Finding Nemo? No, Finding Research

https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218762574

Intervention in School and Clinic 2018, Vol. 54(1) 6 –13 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2018

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1053451218762574

isc.sagepub.com

Feature Article

American society is increasingly more linguistically, cultur- ally, ethnically, and racially diverse. Along with the chang- ing racial and ethnic demographics, an increasing number of school-aged children are from homes where English is the second or third language spoken. An estimated 4.6 mil- lion students enrolled in public schools during the 2014– 2015 school year spoke English as an additional language (McFarland et al., 2017), and approximately 11% of those students had a learning disability (LD; IDEA Data Center, 2015). These students, like their peers without LD, arrive in classrooms with a wealth of cultural and linguistic knowl- edge; however, many of them encounter a school culture that differs from their own in terms of communication styles, values, and approaches to learning. Their experi- ences also differ from those of their teachers. The difference between their former learning experiences and practices used in U.S. schools can impact their ability to learn and their acquisition of reading skills (Snow, 2002). The lack of connection between students’ culture and experiences can contribute to student over- and underidentification for spe- cial education (Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Klingner et al.,

2005) and to a focus on students’ perceived deficits rather than understanding cultural and linguistic differences. Teachers, regardless of their own culture and ethnicity, can support students’ academic success by making connections to their lives and experiences (Aceves & Orosco, 2014) and by recognizing that any learning problems students experi- ence may be symptomatic of the broader classroom setting (Harris-Murri, King, & Rostenberg, 2006). Both general and special education teachers can create a classroom envi- ronment that fosters academic success for students with and without LD who are learning English as an additional language.

762574 ISCXXX10.1177/1053451218762574Intervention in School and ClinicLinan-Thompson et al. research-article2018

1University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA 2Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX, USA 3American Institutes for Research, Austin, TX, USA

Corresponding Author: Sylvia Linan-Thompson, PhD, Special Education and Clinical Science, University of Oregon, 5261 University of Oregon, HEDCO 340, Eugene, OR 97401, USA. Email: [email protected]

Exploring the Intersection of Evidence-Based Practices and Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practices

Sylvia Linan-Thompson, PhD1, Julie A. Lara-Martinez, PhD2, and Linda O. Cavazos, PhD3

Abstract Culturally and linguistically diverse learners with and without learning disabilities enrolled in public schools are tasked with learning content, a new culture, and a new language. Meeting their language and literacy needs requires systematic use of evidence-based practices and deep knowledge of culturally and linguistically responsive practices that address their instructional, social, and language needs. Based on observations of teachers in multilingual classroom, four culturally and linguistically responsive practice were identified: (a) consistent use of evidence-based instructional practices for students who are English learners, (b) integration of culturally responsive pedagogy with evidence-based instructional practices, (c) use of relational interaction practices that build trust and respect between teachers and students, and (d) use of flexible language practices. Vignettes of actual observation data contrast typical practice and culturally and linguistically responsive practice.

Keywords bilingual issues, diversity, diversities, instruction

Linan-Thompson et al. 7

Culturally responsive practice (CRP) entails under- standing and using the cultural characteristics, experi- ences, and perspectives of students from culturally diverse backgrounds to help them connect to and understand new content (Gay, 2002). CRP can be categorized into four domains: (a) instructional, (b) language, (c) social, and (d) cultural knowledge. Instructional includes the processes and teaching practices used in classroom instruction. Language refers to flexible language use to support stu- dent learning. Social aspects of CRP include practices related to the manner in which teachers interact with stu- dents and their social expectations of students, particularly students from minority backgrounds. Cultural knowledge refers to the inclusion of content materials that provide a variety of perspectives and include the values, norms, and traditions of students from diverse backgrounds. When considering the learning needs of students who are learn- ing English from varying cultural and ethnic backgrounds, attending to language use in the classroom is essential since it can impact their academic success. The impor- tance of this component when referring to instruction for students learning English as an additional language is emphasized by broadening the term to culturally and lin- guistically responsive practice (CLRP; Klingner, Boelé, Linan-Thompson, & Rodriguez, 2014; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). Table 1 describes each compo- nent of CLRP.

Research on Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practice

A few studies have explicitly examined the impact of CLRP on students’ academic outcomes (Garcia & Gaddes, 2012; Houchen, 2013; Kelley, Siwatu, Tost, & Martinez, 2015;

Langman, 2014; Milner, 2014; Palmer, Martínez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014; Piazza & Duncan, 2012; Worthy, Consalvo, Bogard, & Russell, 2012). The researchers lead- ing these studies focused on literacy in a variety of content areas across grade levels and implemented different aspects of CLRP. Modifying instructional practices and materials resulted in an increase of student achievement (Garcia & Gaddes, 2012; Kelley et al., 2015; Piazza & Duncan, 2012). In each of these studies (Garcia & Gaddes, 2012; Kelley et al., 2015; Piazza & Duncan, 2012), researchers matched instructional materials to students’ backgrounds. Other effective instructional practices identified were collabora- tive teaching, responsive feedback, modeling, and instruc- tional scaffolding; when used individually or combined, they improved student outcomes (Aceves & Orosco, 2014). These practices can be integrated into whole- and small- group instruction in general and special education classrooms.

Positive relationships between teachers and students are equally important to the academic success of diverse learn- ers (Houchen, 2013; Milner, 2014; Piazza, Rao, & Protacio, 2015; Worthy et al., 2012). In these studies, teachers used knowledge about the students’ lives and communicated in culturally connected ways to build and foster relationships. One way of building relationships is by respecting chil- dren’s language. Teachers who understand that language is more than the basis for communicating and learning but also an important component of one’s identity respect stu- dents’ language in the classroom. Both Langman (2014) and Palmer et al. (2014) examined teachers’ use of translan- guaging, the multidirectional use of language between teachers and students. Teachers in both studies engaged in code switching and translating. Code switching, the prac- tice of alternating between two languages at the inter- and

Table 1. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practice Components.

Component Definition Examples

Instruction Practices implemented by the teacher to advance student learning

•• explicit and systematic instruction •• focused vocabulary development •• strategy instruction •• use of predictable routines •• ongoing assessment

Language Practices that demonstrate a respect for both English and the students’ home languages

•• flexible use of language to support student learning •• metalinguistic work by students •• reminders to leverage L1 •• connections to cognates

Social Practices that demonstrate the teacher’s deep knowledge of students and their families; teacher builds relationships and creates a supportive learning environment

•• culture of mutual respect within the classroom •• teacher’s knowledge of students’ home lives

Cultural knowledge

Practices that demonstrate the teacher’s intimate knowledge of students’ cultural, ethnic, and social identities

•• use of cultural or linguistic references •• teacher knowledge and respect of students’ values, beliefs, and

traditions •• teacher knowledge and leverage of students’ funds of knowledge

8 Intervention in School and Clinic 54(1)

intrasentential level in a conversation, is common among many bilingual speakers. The researchers hypothesized that teachers’ use of Spanish communicates an acceptance of the students’ linguistic background and may encourage stu- dents to take linguistic risks. Teachers who are not bilingual can encourage students to use their first language when appropriate. Although results from these studies were prom- ising, it is important to note that outcome data included stu- dent work, curriculum-based assessments, and state standardized tests and that no studies included control groups.

Fewer studies yet have examined the impact of CLRP in special education classrooms. One exception is a study conducted by Orosco and O’Connor (2014) that examined the effect of a special education teachers’ knowledge of CLRP on instruction. Results indicated that the success of students learning English in special education classrooms might depend on how well the special education teacher implements CLRP. The integration of effective reading practices (e.g., explicit instruction) and CLRP such as cul- turally relevant skill-based instruction and using students’ native language to build background knowledge resulted in improved oral language and reading comprehension. The integration of culturally relevant skill-based instruction can be particularly important for students who are English learners and are experiencing learning difficulties because they may have greater difficulty learning content in a new language and adapting to the culture of the school. However, more studies are needed to understand how teachers’ use of CLRP in classrooms with students learning English as an additional language is associated with improved outcomes (Klingner & Edwards, 2006) for stu- dents with and without LD.

Many teachers recognize the need for integrating CLRP into their teaching. However, when there are chil- dren from various cultural or language groups in their classrooms they may not know how to implement the practices. Another challenge is distinguishing between general good practice and CLRP. Modeling is an integral component of effective reading and ESL instruction. Culturally responsive modeling incorporates students’ cultures, languages, and lived experiences (Jiménez & Gersten, 1999).

This article describes CLRP and contrasts it to typical practice. To better understand the ways in which teachers integrate CLRP and evidence-based reading and English as a second language (ESL) practices, teachers in multilingual classrooms in several states were observed. The vignettes are authentic situations observed as part of two separate studies. The names have been changed, but each pseud- onym matches the gender and ethnicity of the teacher. The vignettes contrast typical practice to CLRP and exemplify how teachers can enhance instruction by integrating evi- dence-based practices and CLRP.

Exemplifying Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practice

Culturally and lingusitically responsive practice is a multi- dimensional approach to teaching that affirms students’ cul- tural identities. Effective teachers integrate aspects of CLRP in all aspects of their instruction from lesson planning to delivery of instruction.

Instruction

There are several ways to affirm students’ identities during instruction including culturally responsive feedback and questioning or selecting appropriate materials. Culturally responsive feedback entails validating student contributions while also clarifying and expanding their statements and responses (Gersten & Geva, 2003). Similarly, culturally rel- evant questioning includes using different types of ques- tions, providing appropriate wait times, and scaffolding students’ language as necessary (Jiménez & Gersten, 1999). Many times, teachers who are unsure of how to respond to students’ attempts to connect to classroom content simply dismiss or ignore students’ responses. That is the case in the following vignette.

Mrs. Alvarez, a third-grade English/Spanish bilingual teacher, used short English passages to teach comprehen- sion (see Note 1). One of the vocabulary words in the pas- sage was reveal. She asked students to define reveal. After several wrong responses, Carlos responded, “reveal is like a video when you go back.” Carlos and the other students laughed and the teacher said, “No, that is not the meaning.” She went on to say, “Reveal is when you show something,” without providing any of the students who had responded incorrectly corrective feedback. Without feedback, Carlos and the other students in the class did not learn the correct word for the definition they gave or what was incorrect (Pica, 1996). Instead, Mrs. Alvarez could have stated that the correct word for going back on a video is rewind and that reveal is when you show something. Giving students the opportunity to repeat the words and definitions would also help them clarify confusion between the words and learn the meanings of the words (Kim & Linan-Thompson, 2013; Vaughn et al., 2006). Furthermore, during planning, she failed to identify reveal as a word that few students would know and that she would have to preteach.

Contrast the previous example with the approach taken by Mrs. Vela, a second-grade teacher. She selected Abuela’s Weave (Castenada, 1993) for a read-aloud with a group of mostly African American and Hispanic students. She explained that the story is about a grandmother passing on to her granddaughter a tradition of weaving tapestries, a topic and book that was culturally relevant for many stu- dents in the class. After defining traditions, she asked stu- dents about traditions in their family. One student responded

Linan-Thompson et al. 9

that his mother has a tradition of weaving. The teacher asked him to elaborate and clarify what he meant. The stu- dent responded that his mother always gets weaves in her hair. The teacher explained that the book would focus on a different type of weave, but that a hair weave is similar to woven fabric. At first, the connection between the student’s response and the discussion was unclear, but through CLRP questioning Mrs. Vela understood the student’s point and helped him make the connection to the discussion.

Considering the significant instructional role of the classroom teacher, the following are important prompts to consider when teaching students who are learning English as an additional language with or without learning differ- ences or disabilities.

1. Do I provide explicit instruction to ensure students’ access to the curricular goals?

2. Do I model to ensure students understand expectations?

3. Do I use different types of questions, appropriate wait times, and supporting instructional materials to scaffold learning?

4. Do I preteach new or content-based vocabulary? 5. Do I integrate instructional materials that reflect the

contributions of a variety of culturally diverse individuals?

6. Do I utilize ongoing and informal assessments to guide my instructional decisions?

Language

Teachers of students learning English as an additional lan- guage must understand the role that students’ home lan- guage has on learning. While most teachers know that students who are learning in a second language may not understand all the instructions given or know the meaning of words or that their receptive language tends to develop before their expressive language, few implement strategies to help students use language flexibly to understand new content. Translanguaging (García & Sylvan, 2011; Langman, 2014; Palmer et al., 2014) refers to the practice of allowing students to use their linguistic resources to make learning meaningful. It can be used by both teachers and students to communicate in multilingual classrooms. Translanguaging can be implemented between teachers and students or between students. It is important to note that a teacher does not have to be bilingual to encourage translan- guaging during a lesson. For example, Ms. Sáenz spoke only in English but was open to the students’ use of both languages to make sense of her instruction in English. The input she provided was comprehensible, and by encourag- ing their use of Spanish she honored all her students’ linguistic repertoires and provided them the opportunity to process what they were learning. García and Wei (2014)

emphasized that teachers can enact translanguaging peda- gogy without actually engaging in those practices them- selves through the contextualization of important concepts and ideas, the development of metalinguistic processes, and the creation of interpersonal relationships with students. In the following vignette, the teacher prioritized the language of instruction over the student’s attempts to communicate his learning.

Mr. Sherman, a fifth-grade history teacher, was review- ing a lesson on American geography. The class had covered this unit for several weeks. The teacher called on Jorge to name the countries that border the United States and their primary languages. Jorge responded, “Alaska, Canada, y Mexico quienes hablan inglés y español [who speak English and Spanish].” The teacher asked him to restate his response in English only. Jorge responded, “Alaska, Canada, and Mexico hablan [speak] English y español [and Spanish].” The teacher responded, “That is not quite right. Can anyone else help him?” In this example, the teacher insisted on strict language separation rather than scaffolding the stu- dent’s response perhaps because he had covered the content and vocabulary previously. After the student’s second attempt, Mr. Sherman, even if he did not speak Spanish, could have first modeled the correct response and then asked Jorge to repeat it. Then, he could have emphasized that there were only two countries in the correct response. This CLR practice is exemplified in the following vignette.

Mrs. Leal, a fourth-grade teacher, delivered an English lesson on ways people use electrical energy and how before electricity was invented, people relied on light energy. She asked students to turn to their partner and share one way they use electrical energy. David responded first to say that his family uses electricity for their television. His partner Pablo, a recent immigrant, said “a nosotros nos apagaron la luz [they disconnected our light (electricity)].” David was con- fused about how that was an example of electrical energy. The teacher heard the exchange and responded to Pablo, “Without electricity in your home you must depend on light energy from the sun.” The teacher asked Pablo to repeat, “Without electricity we depend on light from the sun.” Pablo repeated and smiled, saying, “Yes, my father pay bill.” In this example, the teacher understood that in Spanish the word luz (light) is often used synonymously for electricity and light. The teacher monitored and paraphrased student’s responses and valued the participation, production, and risk the student took. The student felt comfortable sharing something per- sonal in the language that was most accessible and made a connection to the topic. This is more likely to occur when trust has been established between students and teacher.

These examples of language represent a common respect for both Spanish and English. Furthermore, students can hear the correct use of words in both languages. The use of translanguaging and code switching at varied levels demon- strated here also indicate the teachers’ deep knowledge of

10 Intervention in School and Clinic 54(1)

their students’ linguistic capabilities and their use of cultur- ally and linguistically responsive scaffolding.

To increase the likelihood that students learning English as an additional language and who also have learning differ- ences or disabilities will make academic progress, it is important to develop and implement effective language practices. To determine if they are engaging in CLRP, teach- ers ask themselves the following:

1. Do I foster a learning environment that encourages my students to speak or participate in class discus- sions in the language they feel most comfortable speaking?

2. Do I provide feedback that incorporates students’ responses, ideas, language, and experiences?

3. Do I model appropriate grammar in English and/or the students’ home language(s)?

4. Do I make cross-linguistic connections such as pointing out cognates when instances arise?

5. Do I foster a linguistic environment where all lan- guages and dialects are respected?

Social

Building authentic relationships with students and promot- ing a classroom environment that fosters those relationships are primary responsibilities of the classroom teacher. Active reflection, building relationships and trust, and building a sense of community by both teachers and students have been found to improve the academic outcomes of students from diverse backgrounds, including those learning English as an additional language (Houchen, 2013; Milner, 2014; Piazza et al., 2015; Worthy et al., 2012). Building these relationships may be more difficult when there is a language barrier. It is not necessary for a teacher to speak the same language as the students. In these instances, teachers can focus on the target language, provide linguistic scaffolds to make language comprehensible, show interest in the experi- ences of the student, and encourage their participation in academic discussions.

Mrs. Gunter, a first-grade ESL teacher, had 20 students in her classroom. Four of her students were recent immi- grants from Syria who spoke only Arabic. Mrs. Gunter spoke only English. These four students were grouped together for literacy instruction in English and throughout most of the day. The four students listened quietly and relied heavily on the illustrations in the text to try to understand the story. At times, the students spoke to each other softly in Arabic. Mrs. Gunter reprimanded them when they spoke Arabic. The students stuck closely together, but were beginning to play with other students during recess.

In this vignette, the segregation in the classroom limited the students’ exposure to English modeled by their peers

and their opportunity to use English while the teacher’s insistence that the students use English demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the students’ home language and the role the first language can play in helping students pro- cess new content. Finding the balance between use of stu- dents’ first language and English is challenging. Mrs. Gunter could have consulted with an ESL specialist to identify ways to support these students in the classroom. If they were not receiving ESL support, she could have desig- nated a daily time with this group for English language development and provided the language scaffolds and lin- guistic accommodations that they needed to access the cur- riculum. Structured group work with English-speaking peers after previewing vocabulary and language structures would have provided these students opportunities to par- ticipate in academic discussions. At other times, students learning English would benefit from group work with same language peers so they can help each other. The use of vari- ous collaborative grouping formats is an effective way of supporting students who are learning English (Vaughn et al., 2006).

In contrast, Mrs. Casas, a second-grade teacher, had 20 students in her classroom including 12 students with vary- ing levels of English proficiency. She used cooperative learning groups, strategically grouping the students so that those learning English could participate in safe group dis- cussions with the other students. Each student in the group was given a role of leader, recorder, repeater, helper, and presenter. These roles were rotated with each cooperative learning activity. The teacher helped students learning English to develop positive relationships with their class- mates who were positioned to lead, help, and repeat infor- mation for them. This empowered all of the students to provide the same for their peers.

In this example, the teacher created a classroom culture of trust between students who realized that the different roles support each other. The collective effort of the group was valued because they shared the same grade for the task. In addition, the students learned that helping each other would be quickly reciprocated, thus promoting positive interactions between students.

To foster culturally inclusive learning environments, teachers might consider the following reflective prompts:

1. Do I consistently provide positive feedback to my students?

2. Do I intentionally ask about or refer to the students’ families or lived experiences during instruction and during brief interactions (e.g., greetings, interper- sonal interactions)?

3. Do I recognize my students’ accomplishments and important life events?

4. Do I share about my own life and experiences as appropriate?

Linan-Thompson et al. 11

Cultural Knowledge

Just as understanding students’ language background is important to effective lesson planning and delivery, the teacher’s knowledge of students’ cultural background can help students bridge the differences between their experi- ences, the content they are learning, and the culture of the school. Furthermore, when teachers demonstrate intimate knowledge of their students’ cultural experiences, learning experiences are enriched. The following vignettes illustrate how cultural knowledge enhances typical practice.

Consider the instruction in two second-grade dual lan- guage classrooms in which teachers delivered a lesson on counting money. Ms. Garza used a printed page from a text- book that simulated a store advertisement for toy planes and cars. She discussed the simulated advertisement and noted the price differences in the two items. After the discussion, students were directed to role play customer and cashier. Although the content was appropriate, students may have related to the content more readily if there had been a more personal connection.

Conversely, Mrs. Sanchez enhanced her instruction with CLRP by incorporating her knowledge of the students’ fam- ily in her lesson. Mrs. Sanchez began by inviting the chil- dren to examine several grocery store advertisements from local markets where the children’s families likely shopped. She explicitly asked students to reflect on the types of foods and items their families buy at the store. As a scaffold, she reminded the class that Alonzo brings takis (i.e., a type of snack) for lunch and that Gina’s grandmother includes a juice box in Gina’s lunchbox. These explicit but seemingly unimportant comments reminded the students that their teacher recognized their lived experiences and knew about their families; and this encouraged others to share. Mrs. Sanchez made a list of all the items the students named on chart paper next to the advertisements. After several stu- dents made contributions to the discussion, Mrs. Sanchez directed them to the advertisements to find some of the items. Later, students were able to role play customer and cashier with shopping lists made from the advertisements.

Cultural knowledge is necessary to affirm students’ responses even when they are not the expected or main- stream responses. This next vignette describes instruction in a kindergarten classroom. Mr. Brown was preteaching vocabulary for a contemporary version of the folk tale, “The Little Red Hen.” One of the vocabulary words was wheat, defined by the teacher as a grain ground into flour to make bread. He asked the students to give examples of bread made from wheat. A student learning English raised her hand and said tortillas. The teacher responded that wheat is not used to make tortillas and continued asking students for examples of bread. The student sat quietly, con- fused by the teacher’s response. Because the answer was not one of the expected responses, the teacher failed to ask

clarifying questions to understand the student’s thinking. Mr. Brown also invalidated the child’s cultural experiences and contribution to the discussion. Furthermore, the student received erroneous information. If he had instead used cul- turally responsive feedback and scaffolding, the student would have had an opportunity to describe how her grand- mother uses flour to make tortillas. He could then acknowl- edge that tortillas are made from wheat, but they are flatbread.

In contrast to Mr. Brown, Mrs. Vela, who taught the word weave in a previous vignette, valued the contribution the student made to the discussion. That example also dem- onstrated how a teacher can incorporate CLRP feedback by accepting a student’s connection to the content and still cor- rect any approximations or nearly correct or related responses, while keeping the student engaged. Even if the teacher is not familiar with a student’s culture, he or she can ask questions to understand the student’s reasoning and connections that may not be obvious.

Demonstrating explicit cultural knowledge might be a new approach that seems daunting for some teachers, but learning about students’ families is something all teachers can do. The following considerations can help teachers to seek out and demonstrate their cultural knowledge as it relates to the students from diverse cultures in their classrooms.

1. Do I seek out knowledge of my students’ cultural backgrounds?

2. Do I use knowledge of students’ cultural and famil- ial background to plan instruction?

3. Do I leverage my students’ diverse experiences and abilities when I scaffold their learning?

4. Do I recognize diverse contributions to content areas and social issues?

5. Do I engage my students in discussions that evoke multiple perspectives?

The final vignette illustrates how teachers can integrate several aspects of CLRP into a lesson and how students can support each other.

Mrs. Lomo, a fourth-grade teacher, was teaching a sci- ence lesson in English on the earth’s rotation. She showed a 3-minute anchor video to ensure all the students in the class were exposed to the language and content. Then she pro- vided additional information about the moon’s rotation including teaching target academic vocabulary: orbit, rotate, axis. She asked students to turn to their partner and explain the moon’s rotation. One student said “la luna hace orbit alrededor de la tierra mientras se rotate en su axis [The moon orbits around the Earth as it rotates on its axis].” His partner, responded, “That is correct. The moon orbits the earth while it rotates on its axis.” The teacher repeated the second student’s response and asked them both to repeat

12 Intervention in School and Clinic 54(1)

after her. She acknowledged that both students had a con- ceptual understanding of the moon’s rotation and allowed them to explain the concept using the language they could access. Mrs. Lomo supported the first student by preteach- ing the vocabulary and using video to build the students’ background knowledge. This scaffold helped the first stu- dent respond by using the vocabulary he had learned and use his dominant language to demonstrate that he learned the concept but was not proficient enough to answer solely in English. By repeating the second student’s response and asking them to repeat the statement, Mrs. Lomo provided an additional model for the first student and an opportunity to practice.

Conclusion

All teaching and learning occur within a cultural context (Gay, 2010; Harris-Murri et al., 2006). To be successful, children from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds must establish a connection between their cul- ture and that of the school. Teachers’ consistent use of evi- dence-based practices coupled with CLRP can help bridge students’ knowledge and lived experiences with the school culture and instructional practices that are new to them. Recent reviews of literature have reported that instructional strategies including collaboration, explicit content and vocabulary instruction, and visual representation promote academic success for students learning English (Baker et al., 2014; Gersten et al., 2007). Also reported are cultur- ally responsive teaching practices that have been found to be effective, including providing responsive feedback, modeling, and instructional scaffolding for content and lan- guage (Aceves & Orosco, 2014). The use of evidenced- based practices and culturally responsive teaching practices must be implemented simultaneously to achieve the best academic outcomes for students who are from CLD backgrounds.

The integration of effective instructional practices and CLRP is particularly important if students are experiencing difficulty learning. Efforts to identify implementable and sustainable instructional practices that afford students who are learning English with learning challenges or disabilities equitable access to the general education curriculum are important.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

1. All vignettes depict authentic situations, and only the names were changed to pseudonyms.

References

Aceves, T. C., & Orosco, M. J. (2014). Culturally responsive teach- ing (Document No. IC-2). Retrieved from the University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar. education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., . . . Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching aca- demic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (IES Practice Guide). Retrieved from the What Works Clearinghouse (NCEE 2014-4012).

Castenada, O. (1993). Abuela’s weave. New York, NY: Lee & Low Books.

Garcia, A., & Gaddes, A. (2012). Weaving language and culture: Latina adolescent writers in an after-school writing project. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28, 143–163.

García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 385–400.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging and education. In O. Garcia & L. Wei (Eds.), Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 63–77). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–116.

Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 143–152.

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Chiappe, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English lan- guage instruction for English learners in the elementary grades (IES Practice Guide NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides

Gersten, R., & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early lan- guage learners. Educational Leadership, 60, 44–49.

Harris-Murri, N., King, K., & Rostenberg, D. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority representation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances: Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 779–799.

Houchen, D. (2013). “Stakes is high”: Culturally relevant practitio- ner inquiry with African American students struggling to pass secondary reading exit exams. Urban Education, 48, 92–115.

IDEA Data Center. (2015). 2014 child count and state level data. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=2133

Jiménez, R. T., & Gersten, R. (1999). Lessons and dilemmas derived from the literacy instruction of two Latina/o teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 265–301.

Kelley, H. M., Siwatu, K. O., Tost, J. R., & Martinez, J. (2015). Culturally familiar tasks on reading performance and self-efficacy of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(3), 293–313.

Linan-Thompson et al. 13

Kim, W., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2013). The effects of self-regu- lation on science vocabulary acquisition of English language learners with learning difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 225–236.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., . . . Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archive, 13, 1–39.

Klingner, J. K., Boelé, A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Rodriguez, D. (2014). Essential components of special education for English language learners with learning disabilities: Position state- ment of the Division of Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 93–96.

Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117.

Langman, J. (2014). Translanguaging, identity, and learning: Science teachers as engaged language planners. Language Policy, 13, 183–200.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing class- room teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361–373.

McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., . . . Hinz, S. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pub- sinfo.asp?pubid=2017144

Milner, H. (2014). Culturally relevant, purpose-driven learn- ing & teaching in a middle school social studies classroom. Multicultural Education, 21, 9–17.

Orosco, M. J., & O’Connor, R. (2014). Culturally respon- sive instruction for English language learners with learn- ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 515–531. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/23407658

Palmer, D. K., Martínez, R. A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 98, 757–772.

Piazza, S. V., & Duncan, L. E. (2012). After-school literacy engagements with struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28, 229–254.

Piazza, S. V., Rao, S., & Protacio, M. S. (2015). Converging rec- ommendations for culturally responsive literacy practices: Students with learning disabilities, English language learners, and socioculturally diverse learners. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17, 1–20.

Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interac- tion: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 1–22.

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and developmental program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal, 107, 153–180.

Worthy, J., Consalvo, A. L., Bogard, T., & Russell, K. W. (2012). Fostering academic and social growth in a primary literacy workshop classroom: “Restorying” students with negative reputations. Elementary School Journal, 112, 568–589.