Ensuring Academic Literacy for ELL Students

ensuring AcAdemic literAcy For ell students

Authors

dellA perez, ph.d., is an Assistant Professor in the Center for Intercultural Multilingual Advocacy (CIMA) of the College of Education at Kansas State University.

melissA holmes, m.s., is Undergraduate Program Coordinator in the Center for Intercultural Multilingual Advocacy (CIMA) of the College of Education at Kansas State University.

ABstrAct

Ensuring that English language learning (ELL) students have equal access to content-area curriculum continues to be a challenge for many secondary educators. Although efforts to develop students’ English skills are well intentioned, they frequently fall short of addressing each of the four interrelated dimensions of the culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) student biography: the sociocultural, linguistic, academic, and cognitive dimensions. Educators’ attention to each of these dimensions enables students to develop the academic literacy needed for success in the secondary content-area classroom.

English language learners (ELLs) represent the fastest growing segment of the public school population (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2007). Yet analysis of the academic performance of ELLs on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicates that only 29 percent of ELLs in eighth grade scored at or above the basic level in reading, compared to 73 percent of non-ELLs (National Education Association [NEA], 2008). Such results on national assessments are especially alarming given that the influence of literacy proficiency on students’ academic achievement grows stronger with each successive grade level, regardless of individual student factors (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Kamil, 2003; NEA, 2008).

Central to addressing this dilemma has been the question of how to ensure that ELL students have equal access to a quality education when they have to not only juggle the cognitive demands of content-area curriculum, but also simultaneously acquire literacy skills, academic vocabulary, and English language structures (Torgesen et al., 2007). Compounding the issue for educators at the secondary level is the lack of professional development or in-service training on second language literacy instruction (NEA, 2008). Secondary teachers also continue to struggle with the challenge of meeting the content curriculum standards of their content areas while concurrently addressing the literacy needs of their ELL students. In this article, we provide secondary educators with concrete strategies to accelerate the academic literacy of ELL students in grade-level classrooms.

Academic literacy, as defined by a panel of researchers working for the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), “includes reading, writing, and oral discourse for school; varies from subject to subject; requires knowledge of multiple genres of text, purposes for text use, and text media; is influenced by students’ literacies in contexts outside of school; and is influenced by students’ personal, social, and cultural experiences” (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007, p. 8). According to the panel (p. 14), the six major challenges to improving the literacy of ELLs are:

  • Inadequate educator capacity for improving literacy in ELLs.
  • Inadequate use of research-based instructional practices.
  • Lack of a strong and coherent research agenda about adolescent ELL literacy.
  • Lack of appropriate and flexible program options.
  • Lack of common criteria for identifying ELLs and tracking their academic performance.
    • Lack of appropriate assessments.

Within this article, we will focus on the second challenge identified by the panel, having already noted the need for increased professional development of secondary educators. Specifically, we will provide research-based strategies that educators can apply immediately in any content-area, grade-level secondary classroom to enhance the academic literacy of ELL students.

When teaching secondary ELL students, educators tend to focus predominantly on their acquisition of English. Such efforts, however, emphasize what student’s lack (i.e., English proficiency) rather than the assets they may bring to the classroom (e.g., diverse cultural and linguistic experiences; prior knowledge of content; first-hand application of skills in daily life).

For this reason, we will hereafter use the term culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) when referring to the ELL student. We use this descriptor as a reminder to consider the whole student and the totality of his or her lived experiences as a foundation for our educational efforts. The linguistic dimension is only one of four dimensions that teachers need to bear in mind when supporting CLD students’ development of academic literacy skills, which are essential for success in the content areas. The CLD student biography (e.g., Herrera & Murry, 2005; Herrera, Perez, & Escamilla, 2010) includes four interrelated dimensions of a student’s life: the sociocultural, linguistic, academic, and cognitive dimensions.

the socioculturAl dimension— getting to the heArt oF AcAdemic literAcy

The sociocultural dimension relates to those things in a CLD student’s life that he or she often holds most dear and that define who he or she is as an individual. This dimension goes beyond topics the student may record on a biographical survey. Rather, it reaches to the heart of the student—toward the influences and experiences that motivate, influence, and/or hinder his or her literacy development. For example, who and what does the CLD student love? What makes him laugh? What is her life like both in and outside the school setting? Knowing this aspect of the CLD student biography can support secondary educators in making meaningful links to the student’s life, which promote the development of academic literacy.

