Hidden Strengths of Emerging Bilingual Readers

Hidden Strengths of Emerging Bilingual Readers October 23, 2014 cathy compton-lilly by Catherine Compton-Lilly University of Wisconsin-Madison Oct. 23, 2014 I am constantly impressed when an 8-year-old-child easily shifts between languages, translating her mother’s words into English to compensate for my lack of Spanish. In recent years, a growing body of research has highlighted the significance of bilingualism and the long term effects being bilingual, or being multilingual, has not only on people’s understandings of language, but also on their general cognitive abilities. Perhaps this is why I am intrigued by a recent publication by esteemed scholar, Luis Moll. I highlight Moll’s work partly because I found it in a book on Vygotsky and feared it might not be discovered by many of us who focus on literacy. In this chapter, Moll and his colleagues observed two groups of children as they moved between reading instruction in Spanish and English. The children spent half of their days in each classroom. The teacher who taught them to read in English did not speak Spanish. Moll and his research team were intrigued when they noticed that some children who were capable readers in Spanish, were identified as struggling in their English reading classroom. When their Spanish-speaking teacher viewed her students participating in the English reading classroom, she noted, “Those can’t be my kids. Why are they doing such low-level work?” Moll and his colleagues initiated a series of teaching-learning experiments in which they asked children to read texts in English and then discuss what they had read in Spanish. The results were compelling. Children who appeared to have minimal comprehension of English texts when they were required to discuss these texts in English, revealed rich comprehension when they were allowed to talk about the texts using their native Spanish. Moll and his colleagues worked toward creating a “bilingual zone” in which children were invited to draw on their Spanish language resources to comprehend and discuss texts they had read in English. Specifically, Moll and his colleagues were careful to provide scaffolds when children discussed texts using English. They built on students’ comments and provided missing elements of stories enabling groups of students to collectively express what they understood and to share their ideas with each other. When students gave short one-word responses, the research team situated these comments within the story and invited other members of the group to build on these comments. Finally, the research team invited children to use Spanish to access key terms and convey ideas the children could not yet express in English. Throughout this process, the research team actively resisted allowing the children to resort to literal and basic comprehension of texts. Instead, they asked high-level inferential questions and expected the children to respond to complex ideas while employing language scaffolding and allowing the children’s selective use of Spanish. As Moll reports, “we knew that the students could perform at more advanced levels,” and that “it was well within their zone of proximal development.” Significantly, the idea we can invite bilingual speakers to draw on their full language repertoire— in two languages— is a concept quickly gaining traction with our colleagues who focus on ESL and bilingual education, as noted in several of the studies listed at the end of this post. Teachers can ask children to use their native languages to talk or write about books read in English or explore different ways of conveying ideas using multiple languages or language variations. In addition, it is important for teachers to recognize the bi-literate abilities many children bring to classrooms, including being able to write words and sentences in more than one language. Even teachers who do not speak the native languages of all her students can invite students to draw on their bi-literate abilities, consulting with bilingual colleagues as needed. Recent work on “translanguaging” opens the door for reading scholars to think deeply about intersections between reading and language. Moll’s work invites all of us to consider the competencies our bilingual students bring to text and possibilities for our teaching. - See more at: http://www.reading.org/literacy-daily/post/lrp/2014/10/23/hidden-strengths-of-emerging-bilingual-readers#sthash.k8q6rBEo.dpuf

Dual-Language students outpace peers on tests

Dual-language students outpace peers on tests ELIZABETH HARMON With almost half of the students in Woodstock School District 200 enrolled in the dual-language program, administrators say they’re encouraged by their academic progress. At the Board of Education’s meeting Feb. 10, D-200 Director of Grants, Language and Culture Keely Krueger presented a report on the program, which includes 1,800 students in pre-K through high school who learn in both English and Spanish. The presentation included 2014 Illinois Standard Achievement Test scores that showed middle school dual-language students continue to outperform their mono-language counterparts. Results from the 2014 ISAT reading exam showed that among students taught in English only, 59 percent of sixth-graders, 65 percent of seventh-graders and 59 percent of eighth-graders met or exceeded state standards. Among dual-language students, about 80 percent of sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders met or exceeded state standards. Math scores reflected a similar pattern. District 200’s dual-language classes are different from English-as-a-second-language programs. Parents of students who speak either English or Spanish as their first language can elect to have their children enter the dual-language program, where students receive regular classroom instruction in both languages. Krueger, Superintendent Mike Moan and members of the board suggested the dual-language students’ higher scores could be due to several factors, including the positive impact of learning a second language at a young age, teaching strategies, as well as active parental involvement in their education. “Our job for monolingual classes is to make sure we’re having the same kind of progress, and to ask what we can learn from our experience [in dual-language] moving forward,” Moan said. The performance bump applies to low income students as well, and Moan added that encouraging more African-American students to enroll in dual-language could benefit another demographic subgroup that has traditionally struggled academically. Krueger also recapped the progress the district has made with its dual-language high school program, one of a handful in the state. This year, the first class of dual-language students entered their junior year of high school and are taking Spanish content and literacy classes, in addition to English electives. Next year, the program will add a Spanish-language international business class. Students who pass a Spanish proficiency exam will receive a seal of biliteracy on their high school transcript. Those who have taken six dual-language courses and pass proficiency exams in Spanish and English also will be awarded a dual-language medallion to wear at commencement. The class of 2016 will include the first dual-language graduates. Woodstock’s program has attracted local and national attention. Teachers and administrators have been presenters at national dual-language conferences, and representatives from 10 districts in Illinois and Wisconsin have come to Woodstock to observe the program in action. With more area districts, including Crystal Lake, Harvard and Barrington, now offering dual-language programs, Krueger said finding native Spanish-speaking teachers continues to be a challenge. “With the growth of dual-language programs in other districts, there’s more competition,” said Krueger. While the district continues to recruit teachers from overseas, Krueger said that they are increasing efforts to hire locally but also are visiting job fairs throughout the state. “We’re only five years away from having a teacher come back who has gone through our program,” said board member Russ Goerlitz.

Superindent Leadership: A One-Time English-Language Learner Puts Premium on Bilingual, Bicultural Education

A One-Time English-Language Learner Puts Premium on Bilingual, Bicultural Education By Madeline Will February 24, 2015 Richard A. Carranza first stepped into a Tucson, Ariz., kindergarten classroom not speaking any English. By 2nd grade, the now-superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District was fully bilingual. Mr. Carranza’s experience—growing up in a Spanish-speaking home with parents who were also bilingual—has shaped his passion for language. It’s also the driving force behind his commitment to ensuring that English-language learners in San Francisco’s public schools not only become fluent in their new language, but also have the opportunity to become fully fluent and literate in their native one. That passion has stuck with him throughout his career in K-12 education: first as a bilingual social studies teacher and principal and then in various administrative roles, including a stint as a regional superintendent in Clark County, Nev., before becoming superintendent of the 53,000-student San Francisco district in June 2012. Language, he believes and says repeatedly, is an asset, not a liability. “I think it’s so important that language becomes depoliticized and becomes what it is—a vehicle for communication,” Mr. Carranza, 48, said. “We take the approach that everybody deserves an excellent education,” he said. “It’s not the student who’s at fault [regarding] whether they’re learning or not. It’s really the system being able to meet the needs of the students.” LESSONS FROM THE LEADER Value Language, Culture: By valuing the language and culture of English-learners, you can build on their assets. Students should be given the opportunity to graduate bilingual and bicultural. Power of Data: When schools have access to disaggregated data by classroom, leaders and teachers are able to use the data to inform and adjust their instruction and identify any gaps in curricular resources for English-learners. Family Support: Providing English-learner families with translated information, community resources, and culturally competent support services is essential to supporting students. San Francisco Unified’s English-language-learner services are governed by the Lau Action Plan, which outlines steps the district must take to ensure students with limited English proficiency receive sufficient language instruction in English and full access to the mainstream curriculum. That plan stems from the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the landmark civil rights case, Lau v. Nichols, that ordered San Francisco’s schools to provide Chinese children who didn’t speak or understand English with a bridge to the curriculum. That case greatly expanded the rights of all children with limited English skills to receive special language instruction to learn English. Bilingual Education In part because of the Lau ruling, the district has built up a robust offering of language-learning pathways, even as many districts around California either diminished or did away with their bilingual offerings in the wake of a 1998 state ballot measure that put severe restrictions on bilingual education. English-learners can choose between an English-immersion program or various multilingual pathways that promote biliteracy. “I don’t see how any student is going to be successful in the next 10 years without being multilingual, without at least being bilingual,” Mr. Carranza said. “For us, we see this as something that just has to happen.” Richard Carranza, Superintendent, San Francisco Unified School DistrictPhoto: Luanne Dietz/Education Week Richard Carranza, Superintendent, San Francisco Unified School District Photo: Luanne Dietz/Education Week A study conducted by the school district and researchers at Stanford University, and published last year, found that students in the district’s English-only programs performed better than their peers in bilingual education programs in the early grades. But by the 5th grade, students who received instruction in two languages performed as well as or, in some cases, better than their English-immersion peers on English-proficiency tests and academic-content exams. The state law restricting bilingual education requires districts to obtain parent waivers in order for English-learner students to be enrolled in programs with instruction delivered in languages other than English. San Francisco has about 15,000 English-language learners, and 35 percent of them are in a language pathway requiring a waiver. In November 2016, California voters will have a chance to repeal the law, which could lead to more schools in the state following San Francisco’s lead to expand bilingual and dual-language programs. “It’s important the state of California recognizes that monolingualism is on the way of black-and-white TV—just not current,” Mr. Carranza said. “Why would you not want to produce bilingual students in the public education system? It baffles the mind.” Jan Gustafson-Corea, the chief executive officer of the California Association for Bilingual Education, said San Francisco has been a leader in systematizing bilingual education. “In order for that to happen, you have to have a strong leader who believes in [bilingual education],” she said of Mr. Carranza. Making Learning Relevant Under Mr. Carranza, the district has made it a priority to work closely with local universities to establish a reliable pipeline for bilingual teachers. Christina Wong, the special assistant to the superintendent who oversees implementation of the Lau Action Plan, said the universities receive information about hiring needs and new district initiatives to inform their instruction and training of new teachers. Still, finding teachers who are both bilingual and bicultural is a challenge, Mr. Carranza said. Finding teachers with basic skills in another language isn’t difficult, but finding teachers who are able to have “content-rich conversation with understanding of the cultural implications, … that’s a little more challenging,” he said. It’s important for the district, though, because teaching students a culturally relevant curriculum breeds success, especially in a school system as diverse as San Francisco’s, Mr. Carranza said. Thirty-eight percent of students in the district are Asian, 26 percent are Latino, 13 percent are white, and 8 percent are African-American. Twenty-nine percent are English-language-learners. “The more relevant you can make the learning in the classroom to the students, the more you can engage them so they … want to learn more,” Mr. Carranza said. The San Francisco school board recently voted to have all its high schools offer ethnic-studies courses in the 2015-16 school year, with the goal of making the classes a graduation requirement within the next five years. I don’t see how any student is going to be successful in the next 10 years without being multilingual, without at least being bilingual. For us, we see this as something that just has to happen. The district has been piloting the courses for the past few years, and Mr. Carranza said the data collected show that enrollment in ethnic-studies classes leads to better attendance and better grades. In what has always been an immigrant-rich city, the San Francisco district has become increasingly attuned to the needs of its recently arrived students, developing a “newcomer” pathway to help those who are new to the United States adjust both to English and American culture. This school year saw a marked increase of students in that pathway as a result of last year’s surge of undocumented minors crossing the border from Central America. As of last month, the district had enrolled nearly 350 new Central American immigrants since the beginning of the school year. Mr. Carranza said the district “scaled up” its existing services for recent immigrants. Any student who lives in San Francisco, he said, will get a high-quality education. An Equity Agenda Ms. Wong, the special assistant overseeing ELL access, said Mr. Carranza has a strong vision and takes risks to reach it. “We’re all in the moment, and sometimes it’s a challenge for us to take a step back and look to the future, but he encourages us to do that,” she said. The district, under Mr. Carranza’s leadership, recently unveiled such a plan—Vision 2025, which outlines 10 big shifts over the next decade that range from making sure all students have a personalized learning pathway to equipping all schools with technology that supports blended learning. Another goal is to graduate students who are globally aware, culturally competent, and multilingual. The district has already made important progress toward that goal, with 850 graduates (out of 3,400) last year earning a “seal of biliteracy” on their diplomas for demonstrating their mastering of two languages, Ms. Wong said. And in 2025, all English-learners should have access to technology, Common Core State Standards-aligned material in multiple languages, and the opportunity for English-language development throughout the school day. The plan condemns the district’s current large achievement gaps between student subgroups. School systems aren’t always set up to be equitable, Mr. Carranza said, adding that he is working to address that in San Francisco. For example, the district has cut central-office expenditures before cutting funds from school sites. And even before California recently revamped its statewide K-12 funding formula to concentrate more funds in schools with high numbers of ELLs and other vulnerable students, the district was targeting extra money to schools with the greatest number of poor students and English-language learners, he said. In the 2015-16 school year, the district will open a new middle school in the Bayview community, one of the most historically underserved areas of the city. It will have a STEM-focused curriculum, wireless Internet capability to support student devices, and various wraparound services to serve the community. Eric Guthertz, the principal of the city’s Mission High School, said Mr. Carranza constantly works toward his vision of equity in education. “He’s brave, he’s honest; he’s more than just an advocate, he’s a fighter for social justice,” Mr. Guthertz said. “He’s been an inspiration in my career.”

Identifying Academic Language Demands in Support of the Common Core Standards

Best Practices for Teaching ELLs May 24, 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 17 Table of Contents More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Identifying Academic Language Demands in Support of the Common Core Standards Susan O'Hara, Robert Pritchard, and Jeff Zwiers As issues of equity arise with the achievement gap and differing dropout rates between English language learners (ELLs) and their English-speaking counterparts (Kindler, 2002; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000), meeting the needs of ELLs is an increasingly urgent focus for education practitioners and researchers. Underscoring this urgency are the performance results of ELLs on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the nation's only ongoing assessment of what students know and can do in various subject areas. The national assessment's results (Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009) show a large gap between ELLs and their English-only counterparts on achievement scores in science and mathematics at grades 8 (ELLs score 31 points behind non-ELLs in math) and grade 12 (ELLs score 28 points behind non-ELLs in math). The literacy results for ELLs are more worrisome: Only 4 percent of 4th grade ELLs scored at the proficient or advanced levels in reading, while only 3 percent of 8th grade ELLs and 20 percent of students classified as "formerly ELL" scored at the proficient or advanced levels. In response to these data, many educators and policymakers are calling for improved academic language development within content-area classrooms to address the learning needs of ELLs (Anstrom et al., 2010), and the Common Core State Standards call for specific attention to academic language development across core content areas. Focus on Academic Language Academic language is believed to be one of the most important factors in the academic success of ELLs, and it has been increasingly cited as a major contributor to achievement gaps between ELLs and English-proficient students (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006). The Common Core State Standards will place academic language demands on English learners, and a group of national experts in academic language development mapped out what they will include: Reasoning abstractly and quantitatively; Constructing viable arguments and critiquing reasoning of others; Constructing explanations and designing solutions; Engaging in argument from evidence; and Asking questions and defining problems (Hakuta, 2011). These new standards require effective, simultaneous teaching of academic language skills and the rigorous content that all students must master. However, academic language—which includes the vocabulary, syntax, and discourse styles of particular content areas—is complex and requires both teachers and students to understand the specific academic language demands of the content. For example, Schleppegrell (2007) outlines a number of language demands in math that can challenge ELLs, including The use of symbolic notation. Visual displays, such as graphs. Technical vocabulary. Grammatical features, including complex noun phrases. In addition, the language of academic texts, both the ones students read and the ones they produce, has distinctive features and meanings that may contrast with the language they use in informal spoken interactions (August & Shanahan, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2007). Identifying Academic Language Demands Others (Clancy & Hruska, 2005; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Fisher & Frey, 2010) have noted the importance of identifying language demands in subject-matter materials, but their focus has been on unpacking standards and articulating content and language objectives or purposes. We believe that identifying specific academic language demands requires an additional step: an analysis of the text, tasks, and tests to be used in a lesson. What follows is a look at the process we have developed and implemented with teachers to help them conduct this analysis. As part of a professional development initiative designed to help teachers implement best practices for ELLs, one day's focus was on introducing a framework for integrating language and content instruction. This framework (see figure 1) begins with the development of content objectives (step 1), proceeds through an analysis of the text, tasks, and tests to be used in a lesson as the basis for identifying language demands (step 2), and concludes with the development of language objectives that are based on the language demands (step 3). Here, we'll focus specifically on how step 2 was introduced to and modeled for teachers. Figure 1. Graphic Organizer of a Framework for Integrating Language and Content Instruction Click on the image to open a full-size version of the organizer. The professional development began with a discussion of academic language features (lexical, syntactic, and discourse), and teachers were provided content-specific examples and then applied this knowledge to the process of identifying language demands. To increases teachers' capacity for explaining and modeling to their students, the approach was based on teachers experiencing the process of identifying language demands as learners and then reflecting on their learning and the effectiveness of the process from the students' perspectives. Teachers were given a set of instructional materials developed for a history lesson: a content objective, texts used, and instructional tasks for students. The group worked in pairs to find the key language demands in each of three academic language features by Analyzing the content objective. Considering data on students' language strengths and needs. Analyzing texts and student tasks. Once teachers completed these steps and discussed them as a group, they were given a second set of instructional materials and worked independently through the same process. These experiences were designed to build teachers' understanding of academic language and their ability to identify the academic language demands inherent in content-specific instructional materials. A subsequent session focused on how teachers could use this information to develop language objectives that support content objectives, texts, and tasks of a lesson. Because academic language development is particularly problematic for ELLs, who have the dual task of mastering content and developing language proficiency, they need skillful teachers who have the knowledge and expertise necessary to facilitate their development of literacy in English as they simultaneously learn, comprehend, and apply content-area concepts through that second language (Garcia & Godina, 2004; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). As teachers implement the Common Core State Standards, identifying academic language demands in content-area materials is a crucial aspect of teacher expertise. References Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic language: Implications for K–12 English language learners. Arlington, VA: George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clancy, M. E., & Hruska, B. L. (2005). Developing language objectives for English language learners in physical education lessons. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 76(4), 30–35. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E. & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Unpacking the purpose: Vocabulary, structure, and function. TESOL Journal, 1(3), 315–337. Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Garcia, G. E., & Godina, H. (2004). Addressing the literacy needs of adolescent English language learners. In T. Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: Research and practice (pp. 304–320). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their rights: Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researchers, 40(4), 163–174. Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Rampey, B. D., Dion, G. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2009). NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress (NCES 2009-479). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007).The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139–159.

Science and Global Competency

Science and Global Competency Rationale, Objectives, Rubrics, and More (starry_eyed_girl/istockphoto) (starry_eyed_girl/istockphoto) Climate change, population growth, pandemic diseases, nuclear arms proliferation, pollution. Green technologies, new mobility systems, and advances in bio technology. The globally focused science classroom is a powerful place for students to explore the implications of these worldwide problems and opportunities. Globally focused teachers create a place where students learn science from interdisciplinary and global perspectives. Using a science curriculum with a global case studies engages students in problem-based learning tasks and scientific investigations founded on research in scientific literature. Empowered by a global science curriculum students investigate the complex biological, chemical, physical, earth, environmental, and human systems, recognize and consider the power of divergent perspectives, communicate about science effectively with diverse audiences around the world, and translate their scientific ideas and findings into actions that make a difference in their local community and the world. In globally focused schools, students explore the language, symbols, tools, technologies, and processes of science inquiry and literacy as the foundation for understanding and advancing science knowledge. Science inquiry shows students how to initiate the inquiry, design and conduct experiments, present and analyze data, interpret results and draw conclusions. Science literacy teaches them how to discuss a science-related issue, put the issue into context, conduct research, develop and support a thesis, discuss the implications and communicate about the work. Science offers the potential for medical cures, and doing things better, faster and with fewer materials. But science also can be at the center of complex interrelationships between scientific results, unforeseen consequences, and ethical, legal and social implications. To understand the impact of global issues—and their current solutions—students need experiences with questioning current scientific understandings and technological practices, engaging with scientists around the globe and collaborating on potential solutions to existing problems. In a globally minded science classroom, students learn to think like scientists. Students observe natural phenomena that cause them to wonder, ask their own questions and test their ideas. When they interpret their data, new questions arise leading them into focused, purposeful research of the literature and further inquiry. The result is students who can understand, analyze, apply, and evaluate existing scientific knowledge in the context of global cultural perspectives, politics, economics and history. Students learn to ask essential questions: How are the results of each action changing the global system dynamics? What are the complex interrelationships between local causes and worldwide effects? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Are we reflecting on the known impacts and inquiring into the unknown effects? Students probe for deeper understanding and reflect on the results and unforeseen consequences of scientific progress. They take a position, argue it, and take innovative actions that make a difference in the world. See Full article at: http://asiasociety.org/education/resources-schools/professional-learning/science-and-global-competency

To grow good writers, feed them great literature

To Grow Good Writers, Feed Them Great Literature (CEFutcher/iStockPhoto) (CEFutcher/iStockPhoto) By Heather Clydesdale How can learning Chinese help American students become adept writers? The question is simple, but startling. Discussions in the field of teaching Chinese as a foreign language tend to focus on challenges presented by the language itself: thousands of characters, syntax that has no counterpart in English, and tones. These are fundamental, and new research and applications for addressing them are both needed and appreciated, but it is invigorating to hear from professionals who mark an ambitious target beyond language acquisition. At the 2013 National Chinese Language Conference in Boston, three experts from Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts essentially reached for the stratosphere, presenting strategies to help students use Chinese to practice and develop the craft of writing. “Children are such natural storytellers,” explains Vivian Tam, previously the FLAP Chinese immersion project coordinator at Cambridge Public Schools, and now principal of Jing Mei Elementary School in Bellevue, Washington. “They want to tell you in their drawing and their writing.” Tam and her colleagues, Szu-Ming Li and Kai Tan, who both teach in the Chinese Immersion Program at the Martin Luther King, Jr. School, have successfully applied mentor texts and the study of authors to guide kindergarten and first-grade students in becoming writers. Tam was prompted to apply the study of mentor texts in Chinese immersion classes after she and Tan attended a literacy collaborative conference in Rhode Island, where they heard a presentation by the teacher mentor and researcher, Katie Wood Ray. “It was very inspiring, and we tried to use that in the Chinese classroom as well,” recalls Tam. “We saw that children really love to write. Even if they don’t have the vocabulary, they seek (it out). We give them sheets to find the words.” Mentor texts, says Tam, are ones that are authentic, featuring a consistent theme and exemplary sense of technique. They must be original works in the native language, not translations. Effective mentor texts should be readable, meaning they are age-appropriate, engaging, and suitable to the background knowledge of students. Finally, they must be teachable, with relevant content that supports learning objectives across the curriculum. To apply mentor texts in the classroom, Tam recommends helping students explore the authors’ lives and make connections with his or her writing. Students can compare texts, ask questions about the author’s intentions, and also compare the subject matter to other content areas. Even young students can take note of how the author uses style, connections, and patterns, and then help plan and participate in a culminating activity, such as a performance, sending letters to the author, or creating a class book modeling features of the writings they have studied. “The goal is that they feel passionate enough about Chinese authors that they will know their names,” Tam explains. Students can also posit why a particular author selects and develops certain genres to heighten the effect of the content. Students compare illustration styles, describe the relationship between pictures and the text, and then incorporate these into their own writing and illustration. Tam admires authors such as Cao Junyan, whose simple prose is accompanied by beautiful illustrations and rich cultural content. Other favorite authors include Lin Liang, Li Zirong, Bao Dongni, and Chen Zhiyuan, but Tam admits that, short of visiting bookstores in China, obtaining appropriate Chinese literary works is not easy. She has compiled a list of websites where teachers can go to find appropriate sources, and some from Hong Kong and Taiwan (which use complex characters, though sometimes versions using simplified characters are available) are listed below. Tam would like to find additional rich online resources from Mainland China, but so far has not been successful. Writing is a craft, and strong writers are forged, not born. Devoting time to teaching writing, asserts Tam, is worthwhile because it is an essential 21st-century skill, and because it is an effective means to acquiring other skills. Writing enhances students’ ability to read and analyze a text. Practicing writing also teaches children to organize their thoughts and to think more deeply. In these ways, exploring writing through mentor authors can help students develop across several areas, and in English as well as Chinese.

Eight Essential Shifts for Teaching New Standards to Academic English Learners

Eight Essential Shifts for Teaching New Standards to Academic English Learners Jeff Zwiers, Stanford University Susan O’Hara, University of California Davis Robert Pritchard, Sacramento State University The transition to the various sets of new standards offers a window of opportunity to fortify what and how we teach. It also provides a chance to reflect on how our most marginalized students most effectively learn the most difficult knowledge and skills. The new standards challenge us to teach students much more than loosely connected pieces of knowledge and test-taking skills. They offer an opportunity to equip diverse students with deeper understandings of content, more expertlike thinking skills, and stronger communication skills. The new standards offer a rare opportunity, if we seize it, to make some major shifts in moving from surface-level transmission and memorization models to approaches that richly cultivate the cognitive and communicative potentials of every student. We are not saying that math, science, and history teachers must add all the rules of English grammar to what they teach. We are arguing the importance of answering two questions along the way: How can I use content teaching to build students’ language of my discipline? What is the most I can realistically do to improve how I develop students’ language and literacy? Many teachers are already developing language in powerful ways simply through well-designed content activities. Indeed, the most engaging and effective content teaching strategies can also be effective language teaching activities, especially when supported by some of the practices in this book. Consider your own abilities to use complex academic language; most of them developed from engaging in motivating activities that involved reading challenging texts, communicating ideas, and interacting with others to accomplish challenging tasks. Complex Academic Language You can’t get very far in school and life without using complex language—though many people try. Content area concepts, thinking skills, and literacy all depend on students’ abilities to use complex language. What we call complex language in this book is a subset of features and skills within the much broader category of academic language. The broad term academic language tends to include any language used to describe abstract ideas and cognitive processes in school (Schleppegrell, 2004; Swartz, 2001; Zwiers, 2008). Vocabulary, in particular, is often equated with academic language. Yet the bulk of what we call complex language involves This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org putting clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and other elements together to construct, negotiate, and communicate clear and whole academic messages. While many activities in this book do include vocabulary-related elements, one of our main goals is teaching students how to understand and create complex messages in a discipline. We believe that too much school time has been spent on noncomplex language, on the pieces; it is time to intensify our focus on equipping students to read, think, talk, and write in ways that will prepare them for thinking and communication in the future. Figure 1.1 shows the three main dimensions of academic language and associated skills. In the Sentence and Message dimensions, students are doing something with the words: they are communicating complex messages. The activities and lessons in this book emphasize developing the Message dimension. Even though the Word/Phrase dimension is important, we believe that: (a) it tends to be the easiest to assess and teach; (b) many other resources are available on teaching words (i.e., books on academic vocabulary); (c) many teachers have asked for ways to help students communicate longer and more complex messages; and (d) we have observed the need for more emphasis on teaching academic English learners how to learn and communicate beyond word and sentence levels. Dimensions Features Skills Message • Clarity & coherence • Register for participants & purposes • Density of ideas and their relationships • Message organization & structure (visuals, paragraphs) • Organization of sentences • Create a logical flow of and connections between ideas, knowing how ideas develop and need to develop • Match language with the purpose of the message (Clear, complete, focused, logical, appropriate to the discipline) • Create, clarify, fortify, & negotiate ideas Sentence • Sentence structure (compound/complex) & length • Transitions & connectives • Complex verb tenses and passive voice • Pronouns and references • Craft sentences to be clear • Use of a variety of sentence types to clarify a message and condense information • Combine ideas, phrases, and clauses. Word/ Phrase • Cross-disciplinary terms • Figurative expressions & multiple meanings • Content vocabulary • Affixes, roots, and transformations • Choose and use the best words and phrases communicate • Figure out the meaning of new words and terms • Use and clarify new words to build ideas or create products Figure 1.1 – Dimensions, features, and skills of complex academic language use (Adapted from WIDA, 2012) In looking at the three dimensions in Figure 1.1, it can help to imagine a word as color, which communicates some meaning. Put words together into a sentence and you get more meaning, but it is still limited, like the figures and elements a painting. Put the figures together at and you compose a message, like the painting in the Message dimension in Figure 1.1. We need This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org to move beyond the teaching of just the vocabulary (colors) in the first dimension and the grammar rules (forming of figures) in the second dimension to teaching students how to construct a wide variety of complex, original, and whole messages (paintings) (Carr, Sexton, & Lagunoff, 2006; Zwiers, 2008). Most of these messages require critical thinking skills and abilities to use language within particular functions and settings (Carrier, 2005; Echevarria et al., 2006; Schleppegrell, 2005). Lesson time is very limited. The more time we spend on one thing (e.g., vocabulary), the less time we have to spend on others (e.g., communicating whole ideas). Mohan (2006), for example, strongly argues for more complex language in science: “Simplified understandings of explicit language instruction, in leading to simplified science talk, result in simplified science (p. 52).” These are further elaborated upon in the shifts described in the next section. Shifts Long before the advent of recent standards, various educators proposed a variety of “shifts” in how we should think about learning and teaching. Here are a few shift-based quotations from the seminal works of several widely respected experts in the field. Notice the themes of thinking and communication in them. • “Were all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth, something hardly less than a revolution in teaching would be worked.” --J.D. • “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” --P.F. • “Through others we become ourselves.” --L.V. • “Knowing and communicating are in their nature highly interdependent, indeed virtually inseparable.” --J.B. • “It is easy to imagine talk in which ideas are explored rather than answers to teachers' test questions provided and evaluated; in which teachers talk less than the usual two-thirds of the time and students talk correspondingly more; in which students themselves decide when to speak rather than waiting to be called on by the teacher; and in which students address each other directly. Easy to imagine, but not easy to do.” --C.C. Sadly, these powerful ideas proposed by John Dewey, Paolo Freire, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, and Courtney Cazden, along with the ideas of similar thinkers, have not had enough overall influence on today’s teaching practices—particularly the teaching of diverse students. Why? There is not enough space to dig deeply into the many reasons, but here are several forces that tend to keep such shifts from affecting the average lesson: • Factory models: basing classroom processes on assembly line approaches that consider students to be empty vessels that must be filled up with content knowledge • Assessment ignorance and misuse: focusing on comparing students and saving money by using machine-scored multiple choice tests • Lack of faith in teachers: attempting to provide “teacher-proof” one-size-fits all, scripted curricula and assessmentsThis article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org • Low expectations for diverse learners: placing them in inescapable tracks, asking them low-level questions, and providing them with fewer resources Unfortunately, in many schools these forces still shape the teaching and assessment of diverse students. In such settings educators must take the time to ask how they can focus more on the cultivation of each student’s potentials across all domains of development. Fortunately, the new standards has fostered interest in major shifts in instruction and assessment, most of which we believe should have been implemented all along. Educators cannot afford to let this window of opportunity pass. While most mainstream students can survive and succeed despite outdated and test-focused teaching, many academic English learners cannot and do not. The new standards is more rigorous, which is what academic English learners need to succeed in college and career, but the increased rigor can also mean increased failure if we don’t make major changes in instruction and assessment. In a sense, we must use the new standards to serve our diverse students—not the other way around. This article synthesizes and clarifies instructional and philosophical shifts through a lens that focuses on the needs of academic English learners. Academic English learners are often immigrants, children and grandchildren of immigrants, long-term English learners, and speakers of English dialects and vernaculars. Many struggle in school because they have not been immersed in rich literacy or communication experiences that depend on the academic language valued in school’s tasks, texts, and tests. Common Shifts The new standards have led to a wide range of interpretations for how teaching should change. These changes are usually called “shifts.” Much of the focus has been on outlining the implications of the standards for teaching all students. There has been less emphasis on identifying additional shifts that would benefit academic English learners and students who don’t do well in school. Yet the urgency of meeting their learning needs has grown as teachers and schools are seeing firsthand the more rigorous literacy and communication demands that undergird many of the new standards. Before addressing the AEL Shifts, the term used in this article, it is helpful to analyze the commonly cited shifts currently being suggested within the education community and consider their implications for teaching academic English learners. Several of the more well-known shifts for teaching all students are found in the first column of Figure 1. In the second column are several important implications and nuances of these shifts for teaching academic English learners. Common Shifts Implications for teaching academic English learners (AELs) Building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction This shift tends to focus on elementary school and ELD/ESL settings that have over-emphasized fiction texts. Most AELs need to gain larger amounts of academic knowledge across disciplines for current and future learning experiences, much of which only comes from reading nonfiction in school. Thus, extra doses of nonfiction, combined with extra teaching of their language and structures, benefit AELs. Reading and writing grounded in evidence AELs need extra instruction on what constitutes strong and weak evidence for supporting an idea, claim, opinion, etc. Finding and using This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org evidence involves value systems that can differ across cultures. AELs need focused instruction and modeling on how to value certain pieces of evidence over others, and how to explain how the evidence supports a claim. Regular practice with complex texts and academic language For AELs, the “regular practice” should involve extra attention to how authors use language in texts to convey micro- and macro-ideas. This means close and “wide-angle” reading strategies. Using complex texts with AELs requires more support than for non-AELs. That is, just analyzing a key sentence will not be enough for students to understand the text and acquire its language. Rigorous pursuit of conceptual understanding, procedural skill, and application While this is a math shift, it applies across disciplines. A heightened emphasis on conceptual understanding and application presents challenges for AELs, especially related to assessment. We must figure out how to assess complex conceptual understanding despite students’ lack of advanced academic English. We need to do both: build students’ complex language as we augment how we assess higher-order thinking and conceptual understandings. Figure 1 – Common instructional “shifts” and their implications for AELs Eight Shifts Focused on Academic English Learners The new standards present an extra web of challenges for academic English learners. In our work with teachers and students, we have uncovered additional “shifts” (AEL Shifts) in instruction and assessment that are needed to help diverse students succeed. The rest of this article highlights this set of major pedagogical and curricular shifts that we consider to be vital for enduring learning in diverse settings. Many of these shifts are not new; they are just reminders of (a) practices that teachers have been using for years to make teaching and learning effective; and (b) what we know we should have been doing all along in our schools. Then again, several shifts do require us to step out and take a fresh, more bird’s eye view of the pedagogical habits that have evolved and devolved over recent decades. This article invites educators, especially teachers of academic English learners, to engage in even deeper shifting than the shifting called for in Figure 1. We invite you to connect back to the ideas of Dewey, Freire, Vygotsky, Bruner, Cazden, and others to reflect on how you can realize more complete, equitable, and powerful visions in your schools and classrooms. AEL Shift 1 - From Access to Ownership Plenty of professional development resources and programs focus on providing English learners with better “access” to the content. Access, while not well defined, tends to mean comprehension. Much of what is called sheltered instruction is focused on providing academic English learners with increased comprehension of a lesson's content. Sheltered instruction usually includes extra uses of visual aids, modified teacher talk, gestures, and background building activities for texts. Yet too often, sheltered instruction can involve significant “watering down” of This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org complex language in order to provide easier access to texts and content, and in doing so, the sheltering fails to build students’ grade level language and literacy. Sheltered instruction often does achieve access, but access is not enough. We need to foster students’ ownership of the language and thinking needed to communicate complex concepts. Ownership means being able to use language and concepts in novel and authentic ways—not just to answer questions on a test. This shift therefore focuses on supporting students in using language in ways that are valued in the discipline and at grade level. This shift also consists of making sure academic English learners benefit from working with peers at higher and lower levels of language proficiency. This means untracking their classes and placing them in mainstream classrooms. Of course, this also means adjusting instruction so that all students are supported and have multiple interactions with peers. In a nutshell, we need to stop sheltering students from interactions with mainstream peers, disciplinary communication experiences, and knowledge-working skills that they will need for future classes, college, and career success. One way to not over-shelter is to use grade level complex texts. A classroom snapshot of this is Mr. Ellis’s sixth grade language arts class in which they are reading a challenging article on genetic engineering. They are using a visual scaffold called “wide-angle reading” (Zwiers, O’Hara, & Pritchard, 2014) to get the big picture of the text and its purposes. Students, in pairs, first survey the article and discuss the possible purposes of the author, the teacher, and the reader. They use pencil, knowing that these might change as they read. They then identify the type of text, text structure, thinking skills needed, organization strategies, questions, and key terms, all of which provide a framework for supporting complex ideas that emerge in the text. At times Mr. Ellis zooms in to ask a few close reading questions about key parts of the article. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Use grade level texts and intellectually challenging tasks with the appropriate linguistic supports for all learners, and have students engage in both close and “wide-angle” reading practices (See Zwiers, O’Hara, & Pritchard, 2014). • Engage in a range of text-based writing and conversation activities in which students are supported in using language and ideas from the texts. • Have students work in heterogeneous groups and classrooms on text-based tasks. • Provide opportunities for students to use technology to communicate original ideas and messages. • Inspire, allow, and support students to come up with their own questions, own answers, own ideas, own evidence, own syntheses, own comparisons, own opinions, own problems, and own texts. AEL Shift 2 - From Pieces to Wholes One of the most damaging effects of multiple-choice-test-pointed instruction is the focus on many disjointed “pieces” of content knowledge and language. Students attend classes that are not integrated, read textbooks that jump from topic to topic, and take tests full of unrelated short texts and questions. Academic English learners, in particular, have been asked to spend loads of time memorizing word meanings, grammar rules, math shortcuts, and a range of facts culled from long lists of standards. Parts and pieces are easier and cheaper to test, to teach, and to learn. This focus on quantity, rather than quality, considers learning to be the accumulation of discreet facts, word meanings, grammar rules, etc. “The more accumulation, the better,” some say. This shift, however, emphasizes helping students to put pieces together for a purpose and to use increasingly advanced This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org levels of academic discourse skills to create and communicate original and useful whole ideas in a discipline. We must be like basketball coaches who, rather than having players spend all of their workout time on free throws and dribbling drills, have their players also engage in scrimmages, practice games, and real games. A close cousin of this shift is moving from a focus on short, right answers to a focus on longer more complex understandings. Students have spent too much time thinking of language as choosing the right answer rather. This shift encourages students to go beyond picking or knowing right answers to actually using the answers in the construction and communication of a complex idea in the discipline. Many students are yearning for chances to do less choosing, listing, and regurgitating of the pieces of other people’s ideas. They desire to do more creating, sculpting, arguing, and shaping of whole ideas. Fortunately, the new standards emphasize putting ideas together, using critical thinking skills, collaborating, communicating, and doing tasks that better prepare students for the complex tasks of the future. A classroom snapshot of this shift is Ms. Bernard’s fourth grade math class. She models with another student how to approach a real problem she has that involves fractions, how to estimate the answer and how to represent what is happening in different ways. She then has her students practice explaining to one another why they used certain strategies and how they got their answers. She finally has them pair up to create their own real-world problems and write out how to solve them. She puts many of their problems on quizzes and tests. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Provide more authentic and engaging purposes for learning with project-based learning and performance-based assessments. These give students reasons to come to school, to learn toward something, and to work to put the pieces together in order to construct and communicate complex ideas. • When teaching reading, don’t dive straight in to a text to focus on vocabulary or individual sentences without helping students look at the text’s purposes, main ideas, structures, and other big picture, “wide-angle” dimensions. • In language arts classes, use whole novels; and across all content areas use whole articles and a variety of complete complex texts. AEL Shift 3: From an sole focus on content to placing equal emphases on language, literacy, and content This shift is based on a somewhat extreme point of view: complex language and literacy skills that can be learned in each content area are as important as the content itself. We do not dispute that students need to know a discipline’s facts, concepts, and skills. Students need to learn these things in order to know and learn more things. Indeed, academic English learners often need more school-valued content knowledge than their more-proficient-in-academic-English peers. Yet this doesn’t mean that we should reduce language and literacy demands in order to focus on content. Rather, and this is somewhat counterintuitive, we must realize the large roles that language and literacy play in content learning. We must develop our PLK (Bunch, 2013; Zwiers, 2008), or “pedagogical language knowledge,” which is similar to Shulman’s (1987) pedagogical content knowledge, or PCK. Teachers need to know the language that is running the learning show in each lesson. The more we develop students’ language and literacy skills needed for learning, the better all students will learn the content in enduring ways. And vice versa. A classroom snapshot of this shift is Mr. Wilson’s ninth grade science class. He not only wants students to be able to balance chemical equations, he wants them to be able to clearly This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org explain, using scientific language, how and why the changes occur. He models his thinking and highlights the language that he used, such as “According to the law of conservation of mass, if…, then...” He listens for use of this language and other expressions that show attempts to clarify what is happening in the chemical reactions. While observing students work in pairs, he jots down student uses of language to highlight afterward. For example, one student said, “Because we need to have the same amount of atoms in the product, we need to put a coefficient of 2 here in front of N2.” Mr. Wilson then used this as a model of starting sentences with Because. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Work with a literacy and/or English language development specialist to identify the challenging background knowledge and language demands in the texts that you teach, and discuss strategies for addressing these demands. • Create language objectives and disciplinary literacy objectives that help to remind you the types of language and literacy skills needed by students to learn and show learning. • Plan with language, literacy, and content learning in mind. When you plan lessons and units have a clear vision of where you want students to move with respect to language and literacy development. • Formatively assess students’ language of the discipline by analyzing their writing and listening to their conversations in response to cognitively demanding prompts. • Balance the focus on oral and written uses of language in support of content learning. AEL Shift 4: From Individual to Collaborative Particularly in schools with large numbers of language learners, lessons have focused on building up the skills and vocabulary of each individual student. Students have been asked to focus much of their learning time on isolated practice in preparation for the tests. The new standards, on the other hand, value the skills of communication and collaboration, which also serve to develop learning of other content and English language development standards. The better students get at clarifying, negotiating, and explaining content ideas, the better (more deeply, more enduringly) they learn the ideas. And better students become at communicating in school, the better prepared they are for communicating in higher education and life. We must therefore shift from preparing individuals for individual tests to having students collaboratively learn ideas and communicate them. This means reducing the time spent on having students fill in blanks and, instead, having students negotiate and clarify with one another the meanings of the words that would go in the blanks—and then using the words to construct clear and authentic messages. We must apprentice students into being able to do many of the things historians, mathematicians, authors, and scientists do as they collaborate in real world settings. A snapshot of this shift is Ms. Yu’s second grade classroom in which students work together to argue, with evidence, whether they would recommend to others living in urban or rural settings. Partner A is told to argue for city life and Partner B against it. Then they switch the topic to rural life. They practice using new language along the way. For example, Ms. Yu models how to state reasons starting with “One reason for living in…, Another reason for living in…” Students collaborate to come up with a final recommendation letter for anyone making that decision. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Read and watch resources that promote classroom talk, especially paired interactions. • Focus a grade level group, or content area team, or professional learning community on the practice of developing productive interactions during lessons.This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org • Write out a model conversation that you would like your students to use. Notice the various moves and skills used to keep the conversation going. • Develop formative assessments for use with groups of students and do not rely solely on individual assessments. You might, for example, develop and use a rubric with the skills needed for paired conversations in history. Sharing this rubric with students helps shift their mindset about the importance of collaboration skills and the role they play in learning. AEL Shift 5 - From Playing School to Learning As large numbers of students become disinterested in school, they begin to build their skills at “playing school.” This is particularly true of academic English learners, who are more likely to lose interest in school because they (a) can’t keep up with the language and literacy demands of texts and tasks each day; and (b) lessons do not connect to students’ languages and cultures. How do you play the game? Keep quiet, turn in work (even if copied), minimally answer questions, talk as little as possible in class and group discussions, and stay out of trouble. Too many students play this game for too many years. They can learn very little, even though they pass classes and even do moderately well on tests. We must strive to reduce this school game playing and build a culture/mindset in the classroom that focuses on learning. Yes, it is possible. Other shifts in this article, in fact, can help build up such a culture. For example, as students begin to own language and use it to communicate authentic and whole messages, as teachers allow and value collaboration, and as schools treat students as thinkers with ideas worth sharing, a learning culture will form. A classroom snapshot of this shift is Mr. Salazar’s seventh grade history class. Rather than just memorize ideas from the textbook, students are using primary sources to decide whether the Black Plague was more negative or positive for medieval Europe and later time periods. As they discuss in groups and pairs, Mr. Salazar has them use the new words and facts they learned from the texts to argue the issue. They then compare it other plagues and disasters in history. He teaches students talk as historians would talk about the issue. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Think of facts and concepts to be learned as elements to be learned for a purpose, similar to the real world. Students are more likely to learn in order to learn, if there is an engaging reason or direction. Put yourself in a student’s shoes and think about how interested you would be in the activity or lesson. • Do some action research on intrinsically motivated learning in your students; survey them and see what kinds of topics, activities, or products make them want to learn regardless of points or grades. • Hold a discussion about intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for learning in school. Have students reflect on how well they learn despite good or bad grades on certain products of learning. AEL Shift 6 - From “Direct” to “Less Direct” Teaching This shift might raise a few eyebrows since “direct” and “explicit” approaches have been around a long time and some have even gained momentum in recent years. In many cases, direct approaches tend to involve large amounts of teacher talk telling students what they need to learn. This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org Teachers model, describe, and explain as students listen and then do what was modeled. There is often some “checking for understanding” along the way, in which students answer questions out loud, on paper, or on a mini-whiteboard to show the teacher that they learned. Of course, some “direct teaching” is needed at times in most lessons. Teachers do need to just plain tell or explain students certain things to students—but not the whole lesson. A big challenge is that this type of teaching creates the illusion of learning. Students are quiet, even taking notes, and they even do well on quizzes and questions about the content. They might even think they are learning. But assess them a week later. Many don’t remember much; these students, many of whom are academic English learners, do not learn well in direct and linear ways. Some of their minds even seem to “spill” as much as you can “fill”. Many of your students’ minds need to process the ideas, work with (knead) the information, and sculpt it with others. They need to try ideas out in safe settings, and do new and engaging things with the ideas. The development of academic language is a messy, dynamic, social process that is far from linear and instead “spirals” up and out over time in different ways for different students at different rates. For example, in October we cannot check off Carlos’s learning of a standard such as “Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text” (CCSS.ELALiteracy.RI.4.8). We have to monitor growth in a standard like this one during the entire year (and over the years) with a wide range of texts. In most cases, we will never know exactly when or how a student learned a particular academic language expression or skill. It developed “indirectly,” over time, as a result of purposeful reading and writing of academic texts and working with others in engaging tasks that required Carlos to push himself to articulate and negotiate newly forming ideas. A classroom snapshot of this shift is Ms. Lee’s fifth grade math class. With a focus on scale, area, and volume, he is having students design a city and estimate the rough costs of the materials for constructing it. He introduces various requirements such as building shapes and heights, and thickness measures for concrete and pavement. Students also bring in boxes of different sizes to create a large-scale model of the city. He asks students to be city planners and figure out the cost of materials for one building (he holds a box in his hand), telling them the scale is 1:100. He has them discuss in pairs what they will do first and what information they need. He provides the information (e.g., cost of materials per square meter) as they ask for it, and he guides them as they work together to solve problems related to the project. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Prompt for, use, and validate students’ ideas throughout each lesson. Build on these ideas to model the types of thinking that you want to develop in the lesson. • Encourage students to become experts in certain topics to be learned. Allow them to go beyond what you might directly teach to learn more in-depth concepts within a discipline. • At times, don’t spoil the “plot” of a lesson: don’t start the lesson by describing its objectives. Instead, have students engage in an activity or simulation and have them discuss what they did learn, are learning, or still need to learn in the lesson. Have them come up with the objectives after and as they learn them. AEL Shift 7: From Testing to Assessment and BeyondThis article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org This shift is somewhat controversial (as shifts tend to be), but we include it anyway to spark some reflection. Under NCLB, many classroom practices for academic English learners focused on improving test scores. This meant loads of activities and time spent on learning how to— individually and silently- read many short unrelated texts, choose or guess the right answer, read the test questions beforehand and look for answers, memorize grammar rules, write with writing “formulas,” and navigate the various parts of tests in a short amount of time. The focus, as mentioned in AEL Shift 2, was quantitative: getting as many facts and rules learned as possible, and then using them to score high on tests. The new standards, however, tend to emphasize the quality of conceptual understandings and communication. Some of the most important language and skills, such as creating new ideas and conversing with others to solve a problem, are too difficult, expensive, and subjective to assess every year in standardized ways. And yet, such skills are vital—especially for academic English learners. We can use standards and assessments to give us a baseline of what to teach, but we will often need to teach well beyond them. We will need to teach things that aren’t counted on the color-coded spreadsheets. And when the standardized tests for the new standards do arrive, we must resist the ingrained habits, black-hole-like forces, and temptations to look at the sample test questions, break them down, and focus yet again on parts and pieces that are the most testable. When use our time on these things, it is at the expense of teaching students how to create and communicate whole ideas. There are many vital standards that will never be tested well enough with computer programs. We will need to (here is the controversial part) design and improve our own assessments, formative and summative. A snapshot of this shift is several fourth grade teachers who assess paired conversations in the last month of each semester. Students don’t know the exact day they will need to have an intelligent conversation (much like in real life), so they prepare and practice throughout the semester. They prepare in each subject area. Teachers observe conversations and support the use of language and skills as needed. Teachers realize that this assessment doesn’t directly (or explicitly) prepare students for yearly state tests, but they believe that this focus counts more than many of the things that are more easily counted. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Focus professional development and learning communities on improving formative assessment of standards that are linguistically challenging and don’t get assessed in the tests (e.g., conversation skills). • Share ideas for creating and adapting real-world-like performance assessments that develop and show the learning of multiple standards. • Develop protocols for the design of assessments of student practices and teacher practices so there is a common language for—and culture of—engaging in datainformed instructional change. AEL Shift 8 - From Silos to Sustainable Systems All of the previous shifts, of course, require yet another meta-shift: changing the system from isolated pockets of practice to an integrated model that sustains growth. This model includes coaching, collaboration, observations, data analysis, conversations, leadership practices, relationships, cultural practices, and policies that support complex language and literacyThis article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org development for academic English learners. This shift requires educators at all levels in a system to know what to communicate and how to communicate it. A key feature of this shift is communication. We can and should share loads of information about our students, how they learn, how they don’t learn, what they are learning and need to learn. And the system needs to be set up to maximize this communication. It builds networks that productively share ideas. Another feature of a sustainable system is its focus on high-quality data. The system should always strive to get and analyze increasingly useful data on student learning and teaching practices. A classroom snapshot of this shift is Mr. Cook’s instructional coach, Ms. Rizzi, who helps him to focus on certain elements of lesson planning that are vital for teaching English learners. Currently they are focusing on improving students’ abilities to evaluate evidence from fiction and nonfiction texts. After a lesson observation, Ms. Rizzi shared an scaffolding idea that she had seen another teacher use and they discussed how to adapt it for the academic English learners in Mr. Cook’s class. Moreover, to develop her coaching practices, Ms. Rizzi attends professional development workshops and meets with district leaders, school administrators, and other coaches at the school. Here are several suggestions for implementing this shift: • Cultivate communities in your school where educators collaboratively engage in disciplined inquiry around instructional problems of practice. • Hold department level or school level data sessions where teachers analyze and share student work and discuss ideas for instructional improvement. Beforehand, make sure the data is valid and valuable. • Allow time for teachers to share their learning from professional development they have attended with others at their school or within their district. • Develop a school or district level design team consisting of teachers, coaches and administrators. The role of the design team would be to identify cross-cutting instructional challenges and to identify the resources (professional development; collaboration time; tools and materials) needed to address these problems and improve instruction. Conclusion Each of these shifts is a continuum. How far along a teacher or school is in each shift on any given day will vary. In fact, many teachers have already been shifting in these eight ways well before the new standards were introduced. This is what effective teachers do. They learn from successes, mistakes, resources, students, conversations, professional development, and so on. They know what their students need, and they shift and adapt. But we need to keep growing: every teacher and school can improve in one or more of the shifts described above. The complexity of teaching is profound, and students change every year. Academic English learners, in particular, need teachers at the top of their game in knowing what and how to teach in the limited windows of time given. True, it’s messy and challenging to shift away from the familiar, but our students’ futures are in the balance. References Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This article is adapted from Chapter 1 of Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy, by Jeff Zwiers, Susan O’Hara, & Robert Pritchard, (2014). Stenhouse | ALDNetwork.org Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bunch, G. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 2013, p. 298-341. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: MacMillan. Freire, P. (1978). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Group. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The genesis of higher mental functions. In R. Reiber (Ed.), The history of the development of higher mental functions (Vol. 4, pp. 97-120). New York: Plennum. Zwiers, J., O’Hara, S., & Pritchard, R. (2014). Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential practices for developing academic language & disciplinary literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse.