Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Culture and Writing for ELLs in the CCSS

May 21, 2013 by Diane Staehr Fenner

Michelle_girl (2)I’m finding that as I write my posts, my original ideas morph into unexpected topics. While preparing last week’s post on ELL writing considerations in the Common Core, I was struck by the fact that the intersection of culture and writing is not explicitly addressed in the CCSS, even though the authors consider the ability to understand other cultures an important part of “college- and career-readiness.”

So, this week I’ll share some ways in which students’ culture might impact writing within the CCSS framework. Since writing is such a meaty topic, I’ll follow up next week with some concrete examples of CCSS-based writing instruction for ELLs. (As you may remember, the TESOL convening on the role of the ESL teacher in the CCSS called for more practical examples of what CCSS-based instruction for ELLs can look like, so I’ll continue to give you as much practical information as I can offer through this blog.)

Influence of Culture on ELLs’ Writing

As teachers of ELLs are usually aware, ELLs’ cultures tend to impact all facets of their academic experience. Often, ELLs must straddle two cultures – that of the home and the school – that can be in conflict with each other. For me, that ability to navigate the expectations of two cultures is one of ELLs’ amazing strengths. Even ELLs born in the United States (the majority of ELLs) are influenced by their home culture and carry this “cultural suitcase” with them to school.

Michelle_kids2Unbeknownst to many teachers, however, ELLs’ cultures also influence their writing as well, just as students’ first language may influence their acquisition of English. This study of how the first language may influence the second is a field of study known as contrastive linguistics. The influence of first language on ELLs’ writing is often easy to spot, manifesting itself in word choice, grammatical structure, and organizational patterns. The influence of culture is not as obvious, and with the new writing demands of the CCSS, it’s important that all educators of ELLs be aware of the ways in which students’ cultures may impact their writing and permeate different aspects of this productive skill.

Writing Across Cultures

First, let me provide some quick background on the study of writing and culture, known in academic circles as contrastive rhetoric. This field was born in the 1960s with a study by Robert Kaplan about cultural thought patterns and seeks to explore and understand similarities and differences in writing across cultures. Researchers in contrastive rhetoric have explained differences in written communication as often stemming from multiple sources including first language, culture, first language educational background, characteristics of the writing genre, and mismatched expectations between readers and writers.

In order for all teachers of ELLs to be aware of the influence of language and culture on writing, they need to understand salient features of their students’ home languages and cultures in order to recognize how these features may influence writing. They also need to find ways to teach writing that honor ELLs’ culture and language while supporting them to achieve the demands of the CCSS writing standards in English. That’s not an easy charge by any means!

Cultural Influence on Written Argumentation Style

common-core-80To understand how culture might impact Common Core writing instruction, let’s take a look at the English Language Arts/Literary standards. The three main writing text types found in the Common Core anchor standards are narrative, informational/explanatory, and argumentative.

The Common Core’s Appendix A  provides teachers some insight as to which of the three writing text types is posed to present the most significant change for instruction. It provides the most detail about argumentative texts, and it states that the standards “put particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical to college and career readiness.” One facet of argumentative writing is that it is a “reasoned, logical way of demonstrating the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid.”

Culture and Arabic Speakers’ Writing

In reflecting on this last statement, I couldn’t get past how my definition of “logical” writing as an ESL teacher used to working with ELLs who represent multiple languages and cultures may vastly differ from that of a teacher who is not accustomed to teaching ELLs. So, I did some digging on the influence of culture on writing and found some interesting research and examples of the differences between how native speakers of Arabic and U.S. English differ in how they present written arguments from a cultural, rather than linguistic, point of view.  Learning more about this population of ELLs is timely, as Arabic ranks as the seventh most popular language spoken by ELLs in the United States. 94% of Arab Americans live in five metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, Detroit, New York/New Jersey, Chicago, and Washington D.C.

Michelle_boys2Some research indicates that Arabic speakers tend to argue by presentation. That means that they may present arguments, paraphrase them, and repeat them. Typical Arabic argumentation patterns may be heavy on “through-argumentation,” which means they provide a thesis that is supported, substantiated, and concluded.

On the other hand, Western argumentation is characterized by counterarguments, which means including a thesis that is opposed, a counterclaim that is substantiated, and then concluded. (The CCSS writing standards also require students to develop counterclaims.) Further, more research suggests that Arabic argumentative texts do not tend to present different perspectives. Also, when writing in Arabic, students are not expected to challenge what is socially validated. In addition, two rhetorical patterns of the Arab communicative style are exaggeration and assertion – elements definitely not included in the CCSS writing standards.

What is considered an effective argument in a culture is shaped by the rhetoric of that culture. I wonder how much teachers of Arabic-speaking ELLs know about these cultural differences. Widening the scope a bit, I also question how much teachers of ELLs who represent different cultures are aware of the relationship between culture and writing for all ELLs. I don’t think this topic is something we’ve talked enough about in the field.

Considerations for Teachers of ELLs

As ELL professionals, it’s important that we ask how ELLs’ cultures will impact the way in which they perform CCSS-related writing tasks, especially how they create argumentative texts. (We also can’t forget how they will create narrative and informational/explanatory texts, and I’ll focus more on those genres in my next post.) We need to study this area more closely and give some serious thought to how we teach writing to ELLs under the CCSS.

How well do teachers of ELLs really know the linguistic and cultural impact on their students’ approach to education in general and writing in particular? What do you think?

Related Resources

For related information, see Patterns of Narrative Discourse:  A Multicultural, Life Span Approach by Allyssa McCabe and Lynn S. Bliss, a useful guide that explores how culture impacts personal narratives with concrete examples from children and adults of all ages.

Note: The photos in this blog post were taken in Michelle Lawrence Biggar’s classroom in Buffalo, New York. Michelle was featured in our Watch and Learn video series.

Posted in Resources from Colorin Colorado, Writing and ELLs | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Writing with the Common Core: Considerations for ELLs

May 17, 2013 by Diane Staehr Fenner

146967884In my experience, teachers of English language learners (ELLs) often observe that writing is the last domain in which their students develop English language proficiency. Teachers note that the pace at which ELLs develop writing proficiency has an impact on how soon students are able to exit language development programs in their schools.

Teaching ELLs to write successfully in English is indeed a challenge which is about to become even more complex with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In the next few posts, I’ll turn my attention to the new writing demands presented in the CCSS and look at how the standards will impact writing for ELLs. I’ll  start this week by giving you an overview of how the writing standards are organized in the CCSS for English Language Arts/Literacy as well as some initial “ELL questions” I had when taking a deeper look at the standards.

In coming weeks, I’ll take a closer look at what writing, as defined by the CCSS, might mean for English language learners and their teachers. My future posts will be about the influence of culture on writing and instructional approaches in the classroom.

CCSS ELA/Literacy Writing Standards Organization

The 10 anchor standards for writing in the CCSS for English Language Arts/Literacy are grouped into four sections. For each section, I’ll give a brief explanation of the standards and indicate how many writing anchor standards are contained in each section.  Additional descriptions and details are available in the standards document.

  1. Text Types and Purposes: There are three modes of writing: argumentative, informative/explanatory, and narrative. Depending on the mode, students analyze topics or texts, convey complex ideas, and/or develop real or imagined experiences or events. (3 standards)
  2. Production and Distribution of Writing: Students produce and distribute writing in a variety of ways. They produce clear and coherent writing; plan, revise, edit, and rewrite; and use technology to publish their work and to collaborate. (3 standards)
  3. Research to Build and Present Knowledge: Students focus on conducting and writing about research. They conduct a range of research projects, use relevant information culled from a variety of sources, and use evidence gathered from literary and informational texts to support their research. (3 standards)
  4. Range of Writing: Students must write routinely for a range of audiences and purposes. Their writing experience should include a variety of assignment lengths and project types. (1 standard)

Note: Some of the anchor standards for writing appear only in higher grade levels. For example, the Range of Writing standards first show themselves in grade 3.

Anchor Standards: Text Types and Purposes

Appendix A in the CCSS defines the standards’ three text types used for writing – narrative, informational/explanatory, and argument. As students progress in writing, their writing can blend the three types described. I’ve condensed these descriptions for you here.

