Our goal for the first week is to get through Chapter 3 of Classroom Instruction That Works With English Language Learners. You individual goal throughout the Summer is to identify 8-10 strategies that you will use on a regular basis to help close the achievement gap. The group goal is to identify 6-7 strategies that the building will adopt to close the achievement gap that all of us will use. Chapter 1 is worth reviewing carefully as it summarizes previous books that we have read (Classroom Instruction That Works, The Art & Science Of Teaching, Etc.) A research based strategy works when it can become replicated. Every educator has a set of instructional repertoires that may work for them... but they may not work for others. We want to find the biggest bang for the buck!
Comment Away!
A place to gather and discuss education in general and Altona Middle School in particular!
Subscribe via email
About Me
Altona's Staff Development Reading List
Books I Wish I Read Before Sending My Daughter To Middle School
What I'm watching
- Outsourced
- The Walking Dead
- Justified
- Parks and Recreation
- The Mentalist
- Fringe
What I'm playing
- Black Ops (Way Too Much!!!)
- Halo Reach
- Modern Warfare 2 (Too Much!!)
Latest additions to my MP3 player
- Arcade Fire
- Florence and the Machine
- Miranda Lambert
- Queen - Flash Gordon Sdtrk!
- Waylon Jennings
What's on my Kindle
Latest iPhone Apps
- Words Free (Scrabble)
- Supervision 2.0
- iheartradio
- Midomi
- Air Sharing
- Magic Pad
What's on my nightstand
- The Beekeeper's Handbook
- The Hunger Games Trilogy!
- The Templar Trilogy
30 comments:
Out of the first three chapters from this book, I felt chapter three had the most questions for me and allowed for thinking how I might implement strategies. Right away, when reading chapter three, I was reminded of DOSOA and how setting objectives in the classroom is something we already do and realized how this might have helped ELL students, as well as English-dominate students. One question that came to mind when setting language objectives for ELLs was what teacher would set those goals when the student has six teachers in the middle school setting? If language objectives are set by the ELL teacher, how will those objectives be identified and related to the other teachers?
The other concept that stuck with me was the sheltered instruction protocol. I could not help to think that I should be using these techniques will ALL learners, especially when introducing a new concept. Techniques such high-frequency vocabulary and using clear expression and articulation, in my opinion, should be used for every student, regardless if they are ELLs or not.
An area that I feel Altona is already working at achieving is having students set goals through their SSR class. What we might want to do is add ELL goals in the SSR binder for those particular students.
Another strategy that I will consider adding to my list is from the section on classroom recommendations. I like the idea of having the ELLs involved in the development of their own rubrics for better understanding of what constitutes acceptable performance.
I still had one question in mind when I finished chapter 3; in a middle school setting, would each teacher set a language goal or do we collaborate and set the same language goals across all subjects?
My thoughts after reading the first three chapters centered on Identification and Communication. How do we identify the instructional strategies that are most successful with each ELL in the various aspects of the instructional day? How do we communicate these strategies and their success?
I also think it imperative each teacher understand how each ELL is progressing along the "Stages of Second Language Acquisition". What activities can we implement, formally and informally throughout the day, to foster their language acquisition development?
After reading the first 3 chapters I wonder if we in fact identify eachof our ELL student's stages of acquisition? This seems to me to be the obvious baseline and a place to start building that foundation. Without this base I wonder if we are creating a house of cards? Once these stages of acquisition are completed shouldn't we be setting realistic goals while building attainable expectations?
I also was intrigued by the concept of helping students to retrieve and activate their prior knowledge. Why would we want to reinvent the wheel rather than pulling this prior knowledge from the students? If our struggle is how to attain that information shouldn't we enhance our bag of tricks?
All three chapters had some excellent points, and certainly raise plenty of questions that can be debated.