Academic literacy considerations related to the sociocultural dimension include:

  • How has the student been socialized to literacy based on culture/family background?
  • What type of resources and literary experiences has the student had within the home?
  • How is language perceived/defined, and how does this fit the teacher/school’s definition? (Herrera et al., 2010, p. 21)

Responses to these types of questions provide teachers with avenues for determining the types of literacy skills and experiences that they can use to bridge from the student’s existing knowledge to content-area concepts and vocabulary. In addition, when students know that educators are willing to take the time to learn about this personal dimension of their lives, many positive outcomes such as increased motivation, self-esteem, and class attendance can occur. As one secondary educator noted:

Using the students’ sociocultural background as an aide in class, has helped my CLD students to feel appreciated and to share their background and customs with the class. Reaching out for assistance from the families of students to share stories with us in the class, bringing authentic tales for the student enrichment, has also increased their knowledge and awakened their desire for learning about their own culture, and others. Bringing legends from the Spanish [Hispanic] cultures and then discussing them in relationship to our curriculum-based readings has also helped the students make meaningful links to new content vocabulary and concepts.

To learn more about the sociocultural dimension of students, teachers can utilize the following strategies:

  • Conduct home visits to obtain a snapshot understanding of a student’s home life and gather information about the student, including his or her strengths and difficulties, from parents and/or family members.
  • Use informal interviews/conversations and surveys that tap into CLD students’ interests and funds of knowledge (Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).
    • Use carefully crafted journal and essay prompts to gain sociocultural insights about students’ lives (e.g., If you were (specific character in a novel), what values would factor into your decision and how would they influence your subsequent action(s)?).

the linguistic dimension—Beyond the lAnguAge oF the clAssroom The linguistic dimension involves comprehension, communication, and expression in both the native language and English. Teachers often find it helpful to remember that knowledge obtained via one language is added to a common, underlying proficiency, or knowledge base, that can be accessed via either language (Cummins, 1981). For example, a student who learned how to multiply fractions via Spanish-language instruction may not have the necessary language skills to explain the process in English. However, the student can readily draw on his or her conceptual understanding of the process. Therefore, the concept of multiplying fractions does not need to be re-taught via English-language instruction.

Secondary CLD students vary widely in their English proficiency level. For this reason, educators must consider each learner’s current level of English language proficiency. Krashen and Terrell (1983) identified the following five stages of second language acquisition: preproduction, early production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency. The particular stage a student is in greatly affects his or her academic literacy in English. A multitude of factors such as immigration history, language of instruction in the country of origin, and U.S. program models used to provide ESL support can influence a given student’s stage of second language acquisition.

Academic literacy considerations based on the linguistic dimension of the CLD student biography include:

  • How is the native language used as a resource to support the CLD student’s literacy development in English?
  • What stage of language acquisition is the CLD student in, and how is [academic] literacy instruction accommodated to meet the CLD student’s language level? (Herrera et al., 2010, p. 21)

Given the complexity of language tasks at the secondary level, attending to these questions can enable educators to use CLD students’ existing knowledge and conceptual development from their native language to support the acquisition of academic literacy skills in English.

Of particular concern for secondary CLD students is the need to develop the cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) required comprehending the abstract and field-specific language used to describe content-area concepts. Cummins (1981) contrasts this type of language proficiency with the more conversational language skills associated with basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). Fortunately, many field-specific terms, such as microscope, have cognates in other languages (e.g., el microscopio [Spanish], le microscope [French], das Mikroskop [German]). Understanding the power of cognates, one secondary geometry teacher shared how she supports CLD students’ comprehension of math vocabulary:

Mathematics is rich in the number of similar words. One way I have helped my CLD students with the transfer of knowledge is through the use of cognates. Many academic terms classified as tier 3 words are cognates. I am really excited see how students are reacting to the use of cognates.

CLD students also benefit when teachers provide explicit instruction on common terms that have unique meanings in a given field (e.g., foot, referring to the metrical pattern in a line of poetry).

Effective instruction of academic vocabulary within the content areas for CLD students is explicit, ongoing, contextually bound, and student centered. Specific strategies related to the linguistic dimension of the CLD student biography that teachers can use to support student development include:

  • Strategically design grouping configurations. For instance, pairing a CLD student with a more proficient English speaker often supports the CLD student in more fully participating in the curriculum.
  • Scaffold content-based academic vocabulary by pairing students who share a common native language so that academic terms can be translated when needed to support understanding.
    • Preview academic content in the native language with the support of a bilingual paraprofessional and/or translated materials.

the AcAdemic dimension—comprehending content-BAsed curriculum The academic dimension of the CLD student biography relates to students’ access, engagement, and hope. This dimension prompts educators to consider the kind of access a student has had to education, and to gradelevel curricula in particular. Some students have experienced interrupted schooling. Others have had very limited formal education. Still others have struggled to remain motivated while receiving instruction that requires little critical thought. Yet simply immersing a student in grade-level, content-area instruction does not guarantee that he or she will be able to engage in the curriculum. And this engagement is critical, as evidenced in the voice of the following secondary teacher:

The best teachers I had evoked emotion. Every major event of my school that I remember is associated with an emotion. It seems that I don’t learn anything without emotion. I need to remember this so that I can meet my students and their needs to evoke emotion when reading.

Student engagement in the classroom also depends on the connections they are encouraged to make to prior knowledge and experiences, and on the level of safety they feel in expressing ideas, questions, and opinions in the classroom. Secondary students bring a great breadth of prior knowledge and academic experiences to the classroom. This is especially true for CLD students, who may bring valuable academic experiences from their prior education in the United States as well as insights from academic instruction in other countries. By first pre-assessing CLD students’ academic knowledge, teachers can increase student engagement and motivation by starting from the known and moving to the unknown.

Students’ participation in the classroom also is enhanced when the classroom environment demands respect between and among teacher(s) and students. When students feel comfortable sharing personal connections to the content and asking questions, the curriculum becomes more relevant and meaningful. To better ensure that CLD students are able to participate in class discussions, teachers can provide sufficient wait time after their prompts/questions before any student response is elicited (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000). Furthermore, they can lower the anxiety level of CLD students by allowing students to work in small groups before asking them to risk volunteering insights in front of the whole class.

Critical considerations based on the academic dimension of the CLD student biography include:

  • What [academic] literacy skills does the student bring to the classroom based on his or her prior academic experiences?
  • In what ways is the CLD student immersed in academically challenging tasks to promote grade-level literacy acquisition? (Herrera et al., 2010, p. 21)

Content-area instruction that promotes access and engagement helps CLD students achieve the same high academic standards as their monolingual English-speaking peers.

The academic dimension also relates to the hope that students have for their educational success and future. The assessments teachers use to evaluate what students have learned are frequently summative assessments. For many CLD students, such tests can be formidable challenges to their maintaining a sense of hope in an academic context. Formative assessments, therefore, help to provide the balance of valuing process as well as product. In addition, when schools and educators make transparent their appreciation and respect for the differences CLD students bring to the learning community, they send the message that there is much to be gained from each student’s contributions to the classroom, school, and society in general.

Additional strategies related to the academic dimension that teachers can use to support student development include:

  • Employ both content and language objectives in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of teaching and learning. Content objectives focus on core content-area concepts, whereas language objectives emphasize skills relevant to each domain of literacy: listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Echevarria et al., 2000; Kim, 2007).
  • Provide comprehensible input using gestures, visuals, demonstrations, and appropriate speech (e.g., clearly enunciated speech that minimizes the use of idiomatic expressions and complex sentence structures) (Echevarria et al., 2000).
  • Provide repeated and meaningful practice with key content-area vocabulary.

the cognitive dimension— guiding students’ construction oF knowledge

The cognitive dimension involves the ways students know, think, and apply. CLD students often have ways of knowing and thinking about a concept that differ from those of students and teachers who belong to the dominant culture or language group. Moreover, each student has preferred modes of demonstrating what he or she knows. Therefore, flexibility is a great asset to educators. The primary goal of content-area instruction is that students are able to take away from the lesson/unit/course essential content knowledge and skills. The particular methods students use to comprehend, organize, or demonstrate this knowledge should be of less concern. The educator’s challenge is to facilitate a student’s construction of the targeted knowledge and guide his or her development of the related skills.

To assist students as they work to comprehend and apply content-area material, teachers can provide opportunities for students to learn about and use cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective strategies. Cognitive strategies help learners manipulate information, metacognitive strategies help students monitor their own learning, and social/affective strategies help students affectively influence their learning processes, often through peer interaction (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). When combined with use of the native language and connections to background knowledge, strategies such as these can support CLD students in reaching their full potential in the content-area classroom.

Critical academic literacy considerations related to the cognitive dimension of the CLD student biography include:

  • How is instruction designed to build on existing cognitive and language assets to promote [academic] literacy development?
  • What learning strategies are explicitly taught to promote the cognitive academic language skills CLD students need to understand gradelevel text and academic concepts? (Herrera et al., 2010, p. 21)

The cognitive dimension of the CLD student biography often is the most overlooked of all the dimensions. Yet when linked to academic literacy, this is one of the most critical dimensions, as it equips CLD students with the skills they need to understand the often complex and decontextualized academic content they encounter at the secondary level. Reflecting on the importance of the cognitive dimension, one secondary educator shared the following:

Providing connections for students between the material and their own culture has helped me enhance reading and reading comprehension in my math classes. I build background knowledge within our curriculum by making connections with such strategies as KWL charts, circle maps, and concept sorts. Allowing students to sort words or concepts based on how they think they are connected prior to introducing the material to them helps me know what they already understand about the vocabulary and content. I can then extend on this knowledge within the topics we have in class.

Teachers can help CLD students understand and effectively use cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective learning strategies. We recommend the following classroom practices:

cogniTive STrATegieS:

  • Build on CLD students’ prior knowledge to help them make meaningful links to new content.
    • Teach CLD students how to summarize key learning, take notes, and make inferences based on existing knowledge (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).

meTAcogniTive STrATegieS:

  • Explicitly teach CLD students how to monitor their own learning by using graphic organizers, anticipation guides, chapter outlines, and so forth.
    • Teach students how to self-assess their own understanding by explicitly modeling your thinking processes aloud.

SociAl/AffecTive STrATegieS:

  • Allow CLD students to work in cooperative groups with more advanced peers to support comprehension and elaboration of key learning.
  • Model questioning strategies that students can use to clarify their understanding when engaged in academic tasks (Chamot & O’Malley).

conclusion

Academic literacy instruction is not constrained to a single content area at the secondary level. For this reason, it is crucial for all teachers to embed academic literacy development in their instruction of content-area material. When working with CLD students, such instruction is most effective when it reflects the sociocultural, linguistic, academic, and cognitive dimensions of students’ lives. Attention to all four dimensions is critical, given the variety of cultural backgrounds, language proficiencies, academic experiences, and cognitive processes that CLD students bring to the classroom. By understanding the multiple dimensions of the CLD student biography, educators can differentiate academic literacy instruction in ways that build on students’ assets to promote literacy skills that can be applied across content areas. As one secondary teacher stated of her own practice:

I utilize the Student Biography to learn about my students so that I can meet their cultural, linguistic and emotional needs effectively. Assumptions about any of these areas could be detrimental to their success in the classroom. It is easy to “label” people either culturally, religiously or in matters of language ability prior to truly getting to know them. But if we invest in getting to know them better through the Student Biography, and individual student interviews, we can use what we learn to promote their literacy development.

Although incorporating academic literacy instruction that addresses all four dimensions of the CLD student biography may seem an overwhelming venture, the following tips can assist secondary teachers in beginning this process:

  • Sociocultural Dimension: Start with one class or a small group of CLD students when approaching this dimension.
  • Linguistic Dimension: Begin by determining your CLD students’ levels of language proficiency, both in English and in their native language.
  • Academic Dimension: Engage in preassessments at the onset of the lesson that allow CLD students to share what they already know about the topic, and then use this information throughout the lesson to promote students’ comprehension.
  • Cognitive Dimension: Provide explicit instruction on reading comprehension strategies. Even if a CLD student knows how to apply such strategies in his or her native language, we should not assume that the strategies will transfer to English (August, 2002; Riches & Genesee, 2006).

By valuing and using what each student brings to the learning process through each of the dimensions above, teachers can enrich their instruction and better ensure that CLD students gain the academic literacy skills they need to succeed in secondary classrooms. Given the increasing diversity of our student population and the academic crisis our CLD students are experiencing at the secondary level, now more than ever is the time to act!

reFerences

August, D. (2002). Transitional programs for English language learners: Contextual factors and effective programming (Report No. 58). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, CSULA.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Herrera, S., & Murry, K. (2005). Mastering ESL and bilingual methods: Differentiatedinstruction for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2010). Teaching reading to ELL students: Differentiated literacies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kamil, M. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Kim, S. (2007). Exploring the self-reported knowledge and value of implementation of content and language objectives of high school content-area teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan. Available at http://hdl. handle.net/2097/357

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Moll, L. C., Armanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2007). The growing number of limited English proficient students, 1995/96-2005/06. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/4/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf

National Education Association (NEA). (2008). English language learners face unique challenges. NEA Policy Brief. Retrieved from www.nea.org/assets/docs/mf_PB05_ ELL.pdf

Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Literacy: Crosslinguistic & crossmodal issues. In F.

Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English

language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64-108). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org/files/doublework.pdf

Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. et al. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.