English Language Learner Resource Guide Part II: School Wide Professional Development for Academic Language Instruction

Transcription

1 School Wide Professional Development for Academic Language Instruction prepared by Jane D. Hill Heather Hoak Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning 4601 DTC Blvd., Ste. 500 Denver, CO December 31, 2012

2 This report was funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Department of Education under cooperative agreement S283B The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education and no official endorsement should be inferred. For more information, contact: Kathleen Dempsey, Director North Central Comprehensive Center at McREL 4601 DTC Boulevard, Suite 500 Denver, CO McREL 2

3 INTRODUCTION In April 2012, the North Central Comprehensive Center (NCCC) at McREL released a report titled English Language Learner Resource Guide: Top Ten Instructional Tips for Schools with a Low Incidence of ELLs. The guide was produced as a result of several requests from regional Title III directors for assistance in identifying the most effective strategies for serving English language learners and offered a user friendly overview of effective strategies that could be implemented in any classroom fairly quickly. Following the first guide s release, Title III directors in the NCCC region began receiving calls about developing ELL programs and/or using limited ELL resources to serve ELL students. Title III directors wanted a resource for schools that were calling to ask, How do I serve three schools with one ESL teacher? or How do we serve a sudden influx of 50 or more ELL students? This report picks up where the last one left off by expanding on the notion that "it s not just low incidence or high prevalence schools that need to expand their current repertoire of language required for discussing content in the language arts, math, science, social studies, and other curricular areas it s all schools (Hill and Hoak, 2012). This premise requires an approach that addresses language development as a need for all students, not only ELLs. In some cases, the students in need of language development might be native English speakers who are conversationally proficient in English but do not have the proficiency in academic English they need to comprehend what they read, write well, and do well on tests. Often, these students will be part of Title I programs because they come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. These students may reveal themselves with consistently low reading and writing scores, and, like their ELL counterparts, need instruction in academic language. In some cases, they may have been tested for Special Education services because of consistently low literacy scores but do not qualify because there is not an existing disability. This guide will address the following areas in order to explore the issue of providing rich oral academic language instruction to ELLs in various contexts and with limited resources: An overview of the increasing need for and emphasis upon teaching academic language for ELLs and others in need of language development, including its inclusion in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); A discussion of integrating language development goals into the school improvement plan (and guidance on how to do so); The introduction of the Teach Coach Approach, which meets the needs of ELLs while also building the capacity of all teachers, not just the ESL teacher; and 3

4 A sample application of the Teach Coach Approach, using vocabulary instruction as a focus. Research Base: Language Development for ALL Students Hart and Risley s landmark study (1995) documenting the word interactions between parents and children in 42 different families (professional, working class, and welfare) found a direct correlation between parents economic status and the number of words children have heard by the time they reach school age. They found that, by age three, spoken vocabularies for children from professional families were larger than those recorded for those in welfare families by a margin of almost 1,500 words per hour (Hart & Risley, 1995). These differences in language development persist as the students move through school. Students from welfare families are similar to English language learners in that they may be conversationally proficient in English; however, conversational proficiency is not the only language competency needed for academic success. Years ago, teaching reading became every teacher s responsibility, not just the English language arts (ELA) teacher s. Similarly, with English language learners and others in need of language development in almost every classroom, all teachers now need to be teachers of rich oral academic language development. In other words, all teachers need to pay attention to subject area language, examine the language demands of their content, and explicitly teach the language (vocabulary, grammar, and discourse) that accompanies subject matter. The language that students use at home and on the playground is informal or conversational language, which is different from the language needed to perform well academically; school language is more structured and must be grammatically correct with a higher level vocabulary. All regular education teachers need to focus on academic language, the language that is needed to do well in the classroom and on tests. Horowitz notes that content area classrooms provide the environment for the Academic English (AE) development of ELLs because there is a natural connection between language use and learning academic subject matter (as cited in Anstrom et al., 2010, p. 18). In summary of their literature review of academic English, Anstrom and her colleagues note Second, literature shows that improving student s AE (Academic English) is a concern not only for educators of ELLs, but also for educators from subject areas such as science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts. Experts tend to agree that AE is more difficult to learn than other language registers; not only ELLs, but students from a broad spectrum of backgrounds having difficulty learning it (Anstrom et al., 2010, p. 50). The need to develop academic language for all students in the content areas is reinforced by Lee, Quinn & Valdés (2012): A practice oriented science classroom can be a rich language 4