Anytime I read about research claims I often wonder- how exactly did they study/determine this? How much bias is present in the research? I tend to discount information with a lot of bias- especially when the opinions and beliefs of practicing teachers are not considered- teachers who have taught for years. This is why I feel our time spent discussing these books and strategies is SO valuable. We build off of our collective experiences with scholars, as opposed to individually trying to narrow what works and what does not.
The whole truly is greater than the sum of its parts.
There are numerous strategies that are outlined with each of the three chapters. Chapter 1 was a good basic review of topics we have already discussed as a staff.
Of the valuable items mentioned, I felt the nine strategies mentioned on page 6 were important to consider- many of which as educators, we consider unconsciously. Many of the strategies mentioned on this page we know are quality through years of implementation.
Of the strategies mentioned and summarized, I felt some great points were presented through cues, questions, advance organizers, Cooperative learning, and Summarizing and note-taking.
Cues, Questions, and Organizers:
Great points are made with sticking to only the information that is to be learned and asking higher level questions. We want scholars to not just comprehend the information, but use it as well. Higher level cognitive questions do just that. Giving students multiple chances to take their learning to the next level is extremely important.
Cooperative learning:
I thought it was very interesting that low level scholars do worse, High level scholars do only slightly better (which is still doing better), and the middle level scholars do significantly better. I find this interesting because certainly we want to meet the needs of as many learners as possible. A question I would like to raise is, what do you find works with lower level students? Do you agree with this finding on page 9?
I certainly have had plenty of experiences where students who are lower level have been able to at the least help each other. I can see where if a lower level student is paired with a higher level student, and they have a great relationship established, they are able to help each other significantly. The higher level student helps to teach- increasing comprehension, and the lower level student often gets they help needed. Perhaps the lower level student is not able to understand the higher level student in some cases, which might be one of the reasons for lower level scholar low achievement. What do you think?
Summarizing and Note Taking:
I think a great point here is to have students NOT write things verbatim- but allowing them to write their own interpretations. Certainly I feel that there ARE important concepts and standards that ALL students need to know verbatim, but I think that one strategy I could use to apply this is to have students 1) Experience a definition or discover it using inductive reasoning, 2)Write the definition verbatim, and 3)Write their own interpretation of the definition, to help secure long-term comprehension.
Chapters 2 really helped to build up to Chapter 3.
I thought it was really awesome to consider Krashen and Terrell's Stages of Second Language Acquisition (page 15). Here a model is given to consider not only the stages that people learn a second language, but also a model to use to plan instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners.
I like to compare facets of this model with what my own children are going through to learn their first language. I have a daughter who is almost 4, a son who is 2, and a daughter who is 6 months. I laugh with the speech emergence stage, since my own daughter often will misunderstand jokes and take the wrong information personally :)
It is amazing to observe the youngest children and their ability to watch a cartoon and have lines memorized before watching it the very next time! It is important to note that, we start life with a very large number of brain cells, and that number of brain cells decreases every year (some people take it upon themselves to increase their decrease). This helps explain why I have trouble memorizing the lines to cartoons the first time, but I also think it is important to point out that education gets less and less need satisfying as school goes on. This is something that we as educators work hard to offset. Students who are having their needs met are engaged and school is effective.
Determining the "Function" of Language I thought was an important strategy (page 25). Knowing/considering what function of language we are asking scholars to perform is knowledge that helps us plan instruction for language abilities of all students.
I think a great example of this is given on page 29 of Chapter 3.
Using the stages of second language learners and planning instruction is definitely a strategy that I will use when planning instruction for ESL kids. What do you think?
My comments on your comments:
Adding to Hugh's comments on how do we identify what works and how do we communicate these strategies: This is a problem not just with ELL but across our education system. I have been wondering about how I can improve my ability to reach the low math kids and feel that each year I try something new looking for something that works better. Looking at the math CSAP scores across all Colorado, it seems like there are many schools that do this part well (and they may benefit from things that I have learned about teaching advanced kids that they don't yet practice). But the education system does not have a systematic way of identifying, verifying and documenting these strategies so they can be uniformly implemented. Every company I have previously worked for had a document control system that is a list of approved methods that have been validated through experiments. And the documented methods are what are used by everyone.
Adding to Andy's comment on cooperative learning... this caught my attention as well. They seem to be saying that except for the low ability student, homogeneous groups are better. I find that has been the case in my classroom as well. What I find with the low ability students is they have limited ability to identify what they do and don't know and therefore have trouble learning from other low ability students. But in general they also have trouble learning from high ability students. They seem less able to pursue a false hypothesis and realize that it has to be false through reasoning. If they followed an idea or if a team mate suggested an idea, then it has to be true. Having multiple ideas and dead-end paths leaves them confused. And they are unable to explain their final solution and reasoning even if it was developed as a group since the reasoning process does not seem to make sense to them. These students seem to do best with direct instruction and practice of the correct methods without explanation or reasoning. Once that has been established, then re-visiting the topic with reasoning works better.
Some things I question in the reading:
1) Ch 2 p 16-17: the iceberg model implies that conversational proficiency comes first (within 2 yrs) and cognitive/academic proficiency comes later and takes 5-7 yrs. Counterexample: Having interacted with many Indian, Japanese, and Chinese engineers, they often have poor conversational English fluency but read English language texts, understand and solve "word problems", and are able to think academically with the same or better level of fluency than their native english-speaking peers.
2) Ch. 3: Feedback is important, but don't overwhelm them (mark only some of the mistakes) and the student should never be overtly corrected. I question whether this works always. For example, I might use the terms "numerator" and "denominator" when addressing fractions. If a student says "the top number", I might repeat the statement and model by repairing the first 3 times. If the student continues to say "the top number", the fourth time my response is more likely one to make sure they see the word "numerator" (written on the board), understand what it means, and can say it (have them repeat it). Sometimes when you use the repairing model, the student takes it as affirmation that what they said was fine and no correction is necessary. After repeated failure of this approach, a more direct approach is needed.
On not marking all the errors, I think this sends the message that the teacher marked all the things that were wrong and the rest was OK. So the wrong information is wired into the brain. I would rather mark all the errors, but make sure the grade reflects an acceptance of the errors as OK for their current stage of growth.
I found these chapters particularly interesting as the concepts of setting objectives and providing feedback, cooperative learning, and summarizing and note taking flow very similarly with the curriculum track that I am teaching right now in my summer school Study Skills course. One of the approaches that I take with the summer school students is that I have them explore ways that they can be more self reliant by asking confirming questions of the teacher when they don’t receive the kind of feedback that they feel that they need from them to do successful rework on assignments. We also do group work and discuss scenarios on how to be more effective learners and build confidence by finding proactive ways to ask for help with assignments without letting their initial emotional responses interfere with their learning process, and to truly care and take responsibility for their learning by understanding how the attitude that they take towards their academic performance now will have a profound impact on their future goals and desired outcomes in life.
Commenting on comments:
Ali you raise a great question. In a middle level setting all teachers need to be informed of ELL students and their progress. Certainly many of the goals may be the same (we all want the student to be able to learn English), but some may be different concerning the subject. For instance, I would not have the same exact goals for writing in Math as Mrs. Pro would have in English class.
I've felt in the past this is a huge flaw of the CMP curriculum that (amazingly) many people in the district value. As a math teacher, I understand that literacy is extremely important. But I also have a duty- to assess whether a student is able to do math, as opposed to how well a student can read or write- which is what is primarily assessed in English.
You also raise a good point- we will need to have ELL and ESL student data communicated clearly- and we will also need to be able to recognize these issues in the classroom- in a way that is not emotionally harmful or makes the student feel emotionally insecure.
Chitra- I agree, becoming more direct with low level students is necessary because often times they will lack direction and a sense of purpose. Or due to literacy issues, they will have difficulty reading and executing diections (also a failure of CMP). This is where interaction does wonders for their confidence and emotional security.
I sooooo agree with Ali's comment that "I should be using these techniques with ALL learners, especially when introducing a new concept." If the techniques and strategies work for those learning another language, wouldn't they be equally applicable to any student sitting in the class being exposed to new concepts? Anything that helps ANY student learn more effectively can and should be used as a teaching strategy, regardless of whether the student is ELL or not.
But what jumped out and grabbed my attention in the reading was the section on motivation. I strongly believe that no matter how effective our instructional strategies, no matter how engaging our subject content, no matter how much research and study is behind the approach, if a student is reluctant to learn - for whatever reasons, he or she is not going to do so. I have found that in some cases, ELL students present a disinterested, unmotivated demeanor, whether from cultural influence, personal uncertainty, embarrassment, etc., and many do a really good job of trying hard to appear they are NOT motivated!
To piggy-back on Wendy's comments, in my previous school of employment, all ELL students (and there were many at that school) were tested every sememster then given a "label" that defined thier specific level of language development, and this was shared with all of their teachers. We were expected to alter our approach to those students accordingly. Sadly, we were given very little guidance as to how to do this. If, as Ali said, we have language objectives set forth by the ELL teacher in addition to knowledge of each student's language attainment level, we would at least have the tools and knowledge to begin to help these students.
I agree with what Dana is saying and Wendy mentions a good point.
I feel the same about Special Education. Because of each student's IEP, we know all about their disability. I feel that there is so much more that we as a staff need to be able to do to help all kids. Knowing about their disability is the first step, but we really need effective strategies to help students achieve! I think too often excuses are a vehicle for failure.
What we are doing with finding and discussing these strategies in these books will certainly help us on our path to success for all.
While reading the first three chapters of this book, I couldn't help thinking of my experiences as an exchange student in high school. I left the states for my stay in Switzerland thinking that I was well prepared, I had taken 3 yrs of high school German and had acquired a rather large vocabulary of common words and phrases, knew how to conjugate verbs, knew which articles went with what words…and then I arrived. I quickly realized that knowing what words meant did very little for me when it came to communication. I struggled to make myself understood on even the most basic level. I know I spoke solely in the present tense for at least the first 3 months I was there! I can distinctly remember people correcting my grammar by rephrasing and questioning and this did help me move forward in my speech, but I was still communicating at the level of a small child even after an entire year EMERSED in the language. (My host family spoke no English, so I had to communicate in German or pantomime, there were NO translators to rely upon for help or clarification.) That being said, school was an exercise in frustration for my entire stay. I would be in classes where I knew the material and could not contribute. I would be in classes where I wanted to learn but couldn’t understand the teacher well enough to ask the right questions. And eventually, I stopped going to school because I had reached a point where I felt like I was never going to ‘get it’.
I wonder how many of our second language learners feel exactly like I did? How often do we throw these students into classes where they are expected to do the same things as other students are expected to do without even the simplest tools in their toolbox?
How do we reconcile the need to distribute content to these students while they are struggling to comprehend the new language they are acquiring?
How do we decide what is more important in any given moment, language acquisition or instructional content?
I was initially struck with the "new to me" tool of the identified labels provided for second language acquisition. As a classroom teacher, I have always found it quite frustrating to be told that I am going to have an ELL and then be provided with the anecdotal comment of "Oh, she has been in the country for 3 years" or "he was born here, but I don't know how much English is spoken in the home" and not receive information that can help me from day one, moment one when I meet the child and have to start working with them. Using a standardized format at Altona, where all the classroom teachers are familiar with what stage each of our ELLs is at is my first strategy to latch on to because everything will be built on this piece of knowledge.
As I was reading, I was quite pleased that the information that is being presented as the best ways to work with ELLs is highly embedded in the new science curriculum that we will begin using across the district in the fall. A particular piece of the new curriculum, utilizing a science journal, in a very structured way for students will be central to implementing many of these strategies for all of my students. My initial idea is that an ELLs (and a special ed student, for that note) science journal would be extremely important for the purpose of feedback and I am starting to develop ideas about how to use it with daily objectives and the lesson question which starts each lesson.
My greatest concern so far is that I see the connection between identifying language objectives and the strategies to teach ELLs, but in skimming through the other chapters it seems very light on information regarding assessing subject content. I see examples of assessing the language objective, but there appears to be a gap in how that translate to assessing subject objectives. If academic language is the level of cognitive processes like analysis, synthesis and evaluation, aren't we then saying that classroom instruction in a subject like science is highly unlikely to lead to proficiency or advance mastery for any ELLs under the stage of intermediate fluency? I have struggled with this myself as a classroom teacher. Am I evaluating a student's ability to use English in my classroom with an assessment or am I evaluating the knowledge of science content? I think this reflects back on Chitra's comment, that it is possible that a person can have a very high understanding of content, but not the skills to express it well.
Yesterday I read the comments by everyone, but before I reply to any of them, I want to jot down what I got out of it. On pg. ix it stated that our students have "linguistic and cultural strengths that should be used and appreciated in schools." Pg 9 reminds us that "academic language takes at least five to seven years to develop, and it can take even longer for a student who was not literate in her primary language when she started in a U.S. school." Even with the degree in ELL/Bilingual, I'm not sure I had heard the Word-MES Strategy before as described on p. 19. I have other notes I took for myself, but as I don't want this to be too long, I'll stop with that.
Ali asked about the language objectives... The language objectives went WITH the lessons of the individual teachers. Using contractions correctly wouldn’t have worked in the math lesson just as the “greater than” and “less than” statements would not have worked well in the history lesson.
Hugh commented on the identification of students. When the year started I contacted all teachers involved in the various grades who had ELL students and literacy students. I also let the instructors know what SRI level they were currently reading at. I had not let the whole staff know about kids that they didn’t have, but that could be done. Students are identified ELL through the Home Language Survey when they register for school. IF the survey warrants it, they are given a CELA (Colorado English Language Acquisition) screening by the district. Depending on how they do with that, they are given a label and will continue taking the CELA every spring until they become FLP (fluent language proficient) in reading, writing, listening, speaking.
A comment on the length of time needed… Chitra mentioned engineers who knew the academic English THAT THEY NEEDED for their jobs, but didn’t have BICS (basic interpersonal communication skills). I am sure they knew the information in their L1 (first language) before they learned it in English. This also relates to the research mentioned on p. 23. “Language forms and vocabulary will develop as students study areas of interest.” At CU we discussed what it means to be literate vs. illiterate. I stated that one brother who can barely read and write is construction literate. He knows way more about construction than I ever will and he knows how to roof. This doesn’t interest me so I wouldn’t know all the vocabulary needed (though I could learn if I had to). Our students are worried about socialization more than academics just as most native English speakers of this age. They WILL get the BICS (basic interpersonal communication skills) long before they pick up the CALP (cognitive academic language proficiency).
I’ll comment on more later.
I have various comments about the previews in Chapter 1, but I'll save most of them until we actually reach those topics later in the book.
I was very interested by the discussion in Chapter 2 about the difference between Conversation and Academic Proficiency. It is definitely true that ELLs are sometimes seen as "slower" or even "lazy" because while they seem to be conversing well enough with their friends, they are not mastering the subject matter. We need to understand that the truth is quite the opposite: these kids are attempting the very impressive feat of mastering a second language, while also trying to master the subject matter. I have tried for years to master Spanish and I had to use it when I visited Costa Rica, and it is quite a challenge. I'm sure that lots of ELLs feel just like Lauren did when she was an exchange student: either they understand the content but are unable to express their thoughts in English; or their English, while functional, hasn't progressed enough to allow for understanding of photosynthesis, or any number of other complex terms. Either way, this can be maddening.
My big question from Chapter 3 is similar to Kathleen's: How do we best determine which stage of acquisition a kid is in at the start of the year, so we can more effectively monitor and facilitate their progress throughout the year? Does Maryellen have certain pre-tests that can help with this?
I got a lot out of Chapter 3, but here are three of the biggest points:
* Modeling correct grammar is beneficial for ELLs, but overemphasizing grammar is not. They will quickly be overwhelmed if every little grammar mistake is harped upon.
* It is helpful for all students, and ELLs in particular, to have an active role in creating criterion-based rubrics, as well as goals. This gives them a better understanding of the expectations and a higher motivation to meet them. I really like Ali's idea about tying their language goals in with the goal-setting we already do in SSR, but I also think that Language Arts teachers could play an important role here, especially since (s)he may have the same kid for Lit. Lab.
* I like the idea of scaffolding our use of correction symbols (top of page 34) to challenge ELLs (and all kids) to work harder to find their errors as their understanding progresses.
I've said enough for now.
I agree with Ali, implementing all these strategies with all types of learners will produce successful outcomes. I find which strategies impacts my students the greatest is the nonlinguistic representations and the summarizing and note taking. Each year I have students express that they really understand the mathematics for the first time in their lives and I contribute that to learners being able to “see” the math and stopping to reflect and write about what it was that they were suppose to have gotten out of lesson.
I am a little concerned with suggestions such as on page 29: work with preproduction students in small groups to help them acquire vocabulary and elicit background knowledge while the English-dominant students are working on activities. How can we accomplish this “mini-lessons” in language while still fulfilling our expectations to teach our contents, always raising the scores, all in 55 minutes.
From chapter one the idea that jumped out to me as doable in the classroom was narrowing the focus when setting instructional goals for the ELL student. As teachers we want to teach the entire lesson for all students, but the ELL student may only need to grasp a part of the goal and build on that one concept instead of trying to learn all of it. That is what a lot of teachers do for the sped. students now when you modify an assignment. Pick out the most important piece and that is what the student needs to learn.
Chapter 2 the Stages of Second Language Acquistion seemed to be the starting point for any ELL student and teacher. We want to be able to commuicate effectively with all students and it only makes sense that to do this we need to know what stage each student is at and then develop lessons accordingly.
In chapter 3 the statement, "An enriched vocabulary program can close the gap in vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension between ELLs and English-dominant students" is a concept that all teachers can run with. Developing vocab. in each class for these students is as easy as making a word wall for the concept being covered.
The section on feedback was interesting as well. Sometimes it is easy for us just to mark things wrong and hand the paper back to the student never giving any explanation of what was right or wrong. As the book says, it needs to be "comprehesnible, useful, and relevant."
As I was reading chapter 2, what impacted me most personally was the table on page 15 with the stages of second language acquisition. As a third grade teacher at Eagle Crest, I had nine students in a class of 29 who spoke a different language at home (Farsi, Telagu, Chinese and Japanese were among them). Only one of those students spoke Spanish and two of them came to me mid-year with absolutely no English at all. That was three school years ago. The two students who came to me with no English at all came from France and Korea and are now in what I would guess is the intermediate fluency stage, if not advanced fluency. So what I first thought was that the approximate time frames for language acquisition were highly conservative. If my student from France could achieve advanced fluency in fewer than three years, this table is underestimating our students’ abilities to learn language. It states that this takes 5-7 years on average.
However, as I got just a few pages further into the chapter and read about the iceberg metaphor, it made more sense. Both of those students were literate in their first languages before I began to teach them English. In contrast, I also had one student who spoke Spanish at home, was born in the United States, and who struggled daily with even the most basic writing and reading assignments. At the time, I entered him into child study and even filled out the mounds of required paperwork for special education referral. I see now that I was comparing him with the Korean and French students unfairly. He was never taught to read or write Spanish. I wish now that I had considered this aspect of language acquisition much earlier.
Thank you, Amanda! I think I know the two students you are talking about, and they are both FEP (fluent English proficient). In fact, I didn’t really work with either of them as they were high enough on both CSAP and CELA to not need me this year. Many of our Hispanics speak the language at home, but do not have the reading or writing skills. Even for those that do, the interest is still going to make a difference. One student this year was struggling with science and expected that to be the case as science was a struggle in the home country as well. How can something be understood in the second language when it isn’t understood in the first language?
I am right with you, Amanda, when you begin to hedge into the cultural side of ELL, as did Chitra-- I think we have to look at our students' cultural emphasis on education as a predictor of how quickly they will move through the stages of second language acquisition and which end of the iceberg is actually above water for them. There were 16 different countries represented amongst 32 students in my ESL class in Texas, and this was a huge challenge; my Spanish-speaking kiddos were often represented much like the iceberg on p. 17 (conversationally fluent or near-fluent, but lacking academic language and skills), whereas my European and Asian kiddos tended to flip the iceberg (academically proficient but conversationally insecure). It made life interesting!
The Word-MES strategy that Jane Hill developed is a nice mantra for those with ELL students in their classes and would be something I would post in my classroom (for me to refer to more than anyone else!). I also think that scaffolding needs to be a much more conscientious plan with ELL students than the sort of organic way we let it unfold in teaching our mainstream students. We really have to build on the prior knowledge of our ELL learners and give them a sense of accomplishment and confidence as they make their way through language and content acquisition.
The chart in chapter 2 about the different stages of acquisition was helpful to me. When I have ELL students in class, I don’t always pay attention to this. I sometimes focus instead on the number of years they have been in our school system and foolishly make assumptions about that. I can remember talking to Mary Ellen about one of the students this year. I had the information she gave me at the beginning of the year, but I felt I needed more specific information about some of the activities we were covering in class. What she told me really helped when I worked with this particular student because she was able to tell me some of the characteristics of his level and what my expectations should be. Although he was reluctant to answer questions in front of the class, even if he knew the answer, I noticed that he participated quite a bit when he was with a partner or in small groups. This seems to be in line with some of the book comments about students being self-conscious about being able to accurately express what they know or understand. With this in mind, I spent more time with him individually and found that he made more progress that way, especially with his writing assignments. I think I definitely need to make adjustments in my teaching strategies with the ELL students in my classes.
Having taken courses for my ESL endorsement in college, a lot of what was said in these first three chapters was review for me. But it was a very good review, and I was impressed with how well the authors were able to concisely and clearly communicate very complex concepts and issues. I spent several weeks reading about and researching the stages of language acquisition and had an entire class on sheltered instruction.
One section that I thought to be particularly was the segment on feedback in chapter 3 (31-35). Being an English teacher and spending a fair amount of time grading essays, I want the feedback that I give my students to be meaningful and constructive to their future writing. One strategy that I have found to be very useful in attaining that end is reflection. My students complete a paragraph rewrite and reflection assignment after every writing assessment is returned. This is detailed below.
Editing and Revising:
Self and Peer Evaluation of Writing
1. Read and think about all teacher comments on your graded writing assessment.
2. Ask teacher for clarification of any comments that are unclear to you.
3. Choose one of your paragraphs to rewrite. Choose the paragraph that needs the most work or includes major mistakes.
4. Make the necessary corrections or notes on the graded assessment, then REWRITE the paragraph on a separate sheet of paper.
5. Once you have rewritten and proofread the revised paragraph, ask your writing partner to read both versions of the paragraph and to fill out the Peer Conference slip. The partner should use the "Writing Rubric" and the "Guide to Revision Checklist" to fill out the Peer Conference slip.
6. After you read your partner’s comments, write a reflection of this process.
Answer the following questions:
A. What changes did you make to the paragraph? Why did you need to make these? Be specific.
B. How have these changes improved the quality of the paragraph? Be specific.
C. What have you learned about your writing? How will you apply what you have learned next time you write?
*Use the "Writing Rubric" and the "Guide to Revision Checklist" to help you answer these questions.
The assignment uses both teacher and peer feedback and asks students to use self evaluation. Scaffolding is automatically built in as well because it is based on the student’s own writing at whatever level he/she may be. It also helps them understand how to use a rubric. It works really well for a Language Arts class, but the concept could be modified and used in other content areas as well.
June 5th, 2008
After reading the first three chapters and reflecting on the great suggestions given to help our ELL students succeed such as: cooperative learning, note taking, word walls, providing feedback, etc., I am concerned also about class placement and the number of students in the classroom. Clearly ELL students will thrive and learn if all the classroom dynamics provide the perfect situation for that. It has been my experience that ELL students who stuggle are also in the same classes with many partially proficient students and sped students who also need that extra one-on-one teacher time. Even in the best class with a teacher who implements all the instructional tools for success shouldn't we pay more attention to the way we group ELL students and other struggling students? Granted, many times there is no other choice, but class placement should be given careful consideration if we want our ELL students to succeed.
I spent 3 years teaching in school districts with many English language learners. I had no preparation in college for this and learned a lot through trial and error. What I discovered that was most interesting (that came up in the book as well as several people have commented on) was the strategies that work best with ELL work equally as well with all other students. I immediately thought of DOSOA that we are doing at Altona and I also did it in Commerce City. This idea raises the thoughts to me that these kids are not very different then the kids who aren’t second language learners in the ways that are best to learn. Now language used for learning and language learned for social interactions are very different. As I’m sure many of you have seen students who seem to communicate fluently with their friends but don’t get it in the classroom. Any one who has learned a foreign language can sympathize with the difficulty between “learning language” and “social language.
I thing is it important for all ELL students to have a part in creating their goals and knowing what is expected of them academically for each class. This can help them to stay more organized and be aware of what they need to be learning. It may also aid them in getting help in different areas knowing specifically each objective.
I read almost the entire book and i couldn't help but return to the same question I had in Ch. 2. who is going to label/inform us of the stage that the ELL student is currenly operating in? Without this knowledge I feel it is difficult to modify and adapt directions, worksheets, assignments, tests, etc. I think we already do a good job w/DOSOA. Joe wants eletive teachers to do a word of the day. That too is a good idea for our regular students in addition to our ELL students. Working is small groups is benficial also, give the kids time to practice and feel success within a smaller circle. I wonder how well we can do next year with increased class sizes and shorter periods? I think Kathy's stmt about student placement given our change in schedule is more important than ever!
I gleamed a few ideas to utilize for my classroom but found that most of the information is dependent upon the stages labels. Will we have that info starting next year??
As many of you, I was struck by chapters 2 levels of language acquisition, and wondering about how to know what level a student was at. It wasn't until I read Mary Ellen's post that she does provide that information to teachers at the start of each year. This made me think about why I, and others, didn't think about that when reading this chapter. There must be some sort of communication breakdown with regard to this information. I think the breakdown comes from two sources, one, I have never really known what to do with this information, and two, I am not sure that I get enough information about the student just knowing the SRI level of the student is enough, because my experience with learning other languages is that I can get the gist of something written, long before I can understand and respond so perhaps we need a little more information about the kid. I liked the idea of perhaps putting together something akin to an IEP on ELLs, where strategies that work with that specific student are recorded and updated as the student becomes more language proficient.
I also liked the summary for chapter 3, and think it is important to remember the two things ELLs really want to know is if the teacher will like me? For this I probably need to do more relationship building with some of my ELLs, and second Can I do the work?. Which is another area I need to work on with ELLs before I lose them in content.
Post a Comment