of

978 NS and 188 ELs from a variety of language back

grounds from kindergarten to the end of 2nd grade. The study took place in a Canadian school district that

provided explicit instruction in phonemic awareness

and phonics within a balanced approach to literacy and intervention for struggling beginning readers. At

the end of second grade, the ELs performed equal to or

better than the NS on assessments of a variety of read

ing skills, including comprehension. Second, Vaughn,

Mathes, Linan-Thompson, and Francis (2005) studied

the effects of a code-based early reading intervention

program on struggling first-grade Spanish-speaking ELs

in Texas. The intervention program included explicit,

systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, letter

knowledge, word recognition, decodable text reading, basic comprehension processes, and vocabulary. Students made dramatic gains in decoding and com

prehension, scoring on par with NS in these areas.

Together, these two studies suggest the value of explic

it, systematic code-based instruction as a part of a com

prehensive literacy program for ELs. However, while

such instruction may provide ELs with an excellent

start in English reading, it does not ensure long-term

reading achievement. A recent review of research

found that ELs generally experience more difficulty in

reading comprehension than their NS peers (Lesaux,

Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 2006). Given that ELs regu

The Reading Teacher 67(2), pp. 197-199 ? 2007 International Reading Association

DOI:10.1598/RT.61.2.10 ISSN: 0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online 197

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:56:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

larly face texts with more unfamiliar content and vo

cabulary than NS, ELs must be particularly strategic in

activating background knowledge, inferring meanings of words, and monitoring their comprehension. Thus,

the need for high-quality instruction in comprehension

strategies is especially acute for ELs.

Language-Rich Instruction

Language-rich instruction aims to accelerate ELs' oral

language and academic vocabulary development in

English. With regard to oral language development,

longstanding principles of English as a second lan

guage stress the critical nature of providing ample ac

cess to competent speakers of and comprehensible

input in the target language, a comfortable atmosphere for experimenting with the new language, frequent

modeling, and feedback that prompts elaboration.

Building on these principles, Mohr and Mohr (2007) have developed a valuable tool that provides specific

guidance to teachers seeking to extend ELs' engage ment in classroom interactions. Their Response Protocol details possible teacher responses?each aimed at valuing contributions and prompting elaboration?to a wide variety of student utterances

and should help any teacher improve the language

acquisition climate of their classroom. In addition to

promoting ELs' participation in everyday activities,

language-rich instruction also must address the large

and persistent English vocabulary gap between NS

and ELs. Research has established the strong relation

ship between vocabulary knowledge and reading com

prehension (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997), and

Saville-Troike (1984) demonstrated that English vocab

ulary was strongly associated with the performance on

a standardized test of English reading by ELs in second

through sixth grade. In light of these findings, I believe

that explicit, intensive academic vocabulary instruc

tion represents a particularly critical dimension of ro

bust literacy instruction for ELs.

Socioculturally Informed Instruction A common folk theory in schools holds that many cul

turally and linguistically diverse families deprive their

children of experiences that form a foundation for

school learning. In contrast, research reveals that

many diverse children possess a broad range of cultur

al knowledge, linguistic abilities, and problem-solving skills that represent important resources for literacy

learning (Moll, Amanti, & Gonzalez, 2005; Vasquez,

Pease-Alvarez, & Shannon, 1994). For instance, in re

search conducted in a Mexicano community in north

ern California, Vasquez et al. (1994) found that

children engaged in numerous "intercultural transac

tions," such as acting as translators for their parents

during visits to the doctor, that prompted the children

to develop as "language and cultural brokers" (p. 13). With regard to literacy, the authors described how a

family collaboratively interpreted tax and immigration documents across languages. Socioculturally in

formed instruction entails teachers recognizing these

valuable cultural experiences and resources and find

ing ways to incorporate them in classroom activities.

Research has demonstrated that connecting literacy activities to ELs' out-of-school lives can lead to mean

ingful, engaging, and sophisticated literate activity

(Dworin, 2006; Moll et al., 2005). In one recent exam

ple, Dworin (2006) described a classroom project in

which fourth-grade Latina/o students read and dis

cussed family memoirs; interviewed their own family members about their lives; and wrote, revised, and

translated a memoir based on the interviews. While

such projects are not sufficient to ensure ELs' success

ful literacy development, they play a critical role in

making literacy meaningful to diverse students and

creating a space in the classroom for their out-of

school lives.

Additive Literacy Instruction The previous three elements that I have discussed pri

marily address ELs' development of English literacy.

However, research demonstrates that young ELs can

and do develop literacy skills in two languages (Moll & Dworin, 1996) and that when bilingual children de

velop literacy skills in either of their two languages, this development positively contributes to the growth of their literacy skills in the other language

(Verhoeven, 1994). In light of such findings, I believe

that any framework for robust literacy instruction for

ELs must consider biliteracy as its ultimate goal and

that teachers should actively advocate for some form

of consistent native language literacy instruction in

their schools or communities. While effective bilin

gual education programs represent a time-honored

198 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 2 October 2007

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:56:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

path to biliteracy, such programs may not be practical or even permitted in many settings. As a conse

quence, I consider it critical that teachers committed

to serving ELs consider alternative ways to support their students' biliteracy development. For instance, I

have observed schools that cannot provide full bilin

gual programs offer primary-language literacy instruc

tion as a regular special or after-school enrichment

class for ELs. In addition, teachers might also encour

age, advise, or collaborate with parents and other

community members to develop community-based

programs aimed at teaching native language literacy skills to young ELs.

More to Come...,

In this column, I have outlined a framework for ro

bust literacy instruction for ELs. By necessity, I have

only touched briefly on each of its four elements. In

later columns, I plan to discuss these elements in

greater depth, offering more specific guidance in

translating them into effective classroom instruction.

However, I hope that this overview will challenge teachers of ELs to examine their current instruction

and consider general ways that it might be enhanced.

Manyak teaches at the University of Wyoming,

Laramie, USA.

References

Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later.

Developmental Psychology, 33,934-945.

Dworin, J. (2006). The Family Stories Project: Using funds of knowl

edge for writing. The Reading Teacher, 59, 510-520.

Lesaux, N., Koda, K., Siegel, L, &Shanahan, T. (2006). Development of literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing liter

acy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 75-122).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lesaux, N.K., & Siegel, L.S. (2003). The development of reading in

children who speak English as a second language.

Developmental Psychology, 39,1005-1019.

Mohr, K.A.J., & Mohr, E.S. (2007). Extending English-language learn

ers' classroom interactions using the Response Protocol. The

Reading Teacher, 60,440-450.

Moll, L.C., Amanti, C, & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge:

Theorizing practices in households and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Moll, L.C, & Dworin, J.E. (1996). Biliteracy development in class

rooms: Social dynamics and cultural possibilities. In D. Hicks

(Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 221-246). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language

learning for academic achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 199-219.

Vasquez, O.A., Pease-Alvarez, L, & Shannon, S.M. (1994). Pushing boundaries: Language and culture in a Mexicano community. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D.J.

(2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning

Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(Y), 58-67.

Verhoeven, L.T. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The lin

guistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language

Learning, 44,381-415.

The department editors welcome reader comments. To contact Patrick Manyak at the University of

Wyoming, Laramie, USA, e-mail pmanyak@uwyo.edu. To contact Eurydice Bauer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, e-mail ebbauer@uiuc.edu. The English Learners department

will appear again in the February 2008 issue of The Reading Teacher.

A Framework for Robust Literacy Instruction for English Learners 199

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:56:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions