Assignment due in 48 hours

combs

04CH_Piper_Language.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Assignment due in 48 hours

4Assessment and Program Options

iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Articulate the principles that underlie assessment of ELLs.

2. Categorize the different types of assessment according to how they are used to identify and assess ELLs for the purpose of initial placement.

3. Describe the broad categories of program options for ELLs and the factors that influence which one a school selects.

4. Summarize what is meant by ESL instruction and compare the major approaches that have been used in the past.

CO_TX

CO_NL

CO_CRD

CT CN

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 81 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.1 Principles of Assessment

Introduction Her first day of fifth grade wasn’t Arianna’s first experience with formal education. She had been homeschooled in Serbia through third grade, and her family had moved several times during her fourth grade year. Her mother had attempted to continue educating her, but there had been so much uncertainty and disruption to the family’s life that Arianna had not spent much time on academic tasks. The family finally settled into their new U.S. home in the sum- mer and promptly enrolled Arianna in school. Somehow, Arianna had acquired some spoken English and, according to her mother’s assessment, had a good background in math as well. The first decision her fifth grade teacher, Mr. Kane, had to make was whether to keep her in the mainstream classroom or to send her to a “sheltered” classroom, or whether another option would be better for her. What he needed to learn about Arianna in order to make this choice brings us to the subject of assessment.

When an ELL first arrives at school, the first task is to figure out how proficient she is in speaking, reading, and writing English in order to place her into the appropriate program. Will she be in a mainstream classroom or will another type of placement suit her better? In either case, several options exist, all described in this chapter. Once she is placed, her progress has to be monitored closely to determine how well she is progressing, both in language and in content. Careful monitoring allows teachers to adjust their instructional plan according to the learner’s needs. The major teaching approaches that have been and are currently used are also described in this chapter.

Both placement and the monitoring of progress involve assessment, and so we begin this chapter by examining the broad issue of assessment and how it is used to make critical edu- cational decisions about ELLs. Starting with a description of the two broad categories of assessment, we continue to a discussion of which assessment tools are most useful in helping teachers determine the appropriate placement for, judge the progress of, and determine the most effective program options and instructional approaches for ELLs.

4.1 Principles of Assessment Assessing language competencies in ELLs is complicated by the fact that there are so many different purposes for assessment. As noted in Chapter 1, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires schools to “provide an annual academic assessment of English language proficiency and assure the monitoring of students’ English language development. States also must pro- vide valid and reasonable accommodations to accurately measure ELL students’ academic achievement on state content standards” (Wolf et al., 2008, pp. 1–2). Tests that are used for accountability purposes, typically standardized achievement tests, are often “developed and field tested for the mainstream student population” and “may not be sensitive enough to the needs of some subgroups of students, such as English language learners” (Abedi, 2010, p. 1). One of the problems is the confounding of content and language in the tests; ELLs may not be able to adequately demonstrate their subject-area knowledge because they lack the linguistic skills to do so. Conversely, the tests are not designed to measure language and any inference drawn about language ability from ELLs scores on them is likely to be faulty.

Even without the NCLB mandate, however, schools and teachers would need to identify and place ELLs correctly and monitor their progress. Doing so is simply sound educational

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 82 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.1 Principles of Assessment

practice. It is the job of educators to determine the initial competency of ELLs in order to place them in the correct program or classroom, and to regularly measure and monitor their progress.

It is a simple matter to determine whether a child is an ELL. If this is not readily discernible from the learner’s speech, the teacher can always ask. Nevertheless, even though they may be easy to identify, ELLs are by no means a homogeneous group. As we have seen in previous chapters, they vary according to

1. Linguistic background. Although the majority of ELLs in the United States as a whole are Spanish-speaking, there are at least 400 different native languages spoken by ELLs nationally (Educational Testing Service, 2009).

2. Different levels of proficiency in English. ELLs pass through predictable stages ( Chapter 3). Correctly identifying these stages can be a challenge, but it is important for measuring progress to be able to do so.

3. Different levels of proficiency in the home language. Not all learners come to school with the same levels of competence in their home language, whatever that language may be (Chapter 3).

4. Prior schooling in native language. Students who have learned basic skills in one language have an easier time transferring those skills to the new language and school.

5. Varying degrees of cultural adaptation to the country and the community. Culture can affect ELLs’ success in school (Chapter 2). If they have been formally educated in another country, they may experience some level of school shock in this country. Also, if the family is struggling to adapt to their new country, the children of the fam- ily may not get the support they need at home for education in English or may even bring some of their parents’ negative attitudes to the classroom.

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) points out that an additional factor that may influ- ence the assessment process for ELLs is whether learners have had previous exposure to standardized testing, which is so widely used in the United States. Some will never have taken a multiple-choice test, for example, while others will not have had to respond to a short-answer or essay question, which the ETS refers to as a constructed-response question.

All these variables must be taken into account in assessing ELLs, and they add complexity to the process, whatever the purpose for the assessment and whatever form the assessment takes. These variables also inform and underpin the basic principles of assessment for ELLs:

1. Assessments should benefit students. They should, for example, provide data that inform educational decisions made for the learner.

2. Decisions that have a major impact on the learner should not be based on a single assessment instrument but on multiple forms of assessment.

3. Assessments should be tailored to the specific purpose for which they are to be used. 4. Assessments must be age- and language-appropriate. 5. School personnel should pay attention to the intended purpose of the test, as well

as to the fairness, validity, and reliability of the instrument for the population of students for which it is used. (See Validity and Reliability for a description of these constructs.)

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 83 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

4.2 Categories of Assessment The term assessment refers to many different forms of evaluation ranging from short oral or written quizzes prepared by teachers for individuals or classes to lengthy standardized tests given to large populations of students. In general terms, the two basic kinds are summative and formative, and these terms refer to a fundamental difference in the purpose for testing.

Summative evaluations are measures taken periodically to determine what students know and do not know. The most familiar type of summative evaluation used in schools in the United States is the standardized test, such as the kinds mandated and developed by state boards or departments of education. Summative evaluations can also be created and used for measur- ing particular outcomes in the schools, but generally speaking, summative assessment should be thought of as “a means to gauge, at a particular point in time, student learning . . . relative to standards” (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2014). Although they take many forms, summative evaluations are very useful for evaluating programs and curriculum or to measure school improvement goals, but they typically “happen too far down the learning path to provide information at the classroom level and to make instructional adjustments and interventions during the learning process” (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2014). That is the business of formative assessment.

Formative evaluations are the ongoing assessments that teachers and schools undertake to gauge the effectiveness of a lesson, assignment, or unit. Formative evaluations are less formal, usually created and designed by the teacher, and they help teachers to assess the effectiveness of student learning, evaluate learning materials, and their own effectiveness as instructors. Formative evaluation is recursive and can be thought of as part of the ongoing teaching and learning process—a tool to use in shaping and adjusting curriculum and instruction for the learner.

Although the two categories of assessment are generally regarded as distinct, there may be some overlap. For example, a test given at the end of a unit is usually given to measure stu- dents’ learning of the material in the unit before moving on to the next unit. As such, it is

Validity and Reliability Assessment is the answering of questions by collecting and analyzing data. A variety of instru- ments or tools can be used, depending on the purpose of the assessment. In all cases though, the assessment must be valid and reliable. These are terms that are often confused, but they actually answer very simple questions.

Validity answers the question “Does the test measure what it is intended to measure?”

Reliability answers the question “Can the test results be trusted to represent what they are supposed to represent?” Two versions of a standardized test should, for example, yield the same result.

A standardized test designed to assess fourth graders’ knowledge of science concepts given to ELLs with limited English would probably not be valid because it would not be clear what was being measured—English reading ability or knowledge of science. Neither of the test results could be considered reliable.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 84 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

considered to be summative in nature. In the case of ELLs, however, the results of a unit test might be useful in determining the relative difficulty the learner experienced with the lan- guage and the content, and whether the language level for the next unit needs to be adjusted or, indeed, if parts of the unit need to be repeated or integrated into the upcoming unit.

Both summative and formative assessments are necessary to get an accurate view of the learn- er’s progress. “In a balanced assessment system, both summative and formative assessments are an integral part of information gathering. Depend too much on one or the other and the reality of student achievement in your classroom becomes unclear” (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2014).

Proficiency Testing All discussions about assessing ELLs rely heavily on the notion of proficiency. Whether the intent is sum- mative or formative, whether the primary goal is to assess content knowledge or language ability, what is being evaluated is some aspect of the learner’s pro- ficiency. For language assessments, “proficiency test- ing is used to place and exit students and is designed to determine at what level an individual can speak, read, write, and comprehend another language” ( Pappamihiel & Mihai, 2011, p. 16). Proficiency and placement, thus, go hand in hand.

The form a proficiency test takes—the kinds of ques- tions asked or tasks required of the learner—depends on the underlying assumptions the test writer has about language learning and assessment. There are three broad categories of belief resulting in three dis- tinct approaches to testing:

1. The discrete point approach is based on the assumption that language consists of a well-combined set of discrete points of knowledge—building blocks in the extreme. Those building blocks are the components of the phonological (sound), morphologi- cal (words, prefixes, and suffixes), and syntactic (sentence) systems of English. The assumption is that if students learn the sound system, vocabulary and word forma- tion processes, and the rules of grammar, they can somehow cobble all these skills together to form language. “Discrete point tests measure language in small bits, such as in multiple-choice questions or fill-in items. Proficiency tests are designed to assess the separate and discrete aspects of language and a total score is produced” (Pappamiehl & Mihai, 2011, p. 16).

2. The integrated approach, in contrast, considers language to entail the simultaneous use of all levels of language skills. Sounds are not learned nor used in isolation but in words and phrases. Vocabulary is neither learned nor used in isolation but in larger structures and in concert with prefixes and suffixes. And the rules of sentence struc- ture are learned in meaningful sentences used in context. This approach represents a more holistic view of language and learning, but it still views language somewhat objectively as an entity, with linked parts, to be learned.

Dejan Ristovski/iStock/Thinkstock

Tests such as this are common in elementary schools. Is it formative or summative in nature? How might it be both?

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 85 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

3. The pragmatic skill or performance approach is broader still. In this approach test writers view language as a practical skill set linked to real-world knowledge and experience. In performance-based assessments, learners typically demonstrate what they can do with the language in a realistic setting—how well and appropriately they communicate. “Pragmatic tests link language knowledge with students’ own experiences and world knowledge. These types of tasks seek to be more real life” (Pappamihiel & Mihai, 2011, p. 16).

No one approach to assessment works for every purpose of assessment, and each has its uses (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Proficiency testing: Approaches and uses

Approach Summative or formative

Exemplar test items

Types of uses Limitations

Discrete Can be used as either

1. Circle the first sound in the word you hear. [Prompt]: dog. Responses: t, d, g, b.

2. Choose the cor- rect verb form in each sentence: I have been, will be, was being late many times before today.

3. A bird is an animal that: flies, runs fast, eats cereal.

1. Assessing the impact of a lesson distin- guishing t/d. Evaluating let- ter recognition ability.

2. Testing grammatical knowledge of verb tense and aspect.

3. Testing and comparing a large number of students.

1. Does not provide information about the learner’s ability to recognize or use the language items in real communicative tasks.

2. Better suited for test- ing understanding than for production.

3. Risk of confounding what is being tested: meaning of bird or meaning of predicate. Ability to process complex sentence structure.

4. Difficult to determine what the learner actu- ally knows.

Integrated Either 1. Answer in a complete sen- tence: Why is . . .? How far is it from Earth to the moon? What colors are mixed to create orange?

2. Circle all errors in the following sentence: Jack and Jill was going uphill to get a pale of water.

3. Summarize the story you just read (orally or in writing).

1. Evaluating effectiveness of lesson or unit.

2. Spot checking understanding of a selected vocabulary and structure in limited context.

3. Checking listen- ing comprehen- sion during lesson.

4. Evaluating curriculum and school goals.

1. Slight danger that content knowledge might be masked by lack of language proficiency.

2. Difficult to use and interpret with beginners.

(continued )

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 86 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

Approach Summative or formative

Exemplar test items

Types of uses Limitations

Pragmatic/ performance

Formative

Summative within class- room or school setting

Difficult to use for large populations

1. Cut out all the pictures of fruits in this magazine and organize them according to color.

2. Retell the story we read in class this morning.

3. Based on the data in this graph, what can be said about the rela- tionship between the number of absences in a year and test scores in math? Answer can be open-ended or multiple-choice (a. no rela- tion; the more absences, the higher the score . . . , etc.)

1. Ongoing evaluation of lesson or unit effectiveness.

2. Assessing student com- prehension and speaking ability.

3. Evaluating lesson or unit effectiveness.

4. Subject-area assessment.

1. Tests comprehension only.

2. Cannot be used with large populations.

3. Risk of confound- ing language ability with subject-area knowledge.

Table 4.1: Proficiency testing: Approaches and uses (continued )

Identifying and Placing ELLs Identifying the language and academic needs of ELLs is important because it is the basis for developing an appropriate program of instruction. “When ELLs’ needs are not identified, their program may lack the instructional components necessary for their success in language pro- ficiency and academic achievement” (ColorínColorado, 2007). In addition to finding out about the home language and educational background of each learner, the school needs to evaluate the English proficiency level and academic content knowledge. As we learned in Chapter 1, many states have processes in place that schools are required to follow in assessing oral and literacy proficiency:

School districts use a variety of methods to identify students as non-English proficiency, place them in bilingual programs, and allow them to exit such programs (or reclassify them as English proficient). These methods include home language use surveys, criterion-referenced tests, achievement tests, and language proficiency tests (Esquinca, Yaden, & Rueda, 2005).

It is usually easy to identify true beginners, but correctly assessing learners with some English ability is more complex. In order to place them in the appropriate grade level with the appropriate kinds of language support, educators need not only to measure English ability,

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 87 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

but also subject-area knowledge. Summative achievement tests are not generally suitable for this purpose. The major problem is that achievement tests and most other measures used for accountability purposes are designed to measure learning, but they are less successful in helping to improve learning. These assessments provide data that is useful to school leaders and teachers to evaluate curriculum and, to some degree, instruction, but they are not par- ticularly useful as roadmaps for improving individual learning. Many educators suggest that a better approach, especially for placement purposes, is a performance assessment.

As the term implies, a performance assessment allows the student to demonstrate content knowledge by reducing reliance on language, which is accomplished in a variety of ways, depending on the grade level and linguistic ability of the learner. They also provide a clearer picture of the learner’s academic needs. A performance assessment may be an informal teacher-devised test or a formal test used throughout the school or school district.

For placement purposes, the school must have a clear picture of the child’s entering proficiency levels in oral language and literacy or preliteracy. Different states and different school districts use different instruments, but all require some level of benchmarking of ELLs in order to place them in the appropriate program and grade level as well as to track progress.

Oral Language Assessment Those who are able to communicate effectively in English in social settings have a head start on acquiring their new language, but there is a differ- ence between the language used in social settings and cognitive-academic language (Chapter 3). Some of the commonly used measures of oral lan- guage ability include

1. Language Assessment Scales (LAS, or preLAS for pre-kindergarten). Available in both English and Spanish, this test can be used with K–12 students to identify and place students in ELL or bilingual programs. The tests provide measures of vocabulary, listening comprehension, and the ability to retell a story. Test items are of the “name that picture” type and also elicit action verbs. Although the story-retelling is argu- ably a performance-based measure, critics of the test argue that it focuses on dis- crete skills and elements and may not be adequate for placing ELLs.

2. IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test (also known as IPT). Available in English and Spanish, this test is intended to measure language proficiency in pre-K through 12th grade students

for the purposes of initial identification, program placement, progress monitoring, and redesignation in school . . . . The IPT oral tests are indi- vidually administered, structured oral interviews, where the examiner asks the student questions or gives prompts. The examiner scores the student’s answers as correct or incorrect as each item is administered. Some items are based on pictures while others are based on interaction between the

Fuse/Thinkstock

Chemistry is just one of many subjects that allow ELLs to acquire and to demonstrate their content knowledge with minimal dependence on language.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 88 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

examiner and the student. For example, students identify objects or actions in pictures, listen to brief stories and answer questions about them, and answer questions about themselves and their opinions and experiences. The oral tests assess proficiency in four domains of oral English or Spanish: vocabulary, grammar, comprehension, and verbal expression. (IPT Inservice Training, 2001)

3. Basic Inventory of Natural Language (BIN). Used to test K–12 students, this test is available for more than 30 languages. Students view large pictures and are asked to describe or discuss what they see. Their recorded responses are used to assess pro- nunciation as well as vocabulary and sentence length and complexity (Krach, n.d.) Also see http://www.arcassociates.org/files/CAELLRpt9-04.pdf

Reading and Writing Assessment Most states do not require assessment of reading and writing in kindergarten or first grade, but for older learners it is necessary to ascertain their level of proficiency in order to ensure correct program placement and to monitor progress. Many reading tests are essentially vocabulary tests, and while they can be useful, they are not helpful in determining much about reading or pre-reading skills: phoneme awareness, alphabet knowledge and sound- symbol correspondence, reading fluency, or comprehension. Most states and districts require particular tests, and some of the more commonly used ones are listed here:

1. Stanford English Proficiency Test. This is a complete battery of tests included pri- marily for assessing Spanish speakers’ proficiency in English but useful for other language groups as well. There is a preliteracy test for pre-K through grade 1.5 and a full battery of language and content area knowledge tests for use with learners to 12th grade.

2. ACCESS (developed for WIDA) (W-APT). All the member states in the WIDA Consor- tium require the use of this test to place and benchmark ELLs. Given to ELLs from kindergarten to 12th grade, it is designed to monitor progress in acquiring academic English and proficiency in all four domains. See http://www.wida.us/assessment/ access/ for further information.

3. LAS Links. This is a test intended to test proficiency in all four domains in order to determine the correct placement of newly arrived ELLs. The pre-LAS version tests oral language only for kindergarten and first grade, and the full battery is available for grades 2–12.

A complete description of these and other placement tests is beyond the scope and purpose of this book, but most state departments of education post detailed descriptions of the tests and administration guidelines online. Whichever test is used, it is important to remember that these standardized measures are not appropriate for every purpose. For example, in some states, LAS is not administered until January or February, with test results reported back in May. In the meantime, the school and the teacher must use other methods for placing and plan- ning instruction for their ELLs. As we have seen throughout this chapter, many methods exist, and effective teachers use a combination of formal and informal tests to make early decisions.

Some teachers will administer an informal reading inventory (IRI). An IRI is an individually administered assessment intended to diagnose and evaluate a number of skills associated with reading. A typical IRI consists of a word list and a passage ranging from preprimer to high school reading levels. After reading the passage, the student responds orally to questions

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 89 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://www.arcassociates.org/files/CAELLRpt9-04.pdf

http://www.wida.us/assessment/access/

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

designed to assess comprehension and recall. The evaluator uses the information gathered from the word recognition task and the answers to the comprehension questions, along with other data such as fluency, prior knowledge, and emotional state (depending on the particu- lar IRI), to determine the student’s reading level. Although there are many to choose from (see Additional Resources at the end of this chapter), there are doubts about the validity of the tests, especially for ELLs:

One of the assessment options for classroom teachers is the informal reading inventory (IRI), which is the most frequently used assessment tool for all stu- dents. Because of disagreement regarding the reliability and validity of IRIs for use with native English speakers, teachers should exercise greater caution when using them with ELLs, both in choosing the specific IRI and interpreting the results based on the influence of students’ accents on word pronuncia- tions, familiarity with culturally specific content, the kinds of questions asked, and the relevance to classroom instruction and to students’ culture. (Gandy, 2013, p. 271)

Even if there were no validity issues with IRIs, they are somewhat labor intensive and are not specific to the reading task at hand. In other words, an IRI score might indicate that a learner can read at a fourth grade level on the test passage, but it can’t predict how the learner will do with a different passage assigned by the teacher. One quick and easy alternative to the IRI that avoids these criticisms and also provides some indication of a student’s reading level, for example, is the Cloze test. Cloze is grounded in the Gestalt notion that using prior experience and knowledge, people will mentally fill in the missing parts when looking at an incomplete picture or drawing. There are three types of Cloze test, as illustrated in Cloze Procedure. Each one begins with a passage of text that the learner should be able to read if reading at grade level. It should be long enough to permit at least ten deleted words, and learners are encour- aged to guess. The first sentence is left intact to provide context.

Cloze Procedure Used to assess reading ability, the Cloze test can be constructed in three different ways, defined and illustrated below:

1. The fixed-ratio Cloze deletes every fifth, sixth, or seventh word. The 7:1 ratio obviously provides more linguistic context, but whichever method is chosen, at least ten blanks need to be filled in.

Children learn language in order to express meaning and to communicate with people around them. The miracle of the infant brain ________ its capacity to acquire all of ________ structures of any language spoken on ________. Children do not learn the components ________ language separately or in isolation. They ________ master the sound system and then ________ on to learning words and then ________. Nor do they learn the structures ________ the language as a cognitive exercise. ________ order to learn to communicate effectively, ________ master the complex structures of their language.

(continued)

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 90 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

Scoring is on a percentage basis, and a rough interpretation of the scores is shown in Table 4.2.

Many experienced teachers use some form of Cloze testing to assess their students’ instruc- tional needs in reading, often using two different types of prose to get more information: a story and an expository or narrative text. Because reading comprehension is at the heart of academic success and is closely correlated with other language skills (vocabulary and gram- matical knowledge, for example), Cloze procedure is sometimes used to gauge progress, both in reading and in overall language skills.

For the assessment of writing, there are a number of standardized instruments, but as with the other skills, it is sometimes necessary to gather information faster and less formally. For placement purposes, especially in the elementary grades, writing samples are not usually required. The reason is that for starting and emerging learners (Chapter 3), writing assess- ments serve little purpose because writing is the last skill to develop and has to be built upon a foundation of oral language and at least some proficiency in reading. The learner can be placed appropriately according to oral language and reading assessments.

Cloze Procedure (continued) 2. The rational Cloze deletes chosen words, not randomly or according to a preset ratio.

Children learn language in order to express meaning and to communicate with people around them. The miracle ________ the infant brain is its capacity to acquire all ________ the structures ________ any language spoken ________ earth. Children do not learn the components ________ language separately or ________ isolation. They don’t master the sound system and then move ________ to learning words ________ then sentences. ________ do they learn the structures ________ the language as a cognitive exercise. In order to learn to communicate effectively, children master the complex structures ________ their language.

3. The C-test deletes the last half of every other word. Alternatively, only the first letter is provided.

Children learn language in order to express meaning and to communicate with people around them. Th___ miracle o___ the inf___ brain i___ its capa___ to acq___ all o___ the struc___ of an___ language spo___ on ear___. Child___ do n___ learn t___ components o___ language separ___ or i___ isolation. Th___ don’t master t___ sound sys___ and th___ move o___ to lear___ words a___ then sent___. Nor d___ they le___ the struc___ of th___ language a___ a cogn___ exercise. I___ order to learn to communi- cate effectively, children master the complex structures of their language.

See also http://sf ltdu.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-cloze-according-to-gestalt-theory.html

Table 4.2: Scoring of Cloze procedure for instructional purposes

Independent (material is too easy)

Instructional (about the right level for ELL)

Frustration (too difficult)

60% and above 40%–60% Below 40%

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 91 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://sfltdu.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-cloze-according-to-gestalt-theory.html

Section 4.2 Categories of Assessment

Monitoring Progress Teachers are aware of the need to monitor the progress of all their students. States require progress reports, certain federal programs require progress reports, districts some- times have their own requirements for reporting progress, and parents expect regular report cards. Teachers also use various assessment procedures to gauge the effectiveness of their instruction and determine whether ELLs are making sufficient progress. Assessment of ELLs for the purpose of monitoring progress is a complicated and time-consuming process that has serious and far-reaching implications for ELLs, their families, and their schools.

Federal and state legislation require that yearly progress reports be submitted, and the choice of the instrument is mandated. For teaching purposes, large-scale achievement tests are not especially helpful. These tests are normally given only once a year, and teachers cannot wait for the end of the year to find out whether their ELLs are acquiring language at an appropriate pace. Rather, teachers need to track individual students’ progress on a regular basis, usually monthly.

There are many resources available for teachers to assist them in devising monitoring systems (see Additional Resources at the end of this chapter), but the task is really straightforward. Each month teachers fill out an assessment form evaluating overall language performance as well as skills in oral and written language. A sample form for monitoring oral language skills is shown in Monitoring Oral Language Skills. Many of the assessment instruments used for placement purposes can be administered at regular intervals to inform the progress report, along with teachers’ observations and review of performance on assignments.

Although it is important to keep track of progress in all the language domains, it is especially important to monitor reading progress, because a student who falls behind in reading will fall

Monitoring Oral Language Skills Oral Language Skills

Learner’s name __________________________________________ Grade ______________

Date ___________________________ Teacher ________________________________________

General ability to communicate

o Communicates very effectively in social and academic English. o Communicates with some difficulty but can convey meaning. o Understands little or no English.

Vocabulary skills

o Uses appropriate content vocabulary. o Uses content vocabulary with difficulty or errors. o Can identify and name concrete objects.

Grammar skills

o Correctly uses and understands basic grammatical structures. o Attempts some grammatical forms but has problems with verb tenses and agreement. o Forms few sentences.

(continued)

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 92 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

behind in all subjects. Reading progress can be monitored in a variety of ways. For example, the Cloze procedure can be used to assess progress. To monitor fluency, the teacher can use a measure of words correct per minute:

For progress monitoring, passages are selected at a student’s individu- ally determined goal level. For example, if an eighth grade student’s instructional level is at the fifth grade level, the teacher may conduct the progress monitoring assessments using passages at the sixth grade level. (Hasbrouck, 2006)

Students then read the passage aloud, and the number of correct words per minute is cal- culated. Results may be interpreted in two ways—in terms of improvement over the previ- ous month, or as measured against published tables of norms such as those developed by Hasbrouck and Tindal (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006).

No monitoring procedure is complete without an ongoing assessment of progress in writing. For older learners, rubrics are available or can be created by teachers to evaluate a piece of writing. For most classroom purposes, a short writing sample in response to a prompt such as a question about a story or other text familiar to the learner can be gathered on a regular basis. For all ages and levels, however, the most effective monitoring of writing development is the portfolio. By keeping samples of the learner’s work (or making the learner responsible for doing so), over time, the teacher can evaluate progress and design interventions to assist in moving the learner closer to proficiency. With portfolios, teachers “. . . can systematically col- lect descriptive records of a variety of student work over time that reflect growth toward the achievement of specific curricular objectives. Portfolios include information, sample work, and evaluations that serve as indicators for student performance” (ColorínColorado, 2007).

After the overall language proficiency level of an ELL has been determined, but before prog- ress can be monitored, it is necessary to place that learner in the appropriate ELL program. Several are available, as described in the next section.

4.3 ELL Program Options An ELL has been identified and the teacher has some indication of her language abilities. What are the options? They depend to a large degree on the resources of the school, but broadly speaking the possibilities are either to place the learner in a mainstream class at the appropriate grade level or to place the learner in a specialized ESL program, which may

Monitoring Oral Language Skills (continued)

Fluency

o Speaks with few pauses or hesitations. o Speaks in short utterances with frequent hesitations. o Speaks one or two words in response to questions or prompts.

Source: Adapted from ColorínColorado online at http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit .pdf

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 93 6/30/15 12:09 PM

ELL Program Options

Mainstream Classroom

ESL Classroom

In-room support from ESL teacher

or assistant

Pull-out Programs

Classroom teacher works with individuals

or small groups

With Support

Without Support

Bilingual

English Learning Center

“Sheltered” Class

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

take several forms. The decision tree shown in Figure 4.1 illustrates these ELL program options.

English Mainstream Classroom The policy of many, if not most, schools in the country is to accommodate their ELLs in the mainstream classroom. This choice is solidly grounded in theory and in practice—if it is done appropriately. Consistent with our knowledge of how children learn language, it makes sense to expose students to peer group English so that they will learn the conven- tions of social speech and interaction in much the same way that they learned their first lan- guage. In addition, they will learn the academic English appropriate to their grade level or subject, and early experience with academic English appropriate to content becomes more important with each year of schooling. But does this mean that ELLs should be put into the classroom and ignored? No. Even if there is no specialized option such as an in-room assistant or ELL teacher, the classroom teacher must make some adjustments for the ELLs by working with individual students or small groups, modifying assignments, and simplify- ing explanations. Depending on the learners’ proficiency level, teachers often pair them or place them into groups with English speaking children who can help them understand and can serve as language role models.

Other options for ELLs who are primarily mainstreamed include the pull-out program and in-room assistance. The pull-out program involves removing children from the classroom for some portion of the day to get help, sometimes with learners from other grades, in areas that

Figure 4.1: ELL program options

School resources may determine which ELL program options are available for learners.

ELL Program Options

Mainstream Classroom

ESL Classroom

In-room support from ESL teacher

or assistant

Pull-out Programs

Classroom teacher works with individuals

or small groups

With Support

Without Support

Bilingual

English Learning Center

“Sheltered” Class

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 94 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

the classroom teacher has identified as needing particular attention—vocabulary, regular verb tenses, or even a content area such as social studies.

The ideal model, however, may be the mainstream classroom with in-room assistance. This assis- tance can come from an aide or teacher assistant who spends extra time with the learners, adapt- ing what is happening in the classroom to their language level. It can also come from a specially trained ESL teacher who works in collaboration with the classroom teacher to work more intensely on those areas of language that both teachers have identified. For classrooms with a high percentage of ELLs, in-room support is particularly effective. If ELLs are not assigned immediately to a main- stream classroom, they will be placed in an ELL (or ESL) classroom.

ELL Classroom There are a number of program options that can be considered for ELLs, and the particular choice a school makes is often governed by school district policy. Nevertheless, it is important that everyone involved in the education of ELLs understands the alternatives to placement in a mainstream classroom in order to help to inform policy decisions. It might be possible, for example, to import some of the more successful practices of a program without adopting it in its entirety. Some of the more commonly used ones are the bilingual program, the learning center, and the sheltered program.

Bilingual Programs As the name suggests, bilingual programs are those in which learners’ home language and English are both used for instruction as the learners are gradually transitioned into a fully English program. There are three types of bilingual programs that are used in this country. In early-exit bilingual programs, also known as transitional bilingual education (TBE), learners are given initial instruction in their first language:

Teaching English learners in all-English classes as soon as they begin school- ing, it is argued, impedes their academic development because they cannot speak or understand English sufficiently to benefit from academic instruction through English. Thus, learners are put at academic risk. TBE is designed to avoid this pitfall. As students acquire proficiency in oral English, the language in which academic subjects are taught gradually shifts from the students’ home language to English. Content instruction through English is often pro- vided in individualized and specially designed units. . . . The transition to Eng- lish instruction typically starts off with math, followed by reading and writing, then science, and finally social studies. Once they acquire sufficient English proficiency, TBE students make the transition to mainstream classes where all academic instruction is presented in English; often this occurs at grade three (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010).

Kathy Yeulet/Thinkstock

ELLs in pull-out programs are often taken to learning centers, which are sometimes located in the school library.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 95 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

Unlike two-way bilingual programs, the goal in early-exit is not to develop the home language at all, but to accelerate the learner’s placement in the mainstream classroom. Early research on the effectiveness of this type of bilingual program was damning. Researchers Christine Rossell and Keith Baker reviewed 300 program evaluations conducted between the late 1970s and 1995. Of these, 72 were found to be methodologically sound enough to trust the conclusions. Their analysis showed that only 22% of learners in transitional bilingual education (TBE) fared better than their peers in reading for whom no special language accommodation was made— 33% fared worse in reading than their submersion counterparts, and for 45% there was no difference. When the measure was language proficiency, the numbers looked even worse for TBE: 64% did worse than those in the submersion group (Rossell & Baker, 1996). Despite the absence of evidence that such programs were effective, many school districts, especially those in heavily Hispanic areas, refused to abandon the early-exit programs. Instead, they improved the quality of the materials and instruction used in both languages with these learners and more strictly sequenced their entry into English-only classrooms. In schools where early-exit bilingual programs have been thoughtfully implemented and monitored, there is some evidence of success, but it is important to note that there is little data to support the superiority of this program over English immersion or other well implemented options (Faltis, 2011).

Late-exit bilingual programs, also known as developmental bilingual education (DBE), dif- fer from early-exit not only in the duration of the programs, but in their intent. The primary goal of early-exit programs is not to maintain or facilitate the home language but to ease and even hasten the learners’ learning of English. In contrast, late-exit programs are considered to be

. . . an enrichment form of dual language education that uses English learners’ home language and English for literacy and academic instruction throughout the elementary grade levels, wherever possible, high school as well. . . . Most current DBE programs begin in kindergarten or grade one and add one grade level each year. They teach regular academic subjects through English and the students’ native language for as many grade levels as the school district can and will support. . . . DBE programs aim to promote high levels of academic achievement in all curricular areas and full proficiency in both the students’ home language and English for academic purposes (Lindholm-Leary & Genessee, 2010, pp. 3–4).

Built on the understanding that there are benefits to bilingualism and that content and skills can transfer from language to language, late-exit bilingual programs, then, are more respect- ful of ELLs’ home language. Both early- and late-exit bilingual programs are intended for minority students in English language schools.

The third type of bilingual program can serve the needs of minority students, but it also has the broader goal of providing opportunities for all learners to become bilingual. This is the two-way bilingual program, also known as two-way immersion and dual immersion.

There are a number of variations on two-way bilingual programs, depending on a number of factors—mainly school resources, the diversity of the community, and the interest of English speakers in learning another language. The duration of the program, for example, can range from kindergarten through elementary school, while others continue into middle or even high school. Another difference is how language use is proportioned. In some programs, the goal is that the non-English language be used for at least 50% of the time every day. In others,

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 96 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

the non-English language is used for up to 90% of the time in kindergarten and first grade, with more English added each year until the 50/50 proportion is reached in fourth or fifth grade. All the variants have the same purpose:

Two-way immersion programs provide integrated language and academic instruction for native speakers of English and native speakers of another language with the goals of high academic achievement, first- and second- language proficiency, and cross-cultural understanding (Lindholm-Leary & Genessee, 2010, p. 5).

Ideally, two-way immersion/bilingual programs consist of 50% language minority and 50% English speaking children, although percentages vary. Experts agree, however, that neither group should constitute less than one-third of the class. Why? The reason is that if the pro- portion is too greatly skewed toward one language group or the other, the desired balance in language use cannot be achieved. For example, if there are 20 English speaking children in a class and only five (or even 10) Spanish speakers, English will soon dominate and the main goal of the program—fluency for both groups in both languages—will not be attained.

The program is structured so that academic subjects are taught to all learners in both languages, but the same subject is not usually taught in both languages in the same year. If the curriculum requires social studies and math to be taught in English in third grade, the same subjects would normally be taught in the other language, usually Spanish in the United States, in fourth grade.

Not surprisingly, in the United States these programs exist mainly in districts with large His- panic populations, although a few others exist. According to the Center for Applied Linguis- tics, which maintains a directory of two-way programs in the United States, in 405 of the total 444 programs, Spanish is the non-English language of instruction. Table 4.3 shows the distribution of two-way bilingual programs by language.

Two-way bilingual/immersion programs can be expensive to offer in districts without a sub- stantial number of specially trained teachers, and almost impossible to offer in districts with a very diverse minority population. Fortunately, there are other alternatives. One that is used

Table 4.3 Two-way bilingual programs offered in the United States

Language Number of two-way bilingual programs

State where most programs are offered

Spanish 405 California (31% of total programs)

French 7 Florida & California (28.5% each)

Japanese 6 California & Georgia (33% each)

Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin, or both)

17 California (76%)

German 2 California (50%) Georgia (50%)

Korean 7 California (86%)

Source: Data from Center for Applied Linguistics.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 97 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

in mainstream classrooms already and can be designed to fit the needs of ELLs is the learning center.

English Learning Centers English language learning centers are most effectively employed in conjunction with class- room support. An English learning center (ELC) concentrates resources in a single place, in a school or in the district, and learners from different classrooms and different grades (and sometimes different schools) work with an ESL teacher for part of the school day. Some schools assign all new ELLs to the learning center for initial assessment and a placement, creating what is effectively a reception center. Ideally, the ESL teacher works in collaboration with the classroom teacher to provide supplementary language instruction to support the academic curriculum in the classroom. Learning centers can provide good support for ELLs, but the goal should always be to facilitate their language growth so that they can function effectively in the mainstream classroom. Because ELCs often accommodate learners of dif- ferent ages, such as beginners in kindergarten, first, and second grade, the ESL teacher will be limited in how effectively she is able to coordinate the curricula of the classrooms with the activities of the center. On the other hand, there might be some benefit to social language learning in having learners of different ages together in the same classroom. Can you think what they might be?

Another version of the English learning center is the in-room center, a smaller space cre- ated in a classroom with specially adapted print materials, as well as computers or tablets and headphones. If there is a second teacher or an assistant in the classroom, this can be especially effective by providing an opportunity to simplify or practice particular language skills.

Sheltered Classroom The focus of sheltered classrooms is content. Unlike bilingual programs that group learners together according to language, sheltered programs group learners from different language backgrounds in the same class. Teachers use only English to teach content, but they adapt their language to the proficiency level of the learners, relying extensively on gestures and visual aids to facilitate understanding. Learning English is accomplished through the learn- ing of content; the language is simplified but the content is not. The instructional techniques and materials used in sheltered classrooms are similar to those used in immersion programs offered in other languages. In fact, some districts use the term sheltered immersion to describe the programs they use. Sheltered programs are popular because they do not take time away from content instruction, an important consideration for schools under increasing pressure from the accountability movements such as NCLB and CCSS. However the program is desig- nated, its success depends on teachers being specially trained to teach content to learners, often with different languages and learning experience.

On Choosing The choice of program for ELLs is seldom left to the teacher, but is a matter of school, district, or even state policy. Some of the other factors that determine how schools accommodate their ELLs are

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 98 6/30/15 12:09 PM

No Yes

Mainstream Classroom

Assistant or ESL teacher with

classroom teacher Pull-out to

Assess to monitor progress

Assessment to confirm ELL status

Sheltered classroom

Mainstream with support

ESL Program

ELL Program

Learning center

ESL Class

Bilingual Program

Section 4.3 ELL Program Options

1. The diversity of the community. If the non-English school population is entirely Hispanic, then there are more options than if several language groups are represented.

2. The linguistic and educational background of the learners. Some learners whose families have only recently arrived to the United States may have experienced inter- rupted or limited schooling. Some will be literate in their home language whereas others will not.

3. The school district’s resources. If a school has been enrolling minority language learn- ers for a number of years, they may have experienced ESL and bilingual teachers and assistants. They are also likely to have more material resources than schools that are unaccustomed to ELLs. Schools with burgeoning enrollments will face different chal- lenges than those with declining resources, and they may be able to dedicate space to create learning centers or pull-out programs.

Figure 4.2 summarizes graphically the relationship between assessment and program options described here. Whatever the program option chosen for ELLs, to a large degree their suc- cess depends on the teacher and what happens in the classroom (i.e., how and what they are taught).

No Yes

Mainstream Classroom

Assistant or ESL teacher with

classroom teacher Pull-out to

Assess to monitor progress

Assessment to confirm ELL status

Sheltered classroom

Mainstream with support

ESL Program

ELL Program

Learning center

ESL Class

Bilingual Program

Figure 4.2: Assessment, placement, and monitoring of ELLs

School, district, or even state policies may determine which program is most suitable for ELLs.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 99 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

4.4 Instructional Methods Whether they are in mainstream or ESL classrooms, ELLs need specialized instruction—in fact, that is the subject of Chapters 5 through 10. In this section, we take a look at some of the approaches that have been used in the past. The chapters that follow will make it clear why ELLs cannot be put into mainstream classrooms and then ignored. The good news is that elementary teachers will find that many of the strategies they use with English speakers, especially in kindergarten and first grade, can be adapted for use with second language learn- ers. Later in this book we will examine some of these, as well as the techniques, materials, and strategies that can be used with ELLs.

Teaching students a new language is not new. Nor is there consensus about the best way to do it. Over the decades, many ideas, some of them fairly strange, have emerged. We will examine a few of those very carefully, not because they are recommended but to stress three important points:

1. There is no single best way to teach everybody. 2. The “next best thing” may not be the best. It may not even be better. 3. Even very bad approaches are likely to have a kernel of something useful.

But first, let’s consider some terminology. Methodology, approach, method, and technique are all terms that are used to talk about how to teach. The latter three are sometimes used inter- changeably, but to be accurate, there are differences. These differences are best understood as a hierarchy. Methodology encompasses all of the other three. It is the general category term for what we do, rather like plant is the category we can use to talk about hydrangeas, palm trees, and okra. In research, it refers to everything the researcher does to explore the research hypothesis. Approach refers to the intersection of theory and practice. It consists of the principles that follow from a theoretical stance. For example, if the second language learning theory is that second language learning is exactly the same as first language learn- ing, one approach that might be tried would be to give learners a lengthy exposure to oral language without expecting them to speak (and such an approach exists, as we shall see). Method refers to the overall plan for instruction, whereas techniques drill down to the spe- cifics of what happens in the classroom. In summary, techniques implement methods that are consistent with approaches that, usually, have a theoretical underpinning. Not all educators ascribe to these distinctions in practice, but it is useful to understand why some approaches or methods might be vague on details about how to apply them in the classroom.

The approaches to language teaching that have been followed for the past two centuries fall into three categories—structural, functional, and interactive. Each has several methods asso- ciated with it, but we will examine only a few.

Structural Approaches These approaches stressed the importance of grammar, and sometimes they appeared to work, in large part because expectations were low. The grammar-translation method, for example, was the dominant method used to teach second or foreign languages until the late 1940s. The target language is taught in the learner’s home language and consists of memoriz- ing lists of words and learning enough grammar to translate text from the target language into the home language. Following this method, a student could study language for years without

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 100 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

having any kind of a conversation or even having to understand the language spoken. It is the method that generations of U.S. students used to learn enough French or German to pass the second language requirement in high school or college. In fact, it is still used in classrooms in Europe and Asia today, and a few may exist in the Americas. Many ESL teachers have seen evidence of that first hand, as Marcia Kennedy describes in My First ESL Class.

Two wars in the early 20th century meant that large numbers of service personnel found themselves in foreign countries. Having “learned” French, German, or Spanish by methods similar to grammar-translation, they struggled when confronted with real language. The U.S. Army intervened in the 1940s and developed the audio-lingual method (also known as the Army method and the aural-oral method), which was further developed during the 1950s and made popular with the help of several U.S. universities, including the University of Michigan and the University of Texas, which developed extensive training programs. It was to a large extent reactionary to the grammar-translation method because it sought to remedy the void of oral skills in grammar-translation. The audio-lingual method relied in part on comparative analysis—comparing the learner’s home language with English (or other language being taught) to discover what the differences were and what difficulties they would likely pose to the learner. It was firmly grounded in structural linguistics and behaviorist learning theory.

According to B. F. Skinner, the infant is a “blank slate” and all learning results from stimulus- response behavior. Learning language is a process of habit formation. The child utters a word or a phrase and someone reinforces it positively if it is correct and negatively if it is not. The child repeats those utterances that receive positive responses, which leads to habit formation. The same theory applied to second language learners, but in their case the native language represented, in the context of learning a new language, a set of bad habits that had to be eradi- cated. It was best to prevent errors by practicing well-formed utterances and then practicing

My First ESL Class

With my shiny new degree in English, I got a job teaching ESL at a local community college at night. Because I was inexperienced, I was assigned the advanced learners, or those who had had three or more years of English language classes. I began the class by introducing myself and explaining where they could buy the textbooks and generally taking care of first-night house- keeping details. I was met with blank stares. I handed out the course outline I had brought, and after a few minutes I could see many heads nodding. “Do you have questions?” I asked. “Yes,” a young man replied. I waited. “What is your question?” He pointed at the name of one of the books on the outline and said, “Where buy this?” I explained. He signaled for me to write it on the board, which I did. I noticed everyone writing it down. I tried to converse with the class. “Where are you from” at first elicited only one shy hand, but after she responded correctly, the others guessed at the question and named their home countries. I handed out copies of a passage that I had thought would be too easy for “advanced” learners. They took it eagerly and started to write. As I walked around the room, I saw that not one of them was writing in English. As I eventually learned, although they had all studied English in their homelands, the method was to learn a lot of words and a lot of grammar rules. They’d use these to translate English text, but they had no communication skills at all. None. It was a long semester.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 101 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

them again and again and again. Audio-lingual methods, thus, were structured to minimize the occurrence of errors so that only correct forms were practiced and learned. Mimic and memorize were the two words that best described the method.

Although the audio-lingualism approach dominated much of the 20th century, it was not the only one in use. The oral approach, also called situational language teaching, was developed in Great Britain between 1930 and the 1960s, partly in reaction to the perceived inadequa- cies of the audio-lingual method. The method was based on research showing that most languages have a core vocabulary of about 2,000 words that appear in written text and on an analysis of the most common sentence patterns found in spoken language. The meth- ods that grew out of these observations focused on reading and the carefully controlled introduction of vocabulary in “situations,” usually short narratives. This method allowed little methodological variation and the techniques were prescribed as well: PPP, or present, practice, and produce. In class, the teacher or a recorded voice presented the material to be learned. The students read as they listened, and then they were led through a number of practice drills before “producing” the language in a slightly less formal way (Howatt, 1984). It was an approach widely used and as recently as the 1980s in this country, primarily in foreign language classrooms.

Behaviorist-rooted audio-lingualism fell into dis- repute as a result of a major theoretical shift in linguistics led by linguist Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rejecting the behaviorist explanation of language acquisi- tion (Chomsky, 1968), he put forward a very dif- ferent theory of language acquisition (Chapter 5). This theoretical shift led to the development of new approaches to the teaching of second languages, approaches that emphasized real language used for real purposes.

Functional Approaches The notional/functional approach grew out of the work of British linguist David Wilkins in the 1970s. He proposed replacing grammar and vocabulary as the basis for organizing the language teaching curric- ulum with a set of “notions” and a set of “functions” that learners would need in order to communicate effectively. Functions included greetings, leave- takings, apologies, making requests, and all the other uses for which language is used (see Additional

Resources at the end of this chapter). Organizing the curriculum according to notions and func- tions marked a sharp departure from the orderly presentation of grammar according to supposed level of difficulty. A typical textbook, for example, would introduce the functions of introductions and making requests in early lessons. Those lessons would include the language needed for mak- ing introductions and requests without regard for the supposed linguistic complexity.

Flirt/Flirt/Superstock

Outside the United States, the audio- lingual approach is still widely used to teach languages.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 102 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Section 4.4 Instructional Methods

A less common approach was the directed practice approach. The curriculum was planned around the phrases that students were likely to need in various situations. Used by the dip- lomatic corps as a quick way to prepare employees for overseas postings, the approach was functional in the sense that it was designed to meet certain identified functional needs, and in that sense it was compatible with the notional/functional approach. The techniques, however, were far different. Directed practice required the same kind of repetition drills that character- ized the audio-lingual method, while the notional/functional approach used communicative exercises such as role plays and group work.

With their focus on teaching language needed for real purposes, and away from grammar, the functional approaches represented a severe departure from the carefully ordered structural approaches. They were, in fact, a precursor to the communicative/interactive approaches in use today, which also emphasize the functional use of language.

Communicative/Interactive Approaches Most of the approaches to English language teaching in use today can be classified as communicative or interactive. In all likelihood, the shift to the approaches involving natu- ral language used in real communicative settings was born of necessity as much as out of a new theoretical stance. Not to diminish the importance of theory, but it often takes a lot of time for theory to inform teaching practice, meaningfully anyway. Sometimes teachers can’t wait. As more and more immigrants arrived in U.S. classrooms, deficiencies in previous approaches became more apparent, and teachers became very creative in their approaches, often borrowing from best practices they had learned as elementary school teachers. As it happened, theories of how language is acquired or learned were evolving simultaneously, and these provided a rationale for developing teaching approaches that recognized the importance and the urgency of developing both social and academic language proficiency. Communicative approaches had as their goal and their method the use of real language for real purposes.

As Richards observes, most ESL or ELL teachers today, if asked, would say that their meth- odology was communicative, many without any clear notion of what the term really means— which is not to diminish the effect of their teaching. He goes on to point out that

Communicative language teaching can be understood as a set of principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom. (Richards, 2006, p. 2)

At the heart of this approach is its goal: communicative competence. Communicative com- petence differs from grammatical competence, which was the focus of structural approaches, although some grammatical proficiency is necessarily an important component—a learner can hardly be described as communicating effectively if his syntax is mangled. Communica- tive competence implies proficiency and the ability to function in all the settings relevant to the learner. It is also the guiding principle for teaching ELLs in all four domains, whatever their language proficiency level and whatever instructional method or techniques are used (Chapter 5).

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 103 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

“American students may be the most tested kids in the world, taking more than 100 million standardized tests every year, according to Teachers College at Columbia University in New York City” (Clovis, 2014). As we have seen in this chapter, however, standardized tests, many federally mandated, are not the only tests that students take. There are nonstandardized proficiency tests, placement tests, and tests to monitor progress, given by teachers, and sometimes mandated by school districts. It is important, therefore, to understand the prin- ciples that should govern assessment and to distinguish among the different categories of assessment. The major objectives of this chapter were to clarify some of the confusion sur- rounding assessment and then to describe the program options that are available for ELLs so that they can meet the proficiency requirements that most of these tests are intended to measure. With all of this emphasis on testing in today’s schools, pressure is on teachers to find the best ways of teaching their ELLs so that they will become fully functioning bilin- guals, with the academic and linguistic proficiency in English that they need to succeed. As we saw in Panic Time for Jorge, a beginning teacher found this out the hard way.

No approach to teaching arises independent of all that has gone before it, and so we exam- ined a few of the major ones that have been used and which have influenced those methods in use today. As we have seen, many approaches used to teach language in the past have failed, but even failed approaches have left behind something of value. Few of us can claim that in the business of teaching, we are methodologically “pure,” rigorously and exclusively following the dictates of one approach or method. Rather, we adopt that approach which most closely aligns with our best understandings of human learning, develop a plan that accords with those understandings and then use techniques that we have devised ourselves or that others have found useful. In Chapter 5, we will delve deeper into instruction, with a particular focus on communicative competence and the teaching methods associated with it.

Why I Teach: Panic Time for Jorge After graduation, my first teaching assignment was to a “sheltered” English class. I had my TESL certification and so I knew what that was, not that I’d actually ever done it! The class was a third grade/fourth grade split, with five third graders and seven fourth graders. Knowing they had limited English, I started to prepare myself to teach them English. Somehow I had it in my head that they would all be at more or less the same level of English proficiency. I also assumed they would all speak Spanish, since that was the dominant minority language in the community, and if all else failed, I could resort to translation since I am bilingual. Imagine my surprise when I discovered how wrong I was. I learned quickly that I was responsible primar- ily for teaching the content for their grades and that only four of the 12 children spoke Span- ish, and while some of them communicated fairly well, three of them were clearly struggling and one was an absolute beginner. To make matters worse, I found out that the third graders had to write the state achievement test that year and that the results could have serious impli- cations for the school. And for me! To be continued . . . .

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 104 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

approach to teaching The intersection of theory and practice. This approach consists of the principles that follow from a theoreti- cal stance.

assessment The collection and analysis of data in order to answer questions about learners.

audio-lingual method An ELL teaching method that relies in part on comparative analysis, comparing the learner’s home lan- guage with English (or other language being taught) to discover what the differences are and what difficulties they will likely pose to the learner. Also known as the Army method and the aural-oral method.

benchmarking Setting a point of reference against which progress can be measured.

Cloze test A test in which a reader is asked to supply words or letters that have been removed from a passage in order to assess the reader’s understanding of context and vocabulary.

communicative competence The level of a learner’s language proficiency and the abil- ity to function in all of the settings relevant to the learner.

communicative or interactive approach A teaching approach that involves natural lan- guage used in real communicative settings.

Key Ideas

1. Assessment of ELLs is done mainly for placement and to monitor progress, both linguistically and academically.

2. Factors such as language proficiency, degree of cultural adaptation, prior schooling, and prior experience of test-taking can negatively impact ELLs scores on assess- ments created for native speakers.

3. Test instruments used for assessing ELLs’ content knowledge should be as linguisti- cally undemanding as possible.

4. Formative evaluations tend to be less formal and to provide more useful information for teachers to use to intervene or modify their instructional plan.

5. Although there are some standardized measures that can be used for placement pur- poses, proficiency tests may be more helpful because they allow learners to demon- strate what they can do with language rather than what they know about language.

6. Keeping accurate and detailed progress reports is important not only to meet dis- trict and government requirements, but to allow teachers and learners to monitor achievement and plan future instruction.

7. Although it is important to keep track of progress in all the language domains, it is especially important to monitor reading progress, because a student who falls behind in reading will fall behind in all subjects.

8. ELLs can function well in mainstream classrooms, particularly with appropriate and adequate support for teacher and learner.

9. Sheltered language programs offer opportunities for ELLs to get grade-level content instruction using simplified language.

10. Whatever program is chosen, the goal should always be to add (rather than to replace) proficiency in a new language.

11. Most current approaches of ELL/ESL teaching are based on the goal of achieving communicative competence through the use of real language for real purposes.

Key Terms

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 105 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

constructed-response question Ques- tion that requires a short-answer or essay response.

early-exit bilingual program or transi- tional bilingual education (TBE) An ELL teaching method that utilizes ELLs’ home language for up to two or three years as a transition to mainstream classrooms.

English learning center (ELC) An ELL teaching method that concentrates resources in a single place where learn- ers from different classrooms and different grades (and sometimes different schools) work with an ESL teacher for part of the school day.

formative evaluation An ongoing assess- ment that teachers and schools undertake in order to gauge the effectiveness of a lesson, assignment, or unit.

grammar-translation method An older method of ELL teaching that is based on explicit instruction in the grammatical analysis of the target language and translation of sentences from the native language into the target language, and vice versa.

informal reading inventory (IRI) An indi- vidually administered assessment intended to diagnose and evaluate a number of skills associated with reading.

late-exit bilingual programs or develop- mental bilingual education (DBE) An ELL teaching method, normally lasting through the elementary years and sometimes into high school, that use about 10% English in kindergarten and increase every year until about 60% of instruction in fourth grade is done in English.

method of teaching The overall plan for instruction consistent with the chosen approach.

methodology The theory-driven approach to language teaching, together with associ- ated methods and techniques.

notional/functional approach An ELL teaching approach that organizes the lan- guage teaching curriculum with a set of “notions” and a set of “functions” that learn- ers need in order to communicate effectively.

performance assessment An opportunity for students to demonstrate content knowl- edge by reducing reliance on language.

pull-out programs An ELL teaching method in which ELLs are placed in main- stream classrooms but taken out to special- ized ESL classes for part of the day.

reliability The degree to which test results can be trusted to represent what they are supposed to represent. If two versions of the same test do not yield the same result, the reliability of both is questionable.

rubric A standard of performance for a defined population.

sheltered classroom An ELL teaching method in which classes for ELLs that focus on content are presented in language simpli- fied to their level of proficiency.

summative evaluation A measure taken periodically to determine what students know and do not know.

techniques of teaching Specific plans for implementing a teaching method.

two-way bilingual or two-way immer- sion or dual immersion An ELL teaching method that provides integrated language and academic instruction for both native speakers of English and ELLs.

validity The degree to which a test or assessment tool measures what it is intended to measure.

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 106 6/30/15 12:09 PM

Summary & Resources

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Why might standardized tests not accurately measure what ELLs know? 2. A test should measure what it is intended to measure and be used only for that

purpose. For example, a math achievement test should be used to assess only math knowledge or skills. Why is this an especially important fact to keep in mind for ELLs taking English proficiency tests?

3. Choose a passage of text appropriate for a second grader or older and construct three Cloze tests, as described and illustrated in the Cloze Procedure box. What dif- ferent types of information would you derive from each test?

4. Based on what you know about which states have the highest population of Spanish speakers, list the states that you would expect to have higher percentages of two- way bilingual programs. Now, go to the Center for Applied Linguistics website at http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/index.html and use their searchable database to check your predictions. Any surprises? What are some possible reasons for what you found?

5. A teacher wishes to test her fifth graders’ understanding of a geography lesson she has just taught. She gives them a written quiz with questions such as this one from the National Geographic Geography Bee:

The North Atlantic current brings warm waters from the tropics to the west coast of which continent?

Nine of the 10 English speakers in the class answer correctly, but only three of the seven ELLs get the answer right. What are the possible explanations?

6. Within the communicative/interactive approach to teaching, can you think of any situations in which a teacher might appropriately use practice drills requiring learn- ers to repeat particular words or structures over and over out of context?

7. Under what circumstances might a teacher use techniques associated with the struc- tural approach to language teaching?

8. What is meant by the “collaborative construction and negotiation of meaning?”

Additional Resources For an overview of what assessment is and how it is used for ELLs, see Andrea Hellman’s presentation at TESOL 2011, available online at http://www.academia.edu/466047/Assessment_with_P-12_English_language_learners

For a good discussion of classroom assessment, see the Association for Middle Level Education at http://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/Assessment/AsDet/TabId/180/ArtMID/780/ ArticleID/286/Formative-and-Summative-Assessments-in-the-Classroom.aspx

For an excellent description of performance based assessment, with specific examples of performance tasks included, see https://scale.stanford.edu/system/files/performance-assessments-english-language- learners.pdf and http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/tannen01.html

For practical tips on informal assessment, see http://www.colorincolorado.org/educators/assessment/informal/

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 107 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/index.html

http://www.academia.edu/466047/Assessment_with_P-12_English_language_learners

http://www.amle.org/BrowsebyTopic/Assessment/AsDet/TabId/180/ArtMID/780/ArticleID/286/Formative-and-Summative-Assessments-in-the-Classroom.aspx

https://scale.stanford.edu/system/files/performance-assessments-english-language-learners.pdf

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/tannen01.html

http://www.colorincolorado.org/educators/assessment/informal/

Summary & Resources

For a critical analysis of eight commonly used informal reading inventories, see http://www.readingrockets.org/article/23373

For a template useful for monitoring progress in reading skills, see http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit.pdf

For a description of functional approaches in language teaching, see Bowen’s “Teaching approaches: Functional approaches in teaching EFL/ESL” online at http://www.onestopenglish.com/support/methodology/teaching-approaches/teaching- approaches-functional-approaches-in-ef l/-esl/146492.article

pip82223_04_c04_081-108.indd 108 6/30/15 12:09 PM

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/23373

http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit.pdf

http://www.onestopenglish.com/support/methodology/teaching-approaches/teaching-approaches-functional-approaches-in-efl/-esl/146492.article