Instructional+Approaches+and+Professional+Development

=Part 4- Educating Language Minority Students:= =Instructional Approaches and Professional Development=

Putting Recommendations into Practice
David J. Francis, Nonie Lesaux, and Diane August Submitted by Sandra Del Castillo, Blanca Rivera, and M. Teresa Ramirez This chapter’s focus was on effective reading programs for English-language learners. Should children’s first language be used in an instructional program? Twenty studies evaluated the impact of bilingual education as compared with English-only instruction. The chapter presented background information, methods used for the review, information on studies with language minority children and heritage language studies, studies on French Immersion, and a summary of the methodological concerns and findings. In summary, there is no indication that bilingual instruction hinders academic achievement in either the native language or English, whether for language-minority students, students receiving heritage language instruction, or those enrolled in French immersion programs. The differences that were observed, on average favored the students in a bilingual program. This conclusion held up across the entire collection of studies. The studies suggested a possibility of English-language learners may learn to read best if taught in both their native language and English from early in the process of conventional schooling. Instead of fearing that instructing children in two languages may confuse them, as some have feared in the past, reading instruction in a familiar language may serve as a bridge to success in English because decoding, sound blending, and generic comprehension strategies clearly transfer between languages that use phonetic orthographies, such as Spanish, French, and English. (Francis, Lesaux, & August, 2006) · ** English-Only Programs ** § Programs in which the native language plays little to no role in academic instruction. There are two terms defined as English-only programs: submersion and structured English immersion. · Submersion- most commonly known as sink-or-swim, where there are no special provisions made for the ELL student · Structured English Immersion (SEI)- includes the use of special techniques and well-planned, unmodified English instruction that makes content delivery more accessible to the ELL student. · ** Bilingual Programs ** § These programs provide ELL students with instruction in reading and/or other subjects in their native language. § Transitional Bilingual Programs · ELL student may be taught to read entirely in Spanish initially and transitioned into English in an early-exit model (transitioned within the first three elementary years) or late-exit model (continued native-language support throughout elementary to ensure mastery of reading and content). § Paired Bilingual Programs/Alternative Immersion · ELL students are taught to read in both English and their native language from the beginning of their schooling. They are alternatively immersed in both languages. Within a few years, native language instruction may be discontinued as the ELL student develops the skills needed to succeed in English. § Two-Way Bilingual Programs/Dual-Language Programs · A classroom setting in which ELL students are integrated with English speakers where all students receive instruction in the native language (usually Spanish) and in English. The goal is for all the students to develop and maintain literacy in two languages. · ** Heritage Language Programs ** § These programs focus on preserving or showing respect for the heritage language of the participating children. These children are already proficient in English. · ** French Immersion Programs ** § Native-English-speaking children are taught entirely or primarily in French in the early elementary years. These programs were voluntary, and the students that were not successful in that setting could be and were routinely returned to English-only instruction. · ** Variability Within Program Type ** § There is variability with the level of implementation of programs. · The use of the native language is highly variable within program models. § There is also variability with the quality of instruction. · Program quality has been the key to positive outcomes for ELL students. § Policy also adds to the variability of programs. · Educators may not necessarily embrace an English-only directive from higher levels, which in turn results in differences in the program’s design and implementation. The research comparing English-only and bilingual reading programs used with language minority students included technical reports, dissertations, and studies predating 1980. Two individuals independently reviewed each study to determine whether they met the criteria for this chapter. For the purpose of this chapter the studies had to meet the following standards of relevance: Following these standards of relevance, 20 studies were identified to evaluate the impact of language of instruction on literacy acquisition. Fourteen of the studies compared language-minority students in the elementary level who were taught to read with bilingual or English-only instruction (Alvarez, 1975; Campeau et al., 1975; Cohen, Fathman, & Merino,1976; Danoff, Coles, McLaughlin, &Reynolds, 1978; De la Garza & Medina, 1985; Doebler & Mardis, 1980-1981; Huzar, 1973; Lampman, 1973; J. A. Maldonado, 1994; J. R. Maldonado, 1977; Plante, 1976; Ramirez et al., 1991; Saldate, Mishra, & Medina, 1985; Valladolid, 1991). Two studies (Covey, 1973; Kaufman, 1968) compared language-minority students in the secondary grades who were taught to read with bilingual or English-only instruction. One study ( Morgan, 1971) examined the effectiveness of a program in which French speaking children received instruction in their heritage language. The last three studies (Barik & Swain, 1975, 1978; Barick, Swain, & Nwanunobi, 1977) evaluated French immersion programs for English speaking children in Canada. So much great work has been reported in this chapter by numerous experts on the field of bilingual education. However, there are some limitations to the studies reported in this chapter. For one, case studies and qualitative studies that would have provided some insight into the quality of instruction as well as learning environments were excluded. Second, several of the studies reviewed in this chapter took place years ago when bilingual and English-only immersion programs were much different from what they are today (Francis, Lesaux, & August, 2006). The chapter indicated that they would have liked to conduct an exhaustive examination on the mentioned topic, but due to limited resources and time, could not do so. As educators with interest in educating English Language Learners we realize there is still more research to be conducted. We still continue to need a stronger English Language Development (ELD) program where all components of literacy are fully being met. The more developed we are as educators the better able we are to service language-minority students. As (SEI) educators we strive to have a structured English instruction plan. This plan requires a transitional phase into English instruction. The students transition into English as we allow for conversations to take place in their native language in the classroom. Clarification of vocabulary terms, reading skills, strategies, or any need they may have is addressed on a daily basis. The main drive for our instruction is to have growth by the end of the year. Recommendations
 * Ch. 14 **
 * Language of Instruction **
 * Introduction **
 * Summary of Findings **
 * Program Types: **
 * Criteria for Inclusion **
 * The studies compared English-only and bilingual reading programs.
 * The subjects had to be language minority children in elementary or secondary schools in English speaking countries.
 * The studies included quantitative measures of vocabulary and English reading performance.
 * The studies included at least a 6-month span between the onset of instruction and posttests.
 * Study Characteristics **
 * Critique **
 * Recommendations **
 * Putting Recommendations into Practice **

Chapter 15: Effective Literacy Teaching for English-Language Learners Submitted by Gicela Ornelas Chapter 15 focused on studies of two essential approaches to literacy improvement: (1) provides enhanced instruction in particular elements of literacy (phonemic awareness, phonics, sight vocabulary, meaning vocabulary, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, writing, and spelling), and (2) examines interventions that are aimed to provide literacy among English-language learners. This chapter is a qualitative, narrative review, which means that the data collected from the studies is narratively interpreted by the reviewers. The research question that is addressed in this chapter is what can be done to increase achievement in reading, writing, and spelling for language-minority students? The National Literacy Panel found that explicit teaching of phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension strategies, and vocabulary is beneficial to literacy achievement. This chapter analyzed studies and reported the findings and on phonemic awareness and phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing. The studies found for this chapter were limited. The National Literacy Panel was not able to perform a true meta-analysis for any of the literacy components, due to the limited studies. The National Literacy Panel never had more than three conceptually comparable studies on any of the elements review for this chapter, making the results unpredictable due to the lack of studies. The studies reviewed for this chapter suggest that teaching specific reading and writing elements can be beneficial to second-language students. Teaching English vocabulary is effective, but progress may be most rapid when instruction is connected to the students’ home language, sharing cognates when available. It appears that work with native-speakers population generally works with English-language learners. Instruction that emphasizes literacy components (phonemic awareness, phonics, sight vocabulary, meaning vocabulary, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, writing, and spelling) confers a learning advantage to English-language learners. Common instructional routines may need to be adjusted to make literacy instruction effective with English-language learners. The National Literacy Panel states that there are few high-quality studies of English-language learners on any of the literacy components to allow specific conclusions about what works best with any components. The recommendations for each literacy component are as follows: __ Phonemic Awareness and Phonics  __ It has been recommended that the teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics early is important to reading development and spelling. __ Oral Reading Fluency  __ Fluency is an important aspect to reading comprehension, because students must be able to read fluently in order to maintain the information processed in order to comprehend what is being read. Without fluency the student will be distracted by other factors, hindering other necessary cognitive activities. Fluency instruction appears to benefit English-language learners. Though, the need for more research is still needed in the area to best teach oral reading fluency to children who are learning English as a second language. __ Vocabulary  __ Instruction leading to deeper processing of word meanings and requiring greater word repetition and use of words in different formats leads to higher vocabulary proficiency. However, it continues to be the need to further investigate into what constitutes sound and effective vocabulary instruction for English-language learners. __ Reading Comprehension  __ The studies reviewed show that the complexity of grade-level text may be too difficult for English-language learners. Though the studies cannot tell us if we should use easier text, less readable but more comprehensible text, a combination of the two, or provide instruction to the students on how to handle the demands of a text. Due to the limited studies in this area, the National Literacy Panel was unable to determine the best way to facilitate reading comprehension for English-language learners. Further research needs to be done in this area. __ Writing  __ To an extent revision helps students improve their writing. Students that wrote alone do better. A study showed students wrote more complex text with better grammatical accuracy than students who conference with each other. A recommendation made by the National Literacy Panel that resonates with my own teaching practices is the ability to have students’ conference with me instead of their peers. I agree with the findings, because peers will not catch their peer’s mistakes. As I conference with my students I can focus on their specific needs and correct them and explain their mistakes. This allows the students to be aware of their mistakes and this helps with their improvement in their writing. National Literacy Panel Research Recommendation Submitted by Gicela Ornelas The National Literacy Panel examined a study by Ulanoff and Pucci (1999), it states that the implication is that reading to English–language learners with preview-review of selected words and content may improve vocabulary development. From my years of experience in teaching English-language learners I have found that they have the most trouble understanding science and social studies vocabulary. The content vocabulary of science and social studies is very rich and difficult to understand. The recommendation is to preview vocabulary in order to have the students understand what the vocabulary means. They should also be able to review the vocabulary after reading and/or studying the content. I have included some ideas that I have used to create meaning and understanding of content vocabulary. I have implemented many of these ideas in the classroom with students from grades 3-4. __ Ideas to implement __ v Videos/DVD’s illustrating vocabulary (dessert, a small clipping of Indiana Jones)-videos are a great way to view illustrations/ moving pictures for vocabulary. v Pictures v As a whole group define vocabulary and make an illustration with labels. v Read alouds- books can help make abstract vocabulary more meaningful v Photographs v Songs using vocabulary v Word origins v Cognates __ How to Implement __ Lack of adequate vocabulary is one barrier to reading for English–language learners. Components that I have found helpful for vocabulary development are: v Word selection (words that represent new concepts) v Direct instruction in word meaning v Strategies used to learn new words v Modeling of strategies and processes for learning new words v Multiple exposures to new words v Opportunities to use new words (wide reading, word-focused activities, and ongoing review) v A system to help students track new vocabulary (This is where the review of vocabulary takes place)
 * Introduction **
 * Summary of Findings **
 * Recommendations **
 * Putting Recommendations into Practice **

Try this: vocabulary activity 1. Teacher provides a definition (tell, read, use ideas listed above, demonstrate…) (example: teacher provided definitions of vocabulary, i.e. parts of a plant; leaf, roots, petal, stem) 2. Teacher creates a non-linguistic (pictures or video) representation of the word while engaging in a verbal discussion that helps students identify characteristics of the visual. (example: provide pictures or have an actual plant) 3. Students write or say their own definition of the word. This step can be completed by individual students, partners, or whole class. 4. Students create their own non-linguistic representation of the word. (May be done in pairs or small groups, like charades-kids love this part) 5. Return to original visual to add or revise student understanding of the vocabulary (Use ideas listed of implementation).

__ Additional Resource __ http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/ELDInstruction.htm Teaching strategies for planning instruction for English language development http://www.tea.state.tx.us/reading/practices/redbk5.pdf Components of effective vocabulary instruction. http://languagearts.pppst.com/vocabulary.html Power points are available in all language arts areas. http://www.educationoasis.com/curriculum/GO/vocab_dev.htm Graphic organizers that promote vocabulary development and concepts. http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/kids/index.html Teaches students science vocabulary in Spanish and English through animated videos. = CHAPTER 15 = Submitted by Maricela Nilo Chapter 15 of the National Literacy Panel, titled //Effective Literacy Teaching for English-Language Learners// by Timothy Shanahan and Isabel Beck addresses the following question: “What can be done to increase achievement in reading, writing, and spelling for language-minority students?” This section examined a total of seventeen studies on explicit instruction in literacy components. It examines the extent to which explicit teaching of literacy components such as phonemic awareness, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and writing benefit children who are learning English as a second language. We chose this chapter because we thought that after reviewing literature on literacy, The National Literacy Panel would offer useful suggestions on specific teaching strategies that address the areas of concern for most English language learners: reading comprehension, vocabulary and writing. Unfortunately, the studies reviewed in this section do not reveal much about the usefulness of specific instructional strategies. It would have been beneficial to learn more about specific strategies that have been used by teachers in classrooms to address issues of literacy acquisition with English-language learners. The first section looked at **phonemic awareness and phonics**. This section analyzed 5 studies. Researchers wanted to know if teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, or sight vocabulary is advantageous for English-language learners. A combined program of phonemic awareness and phonics study by Stuart (1999) implemented the use of //Jolly Phonics// and a Big Books approach. Teachers provided one hour of daily instruction using the Jolly Phonics or Big Books intervention over a 12-week period to 112 four-and five-year olds in England. Significant positive effects on acquisition of phonological awareness and phonics were found from using //Jolly Phonics// in comparison to using Big Books instruction. A second study of 33 first-grade Puerto Rican students by Larson (1996), examined the use of segmentation instruction in phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling. One group received segmentation instruction in Spanish and English. The second group received segmentation instruction only in English. They included a no-treatment control group. The researchers found that the two groups who received segmentation instruction scored higher on posttests and delayed tests of segmenting, decoding, and spelling. Also, the two segmentation groups scored equally on tests. Two more studies, an original intervention and a follow-up, by Gunn et al (2000) and (2002) examined the effects of supplemental code-emphasis instruction that emphasizes phonological decoding in 256 K-3 students. One group of students received instruction through //Reading Mastery//, a second group-received instruction through Corrective Reading, and a third control group that received no intervention. After two years, students significantly improved in word-attack skills, reading vocabulary, passage comprehension, but not in oral reading-fluency. A fifth study by Kramer et al. (1983) included the teaching of auditory discrimination to first, second, and third grade Mexican-American students. This study is mentioned briefly due to its many limitations. It used very small groups of children through an unspecified amount of time. Therefore, this study was inconclusive. The studies addressed above had several limitations. For one, the studies were not presented in detail. Second, the sample sizes were small. The instructional approaches used in these studies were very vague. The second section examined literature in the area of **Oral Reading Fluency**. This section only lists two studies. This is obviously an area that requires more research. One study by Denton (2000) examined tutoring interventions over 4 months that involved 93 Spanish speaking English-language learners. One intervention taught phonics and the second intervention taught fluency directly. The phonics intervention used the //Read Well// program that involved explicit phonics and word reading. The fluency intervention utilized the //Read Naturally// program, which consisted of repeated readings of text with audiotape and vocabulary and comprehension instruction. The study was found to be inconclusive. I’ve experienced the use of //Read// Naturally through my work during the summer school session. Unfortunately, summer school is not the best time to use this intervention, due to the fact that attendance is very inconsistent and it only covers a time period of 20 days. I have not seen any significant improvement in fluency or comprehension. A second study using the Spanish translated version of //Read Naturally// by De la Colina et al. (2001) was included in this section. The participants included 74 Spanish English first and second grade bilingual students. The results for this study are quite interesting. This study, in contrast to the English //Read Naturally,// found that most students improved in oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. The third section examined literature in the area of **vocabulary**. I read through this section with anticipation. Vocabulary is a major area of concern for my English language learner students when compared to my native speaker students. In most cases, native speakers have a more-developed vocabulary due to more exposure to the mainstream culture and language. In contrast, English language learners are less exposed to mainstream culture vocabulary. Studies by Carlo et al. (2004), Perez (1981), and Vaugh-Shavuo (1990) involving vocabulary learning concluded that groups who received enhanced vocabulary teaching improve in their ability to read and comprehend text. Even though the studies are limited in this section, I have experienced that when students are frontloaded with vocabulary previous to reading the text they have a more thorough understanding of what they read. The fourth section examined literature in the very important area of **reading comprehension**. Three studies by Bean (1982), Shames (1998), and Swicegood (1990) examined ways of teaching reading comprehension to English language learners. One study trained students to ask themselves questions during reading in their native language, Spanish. Unfortunately, the students did not transfer those skills into English reading. The next study included instruction in phonics and vocabulary in two areas: composition-translation, where students composed reading materials in their native languages and a second group was taught to use comprehension strategies ( K-W-L strategies and Question-Answer Relationships) A third combination group used a mixture of the strategies. The combination group and the comprehension strategies group were found to improve in reading comprehension. I was disappointed with this section. The third study was minimal. It revised the students’ English textbook to make it easier for English language learners. The study was inconclusive. Decreasing the rigor for English language learners is not something I would do. I expected more research being analyzed. I expected specific strategies from classroom teachers. The last section examined literature in **writing.** This was one of the weakest sections. Most studies analyzed the same strategy: individual writing vs. pair or group writing. This section included studies by Franken et al. (1999), Gomez et al. (1996), Prater et al. (1993), and Sengupta (2000). One study examined the effectiveness of free writing and structured writing. Structured writing was found to be favored. A second study examined the impact of peer response in conference groups on the writing development of English language learners. The study included a control group that worked on their own and a response group that cooperatively worked on topics and revision of writing. Their writing did not improve but the response group increased its amount of writing. Two more studies examined the same concept of writing in which students either worked alone or in pairs. Again, the results did not show improvement in writing. I have found that students need both free write time and structured writing time to be well prepared for the upper grades. They need multiple opportunities to write for different purposes. = Recommendations = Literacy interventions analyzed in this section had greater impact on decoding and fluency than reading comprehension. Based on its findings the NLP made several recommendations. I have chosen to focus on the following: · Read to build vocabulary · Develop more thorough discussion routines around literature · Stronger emphasis on comprehension building = Putting Recommendations into Practice = A study by Saunders and Goldenberg (1999) found that when students English –language learners benefit from instructional conversations. Students who are given the opportunity to have discussions and write about what they read show improvement in reading comprehension. Thereby, the National Literacy Panel made the following recommendation: **Develop more thorough discussions of reading material/literature.** · **Select literature that is meaningful and of interest to the students.** v //Abuela// by Arthur Dorros: While riding on a bus with her grandmother, a little girl imagines that they are carried up into the sky and fly over the sights of New York City. Thus begins an excursion through the girl's imagination as she soars high above the tall buildings and buses of Manhattan, over the docks and around the Statue of Liberty with Abuela in tow. Each stop of the glorious journey evokes a vivid memory for Rosalba's grandmother and reveals a new glimpse of the woman's colorful ethnic origins.)  v  //In my family/En mi familia// by Carmen Garza: The author shares the simple joys of eating, dancing, and celebrating her own childhood. Her stories, presented in both English and Spanish, are accompanied by her bright paintings.   v  //Mice and Beans// by Pam Munoz Ryan: A birthday party like no other at grandmother’s casita.  ·  **Activate prior-knowledge:** Have a discussion about the topic.  ·  **Whole group discussion:** The whole group discussion of the text is lead by open-ended questions. (Tell me what you think, tell me about the story, tell me why you think that, tell me more) Students are more likely to participate due to a lower affective filter.   ·  **Encourage personal connections:** allow students to share personal connections. · **Form cooperative groups for additional discourse:** allow students to have conversations about the literature in smaller groups. · **Provide an opportunity for students to write about the story in reading logs:** The writing is left open-ended. Students write about the story and illustrate in reading logs. Web-based links for additional resources: Ø   [|http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ncrcdsll/epr2/] Ø [|www.poets.org] Ø [|www.newhorizons.org] Ø [|www.colorincolorado.org]
 * Submitted by Maricela Nilo **

Ch. 16 Qualitative Studies of Classroom and School Practices Submitted by Stacy Iles-Micale Chapter 16 of the National Literacy Report in divided into four subsections all related to, “school practices and contexts related to literacy development in language-minority students,” (p. 489). These four subsections include; instructional techniques designed to improve specific components of literacy, comprehensive instructional programs designed to build literacy, effective classrooms and schools, and school change.

Under instructional techniques, the specific components of literacy studied were the development of Spanish word- and text-level skills, the development of English word- and text-level skills, the development of a combination of word- and text-level skills and beyond.
 * Instructional Techniques Designed to Improve Specific Components of Literacy**

With regard to word-level skills, it was found that students engaged in direct phonics instruction improved phonological awareness and decoding skills. Also, students involved in text-level skills, such as comprehension, seemed to benefit from reciprocal teaching strategies much like their monolingual classmates.

In this area, teacher scaffolding and knowledge played an important role in the data outcomes rather than specific strategy use. Students that made gains in text–level skills were in classrooms where the teacher participated in many scaffolding techniques to build the students’ knowledge base and help them acquire the new content.

In this subsection, the authors describe comprehensive programs that were developed for native English speakers but contain accommodations based on the needs and strengths of language minority students. These instructional programs include, Balanced Literacy, Whole Language Programs, and Whole Literacy Programs. All three programs described provided English learners with improved language and literacy development however, not without additional support or intervention and ongoing mentoring of teachers as well as professional development on just how to use these comprehensive programs with English language learners.
 * Comprehensive Instructional Programs Designed to Improve Multiple Components of Literacy**

The research on effective classrooms and schools found that the same characteristics in the most successful settings. These attributes include, “implicit and explicit challenging of students, active involvement of all students, providing activities that students can complete successfully, and scaffolding instruction for students…” (p. 520). Staff development and continued monitoring by coaches of teachers made the classrooms and schools especially effective in imparting instructional practices on language-minority students.
 * Research on Effective Classrooms and Schools**

This section detailed two studies where a concerted school effort involving school personnel and research specialists, made a difference in language-minority students’ education. In both studies, a profound impact was noted on the progress of the language-minority students in literacy. As noted by the authors, “…mobilizing staff to focus on the needs of language-minority students, even when such students are few in number in a school or classroom, …can make a difference,” (p. 522).
 * Studies of School Change**

It seems as though the overall theme of recommendations the authors are making in this chapter is differentiation without “dumbing down” the information for ELLs. In the first subsection, the authors refer to intensive interventions that maybe necessary for ELLs who do not respond to the word- and text-level skills instruction in the classroom to distinguish them from learning disabled students. In the second subsection, the authors mention the need that some students may require additional support to keep pace with their native-English classmates in literacy instruction and the call for the teachers to attend to the individual needs of the students. In the following subsections on effective classrooms and schools as well as school change, those that were effective were fluid in their practices attending to the needs of the individual students and changing as seen fit. The authors recommend additional research in the area of effective instruction to identify the factors that guide progressed student functioning. “These factors,” they write, “need to be either bundled and tested experimentally as an intervention package or examined as separate components to determine whether they actually lead to improved student performance” (p520).
 * Recommendations**

Submitted by Stacy Iles-Micale Citing research conducted by Gersten and Jimenez (1994), Gersten and Jimenez (1999), and Short and Padron (1994), August and Erickson examined quality instruction in classrooms and schools. The framework of the quality instruction they reviewed is identified by the following attributes: implicit and explicit challenging of students, active involvement of all students, providing activities that students can complete successfully, and scaffolding instruction for students through such techniques as building and clarifying student input and using visual organizers, teacher mediation/feedback to students, and classroom use of collaborative classroom learning. The implementation of all of these attributes can be quite difficult to put into a single lesson. In my kindergarten class, I would create multiple lessons around one theme that touch on these points. In January our learning theme is Family Homes. I teach the basic vocabulary of things that you find in homes, the rooms, and positional words to locate those items. For example, “The __desk__ is __in__ the __bedroom__.”, “The __tub__ is __in__ the __bathroom__.”, and “The __plant__ is __behind__ the __chair__.”, etc.. We also learn about the different types of family homes here and around the world. For example, houses, apartments, motorhomes, huts, igloos, etc.. Each of the attributes is used throughout the day in a variety of language arts activities such as, interactive writing, independent writing, read aloud, shared reading, buddy reading or independent reading, and literacy centers. The student s are given multiple opportunities to interact with the language throughout the month. // Shared Reading // Read __Where’s Bear,__ a story about a little girl who has lost her bear and has to look in the different rooms of her house to find it. This teaches the positional words as well as reinforces the vocabulary. // Interactive Writing // Students label the rooms of the house, the things that go inside, and the parts of the house (windows, door, chimney, etc.). //Read Aloud// Read __This is My House__. This book introduces the vocabulary of homes around the world in which people live. // Buddy/Independent Reading // In the classroom library, student can read or reread books about homes. They can locate positional words in the books or vocabulary words and write them down on a clipboard. // Literacy Centers // Listening to stories read on tape and following along in their own book in the listening center, Writing stories about homes with a provided picture prompt and writing center, or drawing their own picture of a home. //Independent Writing// Students create their own homes with construction paper and label the rooms inside. They fill the rooms with pictures of items that go in each room and add windows and doors on the front. Through these activities stretched throughout the month, students are subjected to the attributes of quality instruction as identified by the authors.
 * NLP Research Recommendation**
 * Identified Recommendation **
 * How to Implement **
 * Examples of Implementation **


 * Chapter 16 – Qualitative Studies of Classroom and School Practices**
 * NLP subsection critique submitted by Franchesca Chavez**

Teaching students to take charge of their learning and be active in developing their own meaning from lessons and activities is a constructivist approach to learning. This theory played a huge role in the culminated findings of the reviewed research in the article “Qualitative Studies of Classroom and School Practices”, by Diane August and Fredrick Erickson. The ethnographies and case studies analyzed the literacy development of language-minority students in current classroom and school settings, which make these findings suggestive. From their systematic interpretive examination of the current research four major areas developed: (1) instructional techniques designed to improve specific components of literacy, (2) comprehensive instructional programs designed to build literacy (3) effective classrooms and schools, and (4) school change. The studies were conducted in bilingual, monolingual, and sheltered immersion environments.

Instructional techniques designed to improve specific components of literacy involved research on practices addressing word-level skills and text-level skills. Word-level skills refer to abilities in word recognition, decoding, and spelling, which were observed with students in kindergarten through third grade. Participants in explicit phonics instruction showed improvement in those areas and in phonemic awareness. Text-level skills include vocabulary, reading comprehension, fluency, and writing. These reports were conducted with students in grades four through twelve and indicated that language-minority students benefit from many of the same instructional approaches as their monolingual peers did. Such strategies include reciprocal teaching, collaborative group work, or teaching metacognitive strategies.

Comprehensive instructional programs designed to build literacy include balanced-literacy, whole-language, and whole-literacy approaches. Balanced-literacy instruction is comprised of explicit phonics, the conventional literacy approach, and acquiring literacy skills naturally through interaction with authentic, meaningful uses of written language, the whole-language approach. Both literacy practices may be utilized at the same time as a frame for any of the literacy events like journal writing. Whole-language programs in these studies differed from the previous by excluding the explicit phonics instruction. Whole-literacy gave focus to reading and writing while deemphasizing speaking and listening skills. Instruction was delivered through writing and reading workshops producing only portfolio assessments.

These approaches were being carried out in elementary schools that ranged in grade levels of kindergarten through sixth, both in an urban area and a rural community with a large recent immigration population, and a variety of languages stretching from Hawaiian to Portuguese. While all of the above programs showed progress, a balanced approach with direct instruction in phonics and writing was found to be the overall most successful. Also, all of the approaches supported the interrelation of reading, writing, and speaking, provided opportunities to construct knowledge through authentic literature, and created activities to extend oral and written abilities.

Effective classrooms and schools can be a very subjective statement depending on what you deem as proof of success. In the reviewed studies effective literacy instruction was first researched to develop a framework to be used to compare all research. This framework considered practices to be effective if they led to high levels of student engagement, facilitated higher cognitive processes, and allowed for extended discourse. Observations and interviews were conducted in the studies with students and teachers of grades third through eighth. Students varied in their language attributes. For example, some students were in their first transitional year from bilingual education to Sheltered English Immersion; while others had always attended sheltered immersion classes. The teachers varied in ethnicity and experience. The schools were located in low to middle-class socio-economic areas.

These studies demonstrated potential explanatory factors for effective classrooms and schools. The need for professional development for teachers came across as a strong result due to the amount of recommendations for instruction suggested. Further support of this was seen in the studies as many of the teachers struggled with implementation of techniques.

Studies of school change that effect the literacy development of language-minority students was examined in two separate cases. In a small, rural, and predominantly Anglo elementary school the campus staff along with the help from the local university came together to develop a reading program for two recent Vietnamese immigrants. Similar camaraderie was seen at an elementary school with a high population of Spanish speakers. The staff also worked with a local university to improve reading achievement among language-minority students. Both schools received positive improvements with their students and illuminated the fact that organizing people to concentrate on the needs of a population can begin to make improvements. The findings also suggested that these efforts must be consistent because true change is slow.

Looking at the development of literacy in a more broad general perspective can possibly give better insight on how students truly learn. Unfortunately, the findings do not point to one specific way of how learning in accomplished, rather they present a myriad of recommendations of strategies and techniques that could be implemented in the classroom. It is necessary to have a multitude of approaches to assist any students with their specific needs whether it is language, as in the cases of these studies, or other issues you will experience with behavior or learning disabilities. Strategies tend to eventually place the accountability and construction of meaning onto the students. Some activities or techniques that assist with this are: ¨ Paired reading ¨ Visual organizers ¨ Literature circles ¨ Scaffolding through modeling and gradually releasing responsibilities ¨ Reciprocal teaching Also, curriculum should not be adjusted in the sense that content is lessened; rather it needs to be presented in different ways. Language should not be seen as a disability, but factor that adds to the interactions that are balanced to provide students with explicit instruction, guidance, and the opportunity to discuss and develop their literacy to the highest individual expectations.
 * Recommendations and Implications**

Franchesca's Recommendations

** Chapter 16: Qualitative Studies of Classroom and School Practices  ** ** Diane August with Frederick Erickson  ** Submitted by: Julia Caciano The research presented in chapter 16 addressed classroom and school practices and contexts designed to build literacy in language minority students. The report is broken down into four subsections that review case studies and ethnographic research that focused on 1. instructional approaches developed to enhance specific areas of literacy 2. comprehensive instructional programs designed to build literacy 3. effective classrooms and school, and 4. school change. Instructional Techniques looked at developing Spanish word- and text-level skills, English word- and text-level skills, a combination of word-and text-level skills and student participation and literacy-related behaviors. The researched found that word level skills (phonological awareness and decoding skills) improve through explicit phonics instruction. It also indicates that text-level skills improve when instruction includes strategies that are successful with monolingual students such as cooperative grouping. Student participation was shown to increase through activities such as Literature circles in which students are able to share their views on the stories and also listen to peers’ comments. In this section studies programs that were developed to improve literacy in native –English speakers, but contain accommodations to meet the needs and strengths of language-minority students are focused upon. These programs include balanced-literacy, whole language, and whole-literacy instruction. The study found that language minority students’ success in these programs has to do with the support and interventions they are provided. It also noted that English language learners are a heterogeneous group with individual needs that need to be met to promote their development. Teacher expectations should be aligned with the students’ differing levels of English proficiency. Instruction should be differentiated to support student and their development. Professional development designed for the implementation of programs should also focus on how to modify it in order to best meet the needs of minority-language students. The research found that effective schools were ones that had effective literacy instruction. In this school the students’ native language and cultures was valued. English learners received high quality literacy instruction that challenged them. These schools also involved all students, scaffolded instruction, used cooperative learning and allowed students to experience success through activities. Teachers of English language learners and native speakers became more efficient through collaboration and common planning. Two school studies were the focus in this part of the research. Although the studies took place in very different areas the procedure that were made to assist English language learners were the same. Both schools worked with local universities who assisted in staff development and as a staff to promote change. Collaboration amongst teachers, administration, resource specialist, and outside agency allowed schools and students’ to experience success. Changes were not the result of a program. The study recommends that English learners are given the support they need to succeed while still keeping expectations high. It also recommends that everyone in the school work together to help minority-language students succeed. Most of all it sets the tone that teachers and school personnel need to foster changes that help develop English language proficiency. NLP Research Reccomendations reccomendations Julia
 * Instructional Techniques Designed to Improve Specific Components of Literacy. **
 * Comprehensive Instructional Programs Designed to Improve Multiple Components of Literacy **
 * Research on Effective Classrooms and Change **
 * Studies of School Change **
 * Recommendations **


 * Chapter 17

NLP Research Recommendations **

** Language-Minority Children in ** ** Special Education Settings **
 * Literacy Instruction for **

and Vanessa Velasco ** The focus of this chapter was to research minority students in special education settings. The research articles focused on different items related to English Language Learners, ELL, students with disabilities. However, students who struggled in literacy were also included as part of this population. Some research focused on the context in which students were taught, others the type of students, one stated parents views and within the studies some contradictory findings were found.
 * By: Monica Cardiel
 * __ Introduction __**

In the section, “Context in which Language Minority Students with Special Needs are Educated,” Ruiz (1995) studied three classroom settings with varying degrees of formality: Classroom Openings-Most Formal, Lessons-Moderately Formal, Sociodramatic play-least formal. Ruiz (2005) found that students exhibited more frequent initiation of conversation turns, production of longer turns of speech, and production of greater range of language form and function in the least formal setting (NLP, pg. 524-525). This was contrary to // Echevarria’s (1996) // findings whom states that higher levels of academic achievement were observed during instructional conversation lessons (NLP, pg. 527). Hughes, Vaughn, and Schumms’ (1999) study found parents encountered several barriers to help their children. The parents felt due to their lack of English language performance they are not able to assist their child in classroom literacy demands. They also felt they did not have strong home school communication. They would have liked the teachers to inform them of the classroom strategies and practices to better assist their child at home. Parents who had a child with a disability felt that they struggled in reading and writing. However, when compared with parents with children who were high achievers, they struggled with motivating their child in reading and writing (NLP, pg. 525). Perozzi (1985) analyzed three student types: normal, mildly delayed, and disordered and discovered all three student types learned vocabulary in both languages more rapidly when taught in their native language first, verses in their second language. They also found language handicapped students, whose native language was Spanish, benefited from remediation in their native language. Overall, some reoccurring tools for literacy development of language minority students in a special education setting were: accessing prior knowledge, native language knowledge, and native language instruction. If the child comes to the classroom with knowledge of their native language they are more likely to experience success. Also, if the teacher provides instruction in the child’s native language and accesses their prior knowledge they will be able to achieve the language with greater ease (NLP, pg. 526). __
 * __ Summary Findings __**

**Additional Research Findings:** __ · ** Rohena (2002)- ** found that language instruction didn’t have a differential effect on sight word acquisition and language instruction may be less important in developing sight word reading than developing comprehension (NLP, pg. 533) · ** Maldonado (1994)- ** indicates that Spanish speaking students with learning disabilities who were first taught in Spanish and transition into English performed at higher levels than a control group that received traditional special education in English (NLP, pg. 538). · ** Klinger and Vaughn (1996)- ** found that students needed to have some foundation in English and have a high level of second language oral proficiency so that instructional intervention approaches can be successful (NLP, pg 535-536). · ** Wolf (1993) ** - He suggested at risk students were able to be successful and perform a skit from their reading through readers theater (NLP, p. 528).

**__Recommnedations__**

I. Only 12 studies were conducted to include language minority students in special education settings II. Small number of participants limit the findings, (i.e. Many of the studies examined 3-5 students), a larger and more diverse population was recommended.

III. These studies intended to focus on Language Minority Students in Special Education Settings, however a broad spectrum of students were included. For example, students who were poor readers or struggling in their academics were part of this research.

IV. “Many authors fail to provide information about the reliability and validity of the assessments used or about interrater reliability when more open-ended assessments were used.”

V. Instructional approaches had strong influence on students reading skills, however they are not sure if the effects would be long-lasting. __** o The use of total physical response, realia, manipulatives, and chants o Visuals (i.e. interactive power point presentations)-Teacher created o Investigations to promote real-life experiences- Teacher guided o RTI- Response to Intervention- adopted by our school district aftering observing the Hesperia Model o Family night literacy workshops-Teacher conducted All these elements will be incorporated in an effort to make subject matter concrete and engaging. These various strategies will also reach a wide range of modalities. Including the family element will aid in making that critical connection and consistency that always seems to be lacking.
 * __ Recommendation into practice

**Part IV - Chapter 18**
Submitted by Sarah Breyer