Type of Text Students Produce Features
Narrative
  • Conveys experience, either real or imaginary, uses time as its deep structure.
  • Can inform instruct, persuade, or entertain.
  • Can take the form of creative fictional stories, memoirs, anecdotes, autobiographies, etc.
  • Over time, writers provide visual details of scenes, objects, or people; depict specific actions; use dialogue and interior monologue that provide insight into narrator’s and characters’ personalities and motives; manipulate pace to highlight significance of events and create tension and suspense
Informational/Explanatory
  • Conveys information accurately to increase reader’s knowledge of a subject
  • Students draw from what they know and from primary and secondary sources
  • Addresses matters such as types, components, size, function, behavior, how things work, why things happen
  • Must use techniques to convey information, e.g., naming, defining, describing, differentiating, comparing, contrasting, and citing.
  • Genres include literary analyses, scientific and historical reports, summaries, workplace and functional writing (e.g., instructions, manuals, memos, reports, and resumes)
Argument
  • Purpose is to change the reader’s point of view, bring about some action on the reader’s part, or to ask the reader to accept the writer’s explanation or evaluation of a concept, issue, or problem.
  • A reasoned, logical way of demonstrating the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid.
  • In ELA – writers make claims, defend interpretations or judgments with evidence from text(s) they are writing about
  • In history/social studies – writers analyze evidence from multiple primary and secondary sources to advance a claim supported by evidence
  • In science – writers make claims through statements or conclusions that answer questions or address problems
  • Young children provide examples, offer reasons for assertions, explain cause and effect.

What Writing Means for ELLs

The level and complexity of student writing for all students, including ELLs, has increased with the CCSS. Students will be called on to write rich narratives and explanatory texts that convey complex ideas and synthesize information obtained through multiple print and digital sources to support their writing. They must create arguments supported by text-based evidence. To be successful with writing, students must be critical consumers of information they obtain from various sources and use technology to publish their written work.

As I read through the writing standards with “ELL eyes,” these were my questions:

  • How will ELLs’ culture as well as language impact the way in which they write as defined by the CCSS?
  • How will ELLs’ writing be assessed on the PARCC and SBAC assessments as compared to native English speakers?
  • How will teachers draw from ELLs’ oral language when teaching them writing under the CCSS?
  • How can ELLs use text-based evidence in their writing if they have difficulty reading grade level informational texts?
  • How will younger ELLs’ developmental needs in their first and second language impact their writing?
  • How can teachers differentiate CCSS writing instruction for ELLs based on home language and level of English language proficiency?

I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I hope you’ll join me in my exploration of them over the next few weeks. What questions or comments do you have on writing for ELLs? Please share!

Posted in Resources from Colorin Colorado, Writing and ELLs | Tagged , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TESOL Report: The Changing Role of the ESL Teacher

May 7, 2013 by Diane Staehr Fenner

ConveningA little while back, Lydia wrote about TESOL International Association’s Convening on the role of the ESL teacher during the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The report’s findings were released this week (you might even recognize the report’s author). I’d like to share some highlights of the findings and my takeaways with you.

As you may recall, TESOL held the convening in February 2013 and brought together ESL teachers, administrators, researchers, thought leaders, and policymakers to discuss three topics framed in the form of guiding questions:

  • What are ESL teachers’ current roles in implementing the CCSS for ELs?
  • What should ESL teachers’ most effective roles be so that ELs achieve with the CCSS?
  • What are the most promising strategies to support ESL teachers as they teach the CCSS?

ESL Expertise and Training

Overall, convening participants described a sense that ESL teachers’ expertise is often not fully understood or recognized, at times leading to a perceived lower status of the ESL teacher when compared to content area or general education teachers.  Participants described the many different program models in which ESL teachers currently work, including pull out, push-in, co-teaching, and itinerant. Each of these program models for ELLs requires different skill sets, and administrators might not always be aware of the ways in which ESL teachers provide instruction.

In addition, participants noted a wide variance in terms of the degree to which ESL teachers and content teachers are prepared to teach ELLs at the pre-service level, with some states requiring intensive coursework on how to instruct ELLs and others requiring a minimal or nonexistent level. Coupled with this continuum of training for teachers of ELLs, the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) definitions from the No Child Left Behind Act may also affect the status of ESL teachers. Since ESL is not recognized as a core academic content area under NCLB, it is not included among the HQT definitions. As a result, the HQT requirements for the TESOL field have been left up to the states to interpret, resulting in a broad spectrum of definitions. Due to this variation of definitions, coupled with the lack of a definition in some states, the status of the ESL teacher may be diminished.

ESL Teachers and CCSS Implementation:  Strengths and Challenges

Participants also discussed the degree to which ESL teachers and administrators saw themselves as being involved in implementing the CCSS for ELLs in their contexts. Their experiences varied widely, with individual teachers explaining they were not always invited to take part in CCSS policy decisions or were questioned when attending CCSS training events at their school.

Woodson

Dr. Karen Woodson

On the other hand, Dr. Karen C. Woodson, Director of the Division of ESOL/Bilingual Programs in Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools, shared the ways in which she explicitly included ESL teachers in CCSS planning to leverage these teachers’ expertise and asked the group to think about ways to help administrators understand the skills that ESL teachers bring to the table.

While several challenges in terms of the current role of the ESL teacher in implementing the CCSS were discussed, many strengths also emerged. One topic brought up several times was the importance the CCSS places on academic language for all students, including ELLs. To that end, convening participants described how ESL teachers bring a deep, often untapped level of expertise in teaching academic language that could be leveraged across their schools and districts. Participants also described how ESL teachers tend to be highly adept at advocating for their ELLs in multiple ways, even if they do not see themselves as advocates. Participants noted that if school administrators recognize ESL teachers as experts and set an expectation that ELLs are “everybody’s kids,” they have the opportunity to create a school culture in which the entire staff shares responsibility for ELLs’ success with the CCSS.

A Vision for ESL Teachers’ Most Effective Roles to Foster ELLs’ Achievement with the CCSS

When it comes to channeling all ESL teachers’ skills within the CCSS context, participants fleshed out several areas in which ESL teachers’ roles could shift along with the major shifts in the CCSS.

First and foremost, participants overwhelmingly described a need to redefine ESL teachers’ role during this changing educational landscape so that ELLs can best work with the demands of the new standards and also in order for ELLs’ content teachers to utilize effective strategies to support ELLs. In short, the time has come for ESL teachers to be recognized as “experts, consultants, and trainers well versed in teaching rigorous academic content” to ELLs. For example, the convening’s findings report offered that ESL teachers can consult with content teachers by helping them analyze the academic language demands of their content areas and offering them support designing lessons that teach academic language and rigorous content simultaneously.

Going beyond their expertise in lesson planning for ELLs, ESL teachers are often the teachers who are best positioned to help colleagues daw upon ELLs’ first languages and cultures in CCSS-based instruction. In order for this more collaborative, consultative model to succeed, participants felt that ESL teachers would need to not only demonstrate empathy with content teachers’ complex situations but also attend more content-area meetings and engage more with content teachers at the school, district, and state level.

In that spirit, participants underscored the importance of administrators advocating for ESL teachers by making targeted changes at the school level that will elevate ESL teachers’ status. Such changes include making teacher evaluation systems more inclusive of ELLs and ESL teachers and visibly embracing the school’s linguistic and cultural diversity. Perhaps most importantly, convening participants stressed that administrators must fully support ESL teachers in their new, necessary role as experts and consultants as the CCSS are implemented.

Promising Strategies to Support ESL Teachers as They Work with the CCSS

Finally, the report details ways in which participants felt ESL teachers will need to be supported in order to move into their roles as advocates, experts, and consultants.

200314321-001Attendees first expressed an urgency for ESL educators to participate fully in policy discussions at the school, district, and state levels when it comes to teaching the CCSS to ELLs. However, instead of waiting to be invited, the group discussed ways in which ESL teachers can practice developing (and believing in) their own leadership voices to ensure that they are heard and consulted on decisions that affect them and their students. ESL teachers may require leadership training so that they can be better prepared to advocate for their place at the table and their students in policy decisions.

To mitigate the effects of the lack of teacher expertise related to teaching ELLs the CCSS, participants felt that all teacher education programs for content and ESL teachers need to evolve to prepare all teachers to work with the complexities of the CCSS with a heterogeneous population of ELLs. Hand in hand with pre-service training, participants shared a vision for professional development (PD) in which in-service teachers receive PD that is “functional, practical, quick to use,” suggesting that PD be ongoing as well as job-embedded. Some topics suggested for PD included collaboration to support ELLs in the CCSS, effective instruction, and teacher evaluation.

Lastly, participants outlined a framework for CCSS instruction of ELLs, citing ESL teachers’ dire need for new instructional strategies adapted to the rigor of the CCSS. They called for revamped ESL curricula based on the language needs of the CCSS and English language development standards. Unique populations of ELLs must also be included in this new framework, including young dual language learners at the preschool level, ELLs at the beginning level of English language proficiency, and long-term ELLs. As part of this framework, participants wanted to have “numerous, authentic model lessons grounded in the CCSS” to use with ELLs at different levels of English language proficiency. Finally, participants shared teachers’ and administrators’ need to have a better idea of what successful teaching of the CCSS to ELLs actually looks like in practice.

Final Takeaways

As I was writing this blog post, it struck me that I was able to link back to so many past blog posts I’ve written on implementing the CCSS for ELLs. To me, that means the topics I’m blogging about on Colorín Colorado are relevant and are resonating with stakeholders in multiple roles when it comes to thoughtfully including ELLs and their teachers in the implementation of the CCSS. That’s a good feeling. It also strikes me that TESOL called upon ESL teachers and administrators to vocalize their distinct needs implementing the CCSS for ELLs “on the ground.” Just like the convening’s participants, I’d also like to see more practical information and instructional materials emerge for all teachers of ELLs to use in their classrooms. I look forward to sharing any of these developments as they present themselves.

To end with, I’d love to hear from you, as always. How would you describe your role in implementing the CCSS for ELLs? To what degree is your expertise with ELLs recognized and leveraged? What best practices are you seeing that can be scaled up in other contexts?

Posted in Academic Language, Professional Development, Role of ESL Teachers in Common Core, Teacher Training | Tagged | 4 Comments »

AFT President Calls for Halt on High Stakes Linked to Common Core

April 30, 2013 by Diane Staehr Fenner

weingarten_108In a speech given to the Association for a Better New York today, American Federation of Teachers’ President Randi Weingarten called for a moratorium on all “stakes” associated with the CCSS assessments. She predicts the CCSS will result in one of two outcomes: “Either they will lead to a revolution in teaching and learning. Or they will end up in the overflowing dustbin of abandoned reforms, with people throwing up their hands and decrying that public schools just don’t work. And the coming months will determine which outcome comes to pass.”

While speaking of the standards that she feels hold high promise to revolutionize teaching and learning, Weingarten said that “officials seek to make them count before they make them work.” She described what the moratorium is and also what it isn’t, noting that while students should still be assessed and teachers should still be evaluated, a moratorium on consequences should be put in place during these transitional years. In the meantime, states and districts must put an implementation plan in place that includes curriculum, professional development, and field testing.

Weingarten used examples from New York State to highlight the impact of high stakes CCSS consequences on multiple groups. Throughout the state, students in grades 3-8 recently took math and English tests on CCSS-based material they may never have even seen. In a year, the New York Regents Exams will be aligned to the Common Core while there is still very little CCSS-based instructional material available at the high school level.  Across New York, scores from this spring’s assessments may be used for such considerations as determining whether students advance to the next grade or repeat their grade, to designate a school’s performance, and also to determine whether schools stay open or must close. These test results will also be used as 20 percent of teacher evaluations. At the same time, CCSS-based curricula created for New York by four vendors has become a topic of conversation in the state.

What Weingarten’s Speech Means for ELLs

As I have written in many blog posts, ELLs and ESL teachers have often been an afterthought in the implementation of the CCSS. This sentiment can be seen beginning with the 2.5 page Application of CCSS for ELLs document that describes limited considerations for teaching the CCSS to ELLs. While it seems the tide is changing and teachers of ELLs are speaking up more and more, we know that content teachers don’t usually feel prepared to teach the CCSS to ELLs. I agree with Weingarten that we should pause, catch our breaths, and hold off on using test scores for potentially detrimental purposes as we think through the implementation of the CCSS. I would add that educators and policymakers should pay special attention to how they are implementing the CCSS for ELLs and other special populations so that all teachers are prepared to work with these students.

What are your thoughts on Weingarten’s speech? Do you agree we should have a moratorium on the CCSS assessment stakes?

Posted in Advocacy, Implementing the CCSS, Professional Development, Research and Policy, Teacher Training | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

Advocating for ELLs in Implementing the CCSS

April 26, 2013 by Diane Staehr Fenner

Californians TogetherWhile facilitating an ELL Advocacy Summit hosted by the National Education Association (NEA) in Austin, Texas over the past weekend, a participant from California handed me a resource I had not seen before, “Raise Your Voice on Behalf of English Learners: The English Learners and Common Core Advocacy Toolkit.” This toolkit was produced by Californians Together, a coalition of parents, educators, and civil rights groups from across the state of California that works to improve quality education for children from under-served communities.

While some of the information provided in the toolkit is specific to California, it certainly helps inform CCSS conversations that are taking place across the nation. In this post, I’ll first share some highlights of the toolkit, and then I’ll leave you with my takeaways. The full toolkit is not available online but related resources are posted on the Californians Together website, and you can order a hard copy of the toolkit for a minimal fee.

In addition, I’d like to mention that one reason this toolkit caught my attention is that I am passionate about advocating for ELLs and have just written a book on this topic, which will be published this fall by Corwin Press — stay tuned!

Contents of the ELs and CCSS Advocacy Toolkit

Californians Together was founded in 1998 after the passage of Proposition 227, which effectively eliminated most bilingual classes in the state. Californians Together has partnered with many other organizations with a vision to “foster full participation in a democratic society through quality education for children and parents from underserved communities.”

One of their key activities has been the development of California’s Seal of Biliteracy, an award that validates, certifies and encourages students to pursue and attain high level mastery of two or more languages through a Seal granted upon high school graduation to all students with such skills. You can learn more about the development of this program from Dr. Laurie Olsen, Executive Director of Californians Together.

ReportRecently, Californians Together has also been focused on the Common Core, producing the CCSS advocacy toolkit in collaboration with the California Association for Bilingual Education and National Council of La Raza. The toolkit is designed to provide talking points to support stakeholders in a variety of roles as they advocate on behalf of English language learners at the local, district, and state levels when it comes to implementing the CCSS. Information about the toolkit was posted to the Californians Together website in February 2013.

The Toolkit contains five components:

  • A background paper that presents the opportunities and challenges that the CCSS present for curriculum, instruction, and assessment of ELLs
  • Talking points for policy makers at the school and district level to use so that they can articulate the needs of ELLs in dialogues around the CCSS
  • A “palm card” that highlights key issues that stakeholders can raise to support the needs of ELLs in any CCSS conversation
  • A Power point presentation to address the needs of ELLs while implementing the Common Core Standards
  • A CD containing the PDFs of all the documents in the kit plus two resource articles

Toolkit Takeaways

This toolkit begins on a positive note and states that the CCSS support research-based strategies that are essential for ELLs and pose the opportunity to implement “powerful approaches” that have proved difficult in the past. The CCSS call for the increased role  of collaboration and teamwork. The role of language throughout the CCSS sets the stage for more project- and inquiry-based learning for students as well as the integration of the 4Cs called for as part of 21st century skills – communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity.

However, the toolkit acknowledges several issues about ELLs that are not addressed in the CCSS. One of these is that the CCSS assume all students have a basic level of English proficiency. In addition, the standards don’t address the study of English as a Second (or Additional) Language or how ELLs will acquire the foundational English they need to access the CCSS. While the CCSS are defined in terms of developing college and career readiness, they do not address essential elements that ELLs as well as other cultural and linguistic minority students will need to develop in the 21st century, including developing a sense of identity, empathy, and cultural connections and understanding.

The toolkit posits that the CCSS don’t do enough in terms of focusing on intercultural communication and biliteracy necessary in today’s global environment. The CCSS must therefore be supplemented with standards and objectives related to language transfer, contrastive analysis, and learning opportunities when students study in and across two languages.

Concerns and Actions

The toolkit also explicates many concerns, such as English language development (ELD) standards being overshadowed, unknown, and unimplemented. To ensure that ELD standards are utilized as they are intended, the toolkit advocates for state and professional leadership to provide guidance and monitoring on ELD standards. Californians Together stresses a need for bilingual programs to adopt primary language materials for students when implementing the CCSS as well as primary language content assessments in mathematics and language arts.

In addition to primary language materials, the group states that supplementary materials need to be provided for ELLs that focus on oral and written language. They call for meaningful and well-designed professional development that focuses on such areas as scaffolding and differentiating instruction for ELLs, working with academic text, and developing language across the curriculum. A final thought espoused by Californians Together is that the CCSS will require a technology plan to address the digital divide that ELLs often face.

Call to Action

Many of the toolkit’s advocacy items are framed around biliteracy being a 21st century asset for all students and the development of dual language proficiency as a powerful pathway for ELLs. To that end, they call for stakeholders to “raise (their) voice” around all teachers of ELLs needing to: (1) support language development for all students, (2) change their pedagogy, and (3) use strategies called for by the CCSS.

Some advocacy points include the following:

  • Teachers need to receive professional development on ELLs and the CCSS
  • Policy frameworks that result in narrowing the curriculum and the over-use of remediation will need to change so that ELLs receive the full academic curriculum in order to develop their language.
  • Pre-service as well as in-service professional development will need to address strategies for providing ELLs access to the core content
  • Policymakers at the state and education leadership level will need to provide guidance calling for research-based ELL program models including bilingual alternative options that build the pathway toward academic language
  • ELD standards should be rolled out with a strategy that informs educators of the content of the standards and implications of those standards for programs, curriculum, and instruction.

Finally, the toolkit lists three questions for ELL advocates to ask during school and district conversations:

  1. What kind of guidance, support and resources will be available to help teachers unpack and integrate each standard to understand the language demands and to interpret the linguistic implications of the CCSS for instructing ELLs?
  2. What kind of professional development will our teachers get in how to support ELLs to engage with the kind of complex text and language called for in the CCSS?
  3. How soon will we be receiving information, professional development, and support regarding the (CA) ELD standards aligned to the CCSS?

How are you advocating on behalf of ELLs during the implementation of the CCSS in your school or district? What strategies have been effective for you?

Posted in Advocacy, English Language Proficiency, Implementing the CCSS, Parents and Community, Professional Development, Resources from Colorin Colorado, Teacher Training | Tagged , | 1 Comment »

TESOL International Association Issue Brief on the CCSS for ELLs

April 24, 2013 by Diane Staehr Fenner

TESOLTESOL International Association has recently published an issue brief on the CCSS for ELLs. In it, they share a brief history of the standards movement, information on how the Common Core State Standards were developed, and an overview of the Next Generation Science Standards. TESOL also highlights ELL demographics, what the CCSS mean for ELLs and their teachers, how the CCSS interface with needed teacher expertise, and what content assessments will mean for ELLs. In addition, the brief explains how English language development standards and assessments play in to the CCSS for ELLs, Finally, the paper looks ahead to the role ESL and bilingual teachers will play when implementing the CCSS for ELLs as well as how TESOL International Association is adding to the dialogue.

I encourage you to share this rich resource with colleagues who may need a little help understanding the multifaceted challenges in implementing the CCSS for ELLs.

Posted in English Language Proficiency, Implementing the CCSS, Research and Policy, Role of ESL Teachers in Common Core | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

Teaching Science to English Language Learners: What do the NGSS Tell Us?

April 19, 2013 by Diane Staehr Fenner

NGSSIn last week’s post, guest blogger Ayanna Cooper shared some highlights of the Office of English Language Acquisition’s pre-conference session at the National Science Teachers Association’s conference in San Antonio, Texas. In this week’s post, I will take a deeper look at the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) themselves and will share some resources on teaching science to ELLs with you.

Let me begin by divulging that I was a double Physics and German major in college, so I’ve been interested in the intersection between science and language for quite some time. I have since focused more on language (and my current recollection of Physics equations is a bit rusty to say the least), but I am always excited when discussing how much rich academic language can be embedded in science instruction – or should be, anyway.

An Overview of the NGSS

The NGSS were created during a two year period through the collaboration of twenty-six states, a writing team, and several partners, managed by Achieve. The standards identify science, engineering practices, and content that all students at the K-12 level should master to be prepared for college, careers, or citizenship. The vision that undergirds the NGSS was established by the National Academies’ National Research Council in 2011 and called the Framework for K-12 Science Education. The NGSS focus on scientific practices as well as content and are intended to lead to a deeper learning of skills needed to be successful beyond grade 12. In sum, the standards focus on teaching students to actively engage in their science classes instead of memorizing scientific facts.

The Interplay Between Language and Science

Nature WalkTo that end, academic language is central to all students mastering the NGSS. That is, students will need to use language in inquiry-based science principles to conduct experiments, discuss, and argue their findings.  Also, the NGSS strive to make connections across content areas, stressing that requirements and norms for academic discourse are largely common across all science disciplines and subject areas such as English Language Arts and Mathematics. Across the three subject areas defined by the NGSS, CCSS for ELA/Literacy and Mathematics, students are expected to use language to engage in argumentation from evidence; construct explanations; obtain, synthesize, evaluate, and communicate information; and build a knowledge base through content rich texts.

For example, the concept of cause and effect can be used to explain phenomena in Earth science as well as to examine character or plot development in literature as part of the CCSS for ELA/Literacy. The NGSS state that using academic language in similar ways across subject areas is especially beneficial for students such as ELLs in low performing schools who often focus more on developing literacy and numeracy at the cost of other subjects such as science.

Using the NGSS with ELLs

Unlike the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics – which only devote a couple of pages to considerations in teaching the CCSS to ELLs – the NGSS contains an entire chapter (Appendix D) on teaching the NGSS to diverse learners, including ELLs. The title of that chapter is “All Standards, All Students” and serves as a call to action to use these standards to equitably educate students from “non-dominant groups” who have been marginalized and held to low academic expectations in the past. The chapter stresses that dominant groups do not necessarily refer to the majority of a school population but rather to the social prestige and institutionalized privilege dominant groups typically receive. The chapter defines non-dominant groups as:

  • Economically disadvantaged students
  • Students from major racial and ethnic groups
  • Students with disabilities
  • Students with limited English proficiency (ELLs)
  • Gender (i.e., females)
  • Students in alternative education programs
  • Gifted and talented students

After defining its intended population of students, the chapter then contains instructional approaches that teachers can use with different types of learners (e.g., students with disabilities, ELLs, gifted and talented students, etc.) to support them as they teach these standards to the wide range of students that make up today’s classrooms.

Appendix D highlights seven forthcoming case studies of diverse student groups, including one case study about ELLs (in the case of ELLs, the case study is for second grade earth science). The goal of the chapter and the case studies is to demonstrate that NGSS are extended to all students. Each case study begins with a vignette of science instruction to illustrate learning opportunities through effective classroom strategies and connections to NGSS and CCSS for English language arts and mathematics. The vignette emphasizes what teachers can do to successfully engage students in learning the NGSS. Then, it provides a brief summary of the research literature on effective classroom strategies for the student group highlighted in the case study.

In the case of ELLs, the research literature base indicates five areas where teachers can support both science and language learning: (1) literacy strategies for all students, (2) language support strategies with ELLs, (3) discourse strategies with ELLs, (4) home langLeeuage support, and (5) home culture connections.

It’s quite clear from Appendix D that two advocates for ELLs who understand these students’ strengths and challenges worked to write the NGSS.  Okhee Lee, a professor of education at New York University and an expert on ELLs and science was one writer who provided input. Also, Emily Miller, a second and third grade ESL and bilingual resource teacher at Hawthorne Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin also helped write the standards.

Resources on the NGSS for ELLs

Resources on Teaching Science to ELLs

  • A Big Picture Look at Latino Student Access to STEM Degrees and Professions – A 2012 white paper  I co-authored with Sydney Snyder for the Association of Latino Administrators and Supervisors (ALAS) highlights challenges and promising practices in encouraging Latinos to pursue careers in STEM
  • Teaching Science to English Language Learners – A book published in 2011 by Joyce Nutta, Nazan Bautista, and Malcolm Butler offers science teachers and teacher educators a straightforward approach for engaging ELLs learning science, sharing examples of easy ways to adapt existing lesson plans to be more inclusive of ELLs
  • Science for English Language Learners: - A book published in 2006 and edited by Ann Fathman and David Crowther expands teachers’ expertise in teaching science content and processes, in language development and literacy, and in inquiry-based teaching
  • Making Science Accessible to English Learners – This 2007 book by John Carr, Ursula Sexton, and Rachel Lagunoff helps middle and high school science teachers reach ELLs in their classrooms through practical guidance, powerful and concrete strategies, and sample lesson scenarios
  • Professional Books: ELL Instruction in the Content Areas – This Colorin Colorado booklist recommends a number of titles that focus on specific considerations and strategies for content areas such as science, math, and social studies. Many of the titles offer guidelines for managing vocabulary instruction, homework, and assessment

Do you teach science to ELLs? If so, what are your thoughts on the NGSS and teaching science to students who are also learning English? Which strategies have you found to be successful with your students? We always welcome your comments!

Posted in Academic Language, Content-Area Instruction, Lesson Plans and Curriculum, Resources from Colorin Colorado | Tagged , , | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers

%d bloggers like this: