ELL Participant’s Manual
Regional Workshops
Helping Pre-Service Teachers Create Quality
Education for English Learners
Participant’s Manual
Dr. Minda Morren López
Associate Professor
Texas State University
San Marcos, Texas
Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
www.kdp.org
The Mission: Kappa Delta Pi strives to sustain an honored community of diverse educators by promoting
excellence and advancing scholarship, leadership, and service.
The Vision: Kappa Delta Pi desires to help committed educators be leaders in improving education for
global citizenship.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
1
ELL Participant’s Manual
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
2
ELL Participant’s Manual
Table of Contents
2
Table of Contents
3
Purposes, Objectives, and Agenda of the Workshop
4
Part 1: What do I know about ELLs?
5
Reflection and Self-Assessment regarding ELLs
6
A Brief History of ELLs and Multilingualism in U. S. Schools
11
Activity: What Acronyms Do You Know?
13
Part 2: What is the research on language learning?
14
Inferences of Language Learning
16
Six Seminal Concepts in Language Acquisition
17
BICS and CALP and The Language of the Content Areas
18
Metacognition Frame
19
Part 3: What are some important considerations for programs and pedagogy for
ELLs? Activity: 3Ws: Not One Size Fits All
20
Understanding Your Context: Policy brief
21
Part 4: How can I become a more effective teacher of ELLs?
21
“I do, we do, you do” video
22
“Sentence frames” video
22
“Three step interview” video
23
Activity: Strategy Sort
23
Workshop Reflection
24
References and Further Readings
Activity: Anticipation Guide
Activity: Quick Write
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
3
ELL Participant’s Manual
Purposes of the Workshop
The purposes of this ELL Workshop are to:
1. Understand the history and current mandates for ELLs across the United States.
2. Incorporate effective language acquisition strategies into the classroom.
3. Help participants become informed leaders to provide the best possible education for ELLs.
Objectives of the Workshop
This 6-hour workshop is divided into four parts. You will learn:
Part 1: Brief history and background in relation to multilingual education and ELLs in the U. S.
•
Reflect on your understandings and paradigms related to multilingualism and language education in the
United States.
•
Identify key mandates and policies that impact ELLs in the U. S.
Part 2: What is the research on language learning?
•
Understand and synthesize some of the seminal research on language learning.
•
Identify connections between first and second language acquisition.
•
Connect language learning theories to practice.
•
Reflect on your understandings related to first and second language acquisition.
Part 3: What are some important considerations for programs and pedagogy for ELLs?
•
Explain various research-based program models for ELLs.
•
Analyze effective pedagogical principles for ELLs.
•
Understand your context and what the policies are regarding ELLs in your state.
Part 4: How can I become a more effective teacher of ELLs?
•
Analyze various strategies for teaching ELLs across grade levels and subject areas.
•
Identify and classify strategies that address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of ELLs.
•
Reflect on your learning.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
4
ELL Participant’s Manual
Part 1: What do I know about ELLs?
Anticipation Guide
Agree or Disagree? Why? What is your thinking or background knowledge about this?
Agree
Disagree
Statement
Evidence
1. ELLs are the fastest
growing segment of the
K–12 school population
in the U. S.
2. In the U. S., federal law
mandates that all states
must follow the same
guidelines for ESL
programs.
3. More than half of
secondary ELLs
attending school in the
United States were born
in the U. S.
4. In 2012–2013, New York
state had the highest
percentage of ELLs in
their schools.
5. The official language of
the U. S. is English.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
5
ELL Participant’s Manual
What do you know about ELLs? (Reflection and Self-Assessment)
Directions:
Spend 5 minutes writing answers to the following questions in your participant manual. There are no right or
wrong answers. You will eventually share your answers with colleagues at your table after we complete two
upcoming activities.
1. What do you already know about ELLs and language acquisition?
2. Have you learned, or attempted to learn, two or more languages? Are you an ELL? Have you been
friends with ELLs? What were those experiences like for you?
3. What did you learn from the Anticipation Guide that surprised you?
4. What questions do you have about ELLs or language acquisition?
5. What do you hope to learn during today’s workshop?
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
6
ELL Participant’s Manual
7
A Brief History of ELLs and Multilingualism in U. S. Schools
Excerpted from:
de Jong, Ester. (2011). Foundations for Multilingualism in Education. Excerpt from Chapter 5, "Language
Policy in the United States." (pp. 126–138). ©Caslon Publishing.
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/early-years-tolerance-and-repression
Multilingualism was long the norm on the North American continent, where for centuries Native Americans
lived throughout the area of what is now the United States and spoke about 300 different languages (Brisk,
1981, 2006; Conklin & Lourie, 1983; Kloss, 1998). The European colonists who settled colonial America spoke
Spanish, French, German, Dutch, and English, as well as several other northern European languages:
•
Spanish: The first European language to take hold was Spanish in the early 1500s as Spanish-speaking
missionaries and explorers settled Puerto Rico, Florida, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
•
German: The German-speaking population was the second largest ethnic group to arrive. Germans
fleeing religious repression and war went to Pennsylvania and were the dominant ethnic group in an area
that included Maryland and Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. By the time of the Revolution, Germans
constituted one-third of Pennsylvania's population.
American colonies "abounded with speakers of languages other than English" (Read, 1937, p. 99). By the time
New Netherlands was ceded to the British in 1664, at least 18 languages were spoken on Manhattan Island, not
counting Indian languages (Crawford, 1999a). Even English and French had multiple varieties.
Like the ruling bodies of many other nations before them, the Continental Congress took up the question of an
official language at the time of independence. Various proposals were considered; however, Congress
ultimately decided against declaring an official language and chose "a policy not to have a policy" (Heath, 1977,
p. 10). As Heath explains, this decision was informed by several rationales.



First, the nation's founders realized the divisive impact that such a monolingual policy could have. They
recognized the critical roles that multiple languages were playing at the time in political and social life.
By declaring English as the official language they could potentially alienate powerful ethnic groups that
were needed to support, unify, and legitimize the new nation.
Second, language use was considered a matter of individual choice and not to be regulated by the
government. The idea of a supranational language was too closely associated with the monarchical
systems (such as those in Spain and France) that many were trying to escape.
Finally, the Founding Fathers were confident that assimilation into greatness of American culture would
naturally occur and needed no coercion through social engineering. The majority of individuals living in
the 13 colonies spoke some variety of English and it was taken for granted that English would become
the natural choice of communication as the nation expanded.
For pragmatic and political reasons, then, Congress decided not to have a formal and explicit language policy.
The Founding Fathers were correct in predicting that English would become the language of public life. Today
the great majority of the people speak English. According to the 2000 census, only 6% of the total U. S.
population reported not speaking English at all.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
8
In the early years of U. S. nation building, speaking English was not a precondition to being or becoming a
citizen or for being considered American; rather, subscribing to the ideals and principles of the "New Nation"
(liberty, equality, democracy) defined the American identity. Recall that the census did not include any
questions about language during this period. The Founding Fathers and other leaders valued multilingualism for
individuals and national service because it provided access to knowledge and learning and advocated for the
recognition of local, regional, or special interests.
Spanish was used extensively in the Southwest, in particular in New Mexico (Ovando, Collier, & Combs,
2003). New Mexico had previously been Spanish, then a Mexican territory, so bilingual practices were typical
until the 1880s. Anglo merchants learned Spanish, and New Mexico was seen as a bilingual society. A shift in
numbers and the power structure changed this favorable attitude toward bilingualism (and the use of Spanish).
English became the mandated language, although bilingual practices (e.g., the use of bilingual textbooks)
continued (Getz, 1997). Today, New Mexico is one of four states that have endorsed resolutions in favor of
bilingualism. At the time of the outbreak of World War I, about a dozen states allowed bilingual public
schooling for their citizens.
Native American Languages
U. S. policy on Native American languages is perhaps historically the most coercive of all language policies in
the country. Starting in the 1860s, the federal government began its systematic eradication of the languages and
cultures of the Native Americans. The 1868 Report of the Indian Peace Commissioners identifies language and
cultural differences as the problem for the Native American Indian. Children were physically punished for
speaking their native language and torn from their cultural roots, in terms of values and physical attributes such
as clothing and hair style (Adams, 1995). The curriculum focused on religious instruction with limited
opportunities for developing practical skills. There was no expectation that Native Americans would rise to
positions of leadership in the new nation.
War, disease, coercive assimilation, and forced migration onto reservations reduced the number of Native
Americans and marginalized them as a group in the United States. This marginalization has led to the
disappearance of many indigenous languages and cultures to the extent that there are only about 150 Native
American languages recognized today (Estes, 1999). In California alone, approximately 150 indigenous
languages were spoken at the time the Europeans arrived. Only 50 are still spoken today, mostly only by elders;
and virtually 100% of California's indigenous languages are no longer learned by children (Hinton, 1994).
Modern Immigration
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time of industrialization, urbanization, and the advent of compulsory
public education, the number of immigrants arriving in the United States grew exponentially. At 14.7%, the
1910 foreign-born population is still proportionally the largest in U. S. history (see
http://www.colorincolorado.org /article/immigrant-era-focus-assimilation). These immigrants came from more
diverse and different backgrounds than the early northern European immigrants, most of whom were AngloSaxon and Protestant. Although previous immigrant groups continued to arrive (e.g., Swedes, Norwegians,
Germans), the majority of the new immigrants came from Eastern Europe (Czechs, Poles, Russian Jews) and
southern Europe (Greeks, Italians). Most were Roman Catholic or Jewish and, upon arrival, moved into urban
rather than rural areas.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
9
The majority of the new immigrants did not speak English when they arrived. In 1910, 23% or about 3 million
out of the 13 million foreign-born individuals 10 years of age or older were unable to speak English (compare
with 7% in 2000). Their religious backgrounds and cultural habits were perceived as being distinctly different
from those of the existing native "stock." These demographic and economic developments were subsequently
joined by the threat of and entry into World War I (1914-1918); together they raised new questions about
American identity.
The dominant response to the new diversity was to try to streamline it to promote assimilation into a view that
defined American identity as English-speaking, Protestant, and Anglo-Saxon. The Americanization movement
that emerged during these years focused on assimilating the new immigrants into American society (Handlin,
1982; Hartmann, 1967; Higham, 1998; Hill, 1919). Between 1917 and 1922, more than 30 states passed
Americanization laws, requiring those unable to speak or read English to attend public evening schools
(Pavlenko, 2005).
Language became a central issue in the immigration debate, especially as World War I approached. The 1906
Nationality Act made the ability to speak English a requirement for naturalization, and the 1917 Immigration
Act excluded aliens who were illiterate (in any language) from entering. In this climate, the use of languages
other than English in school was un-American and undesirable. Speaking English became a condition for being
a good (real) American. Several states passed legislation that prohibited the teaching of foreign languages to
young children and 37 states passed laws making English the official language of the state during this period.
Educational policies directed at immigrant children during the early 1900s were primarily ones of neglect:



Students were submersed in English-only classrooms without any accommodations.
Newcomers were often placed in 1st grade classrooms regardless of their age, causing many early
dropouts.
Intelligence testing in English led to the disproportionate placement of immigrant children in special
education classes.
In some instances, minimal accommodations were made through separate classes. Educators in New York and
other major cities began to recognize that special classes were needed to help students who did not speak
English. William Maxwell from the New York Board of Education argued in 1912, "It is absurd to place the
boy or girl, 10 or 12 years of age, just landed from Italy, who cannot read a word in his own language or speak a
word of English, in the same classroom with American boys and girls five or six years old" (quoted in Berrol,
1995, p. 49).
Segregated schools were the solution for the "Mexican problem" in the Southwest beginning in the early 1900s,
in particular California and Texas (Gonzalez, 2001). The establishment of these Mexican schools for Spanishspeaking students had been based on the rationale that the students did not have the level of command of
English needed and would hold Anglo students back; thus, segregation would permit more individualized
instruction.
Furthermore, it was believed, "Hispanic students attended school less regularly and so disrupted classroom
continuity" (Schlossman, 1983b, p. 893). Like segregated schools for African American students (and boarding
schools for Native Americans), Mexican schools had fewer resources and less qualified teachers (Donato &
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
10
Garcia, 1992; Donato, Mechaca, & Valencia, 1991). The schools focused on teaching English, often punished
students for using any Spanish, and portrayed Mexico and the Mexican people as inferior and backward.
Many immigrant children did not finish school during this period or were allowed to graduate with only
minimal skills due to a greatly reduced curriculum. While achievement patterns varied from immigrant group to
immigrant group and across different cities, the typical pattern was minimal school attendance and low high
school and college attendance by the majority of immigrant children. Perlmann (1990) found that 13% of 12year-old students whose parents were foreign-born went on to high school (compared with 32% of white
children of native parentage). Native-born students with English skills did much better than immigrant children
in school attendance and high school graduation rates.
Poverty played a significant role in these patterns. According to Berrol (1982), "Most immigrant families, for at
least two generations, needed whatever money their children could earn" (p. 38). A rapidly expanding economy
which could absorb many low-skilled laborers, followed by a sharp reduction in immigration, explains the
economic and social mobility rather than school success that has been observed for the early 1900s
The myth that submersion in English and giving up cultural ties has continued, however, as part of the metanarrative of the country's national identity. As Berrol notes, by the 1950s when black and Hispanic migrants
came to New York City, "most people had forgotten that the public schools had not been successful with most
of the poor and foreign children who had come earlier" (pp. 40-41).
Contemporary Movements (1980s +)
Starting with California Senator S. I. Hayakawa's proposal to make English the official language of the United
States in 1981, the past 3 decades have witnessed a modern Americanization movement. Multiple policies have
been passed that limit the role of languages other than English in federal and state government agencies and the
work place by eliminating bilingual services such as bilingual ballots and bilingual education (Crawford, 2000;
Dicker, 2003; Woolard, 1989).
In defense of their proposals, English-only supporters build on the popular image of the United States as a
nation of immigrants who have succeeded economically by learning English and leaving their ethnic roots
behind (Schmidt, 2000). They stress the need for one shared language for efficient government and
communication and warn of the threatened status of English because of a perceived lack of motivation of the
"new" immigrants to learn English (Wiley & Lukes, 1996). Bilingual services will keep immigrants and their
children in ethnic ghettos, the argument goes, preventing them from accessing and participating in mainstream
society and institutions.
By 2003, twenty-three states had declared English the official language of the state and constitutional
amendments to achieve the same goal at the federal level continue to be proposed. Since 2003, four states have
declared English the official language (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas), making a total of 27 states. Hawaii is
officially bilingual, and four states (Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) are considering
English-plus resolutions, affirming the value of the bilingualism of English plus another language (See Map
6.1).
A historical view of how linguistic diversity has been treated in the United States illustrates that it has been seen
as a problem and as a right, as well as a resource (Ruiz, 1984). This view puts some persistent misconceptions
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
11
about immigrants, assimilation, and bilingualism in perspective. For example, the use of native languages for
schooling has been around for a long time.
The myth that immigrants assimilated easily and quickly in the 1920s must be adjusted to take into
consideration the difference between workforce demands and opportunities then and those we see today as well
as the actual school performance of different immigrant groups. Dropping out of school in the 1920s had less of
an impact than it does today, because social mobility and employability then was less controlled by formal
schooling.
Policies are also not necessarily the same for different language groups. Looking back, policies toward slaves
(and now toward African American Vernacular English) have been consistently assimilationist, reinforcing the
hegemony of Standard English. Policies toward indigenous languages have swung from overt coercive
assimilationist to permissive bilingual approaches to the right to revitalize and maintain these languages (which
is supported by international agreements). While immigrant languages were treated with more tolerance in the
early years of nation building, the symbolism of the 1900s Americanization movement that connected speaking
English and assimilation into the U. S. culture with being an American (and fulfilling the American Dream)
continues to shape policies toward immigrant languages (Olneck, 1989).
For the references for this section, see:
de Jong, Ester. (2011). Foundations for Multilingualism in Education. Excerpt from Chapter 5, "Language
Policy in the United States." (pp. 126–138). ©Caslon Publishing.
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/early-years-tolerance-and-repression
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
Activity: What Acronyms Do You Know?
Which of the following acronyms related to ELLs are you familiar with? Which ones can you define?
AMAO
LEP
AYP
LES
BICS
LFS
CALP
LTELLS
CLD
NES
DLL
SDAIE
ELD
SIFE
ELL
SIOP
ELP
ENL
ESL
EL
ESOL
TESOL
FES
LI
FLES
BICS
L2
FEP
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
12
ELL Participant’s Manual
13
Here are some of the essential terms used to talk about our students or programs. All of these terms are used to
describe students who are learning to understand, speak, read, and write in English.

ESL means English as a Second Language. This generally refers to programs, not students. ESL refers
to students who are studying English in an ESL program in an English-speaking country. For example,
students who are enrolled in school or English classes in the United States are often in ESL programs.

EFL denotes English as a Foreign Language. This terms refers to students learning English in a country
in which English is not the main language. For example, Chinese students who are studying English in
China are EFL students.

ESOL means English to Speakers of Other Languages. This term is used to describe various programs
in different parts of the U.S.—primarily in the South—where students are learning to use English.

ELL(s) is the common designation for English language learner(s) and refers to people who are
learning English but are not yet considered proficient.

ENL denotes English as a New Language. This term is used by the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards. It is inclusive of those learning English as a second, third, or more language.

LEP refers to the current description of students’ abilities—that they currently have limited English
proficiency. This is the term used to describe ELLs by laws and in government documents. Many
consider it a pejorative term.

1.5 Generation students is a term used to describe people who arrive in the US as children or
adolescents.

Bilingual refers to students who speak more than one language. It can also refer to a program where
students learn content information in their native language as well as getting some of their content
information, instructions, and social interactions in English.
http://www.everythingesl.net/inservices/essential_vocab.php
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
14
Part 2: What is the research on language learning?
Activity: Language Acquisition Quick Write
Thought Questions
Directions: Spend 3 minutes writing whatever comes to mind related to the following questions in your manual.
You don’t have to “answer” each question. Just explore these topics by writing—in a stream of consciousness
style—whatever comes to your mind related to these topics.
•
Have you been around children acquiring their first language? What was it like?
•
Have you learned/tried to learn another language? What was it like? Describe your actions, feelings, etc.
•
How do you think people learn languages?
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
Inferences about Language Acquisition
Inferences
Summary
1. Children seem born to want to communicate, first
with their caregivers and later with playmates. Through
language, humans communicate needs and ideas,
interact with others, and develop.
2. Parents and young children talk about what is
happening around them. For example, toys they are
playing with at the time or books with pictures that they
are reading; playmates talk about games that they are
playing.
3. A child understands a parent who asks, “Do you want
some milk and cookies?” even though the child may
only be able to say “cookie.”
Children naturally want
to communicate.
4. Parents and older children naturally adjust their
language when speaking to young children (called
motherese). They link language to contextual clues of
its meaning such as objects, gestures, facial expressions,
pictures, etc.
5. Children acquire their first language at home where
they are encouraged to talk and interact. Children feel
free to use and experiment with language, and make
mistakes without fear of ridicule or even overt
correction.
6. In natural settings, children develop complex
language rapidly and without formal instruction.
Although they are often unaware of it, a young child’s
knowledge of grammar is quite sophisticated. Further,
virtually all children fully acquire one or more
languages regardless of IQ.
7. We think children pick up their mother tongue by
imitating their caregivers, but when a child says, “Don’t
giggle me!” or “we holded the baby rabbits” it is not an
act of imitation.
People adjust their
language when speaking
to young children.
8. If a child says, “We holded the puppies” (meaning
kittens) the parent is likely to respond something like,
“Yes, they are baby cats or kittens, aren’t they?”
Caregivers corrected
“puppies” to “kittens” in
a non-threatening way.
9. The child points to a picture and says, “king” and the
caregiver says, “Yes, that’s a king, you can tell he’s a
king because he’s wearing a crown.”
The caregiver makes a
sentence from the child’s
single word, “king.”
Parents and young
children talk about what
they are doing at the time.
A child understands a
parent’s language even
though the child’s
language is more limited.
Families and caregivers
encourage children to talk
in a supportive
environment.
All children acquire
incredibly complex
language naturally.
“We holded the baby
rabbits” is not an act of
imitation.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
Implications for the
Classroom
Example: Given a supportive,
language-rich environment,
students will be naturally
motivated to learn English.
15
ELL Participant’s Manual
16
Six Seminal Concepts in Language Acquisition
1. The Silent Period
 All learners of another language experience a period of time where they are not ready to communicate.
This is to be expected. Students should not be forced to communicate.
 Students should be allowed to build up linguistic competence by active listening and should be given a
supportive learning environment so they feel comfortable using language.
2. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
 There are affective or emotional elements that have an impact on the acquisition of language.
 As teachers, we want to lower the Affective Filter (or lower the anxiety students feel).
 We lower the Affective Filter by making our students feel comfortable, part of the community of
learners, and valued as human beings.
3. The Input Hypothesis
 ELL students acquire language by comprehending what is being communicated.
 It is the teachers’ job to help students understand what they are teaching.
 Effective teachers ensure their students are able to understand by providing visuals (pictures, modeling,
gestures), slowing down their rate of speech, and explaining idioms or vernacular and academic terms.
4. The Output Hypothesis
 Output (speaking, writing) is a significant way for the learner to test what they know about a language.
 Learners pay attention to meaning first and then move to grammatical structure and they do this through
“testing” their language by producing output and monitoring the responses to their language.
5. The Monitor Hypothesis
• Those who are acquiring language begin a process of monitoring their language through conscious
corrections.
• The more you know, the more you consciously monitor your language use.
• Errors and error correction are signs of developmental processes and are positive.
6. BICS vs. CALP
 According to Jim Cummins, when we think about teaching languages, we have to take into account at
least two different “types” of language within each language.
 BICS stands for Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills and refers to the basic, repeated, everyday
language (for example, “Good morning, my name is Minda.”)
 CALP stands for Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency and refers to the more complex, academic,
and less contextualized language (for example, “An isotope is each of two or more forms of the same
element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and
hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an
element.”)
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
From BICS to CALP Activity
BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) vs. CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency)
Develops at 1–3 years old
Develops at 5–9 years old
The Language of the Content Areas
BICS (Basic
Interpersonal
Communication
Skills)
The Language of
Science
The Language of
Math
The Language of
Social Studies
The Language of
English/ELA
small
estimate
plethora
identical
rules
(create your
own)
Adapted from an activity by Cynthia Cardenas-Kolak, ESC IV
How might BICS and CALP be manifest in the classroom?
What are some strategies to help students develop CALP?
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
17
ELL Participant’s Manual
18
Reflection: Metacognition Frame
• I am sure that I know something about ___________________________
_______________________________________________________.
• First,____________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________.
• In addition,_______________________________________________
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________.
• Finally,__________________________________________________
______________________________________________________.
• Now you know what I know about _____________________________
_______________________________________________________.
Rothstein, A. S., Rothstein, E. B., & Lauber, G. (2007). Writing as Learning: A Content-Based Approach.
Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
19
Part 3: What are some important considerations for programs and pedagogy
for ELLs?
There is no federal mandated program or instructional approach for ELLs.
•
As a result of Lau vs. Nichols and the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) (both from 1974),
each state must decide how they are going to meet the needs of ELLs.
•
Later, in 1981 a court case (Castañeda vs. Pickard) clarified the Lau and EEOA mandates, assuring that
programs for ELLs are indeed adequate and based on sound scientific evidence. The Castañeda standard
mandates that programs for language-minority students must be:
1. based on a sound educational theory,
2. implemented effectively with sufficient resources and personnel, and
3. evaluated to determine whether they are effective in helping students overcome language
barriers. (Del Valle, 2003)
It is imperative that ELLs are serviced. They are not to be left to “sink or swim” but must be provided with
services that allow ELLs “equal educational opportunity” and access to meet the same state and local standards
as non-ELLs.
It is also important to note that ELLs who also qualify for Special Education services should receive both ELL
and Special Education services. One does not “trump” the other. If a student qualifies for any or both, all federal
and state laws must be followed.
Recent federal guidance on Special Education and ELLs can be found here:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
Activity:
3W’s Strategy (What I Read, What’s in My Head, What My Partner Said)
What I Read
What’s in My Head
What My Partner Said
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
20
ELL Participant’s Manual
21
Standards
•
Federal mandates have required states to have standards for instruction since 2009. However, the
mandate is for content area standards and ELL is not a requirement.
•
TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) created ELL Standards in 2006. These
are not mandatory but are guidelines for states and districts to follow. They can be found on their
website.
https://www.tesol.org/advance-the-field/standards/prek-12-english-language-proficiency-standards
•
Some states have their own standards specifically for ELLs.
•
The Common Core was adopted in 2009 by 45 states. There are no specific standards in the Common
Core for ELLs but there is an addendum that states the needs of ELLs should be taken into account
when implementing the standards (TESOL, 2013). Recently, there have been several initiatives geared
towards helping educators address the needs of ELLs, primarily English language proficiency.
Activity: Your Context—Policy Brief
It is important to understand your own context.
1. Read the policy brief provided to you.
• As you read the passage, place a check mark next to the information that speaks to you, write
comments that come to mind, or write questions you have.
• Be prepared to share your thoughts with your tablemates.
2. Research what standards are in place in your state.
• Does your state follow the Common Core?
Are there other initiatives related specifically to ELLs that your state has implemented?
What programs are in place for ELLs?
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
22
Part 4: How can I become a more effective teacher of ELLs?
•
Research has shown that effective teachers of ELLs address students’ affective, linguistic, and cognitive
needs.
 Affective –the affect, or emotional side of learning
 Linguistic –the language or specific vocabulary and functions of language necessary to learn or
communicate
 Cognitive – the intellectual or content area subject matter that students must learn
We will watch three videos of different strategies.
Video 1: “I do, we do, you do”
Think about how this strategy addresses the Affective, Linguistic, and Cognitive needs of ELLs. As we are
watching the video, jot down your ideas.
What do you notice?
What does the teacher do to support ELLs in these three areas?
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
23
Video 2: “Using Sentence Frames”
Think about how this strategy addresses the Affective, Linguistic, and Cognitive needs of ELLs. As we are
watching the video, jot down your ideas.
What do you notice?
What does the teacher do to support ELLs in these three areas?
Video 3: “Three Step Interviews”
Think about how this strategy addresses the Affective, Linguistic, and Cognitive needs of ELLs and also think
about how it incorporates all four areas of language (Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking). As we are
watching the video, jot down your ideas.
What do you notice?
What does the teacher do to support ELLs in these three areas?
How does this lesson incorporate all four areas of language?
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
ELL Participant’s Manual
Activity: Strategy Sort
Use the provided strategies to complete an open sort (your group will decide how/what categories to sort by).
How does this activity aid in learning for ELLs?
Workshop Reflection
•
Take three minutes to write in your participant manual the most significant learning for you today.
•
What do you want to remember?
•
Be prepared to share your ideas with a partner at your table.
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education
24
ELL Participant’s Manual
25
References and Further Readings
Honigsfeld, A. (2009). ELL Programs: Not ‘One Size Fits All,’ Kappa Delta Pi Record, 45(4), 166–171. DOI:
10.1080/00228958.2009.10516539
Herrera, J. F. (2013). The upside down boy/ El niño de cabeza. Children’s Book Press.
Resources for policies and federal programs:
US Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/
Federal guidance:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf
Center for Applied Linguistics: http://www.cal.org/
Resources for teaching, connecting research to practice, etc:
http://www.colorincolorado.org/
http://www.everythingesl.net
Stephen Krashen’s personal website: http://www.sdkrashen.com/
Jim Cummins’ personal website: http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/
© 2016 Kappa Delta Pi, International Honor Society in Education