5 learning as well as science learning environment, provided teachers ensure that ELLs are supported to participate. Indeed it is a language learning environment for all students (p. 1). Science, by its very nature, demands ways of talking and terminology unfamiliar to most. All students are language learners in this environment. When we assume that there are no low incidence schools (in other words, that all schools and classrooms have children in need of language development, whether they are ELLs or native English speakers), we begin to view education needs in a new light. Rather than a division of labor, with ESL teachers serving ELL students, we can launch a collaborative endeavor, with regular education teachers and ESL teachers determining how to serve a compelling new population with similar instructional needs. All students in need of language development will benefit from strategically planned oral academic language development. Many ELLs who have been in an English speaking environment for more than two years and non ELLs who were born and raised in the U.S. have good informal conversational language skills but are not proficient in reading and writing. The bridge between the two skillsets is rich oral academic language. Common Core, WIDA and English Language Development At the same time that the number of students in need of language development is increasing, the Common Core State Standards clearly articulate that literacy and academic language instruction are not the sole domain of the reading, writing, or language arts teachers. Contentarea teachers must teach the academic language and discourse of their content (CCSS, 2010). The CCSS acknowledges the essential nature of oral language instruction in Appendix A: This focus on oral language is of greatest importance for the children most at risk children for whom English is a second language and children who have not been exposed at home to the kind of language found in written texts (Dickinson & Smith, 1994). Ensuring that all children in the United States have access to an excellent education requires that issues of oral language come to the fore in elementary classrooms (CCSS, Appendix A, 2010, p. 27). The 2012 Amplification of the WIDA English Language Development Standards (ELD) solidifies the connection between academic language instruction and the language development of English language learners and connects the updated ELD standards to the Common Core State Standards. One especially useful feature of the 2012 Amplification of the WIDA English Language Development Standards is the table describing The Features of Academic Language in WIDA s Standards. This table outlines three levels of language proficiency (discourse, sentence, and word/phrase level) and directly addresses a key point made in Appendix A of the Common Core State 5

6 Standards for English language arts by clearly articulating the importance of oral language development as an essential part of developing academic language for students. Frequently, the word/phrase level is addressed by educators while discourse and sentence level are not. The WIDA table clearly identifies the features associated with each level which inform educators about what specific pieces of instruction students will need. For example, at the Discourse level, the linguistic complexity of texts needs to be considered, including such features as amount and structure of written text. In the content areas, this attention to discourse is an important aspect of understanding content area texts (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2012). As Aida Walqui, director of teacher professional development at WestEd, notes, For the most part, the profession has focused on bits and pieces of language. The Common Core is really going to require teachers to move from understanding language as form and function to understanding it as activity and giving students the supports they need to participate in academic activities using language (Maxwell, 2012, p. 1). At the secondary level, the need for content area teachers to explicitly teach not only vocabulary, but the discourse and the ways of thinking, writing, and speaking the language of their disciplines is a critical shift. A recent review of the literature on academic English notes that rethinking the ways teachers approach both language and content instruction calls for a better balance between teacher and student talk (Anstrom et al., p. 50). If teachers do not plan for oral interaction, it will not happen. Talking for talking s sake is not the goal, but practice, use, and reinforcement of rich oral academic language should be the expected outcome. Dr. Kenji Hakuta, Stanford University, chair of a national initiative titled Understanding Language, is focused on capitalizing on the Common Core s emphasis on language. The initiative aims to heighten educator awareness of the critical role that language plays in the new Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards. The long term goal of the initiative is to increase recognition that learning the language of each academic discipline is essential to learning content (Understanding Language website). In addition, Dr. Hakuta sees the CCSS as an opportunity that leaders can take advantage of in seeking to promote school improvement across the board for all the students. The Common Core provides a strong incentive to examine the role of language in content instruction and assessment there is a role for leadership to take advantage of this opportunity (Hakuta, 2011, p. 33). A coherent practical goal for practicing rich oral academic language in subject matters areas integrated in the school improvement plan is one way to embrace Dr. Hakuta s invitation to lead. 6

7 Overall School Improvement Goals and Language Development Strong leadership will be required to improve instruction for academic language by building it into the school improvement plan. Since academic language cannot be taken for granted, writing a goal for it will ensure that it becomes a deliberate part of the instructional day. Leadership teams need to write a school wide improvement goal to increase students level of oral academic language development regardless of whether or not they come from homes where English is spoken or lack rich language experiences; it will be an objective to reach with anyone in need of language development. In addition to setting the school improvement plan s goals for reading, writing, and math, it is essential to develop a language goal and a plan to help all teachers become teachers of language development in addition to teachers of content to effectively ensure that all students can obtain the levels of proficiency and rigor defined within the CCSS. If the school improvement plan has never ambitiously sought to make the connection between rich oral academic language and literacy, staff may need more exposure and dialogue to articulate the purpose for the new goal and the expected outcome. By establishing the language development initiative s purpose and outcome, the staff will have a clearer focus on how to foster English language proficiency as part of subject matter instruction so that all students can access the Common Core standards. Reconsidering the role rich oral academic language plays as a precursor of literacy motivates us to rethink the role of the ESL teacher. A school s leadership team can play an integral role in rethinking the ways in which a school deploys its ESL teachers to better meet the needs of ELL students while building the capacity of all teachers to deliver oral academic language instruction. The Teach Coach Approach: A New Approach to Using ELL/ESL Resources When a school has a school wide improvement goal for developing rich oral academic language related to content, examining program models can go beyond the typical pull out programs. Based on the increased focus on academic language within the CCSS, all students can benefit from learning academic language and content. When there is a language development goal in the school improvement plan, classroom teachers will need job embedded, long term professional development. This job embedded professional development should take place in the classroom, in real time or near real time, with students or away from students (Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion, 2010), and make connections between research and practice in daily applications. For example, an ESL teacher coach could demonstrate a language 7

8 learning strategy while the classroom teacher and others observe, followed by a time to debrief, describing and analyzing what they watched. In the past, teaching responsibilities for ELLs and non ELLs existed in silos. Classroom teachers were responsible for teaching content and ESL teachers were responsible for teaching language. Now that we know ELLs need heavy doses of language and content (Anstrom et al., 2010), the typical half hour a day provided by the ESL teacher in a pull out situation is not enough. Collaboration between mainstream teachers and ESL teachers is an integral requirement for increasing the amount of academic language instruction that takes place in the regular classroom. In the Teach Coach Approach, the ESL teacher coach can work in mainstream classrooms where ELL students may already be grouped and both serve the ELL students and build the capacity of the teacher at the same time (Pardini, 2006). If a state mandates that a certified ESL teacher be in place (e.g., South Dakota), the school could choose to use the ESL teacher s expertise to build the capacity of the regular classroom teachers to teach language in addition to content. If a state requires professional development (e.g., Nebraska), the school may consider forming a collaborative with another district to implement an ESL coaching model. This is a departure from the one: one or teacher: small ELL group pull out model. In order to better serve all students in need of language development, new program models that fully leverage scarce resources are needed. Dr. Hakuta s vision of language as our next frontier is a good place to start. In his Research to Practice: Preparing ELLs for the Common Core webinar (May 5, 2011), he advocates that educators plan for the Common Core, based on the following key assumptions: 1. Language is necessary to teach, learn and demonstrate understanding in school subjects. This is true for all students but especially for ELLs. 2. Excellence in instruction and assessment revolves around the idea of rich language use. 3. Professional development should be built around the idea that language instruction is the domain of all teachers, not just ELA or ESL teachers. 4. The Common Core can be leveraged to recognize and amplify the opportunity for rich language development for ELLs and for all students. 5. Identification and progress monitoring of objectives, assessments and best practices in the classroom is necessary for success. 8

9 ESL providers will serve as the leaders and provide staff with embedded professional development. Since the ESL teacher coach will be in the classroom, not only will ELLs receive direct services but the classroom teacher will have ideas on how to build rich oral academic language for the ELLs and others in need of language development upon the departure of the ESL teacher coach. This approach will still meet the requirements set forth by federal and state agencies as well as district policies. ELLs will receive the differentiated instruction they need while teachers will receive the embedded professional development they need to better serve their students in need of language development. When a school has a school improvement goal focused on rich oral academic language for ELLs and others in need of language development, ESL staff can provide valuable input to regular classroom teachers with long term embedded professional development in the form of coaching. Because this approach is a departure from the traditional pull out model and the isolated small group of ELL students, schools and districts need guidance on how to transition from the traditional approach to language instruction to the Teach Coach Approach. The remainder of this paper will describe how schools and districts can readily implement the Teach Coach Approach. Implementing the Teach Coach Approach According to Killion and Harrison (2003), coaches can choose from a range of support options when they function in the role of classroom supporters. They may serve as coaches by modeling/demonstrating, co teaching, and observing and giving feedback on instruction. The authors report that this scope of support is based on the theory of gradual release. In other words, a coach may begin by showing what a particular strategy looks like when implemented in a classroom. This is similar to a focused lesson that a teacher may conduct with a class in the gradual release of responsibility model and is also known as I do. When a coach co teaches, this is akin to the guided instruction a teacher does with the class during gradual release and is recognized as We do. And, finally, if a coach observes and gives feedback on instruction, this is recognized as independent work that a student would do in the classroom and is identified as You do. Over time, the classroom teacher will be expected to incorporate what the ESL teacher has modeled, then move on to co teaching using what was demonstrated, and finally advance to teaching independently while being observed and receiving feedback on the integration of what the ESL teacher has modeled. Another role for the ESL teacher is as a thought partner; someone who thinks aloud with the classroom teacher and helps with decision making. An ESL teacher brings a new perspective to subject matter and can help the classroom teacher think through its language demands. 9

10 To gain a more practical and concrete understanding of how to implement this approach, consider the overlap between content and language. A traditional and readily accepted commonality between content and language is vocabulary. In the Teach Coach Approach, the ESL teacher coach can begin with content vocabulary and offer to help the classroom teacher in four different ways: 1. Vocabulary Selection First, the ESL teacher coach can assist classroom teachers with vocabulary selection. Many classroom teachers will have their tier two words already selected for instruction based on a system developed by Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002). Herrera, Perez, and Escamilla (2010) advocate that tier one, two and three words be considered for ELLs. The ESL teacher coach could function as a thought partner with the classroom teacher to re evaluate the vocabulary list through an ELL lens, keeping or adding words that are cognates, have multiple meanings, or contain essential roots, suffixes, or prefixes. 2. Five Step Direct Instruction Model for Vocabulary The ESL teacher coach can model five step direct instruction (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) for vocabulary using the content vocabulary words that have been selected. Table 1, below, outlines this process. Table 1. Five Step Direction Instruction Model for Vocabulary Step 1 Teacher provides students with a brief description or explanation (not dictionary definition) of the new vocabulary word in student friendly language. Step 2 Teacher gives students a nonlinguistic representation to accompany the word in the form of a picture, graphic organizer, mental image, physical representation or kinesthetic representation. Step 3 Student creates his/her own description or explanation of the new word in his/her own words. Step 4 Student constructs a nonlinguistic representation to accompany the word. Step 5 Teacher allows ample time to review accuracy of descriptions and representations. Step 5 can prove the most fun for the ESL teachercoach to model when it involves vocabulary games. The Internet is a good resource for games that could be incorporated into classroom routines. 3. Vocabulary Notebooks The ESL teacher coach can support the classroom teacher by helping design vocabulary 10

11 notebooks. When applying the five step teaching of vocabulary words, the students definitions and nonlinguistic representations must be captured so they can be reviewed. The ESL teacher coach could recommend different formats to use and, together, the classroom teacher and ESL teacher coach could decide on a template to use for vocabulary notebooks. These graphic organizers are generally separated into four sections on a page. Two possible templates are: Marzano (2013) uses a four part template, consisting of 1. Word 2. Description 3. Related words 4. Picture Urquhart & Frazee (2012) explain how to use a Concept Definition Map, which helps students understand the essential qualities, attributes, and characteristics of a word or concept. A Concept Definition Map would include 1. Word 2. Definition 3. What is it like? 4. What are some examples? Either of these templates could be adapted for ELLs by including pictures for each of the elements along with the words to provide scaffolding. 4. Interactive Word Walls The ESL teacher coach can collaborate with the classroom teacher to build interactive word walls. Harmon, Wood, Hedrick, Vintinner, & Willeford (2009) describe an instructional design for interactive word walls involving student selection of words, colors and symbols to represent content words, and relating words to real situations. Prior to beginning the process, the teacher should assemble a list of possible content words for students to select from, because student choice correlates with motivation to learn the new words (Harmon et al., 2009). Table 2, below, summarizes the interactive word wall process. Table 2. Summary of Interactive Word Wall Process Step 1 Prepare students for selecting content words by asking them to think about four levels of word knowledge according to Baumann: Level 1: I have never seen this word. Level 2: I think I have seen this word, but I don t know what it means. Level 3: I have seen this word, and it has something to do with... 11

12 Level 4: I know this word. I can use it in my speaking, reading, writing, and listening. (Harmon et al, 2009, p. 403) After students review the words using the criteria above, provide parameters for word selection. Some sample guiding questions to help students make word selections include: How useful is the word? Can you use the word in different situations or contexts? Is the word used frequently? Do you think the word can appear in different texts? Is the word s meaning easy to explain in everyday language? Does the word refer to something concrete or abstract? Does the word have multiple meanings? Does the word have a prefix, suffix, or identifiable root? (p. 403) Step 2 Students individually choose three words and discuss them in a small group. Group decides on top five words that the class needs to know and sells the words to others. Class votes on top 10 and teacher adds two more for a total of 12 words. (Note: There is nothing particular about 12 words; it is the amount authors used in research; adapt as you see fit.) Step 3 12 words are divided among small groups of students. Each student group determines a color to represent their word and places colored word on flashcard for word wall. On chart paper, group exhibits colored word and defines their word in three ways using short descriptions, examples, synonyms, and antonyms. Step 4 Students create a nonlinguistic representation on a card and place it to the left of their flashcard on the word wall. They also add a sentence completion to their chart paper. Step 5 Students think of a real life context for using the word. A sentence representing this real life connection to the word is added to the chart paper and a picture is placed on the word wall to the right of the colored flashcard. Step 6 Student groups present their words and charts to the class. (adapted from Harmon et al., 2009) These are the steps used by the authors in a secondary classroom setting. Different grade levels may not want as many steps and should adapt to student needs. 12

13 Conclusion Given the increasing focus on academic language in the CCSS and the need to serve ELLs in a variety of contexts in the NCCC region, it is necessary to rethink the use of ESL resources within schools. In addition to ELLs needing to learn academic language alongside content, there is another population of non ELLs with similar needs. These others in need of language development are similar to intermediate level ELLs because they have sufficient conversational language skills for communicating at home and on the playground but are not proficient in the academic language needed for comprehending and writing well. When schools recognize a larger population of students in need of language development, a goal can be included in the school improvement plan which then operationalizes how teachers can support the academic language of their subject matter. Long term job embedded staff development should accompany the academic language goal in the school plan and can be provided by an ESL teacher using a Teach Coach Approach. The Teach Coach Approach in one way to leverage ESL resources to address the needs of ELLs and build the capacity of all teachers to teach academic language alongside content. A good point of entry is vocabulary instruction since academic language consists of the vocabulary, grammar and discourse of content. Professional development can begin with vocabulary and move into grammar and discourse in subsequent years. 13

14 References Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A Review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K 12 English language learners. Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Croft, A., Coggshall, A.G., Dolan, M., Powers, E., Killion, J. (2010). Job embedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well. Issue Brief, April Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Harmon, J.M., Wood, K.D., Hedrick, W.B., Vintinner, J., & Willeford, T. (2009). Interactive word walls: More than just reading the writing on walls. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), %2520Word%2520Walls.pdf. Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Herrera, S.G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. Hakuta, K. (2011). Webinar. Research to practice: Preparing ELLs for the common core. topics/research to practicepreparing ells for the common core.html. Hill, J. D., & Hoak, H. (2012). English language learner resource guide: Top ten instructional tips for schools with a low incidence of ELLs. Denver, CO: Mid continent Research for Education and Learning. Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2006). Role: Classroom supporter. Teachers Teaching Teachers, May 2006, 1(8), National Staff Development Council. Lee, Quinn, Valdés. (2012) Language demands and opportunities in relation to the next generation science standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Marzano, R. J. (2013). Building basic vocabulary. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 14

15 Maxwell, L. (2012, April 25). Sophisticated language use awaits ELLs in standards. Education Week, 31(29), p National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects. Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects, appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards. Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Pardini, P. (2006). In one voice: Mainstream and ELL teachers work side by side in the classroom, teaching language through content. Journal of Staff Development, Fall 2006, 27(4), National Staff Development Council Understanding Language Initiative. (2012). Available at Urquhart, V., & Frazee, D. (2012). Teaching reading in the content areas: If not me, then who? (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. WIDA Consortium. (2012). Amplification of the ELD standards. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. 15