University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

(USC Thesis Other)

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 1
DEFYING ODDS: HOW TEACHERS PERCEIVE ACADEMIC LANGUAGE GROWTH
DESPITE HIGH POVERTY

by

Gloria Ramos Gonzalez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2016

Copyright 2016 Gloria Ramos Gonzalez
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my best friend and lifelong companion, Andres,
who encouraged me to pursue my dream of completing my doctorate. His unwavering support
saw me through the hours of researching and writing over the last three years while working and
parenting three young children.

I also dedicate this dissertation to
my loving daughters Elisa, Ariana and Emilie who witnessed me work toward this difficult but
rewarding process. May it inspire them to work hard in following their dreams and aspirations
despite the challenges that may come their way.

Lastly, I would like to dedicate this work to my
parents, who, aside from being examples of love and goodness, taught me a strong worth ethic
and have given me life lessons that will forever be ingrained in my life’s work toward working
with the Latino community. They, along with my siblings, have
always believed in my potential, and for that I am eternally grateful.

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 3

Acknowledgements
This dissertation is the result of the collaborative work of many people. I am especially
grateful for my committee chair, Paula Carbone, for being so generous with her time and
guidance. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Eugenia Mora-Flores and
Uju Anya for their academic expertise and moral support through this process.
I am also very grateful to the teachers and administrators at the K-5 school sites for their
willingness and cooperation.

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 7
High-Stakes Testing 8
Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting ELLs’ Literacy 9
Statement of the Problem 17
Purpose 18
Research Questions 19
Importance of the Study 19
Limitations 20
Delimitations 21
Definition of Terms 21
Organization of the Study 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review 23
Academic Language 24
Separate Discourse 25
Operational Definition of Academic Language Development 27
Research About Academic Language 28
Word Level Studies 29
Academic Language Must Be Taught Explicitly 31
Word Consciousness 33
Academic Language Word Classifications 33
Limitations to Discrete Language Skills 35
Socio-Cultural Factors Contributing to Academic Language in Latino ELLs 36
Latino ELLs 37
Theme One: Latino ELL Language and Cultural Diversity 38
Theme Two: Building on Funds of Knowledge 40
Theme Three: Language Socialization 45
Theme Three: Multidimensional Assessments 50
Theme Four: Teacher Perceptions 51
Socio-cultural Theoretical Framework 54
Summary 56
Chapter Three: Methodology 60
Research Questions 60
Qualitative Case Study 60
Boundaries of Case 61
Participants and Site Selection 62
Participants 62
Data Collection 63
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 5
Interviews 63
Observations 64
Artifacts 65
Data Analysis 66
Credibility and Trustworthiness 66
Limitations 67
Ethics 67
Chapter Four: Findings 69
Sites and Participants 71
Del Mar School 73
Glen Oaks School 76
Themes for Research Question One 78
Providing Authentic Purposes for Learning 79
Empowering Students as Intellectuals 93
Discussion Research Question One 99
Results Research Question Two 105
Teacher Empowerment Through Professional Learning and Administrative Support 106
Relationship of School and the Home and Community Context 112
Discussion Research Question Two 124
Summary 124
Chapter Five: Discussion 127
Summary of Findings 128
Implications for Practice 130
Repertoire of Practices and Assessments 131
Communities of Learning 133
Addressing Economic and Social Conditions 134
Future Research 135
Conclusion 136
References 139
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 150
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 152
Appendix C: Consent Form 153
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Positive Deviant Schools in Study 73
Table 2: Teacher Driven Academic Language Practices 100
Table 3: Student-Driven Academic Language 102
Table 4: Tools Used to Promote Academic Language Practices 103

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 7

Abstract
The study applies socio-cultural theory and academic language research to describe how
teachers understand and teach academic language development and the socio-cultural factors that
contribute to its growth. The purpose of this research is to further understanding of how teachers
in high-poverty high-achieving schools perceive and maximize the academic language and
literacy development of Latino English language learners in natural classroom environments.
The research questions involve how teachers understand and teach academic language
development within their 4th and 5th grade classrooms and the socio-cultural factors they
perceive as contributing to academic language success. This qualitative case study utilized a
purposeful sample representing schools with high Latino ELL populations, high poverty and
high academic achievement. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and
classroom observations of three Spanish dual language teachers in 4th and 5th grade classrooms
across two school districts. Thus, this study highlights the importance of creating a rich socio-
cultural context for academic language learning. Findings indicate teachers understand academic
language as discipline-specific and taught through contextualized content units using strategic
and varied student groupings. Furthermore, teachers perceived that collaborative partnerships
and administrative support were socio-cultural factors that contributed to enhanced academic
language learning. Findings imply that teachers who use varied repertoires of instructional and
assessment practices, develop collaborative learning communities, and address the social and
economic conditions that affect academic achievement for diverse students contribute to
enhanced academic language development.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
While many studies looked at the efficacy of dual language instruction as a school
program model (Thomas & Collier, 2003), few studies examined the instructional practices
focused on academic language development within these programs. This study looked at the
perceptions of 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers regarding academic language
development among Latino language-minority students in three Spanish dual language schools
with high poverty and high academic achievement. The study was informed by socio-cultural
learning theory and academic language development research. It brought to light how teachers
in these schools understood and taught academic language development within the contexts of
classrooms with predominantly Latino English language learners (ELLs).
The aim and scope of this research was to capture highly effective teachers’ perceptions
and language practices in terms of how students learn to participate in and produce academic
language as well as describe the socio-cultural factors they perceive as contributing to its
development. In addition, the study looked at the instructional practices, strategies and scaffolds
provided by the dual language teachers during the English language arts instructional block of
their school day.
Background of the Problem
The United States underwent many “education crises” over the last 50 years: the low
literacy achievement of Latino ELLs is one of the current crises affecting schools (Gee, 2014).
Latino ELLs’ academic achievement affects education because they are the largest growing
student population in schools across the United States (Abedi, 2003). Many educational efforts
addressed this issue by raising educational standards, bolstering high-stakes standardized testing
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 9
(Stillman, 2011), or honing in on discrete language skill development (Baumann & Graves,
2010). However, there critical analysis of the deficit perspective created through standardized
testing or the socio-cultural factors contributing to the perceived low literacy levels of Latino
ELLs is lacking. Furthermore, few studies looked at how teachers in high performing dual
language programs challenge the deficit literacy perspective and develop academic language in
Latino ELLs while addressing many of socio-cultural factors affect literacy development.
This chapter highlights some of the problems in high-stakes testing and their use in
perpetuating a deficit perspective about Latino ELLs, and it outlines socio-cultural factors
contributing to their literacy development. The first part of the chapter presents a description of
the current assessment measures dictating the literacy levels of Latino ELLs and the problems
surfacing in the use and interpretation of these measures. The next part of the chapter outlines
the importance of instructional practices with a focus on academic language and its impact on
literacy development. The end of the chapter describes ways in which dual language instruction
has been implemented to address the issues with Latino ELLs’ literacy instruction and
assessment and points to the need for further research on the instructional practices dual
language teachers use in order to promote academic language development.
High-Stakes Testing
According to Abedi (2003), using language arts data as an indicator of literacy success in
our public schools is a common practice across the United States, especially since the era of
accountability brought forth by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Standardized tests
remain a requirement of the newly passed Every Student Succeeds Act recently replacing NCLB.
When looking at mandated standardized reading data, the language arts scores for ELLs are
among the lowest of all subgroups, but particularly low among Latino ELLs, the largest growing
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 10
subgroup in schools across the country (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Furthermore, the
National Assessment of Educational Progress demonstrates that 70% of ELLs scored below a
basic level in reading between 1992 and 2011. According to these data, ELLs’ low literacy
scores have not improved significantly in 20 years (National Center for Education Statistics,
2011). These results further contribute to the perception that Latino ELLs have a literacy
deficiency because they derived from narrow data parameters in isolation of students’ identities
or environments (Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006; Gee, 2014).
Furthermore, Gee argues that “literacy crises” are symptomatic of deeper societal
problems needing to be addressed (Gee, 2014). This notion is supported by research stating that
standardized testing only evaluates discrete literacy skills that do not differentiate between the
language proficiencies of language-minority learners and that narrow assessment parameters are
often ill equipped to assess the linguistic complexity of ELLs (Abedi, Leon, & Mirocha, 2003;
Gee, 2014; Geva, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Schuster, 2000; Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006; Kieffer,
2008). Consequently, researchers working with diverse student populations argue for using
broader instructional and assessment measures to monitor ELLs’ academic language growth over
time (Gee, 2014; Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006; Kieffer, 2008; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Valdes,
2003; Zentella, 2005). In addition, they argue for the need to analyze and address the socio-
cultural factors contributing to a deficit literacy perspective for linguistically diverse students.
Socio-Cultural Factors Affecting ELLs’ Literacy
As a consequence of the research discussed in the section above, the next section
critically examines some of the socio-cultural factors contributing to the literacy development of
ELLs. Analyzing these factors is important because literacy is not only a cognitive process, but
also a socio-cultural phenomenon (Gee, 2014). Consequently, there is a need to study the socio-
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 11
cultural factors leading up to and affecting literacy development for diverse learners who are
often described as failing the school system.
Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status is another key factor attributed to the
differences in literacy scores among Latino ELLs (Kieffer, 2008). According to Kieffer (2008),
high-poverty schools, defined as having at least 50% of their students receiving free or reduced-
price lunch, had lower reading scores for ELLs than did low poverty schools. This study
concluded that controlling for socioeconomic status reduced the effect of lower literacy
achievement for ELLs. Consequently, the reading achievement gap between ELLs and non-
ELLs narrowed by 5th grade in low poverty schools (Kieffer, 2008). Hence, low socioeconomic
status was a greater predictor of low reading scores than was being ELL. The implications for
students who were ELLs and came from low socioeconomic backgrounds are distinct and
noteworthy.
Inequitable schooling. Another factor contributing to the reading achievement gap is
inequitable schooling conditions. Schools with high concentrations of ELLs were found to have
less access to quality instructional materials, and many had poor school building conditions
(Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003). In addition, ELLs are more likely to
be taught by teachers who lack appropriate teaching credentials and have little classroom
experience (Gándara et al., 2003). Many educators of ELLs are not aware of the language
development process necessary to facilitate academic English proficiency; for example they may
not know that it may take 5 to 7 years to develop the cognitive academic language necessary for
higher-level schooling (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000). Furthermore, many teachers despite
completing teacher preparation programs, often report feeling underprepared to address the
diverse needs of language-minority students (Escamilla, 2006).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 12
In addition, many educational settings do not allow ELLs time to develop English before
they are expected to perform at the same level as their English-only counterparts. Such high
language demands, without the necessary support, prevents ELLs from taking full advantage of
instruction in English (Hakuta et al., 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2003). Moreover, many studies
on language-minority students analyze reading achievement, not reading growth over time
(Kieffer, 2008). Reporting language growth along with reading achievement would present a
more robust description of the literacy progress of language-diverse students (Escamilla, 2006;
Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006).
Traditional instructional practices. Another factor contributing to the literacy
development of Latino ELLs is teachers’ instructional practices (Goldenberg, 2011). Many
teachers find it difficult to adapt curriculum, infuse culturally-relevant pedagogy or provide
ample opportunities for oral language development (Goldenberg, 2011). Yet, these instructional
practices were identified as some of the most important in developing the literacy skills of
linguistically diverse students (Vogt, Echevarria & Washam, 2015).
Adapting curriculum. Teachers are often asked to use a scripted curriculum with little
to no support on how to build on student’s funds of knowledge (Bunch, 2013; Stillman, 2011).
Moreover, many teachers do not often receive opportunities to engage with new ideas that
require them to learn and plan around standards with colleagues to create integrated curriculum
materials that engage with students’ background knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez,
1992; Orellana & Gutiérrez, 2006; Paris, 2012; Stillman, 2011). Consequently, it is difficult for
teachers to adapt curriculum to meet the needs of diverse students, particularly for teachers new
to the field (Stillman, 2011).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 13
Furthermore, teachers are often asked to follow a standardized lesson format that
undermines the various ethnic varieties of language, especially within Latino populations
(Zentella, 2005). For example, teachers may receive curriculum and professional development
that falsely stereotypes all Latinos as needing the same linguistic support to become proficient in
English. This misinformation primarily comes from the top down and negates student or teacher
input. Moreover, scripted programs that dictate the curriculum often do not provide
opportunities to honor students’ ethnically diverse backgrounds as they acquire a new schooling
discourse (Zentella, 2005; Gee, 2014). Consequently, teachers often misrecognize Latino
abilities and use the “symbolic power” of English proficiency as the means to determine who is
worthy of respect and high academic grades (Zentella, 2005), thus perpetuating the notion of
language and literacy deficiency for those who do not master the mainstream mores or English-
speaking schooling discourse (Gee, 2014).
Culturally relevant pedagogy. Schools are also laden with layers of cultural and
language ideologies, and, often, these ideologies may collide with the home lives of diverse
students (Gee, 2014; Moll et al., 1992; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Valdes, 2003; Zentella, 2005). It
is difficult for teachers to go against deeply rooted ideologies that may undermine the cultural
diversity of students (Stillman, 2011). These contradictions cause tensions and often privilege
the dominant role of mainstream English (Zentella, 2005). Providing culturally relevant
pedagogy that honors and builds on students’ diverse background demands time and intellectual
work that is often not built into the school culture (Bunch, 2007; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Stillman,
2011). Yet, the research on supporting ELLs clearly highlights the importance of building on
students’ funds of knowledge (Galguera, 2011; Goldenberg, 2011; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Moll et
al., 1992; Vogt et al., 2015; Zentella, 2005).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 14
Critically analyzing and selecting curriculum materials takes specialized teacher training.
Many teachers, despite completing teacher preparation programs, often report feeling
underprepared to select appropriate materials and address the diversity issues prevalent among
language-minority students (Bunch, 2006; DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker & Rivera, 2014l; Escamilla,
2006). Furthermore, many schools lack the ongoing support and instruction on how to integrate
culturally relevant pedagogy (Escamilla, 2006; Galguera, 2011; González, 2001; Gutiérrez &
Rogoff, 2003; Zentella, 2005). Hence, schools often privilege the mainstream English
curriculum rather than equip students with a broad repertoire of language socialization. Instead,
students are not allowed alternative definitions of ethnic identity, as they encounter discourses
with ideological contradictions (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez & Chiu, 1999; Gutiérrez
& Orellana, 2006; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Zentella, 2005;). Classrooms
that do not honor and include students’ diversity of background implicitly communicate that
their cultural funds of knowledge lack importance. Yet, the research on working with diverse
student populations states that schools need to be a place to develop multi-discursive practices of
combining language styles (Martin-Beltran, 2009; Zentella, 2005). Students should be able to
merge culturally diverse traditions with mainstream culture (Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006; Moll et
al., 1992; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Zentella, 2005). Classrooms with a dual vision facilitate
continuity with a past tradition and the change required to construct an international perspective
on many levels (Zentella, 2005; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). This expands students’ repertoire of
identities and encourages them to embrace the new schooling discourse along with honoring
their own diverse backgrounds (Valdes, 2003; Zentella, 2005; Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006).
Oral language and student engagement. Another important instructional practice
which has an impact on literacy development for ELLs is that of oral discussions (Gibbons,
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 15
2003). Research on linguistically diverse students states that, if students are to achieve academic
competence, they must have opportunities to develop academic discourse through rich and
frequent oral discussions (Gibbons, 2003; Ernst-Slavit, & Mason, 2011; Vogt et al., 2015). In
order to do this, teachers must group students strategically and support content and language
objectives (Vogt et al., 2015), yet many studies on teacher discourse with students find that
teachers talk most of the day, giving little opportunity for students to interact among peers
(DiCerbo et al., 2014; Ernst-Slavit, & Mason, 2011). This implies an asymmetrical power
structure between teachers and students whereby teachers are often the dominant and more
powerful figures imparting knowledge (Zentella, 2005) and miss opportunities to learn from their
students and for students to learn from each other (Walqui, 2006).
How testing affects instruction. Many schools with high percentages of Latino ELLs
who are not performing well on standardized tests are pressured by educational policies, and
high-stakes testing pressure affects teachers’ instructional practices (Stillman, 2011; Valli &
Chambliss, 2007). Valli and Chambliss (2007) note that teachers feel pressure to have students
perform well on standardized assessments because the results are often used as a measure of their
teaching ability. As pressure mounts to increase test scores, teachers spend less time on the types
of literacy activities promoted by reading experts (Valli & Chambliss, 2007).
In addition, research found that high-stakes testing accountability influences instructional
practices used during literacy instruction as well as determines the curriculum covered (Stillman,
2011; Valli & Chambliss, 2007). This study found that classrooms with less high-stakes testing
pressure provided more opportunities for students to participate in vocabulary and
comprehension activities that would enable them to become independent readers. Classes with
more testing pressure spent more time listening to the teacher read and had little opportunity for
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 16
rich student talk exploring alternative or elaborated answers or explanations (Valli & Chambliss,
2007).
Furthermore, the research found that teachers under testing pressure often coached
students in formal oral recitation. Although coaching students in recitation formats might seem
like the more direct and obvious way to prepare for tests, this research stated that traditional
recitation practices may well be counterproductive on narrow measures of achievement (Valli &
Chambliss, 2007). Consequently, Valli and Chambliss, 2007 (2007) stated that the extent to
which a child-centered culture is supplanted by a test-centered culture, it is likely academic
achievement as well as meaningful school and personal bonds among teachers and student
diminish.
Work by Stillman (2011) states teachers need to learn how to navigate the tension
between high-stakes testing and best practices through critical professional practice (Stillman,
2011). Often, teachers do not know how to integrate technical knowledge with a sense of
authentic purposes for literacy development. This is especially prevalent in schools with high
testing pressure where knowing how to strategically negotiate the political climate is important.
Teachers need to learn how to sustain literacy practices that serve their students’ diverse needs
within the high-stakes testing climate (Stillman, 2011). Finding ways to navigate the tension
between these two forces is vital to providing quality instructional practices.
Academic language. Limited academic language is another issue attributed to ELLs low
literacy levels (Cummins, 2008). While basic interpersonal language skills develop within one
to two years, academic vocabulary can take at least 5 to 7 years (Cummins, 2008; Genesee,
Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2004). While experts in the
field are still contesting the exact definition of academic language, all agree that a distinct
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 17
“schooling language” exists (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Cummins & Yee-Fun, 2007; Snow,
Uccelli, Olson & Torrance, 2009; Valdes, 2005). Academic language requires more than merely
listening, speaking, reading and writing. It is a school-specific discourse with higher vocabulary
knowledge and grammatical sophistication. Consequently, there is a need to reconceptualize
academic language so that appropriate language instruction policy can be provided to help
students achieve academic competence (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Cummins & Yee-Fun, 2007).
This is important because research shows that helping ELLs acquire academic language skills is
critical to their school and career success (Cummins & Yee-Fun, 2007; Lubliner & Smetana,
2005). Chapter Two presents a more detailed discussion.
Academic language gaps in second language learners have been addressed in many ways,
such as through bilingual education programs. Longitudinal studies demonstrate that two-way
immersion bilingual education is among the most effective ways to teach ELLs (Collier &
Thomas, 2004). ELLs accelerate their learning through content material in their primary
language while developing English language skills. These two-way immersion programs teach
the content areas using standards-based instruction in both English and the primary language for
at least 5 to 7 years, hence giving ELLs the time necessary to develop cognitive academic
language in English (Hakuta et al., 2000). The terms such as two-way immersion and dual
language are often used to describe similar programs (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-
Leary, Rogers, 2007). What makes dual immersion different from other forms of bilingual
education in the United States is that this two-way dual language model aims to integrate
minority-language speakers and majority-language speakers in order to promote learning in two
languages and positive opportunities for cross-cultural interaction (Collier & Thomas, 2002;
Howard, Christian & Genesee, 2003). This approach not only improves the literacy skills of
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 18
ELLs in both languages, but studies show that bilinguals in these programs often outperform
English-only students in metalinguistic knowledge (Collier & Thomas, 2002; Genesee et al.,
2005; Howard, Lindholm-Leary, Sugarman, Christian & Rogers, 2007).
Academic language is a challenge for all students, but is especially challenging for
learners who have few opportunities to use or encounter the specialized language of the content
areas outside of school (Bunch, 2006; Ernst-Slavit & Mason, 201;1 Zwiers, 2007). For ELLs,
instruction in the ways of using language that are valued by the dominant society is key to
enabling their participation in increasingly complex and abstract learning contexts (Ernst-Slavit
& Mason, 2011). Dual language programs allow students to develop the academic language in
their primary language while also developing it in the second language, which is an important
part of learning the schooling Discourse (Gee, 2012).
Statement of the Problem
Because academic language is at the heart of teaching and learning, it is necessary to
understand effective ways for ELLs to learn the patterns of academic discourse through which
academic concepts are developed (DiCerbo et al., 2014). ELLs are the largest growing student
population across the United States, and their success in school is contingent upon acquiring
academic language proficiency (DiCerbo et al., 2014; Gee, 2012). Schools need to learn how to
provide optimal language instruction for ELLs so that they may reach the same levels of
academic attainment as other groups of students. However, much research has honed in on
discrete language skills and focused on ELLs’ literacy deficits, which contributes to the
perceived literacy achievement gap between Latino ELLs and other subgroups.
Dual language programs are one way ELL academic achievement has been addressed.
Research showed that dual language programs provide an enriching language and literacy
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 19
context, which results in improved academic achievement for ELLs (Collier & Thomas, 2002,
2003; Cloud, Genesee & Hamayan, 2000; Hakuta, Butler & Witt, 2000; Howard, Lindholm-
Leary, Sugarman, Christian & Rogers, 2007). Despite the growth of dual language programs,
many questions remain unanswered about the language practices in dual immersion schools
offering opportunities for academic language learning. Furthermore, more research is necessary
to unearth the culturally situated social practices that contribute to enhanced academic
achievement in Latino language minorities. Hence, one step to further develop our
understanding on this topic is to focus on how teachers create instructional and learning
environments that maximize the language and literacy development of diverse students
(Cummins & Yee-Fun, 2007). In addition, this research looks at the socio-cultural factors
contributing to academic language, such as how Latino language-minority students are grouped
and instructed for language development.
In addition, few studies looked at how dual language teachers implement the Common
Core State Standards as they relate to integrating academic language through the curriculum.
The Common Core State Standards, adopted by California, focus considerable attention on
helping students become effective communicators, both in oral presentations and in varied
written formats. Learning how dual language teachers, working within a historically
distinguished school, adopt and teach the Common Core State Standards as they relate to
academic language development will add to our understanding of diverse learners and literacy
development.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to further our understanding of how effective teachers in
high poverty and high achieving programs, referred to as positive deviant schools, perceive and
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 20
maximize the academic language and literacy development of Latino ELLs in natural classroom
environments. This study examined how these dual language teachers understood and taught
academic language development to ELLs drawing on socio-cultural learning theory and
academic language development research.
Research Questions
1. How do 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers at two positive deviant schools
understand and teach academic language development?
2. What are 4th and 5th grade teachers’ at two positive deviant schools perceptions of socio-
cultural factors that contribute to high performance in academic language development?
Fourth and fifth grade teachers were selected because, presumably, they are the teachers
within the dual language program witnessing the final stages of academic language development
in the K-5 setting and preparing students to launch into the middle school curriculum.
Importance of the Study
This study is important to the field because it addressed academic language development
through the lens of exemplary teachers at distinguished dual language programs that serve high
Latino ELL populations. This research is valuable because Latino ELLs are the largest growing
school minority group in schools across the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Furthermore, dual language programs captured the attention of school districts across the nation.
Many states reinstated or initiated bilingual education due to recent research attributing academic
achievement gains to Latino language minorities in dual language programs (Genesee et al.,
2005; Thomas & Collier, 2003). However, research on effective academic language practices
within dual language programs is still largely undocumented (Cummins, 2008). Further research
in this area is needed to understand and document what effective teachers within dual language
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 21
programs perceive and do to provide quality academic language instruction, as accessing
academic language is critical to the school success of minority students (Cummins & Yee-Fun,
2007; Baumann & Graves, 2010). Therefore, learning about academic language development
from teachers within dual language schools that have been deemed “distinguished” by the state
of California for improved student achievement was a worthy task. Capturing and documenting
the perceptions and academic language practices within these classrooms illuminated particular
themes that pointed to specific collaborations, strategies and lessons. This knowledge
contributed to our understanding of academic language development for Latino language-
minority students and may assist other schools working with this growing demographic.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. The limitation to using a case study
approach was that the findings are not entirely generalizable to another context. Diversity is
often underestimated in qualitative research (Maxwell, 2012). For example, this research
focused on two schools with three 4th and/or 5th grade teachers. As a result, it is difficult to
determine whether the results of this research can be replicated to other contexts. Another
limitation was the short time frame for collecting data. Observations and interviews took place
over a few of months, versus an entire school year. This may not have yielded the amount of
data needed to gain deep enough insight into classroom practices. A third limitation was the
small number of participants in the study, which may not be representative of the entire teaching
population. Lastly, researcher bias acted as a limitation in capturing and interpreting the
findings.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 22

Delimitations
This study had a purposeful sample (Maxwell, 2013) focusing on 4th and/or 5th grade
teachers in a suburban Title I Spanish dual language school located outside of Los Angeles. The
upper grade teachers were selected for this study because they presumably work with the Latino
ELLs who have been in the school program the longest in a K-5 setting. Latino ELLs comprised
over 50% of the student population, with 30% of the children receiving free or reduced price
lunch. Due to Proposition 227, the families participating in this program signed a waiver of
consent allowing their children to receive instruction in both English and Spanish. This study
illuminated a specific account of academic language in a two-way dual language setting, and its
findings may be applicable to other settings with similar characteristics.
Definition of Terms
Academic language- a dynamic and multidimensional interplay of general vocabulary,
discipline specific vocabulary and linguistic features which include both genre and purpose, all
of which are socially organized and embedded within a cultural system of meaning contributing
to a social identity
Bilingual instruction- a broad term encompassing various forms of language instruction
provided in two languages. Language can be taught either as a bilingual immersion program,
transitional bilingual program or dual immersion program (one way or two-way)
Dual language immersion instruction-bilingual education whereby students are taught
simultaneously in two languages and both languages are taught and maintained throughout
schooling
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 23
Two-way dual language immersion-bilingual education whereby students are taught
simultaneously in two languages and both languages are taught and maintained throughout
schooling with both native speakers and non-native speakers
Emergent bilinguals-students who speak two languages simultaneously and are exposed to two
languages
ELLs-students who are learning English as a second language
Language-minority students-all students exposed to another language before entry to
kindergarten, whether they have limited English proficiency, are proficient in both languages or
are English dominant
Positive Deviant-schools with high poverty, high ELLs and high academic performance, a
statistical term used to reference uncommon but successful achievement
Simultaneous bilinguals-also referred to as emergent bilinguals, students who are developing
two languages at the same time
Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters. The first chapter outlines the problem of
practice and the background of the problem. The second chapter defines the theoretical
framework used as lens to look at the problem. This chapter also provides a synthesis of the key
literature related to socio-cultural theory and academic language research. Chapter Three
describes the methodology of the study, the sample and population, and the data analysis
methods. The key findings of this study are reported in Chapter Four. Then, Chapter Five
summarized the findings and their implications for current practice and future research.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 24

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to investigate how academic language is perceived and taught in a Spanish dual
immersion program serving ELLs, this study drew upon socio-cultural learning theory and
academic language development research. Viewing academic language development through
socio-cultural theory is important because all teaching and most learning are social activities set
in particular cultural contexts (Cummins, 2008; Davidson, 2010; Nagy & Flinspach, 2008).
However, there are many facets to academic language growth. In order to narrow the scope of
this study and delve deeper into this phenomena, the study focused on academic language
development for Latino ELLs.
This literature review focuses on academic language use and beliefs and practices
regarding academic language development. The chapter is organized by a review of the
literature related to academic language research and socio-cultural theory. The first part of the
review includes various studies defining the construct of academic language. Two main
approaches surfaced through the review of the literature. One approach classified academic
language through a more cognitive lens using word level studies (Nagy & Flinspach, 2008). The
first part of the chapter analyzes the literature on academic language at the word level, often
referred to as word knowledge or word consciousness. This research includes an analysis of how
general academic vocabulary, content area vocabulary and discrete linguistic features when used
in isolation, may problematize how we view language development. The other main research
approach to academic language looks at socio-cultural factors, such as language socialization,
that support the development of academic literacy development. Consequently, the second half
of the chapter describes the studies exploring the role of socio-cultural factors and hybrid
language practices contributing to academic language specifically for Latino ELLs.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 25
Academic Language
The notion of academic language developed out of research in the 1970s and 1980s that
focused on the challenges many children experienced while trying to engage in school. This
early research honed in on the differences in language expectations for students coming from
diverse home communities (Schleppegrell, 2012). Cummins’ original work in 1980 described
these language differences as basic interpersonal language skills versus cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP). CALP was often referenced as the language of schooling
(Cummins, 2008). Although Cummins’ work was among the first to point out the differences
between conversational and academic language, there was little detail about which language
skills were encompassed in CALP, the schooling language (Kieffer, Lesaux, & Snow, 2008).
Despite the frequent invocations of the term “academic language”, there continues to be
no universal definition for academic language (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Snow, Uccelli, Olson,
& Torrance, 2009). Instead, there is a plethora of terms and meanings brought about by different
scholars (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Snow et al., 2009). It is broadly referred to as the language
of education, the language of school, advanced literacy, scientific language or academic English
to list a few (Baumann & Graves, 2010).
One approach to characterizing academic language is to describe the contexts for its use.
Schleppegrell (2012) states that academic language is defined in different ways for different
purposes (Schleppegrell, 2012). For example, academic language is described as the language
register of English that is used in professional books and characterized by linguistic features
associated with academic disciplines. It requires more complex sentences and precise, elaborate
vocabulary (Snow et al., 2009). Other research described it as the language used by students and
teachers in the teaching and learning process (Scheleppegrell, 2012; Snow et al., 2009).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 26
Part of the reason a specific definition has not been established is that academic language
is perceived to be dynamic and multidimensional (Snow et al., 2009). For example, Scarcella
(2003) identifies three facets of academic language proficiency: linguistic, cognitive and socio-
cultural. Linguistic research states that academic language depends on genre and register. The
“genre,” which is the task or role of language, defines the social purpose for using the language,
while the “register” focuses on the lexical and grammatical structures needed (Scheleppegrell,
2012). Still other researchers argue that academic language has specific linguistic features that
need to be coordinated with reasoning or argumentative strategies, disciplinary knowledge along
with genre mastery (Snow et al., 2009).
Separate Discourse
Despite the differences in labels and terminology, the general understanding in the field is
that academic language is a separate language variation with certain core features (Bunch, 2013;
Cummins, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2012; Snow et al., 2009; Zwiers, 2006). Some of the core
features include higher-level vocabulary, which is present across various academic disciplines.
Another feature is that academic language involves complex sentence structures that are frequent
in a wide range of academic genres but are relatively uncommon in other kinds of texts (Hyland
& Tse, 2007). This academic English style is more advanced and typically encountered in higher
education (Hyland & Tse, 2007). To be academically proficient is to know and be able to use
general and content-specific vocabulary, complex grammatical structures and various language
structures in order to acquire new knowledge, interact with a topic or convey information to
others (Bailey, 2007; Bunch, 2013; Duff, 2010; Ernst-Slavit & Mason, 2011; Frantz, Bailey,
Starr, & Perea, 2014; Galguera, 2011).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 27
In the Common Core State Standards academic language refers to students being
prepared to deal with a range of language demands. Students need to understand teachers’ oral
language and multimedia presentations. They must also be able to process textbooks, print
materials, and technological resources. In the Common Core State Standards, students are
expected to produce language appropriately through oral and written modes for both instruction
and assessment (Perea, Bailey, Starr, & Frantz, 2014).
Furthermore, Gee (2007) described academic language as a separate Discourse, the
capital “D” signifying that this term is to be distinguished from lower case “d” discourse. Gee
describes lower case “d” discourse as stretches of language that make sense in conversations. An
example is the daily dialogue between two individuals discussing a personal event. However,
Discourse with a capital “D,” represents the social association we identify with as a member of a
meaningful social group. It connotes the values, beliefs and language use in the construction of
this social identity (Gee, 2007). For example, Discourse with a capital “D” may be the social
association of being a bilingual Latina born into a Mexican immigrant family.
According to Gee, all people are born into a primary Discourse that later evolves and is
affected by other Discourses. Discourses acquired later in life are initialized by participation in
public socializing institutions such as schools, churches, governments or other community
organizations (Gee, 2007). Consequently, the primary Discourse of being a bilingual Mexican
Latina evolves as that Discourse is affected by a secondary Discourse, such as that found in a
mainstream, monolingual English school.
The distinction between “Discourses” is important in Gee’s description of literacy.
Secondary Discourses build on and extend the uses of language, oral or written, values, attitudes
and beliefs from our primary Discourse (Gee, 2007). Consequently, literacy is always plural
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 28
because all people are part of multiple literacies that influence, and sometimes conflict with, each
other. Thus, developing academic literacy implies developing an identity with new ways of
acting, interacting, valuing, and thinking about language. Those whose primary Discourse is
most similar to the academic language Discourse acquire it more seamlessly than do those whose
primary Discourse is different or conflicting (Gee, 2007). Gee’s work brings into light a critical
aspect to understanding academic literacy development in students with diverse linguistic and
cultural backgrounds. Rather than viewing the literacy experiences of diverse students as
“deficient”, Gee would characterize them as having a different Discourse that may not align with
the mainstream schooling Discourse (Gee, 2007).
Operational Definition of Academic Language Development
While all these academic language definitions provide markers for understanding
academic language, for research purposes, this study primarily focused on definitions from Gee’s
(2007) and Baumann and Graves’ (2010) work. Academic language is a dynamic and
multidimensional interplay of general vocabulary, discipline-specific vocabulary and linguistic
features which include both genre and purpose, all of which are socially organized and
embedded within a cultural system of meaning (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Gee, 2007).
Baumann and Graves’s (2010) definition of academic language was selected because it
encompasses the word level attributes to the phenomena being studied. Understanding general
academic and discipline specific words within academic language is important because it can
inform our practice. For example, it can give teachers explicit word lessons that can build
general and academic vocabulary relative to accessing and displaying information about a
particular discipline. Furthermore, their definition includes the linguistic features required of
specific genres for different purposes. Unpacking the specific language markers necessary to
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 29
understand a variety of academic genres and purposes is important for teachers to know while
working with diverse learners who may not have English language backgrounds (Bunch, 2005,
2013; Galguera, 2011; Valdes, 2005; Walqui, 2006).
However, Baumann and Graves’ (2010) definition is limited in its understanding of the
role context and culture play on language development. Consequently, in order to broaden the
definition of academic language, Gee’s definition is useful, as it acknowledges that literacy is
more than a cognitive skill. Instead, it demonstrates an understanding of the socio-cultural
aspect of learning academic language. Gee states that language proficiency is developed by
being embedded as a member of a social practice wherein people read and talk about texts in
distinct ways and hold certain attitudes and values about those texts (Gee, 2014). Gee’s work
contributes to the understanding that academic language is more than discrete language skills.
Instead, academic language is described as a complex, socially constructed phenomenon (Gee,
2014).
Research About Academic Language
There is a wide spectrum of academic language studies which primarily focus on one of
two main theoretical camps (Scott, Nagy, & Flinspach, 2008). On one side of the spectrum are
the discrete word level studies relating to academic language and, on the other end, are the
studies primarily focused on the socio-cultural aspects of academic language (Scott et al., 2008).
This study builds on facets of both of these seemingly opposing theoretical camps. Having a
multidimensional perspective provides depth in both the traditional view of academic language
as discrete word level studies, yet the socio-cultural lens also sheds light on the ethnic-minority
perspective, which endorses alternative measures and methods while tapping the cultural and
linguistic diversity of children. Furthermore, the application of multiple theoretical paradigms
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 30
enhances the data analysis process for this study, and contributes to understanding how to
effectively develop academic language in diverse student populations.
The research reviewed for this study predominantly states that socio-cultural factors have
a greater impact on the acquisition and proficiency development of academic language in
students of diverse backgrounds. Despite word level studies having less of an impact on our
overall academic language development understanding for diverse learners, it is important to
include these discrete language skill studies because they shed light on what is known about
academic language sub-skills. Furthermore, many school curriculum guides, including the
Common Core State Standards, build curriculum on these types of discrete language studies.
Therefore, analyzing how these studies contribute to and limit our conceptual understanding of
academic language informed the study and its results. In addition, it aids in understanding how
word consciousness efforts are being implemented and monitored.
Word Level Studies
Word level studies correlate with other studies in that students who meet the expectations
of a formal academic register have academic success (Snow et al., 2009; Townsend, Filippini,
Collins, and Biancarosa, 2012). One way word level studies contributed to this understanding of
academic language is through quantitative studies demonstrating that academic language
proficiency has an impact on student achievement scores. For example, one study showed that
academic language knowledge affected student achievement scores more than general
vocabulary knowledge did (Townsend et al., 2012). This study focused on the lexical aspects of
academic language and studied the variance in academic achievement explained by academic
word knowledge for diverse middle school students in four disciplines. The findings
demonstrated that students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary is distinct from students’
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 31
knowledge of general vocabulary (Townsend et al., 2012). This study argued that academic
vocabulary gaps indicate that language-minority and low socioeconomic status middle school
students may struggle with academic subjects because they do not have the language resources
needed to keep up with instruction in the disciplines. This research also suggested that focusing
specifically on academic vocabulary might improve academic achievement (Townsend et al.,
2012). These findings are important to our understanding of the phenomena because they
confirm that academic language does have an effect on student achievement as determined by
standardized test measures. This research also contributes to our understanding because it
delineates the differences between general academic vocabulary versus discipline-specific
academic vocabulary.
While this study adds to our understanding of how to distinguish between general
academic words and specific discipline-related words, it provides a limited perspective on how
students demonstrated their vocabulary knowledge (Townsend et al., 2012). The criteria used to
establish academic language proficiency in this word level study involved discrete word
knowledge measured on standardized tests. While using such narrow measures makes it easier
to isolate the sub-skills of academic language, it does not allow students to show their language
knowledge through more holistic measures. Literacy experts who work with language learners
recommend using multiple measures, which include broader language assessments (Abedi et al.,
2003; Bunch, 2005; Martin-Beltran, 2011; Soltero-Gonzalez, Escamilla & Hopewell, 2012;
Valdes, 2005). Using broader measures not only allows researchers to see what the students can
do in a variety of contexts, but it may also show how ELLs transfer their word knowledge to a
more natural setting. Hence, researchers have a more complete picture of what the student is
able to do with the language (Bunch, 2005).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 32
Most discrete language assessments provide teachers and administrators a starting point
to analyze students’ progress in language skills. However, viewing these assessment results in
isolation can provide an incomplete picture of what the learner actually knows (Bunch, 2005;
Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012). Furthermore, several of the standardized assessment measures
used to collect data for word level research are based on academic word lists that have been
shown to represent only about 10% of actual academic vocabulary in a variety of academic
disciplines (Hyland & Tse, 2007). This limitation in word level studies is important to note
because it demonstrates how narrow and insignificant a standardized test score can be in relation
to understanding a student’s overall academic language proficiency. Hyland and Tse (2007)
argue that discrete language scores alone cannot and should not be used to determine a student’s
academic language performance (Hyland & Tse, 2007). However, their work also demonstrates
that explicit vocabulary instruction does have an impact on standardized test scores.
Academic Language Must Be Taught Explicitly
Many studies used vocabulary intervention programs that control for explicit versus
implicit vocabulary instruction. Most of these studies concluded that explicit academic language
development can improve literacy skills for ELLs as demonstrated on standardized assessment
measures (Dalton, Proctor, Uccelli, Mo, Snow, & Neugebauer, 2011; Lubliner & Smetana,
2005).
One study looked at targeted vocabulary instruction and its impact on word learning
strategies (Lubliner & Smetana, 2005). The results of this study show that targeted vocabulary
instruction improves students’ abilities to derive word meanings from context and helps students
identify morphological features of words (Lubliner & Smetana, 2005). The usual gap in
performance between English-monolingual and bilingual students disappears when ELLs receive
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 33
support with both vocabulary and comprehension strategies. Thus, this research suggests that the
right type of scaffolds can assist diverse learners attain native-like vocabulary scores (Dalton et
al., 2011).
In another study, researchers used texts that had higher-level vocabulary and more
complex sentence variations to study their impact on students’ overall academic achievement as
defined by both formal and informal assessment measures (Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau,
2007). The study looked at the test results of over 400 second and third graders after receiving
instruction using both “authentic texts” and explicit instruction on language features. The study
found that students demonstrated improved achievement if given both authentic text and explicit
instruction on language features (Purcell-Gates et al., 2007). This further supports the argument
that explicit word knowledge, in this case within an authentic context, improves academic
language development.
The impact of explicit vocabulary instruction is seen as early as kindergarten (Spycher,
2009). In a kindergarten study, teachers were coached to use explicit vocabulary lessons during
their regular science curriculum. The 39 student participants in an urban public school ranged in
language proficiency, and more than half of them were ELLs. The study used mixed methods to
control for students who only received their regular science curriculum versus the group of
students who received explicit science vocabulary lessons in addition to their usual science
curriculum. After a 5-week-long intervention, students in the explicit vocabulary group showed
more knowledge of target science words and were able to express their science understanding
more effectively using the key science vocabulary. These findings were triangulated through
standardized vocabulary assessments as well assessed through writing using analytical rubrics
and semi-structured interviews with teachers and students (Spycher, 2009). Consequently, this
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 34
study informs the field by demonstrating that developing explicit word knowledge as early as
kindergarten has an impact on academic language development.
Word Consciousness
Academic language not only needs to be taught explicitly, but it involves developing
word consciousness. Word consciousness can be defined as becoming aware of discrete
language skills, such as those in spelling, grammar or phonics. Word consciousness is also
referred to as metalinguistic knowledge because it involves reflecting on word learning (Nagy,
2007). Metalinguistic awareness is central to promoting vocabulary growth and enables students
to become aware of the words they encounter within their home and school communities (Nagy,
2007). Through this repeated noticing and exposure to words, students gradually gain more
information about word knowledge (Scott et al., 2008).
Word learning strategies, such as breaking down meaningful subparts of words, known as
morphological awareness, are also important. A study by Carlo et al. (2004) showed that ELLs
especially benefit from explicit vocabulary lessons that focus on word learning strategies (Carlo
et al., 2004; Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012; Scott et al., 2008. Kieffer and Lesaux (2012) also
examined the results of an 18-week vocabulary intervention program which focused on teaching
morphology to middle school students. The findings indicated that language-minority students
benefit from the morphology strategies and demonstrated greater gains than their peers (Kieffer
& Lesaux, 2012).
Academic Language Word Classifications
In addition to highlighting the need for explicit vocabulary lessons, word knowledge
research also added to knowledge about academic language classifications. For example, one
research study specified four groups of vocabulary: content-specific, general academic
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 35
vocabulary, school task vocabulary and literary vocabulary (Hiebert, Lubliner, Farstrup, &
Samuels, 2008). Hiebert et al. (2008) created their word lists by assembling a corpus of 3.5
million running words from college-level texts in content areas such as history and economics.
Although these word lists were created using college-level texts, the vocabulary has been
organized and back mapped into middle and elementary school curriculum guides. This has
implications about whether or not this approach is appropriate for younger children, as it may be
too overwhelming for teachers to effectively teach and use in the elementary classroom. Critics
of this approach state there is little evidence as to whether the words on these lists are at the
instructional reach of younger children and whether students will transfer these word lists to their
oral and written work (Bunch, 2005). Despite these possible limitations, this research is
important to understanding academic language because it outlines the need to carefully examine
the resources teachers use in developing vocabulary lessons and to analyze whether word lists
are meaningfully implemented into the language arts curriculum.
Other literacy experts, such as Marzano and Pickering (2005), organized word lists by
grade level and discipline. This work suggests that academic words should be categorized by
how important they are to the discipline content and instructional purpose (Marzano & Pickering,
2005). Much of Marzano and Pickering’s work informed the Common Core State Standards and
teacher curriculum guides (Marzano & Pickering, 2005).
Researchers in the literacy field used a variety of word classifications as demonstrated
above. However, to narrow the scope, this literature review focuses focus on three word
classification categories. The first category is general academic vocabulary, which refers to the
relatively low frequency, content-specific words, and phrases that appear across multiple
disciplines in content area textbooks and other technical writing materials (Baumann & Graves,
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 36
2010). The other category is referenced herein as discipline-specific vocabulary. Discipline-
specific vocabulary refers to the key academic words needed to master a specific content area
such as those found in math, science or social studies. The last category includes academic
words having linguistic features specific to a genre or purpose, such as the grammar structures
needed in expository report writing versus narrative story writing. Examining how teachers
perceive and implement these academic vocabulary words is one of many factors analyzed to
deepen our understanding of academic language teaching.
Limitations to Discrete Language Skills
In analyzing word classification studies, it is clear the results only account for a partial
understanding of how academic language proficiency develops in linguistically and culturally
diverse students. This is evident in research by Hyland and Tse (2007), which studies a corpus
of 3.3 million words from a range of academic disciplines and genres and concludes that most
academic words lists previously studied and recommended for instruction cover only 10.6% of
the corpus of academic words. These findings suggest that, although academic word lists have a
place in teaching academic language, individual words on these lists occur and are used
differently across disciplines in terms of range, frequency and meaning (Hyland & Tse, 2007).
Consequently, they argue that the exclusive use of these lists undermines the social nature of
language.
Despite the attraction to a universal academic vocabulary, Hyland and Tse (2007)
recommend teaching academic language within the discipline while helping students develop
communicative competence. This study describes communicative competence as making sense
of how and when to use academic words for specific purposes (Hyland & Tse, 2007). These
findings point to the importance of knowing how to manipulate the language for disciplinary
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 37
purposes so that the academic vocabulary is specific to the meaning for that context and
language community.
This study adds to the field because it emphasizes the value of contextualizing language
for students and it recommends examining the assumptions that inform the idea of academic
language. Rather than assuming there is a single collection of words, which can be learned and
transferred to all disciplines, this study highlights that academic vocabulary is dynamic and must
be developed within the specific disciplines (Hyland & Tse, 2007). Furthermore, it challenges
literacy experts to examine and apply word level studies to specific language and literacy
practices in a natural setting. This supports the assertion that it is of more merit to teach ELLs
the language necessary to complete a specific academic task than it is to have them memorize a
decontextualized list of academic words. Furthermore, this study recommends teachers stress the
role of communication rather than language. The authors state that the process by which texts
are created and used is as important as the texts themselves (Hyland & Tse, 2007). Recognizing
the need to create an environment where language is contextualized and students communicate
as members of social groups is a key conclusion brought forth by Hyland and Tse’s (2007) work.
Socio-Cultural Factors Contributing to Academic Language in Latino ELLs
Consequently, it is important to review studies on the mastery of academic language as
situational and interpersonal (Delpit, 1992; Gee, 2007; González, 2001; Scott et al., 2008). This
part of the literature review focuses on studies and theories on the impact of socio-cultural
factors on academic language among Latino ELLs and how those factors dictate the interactions
and role language takes (Cummins, 2008).
One factor to be considered is how students’ socialization within the school determines
the extent to which they will engage academically and gain access to the academic registers of
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 38
schooling (Cummins, 2008). This is important because language socialization examines what
forms of language use and participation and literacy practices might be required to navigate the
schooling experience (Hornberger & McKay, 2010). For example, in a cross analysis of two
case studies looking at two 4th grade teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices about language
arts, researchers found that, although both teachers had similar literacy training, the actual
practices varied due to contextual factors such as overcrowded classes, scheduling conflicts and
pressure to prepare students for standardized tests. One group of students received extensive
daily practice with academic language through literature discussions, while the other classroom
teacher was unable to provide a consistent language arts program for her students due to
contextual factors that constrained her time with students. The first classroom focused on the
norms and language necessary for standardized testing much more than the second classroom.
Consequently, language socialization practices varied drastically due to differences between
classroom literacy approaches (Dooley & Assaf, 2009).
Survey and interview studies may look at teachers’ beliefs, but they do not necessarily
reveal the contextual factors affecting teaching or the practical implications of how policies
shape teaching (Dooley & Assaf, 2009). These contextualized factors determine language
socialization practices within each classroom (Hornberger & McKay, 2010). Hence, using a
socio-cultural lens to describe the setting and environment in which literacy develops provides
the researcher a deeper understanding of factors underpinning the phenomena.
Latino ELLs
Consequently, this study also reviewed research focusws on specific factors identified as
supporting the cultural and linguistic needs of Latino ELLs in acquiring academic discourse.
Four main themes surfaced in the review of this literature. The first theme involves
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 39
differentiating between the diverse needs of Latino ELLs and their varied acculturation
processes. The second theme hones in on using the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the
students to bridge their home life to the classroom. This theme involves looking at how teachers
use culturally relevant pedagogy, language socialization and hybrid language practices to support
literacy development. The third theme highlights the need to use a multidimensional approach to
assessing linguistically diverse students. The last theme describes the impact of teachers’
perceptions and expectations on students.
Theme One: Latino ELL Language and Cultural Diversity
Rather than viewing all Latino ELLs as a homogenous group, understanding the
distinctions in acculturation and language is important to the schooling process (Ford, Cabell,
Konold, Invernizzi, & Gartland, 2013; González, 2001; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011;).
Research showed that Latino ELLs may fall into four distinct language profiles as early as the
beginning of kindergarten (Ford et al., 2013). These differences may be due to a variety of
family factors, such as home language use, parent education level or immigration status
(González, 2001). Furthermore, the diverse language differences can also be due to the language
socialization of Latino ELLs, not only because of their diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds, but also because of the classroom practices employed by their teachers and peers
(Hornberger & McKay, 2010; Zentella, 2005).
Differentiating literacy practices is recommended for meeting the needs of diverse Latino
ELLs. Studies found there is heterogeneity among Hispanic English as a Second Language
(ESL) students as early as kindergarten (Ford et al., 2013; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011).
Consequently, research suggests literacy instruction must be differentiated from the very
beginning of schooling in order to meet students’ individual language and literacy needs. The
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 40
findings also state that students should not be grouped by oral language proficiency alone. They
found that oral proficiency is distinct and not necessarily predictive of early foundational reading
skills (Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). As a consequence, oral language development must
be addressed differently than foundational reading skill development is (Ford et al., 2013). For
example, while phonological awareness may be a necessary precursor to reading for most
English speaking students, Latino ELLs may need the inclusion of orthographic skills while
learning phonological awareness. Literacy practices in the absence of orthographic skills may
not be sufficient for Latino bilinguals (Ford et al., 2013).
Addressing linguistic differences between Latino ELLs is also important because it helps
identify other socio-cultural factors pertinent to literacy learning (Ford et al., 2013). For
example, research by Mancilla-Martinez and Lesaux (2011), found that distinct language profiles
in Latino bilinguals had an impact on later academic vocabulary development. Their research
looked at 180 Latino ELLs born in the United States and brought up in Spanish bilingual homes.
They followed these students beginning in Head Start, a federal preschool program, and through
middle school. They found that although all participants had been born in the United States,
started in the same Head Start program, and came from Spanish bilingual households, by middle
school, there were large vocabulary achievement gaps among them. One of the factors
contributing most to this vocabulary gap was the Latino ELLs’ socioeconomic background
(Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). This research shows that academic language development
is affected by factors much greater than discrete language skills. This is an important point
because, although many factors contribute to an academically literate identity, not all have the
same impact on developing academic literacy. In order to support academic language
development, these other socio-cultural factors must be addressed as well.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 41
Latino ELLs also have distinct levels of acculturation (González, 2001). For example,
recent immigrant families may not have enough English language to request basic needs such as
filling out applications for school services. In contrast, first generation immigrant families may
be better equipped to adapt to the schooling system because they are more familiar with the
language and schooling institution. Research showed that the level of acculturation into a
mainstream English classroom has an impact on the stress level and involvement of Latino
students and their families (González, 2001). Immigrant families who know how to access
mainstream resources are more likely to become fully-fledged participants within the school
community and help their children adapt to the academic discourse (Gonzalez, 2001; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997).
Theme Two: Building on Funds of Knowledge
When schools and teachers provide explicit guidance on how to access mainstream
resources and belong to the school community, students are more likely to become active
participants in the schooling “Discourse” (Gee, 2007; González, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Thus, teachers and school personnel must understand the diversity among Latinos and become
the agents who give students and their families access to the schooling discourse (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997; Zentella, 2005). Providing school personnel who instruct parents on how to
become involved in their child’s academic language development is a key factor in supporting
students of diverse backgrounds. The less obstructions between the cultural backgrounds of the
students and the school, the easier it is for students to move through their home and school
literacies (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Gee, 2007).
Teaching practices that connect to students’ backgrounds is supported by many other
researchers and literacy experts (Bunch, 2006; Delpit, 1988; Duff, 2010; Purcell-Gates Melzi,
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 42
Najafi, & Orellana, 2011; Soltero-Gonzalez et. al, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Martin-Beltran,
2009). ELLs need to perceive that their school environment accepts their culture and language in
order to succeed in school (Duff, 2010; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Walqui, 2008). Such validation
of students’ identities must be deep and genuine so students can be speakers in their own right
(Walqui, 2008). Research shows that diverse students participate in rich and varied language and
literacy traditions, albeit different from mainstream educational environments (Purcell-Gates et
al., 2011). Children from diverse backgrounds do not lack literacy exposure; rather, the practices
they encounter lead to the development of skills different from those expected to prepare them
for school success (Purcell-Gates et al., 2011). Consequently, rather than seeing linguistic and
cultural minority children as deficient, teachers need to know how to build on existing cultural
ways of knowing (Martin-Beltran, 2009; Moll et al., 1992; Purcell-Gates et al., 2011; Valdes,
2003).
Culturally relevant pedagogy. One way of bridging the home to school gap is
incorporation of culturally and linguistically supportive pedagogy (Delpit, 1988; Ladson-
Billings, 2014; Moll et al., 1992; Paris, 2012). The basic premise of building on home language
and literacy practices is for teachers to learn about the daily lives of their students and, then,
prepare instruction and use materials that honor the diversity of their students and their interests
while integrating curriculum objectives.
Purcell-Gates et al. (2011) describe using a systematic attempt to uncovering the diverse
language and literacy practices familiar to individual children via parent questionnaires, parent
literacy focus groups, visiting students’ homes and acknowledging the diversity of literacy
practices that exists in their classroom (Purcell-Gates et al., 2011). This research states that
teachers need to learn how to bridge their students’ understanding of oral and written
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 43
conventions to formal educational contexts because language and literacy development is tied to
the students’ social and cultural worlds (Purcell-Gates et al., 2011).
Curriculum and pedagogy that is grounded on students’ daily lives as well as on home
and community practices provide meaningful learning that does not devalue dominant school
discourse or the home histories of the students (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 1999).
In addition, building on students’ diverse backgrounds promotes the development of multi-
discursive practices that merge culturally diverse traditions and provides alternatives to ethnic
identity (Moll et al., 1992; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Zentella, 2005). Promoting this broad range
of language socialization helps bridge some of the ideological contradictions with competing
discourses (Duff, 2010; Walqui, 2006; Zentella, 2005). This is valuable to our understanding of
academic language because it suggests we value and build on what the child brings to the
classroom, and allow for multiple perspectives on how language socialization occurs in a diverse
classroom, hence promoting the idea that there is no “one way” to socialize diverse students’
languages into the mainstream classroom (Bunch, 2013; Gee, 2014; Martin-Beltran, 2011;
Valdes, 2003; Zentella, 2005).
Effective instructional practices for ELLs. Despite the variety of language
socialization processes, some language instructional practices were studied and validated as
effective for working with diverse students (Goldenberg, 2011; Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan,
2009). Research in this area states that language and literacy is best acquired when it is
embedded in activities that are meaningful, interesting and integrated (Goldenberg, 2011; Cloud
et al., 2009). It states that the forms, functions and uses of language are best acquired and
learned in context, in the service of other learning. Hence, learning is meaningful when students
offer input and can comprehend and see the knowledge as important (Cloud et al., 2009).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 44
Furthermore, expanding students’ knowledge bases while building on their experiences and
backgrounds broadens their repertoire of identities and encourages a more equal power relation
between their peers and teachers (Gee, 2012; Zentella, 2005;).
When teachers interconnect language, literacy and content across multiple disciplines,
students learn the language and literacy skills needed to support them across the curriculum
(Cloud et al., 2009). For example, when ESL, reading and mainstream classroom teachers work
together, many benefits result for both students and teachers. Along with the academic benefits,
the students also respond positively to having a predictable and consistent classroom
management routine across the classes (Goldenberg, 2011). When students receive
contextualized instruction that combines content area knowledge with literacy skills support,
they have increased academic achievement, have improved behavior, and feel less isolated
during lessons (Cloud et al., 2009). Furthermore, connecting related vocabulary and providing
thematic integration with content knowledge and literacy skills provides a curriculum mapping
that is highly recommended to promote curriculum coherence (Cloud et al., 2009).
Furthermore, teachers working collaboratively can use similar strategies, such as pre-
teaching essential concepts and vocabulary using multisensory methods, that do not exclusively
rely on language for understanding (Cloud et al., 2009). Rather than working on language in
isolation, teachers can explicitly teach the language needed to read and communicate the content
area knowledge effectively, such as grammatical features necessary for a specific purpose.
Integrating these language lessons within themes or topics related to students’ linguistic and
cultural backgrounds creates rich and meaningful instruction (Cloud et al., 2009; Martin-Beltran,
2009; Moll et al., 1992).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 45
Research on instructional practices for ELLs also points to other strategies that build on
explicit language instruction. For example, teachers who use graphic organizers, such as the
Frayer model with four boxes each highlighting a different aspect of the word, to explicitly teach
word meanings and connect those words to content area knowledge are more likely to improve
ELLs’ academic language (Cloud et al., 2009). This vocabulary frontloading activity introduces
the explicit key words encountered in the content area lesson (Cloud et al., 2009). Furthermore,
teachers improve academic language by building on ELLs experiences through manipulatives,
pictures or videos to connect students to the new content knowledge (Cloud et al., 2009). This is
supported by another research finding, which stated that ELL children who had low language
levels benefit from visual representation of concepts, not just language-based explanations.
Hence, providing ELLs with additional support in learning the vocabulary words using visuals is
an effective instructional practice (Zwiers, 2006).
Another instructional strategy shown to improve ELL literacy development is explicit
oral language discussions related to topics relevant to the student’s background (Valli &
Chambliss, 2007). A review of literature on classroom discourse indicates teachers who target
the orchestration of class discussions help students understand text better (Gibbons, 2003).
Students participating in oral discussions also respond more fully to aesthetic elements and recall
events better (Valli & Chambliss, 2007). This finding was supported by research on an enriched
literacy curriculum (e.g., instructional conversations, assigned independent reading, literature
logs, comprehension instruction), which was associated with better English literacy achievement
for ELLs who were transitioning from Spanish to English literacy instruction (Goldenberg,
2011). Furthermore, providing highly engaging extended interactions with teachers and peers
also promotes the integration of language and content area knowledge (Goldenberg, 2011).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 46
Dynamic, strategic and multidimensional student grouping also improves literacy
achievement in diverse students (Lindholm-Leary, 2005). Studies suggest that, when ethnically
and linguistically diverse students work interdependently on school tasks with common
objectives, their expectations and attitudes toward each other become more positive, and their
academic achievement improves (Lindholm-Leary, 2005). However, merely having ELL
students interact or work in groups with English-proficient students does not necessarily enhance
language development. Rather, activities in which ELL and English-proficient students interact
require teachers consider the design of the task, the training of the students in working with and
promoting language development with each other, and strategically pairing ELL students by
varied language proficiency (Lindholm-Leary, 2005).
Work by Freeman and Freeman (2006) also found that knowledge and meaning is
constructed and reconstructed in the process of socially interacting with peers. They go on to
state that group work should provide social equity and extensive interactions, which hold
students individually accountable (Freeman & Freeman, 1996). Furthermore, research on dual
language instruction suggests that a reciprocal interaction model of teaching is more beneficial to
students than is the traditional teacher-centered transmission model of teaching (Lindholm-
Leary, 2005). This is important to our understanding of academic language development
because it highlights the need for students to have extended and engaging conversations with
each other to construct meaning and extend their language development.
Theme Three: Language Socialization
Education never takes place in a vacuum; instead, it is deeply embedded in a socio-
cultural context (Walqui, 2006). In order to develop a contextualized environment for students
to participate in academic language as social practice, several factors need to be taken into
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 47
account. One way this has been addressed is through a classroom climate that empowers
students to develop a voice and feel a part of the academic culture (Delpit, 1988; González,
2001; Scott et al., 2008). Students’ socialization within the school determines the extent to
which they will engage academically and gain access to the academic registers of schooling
(Cummins, 2008; Dooley & Assaf, 2009). This part of the literature review focuses on the
research and theory showing how teachers support students in language socialization and
developing a social literate identity.
While the concept of academic culture is dynamic and shifts over time in response to the
changing conditions, there are specific practices teachers can implement in order to develop a
climate for supporting diverse students’ full participation in academic Discourse (Gee, 2007).
Duff (2010) writes about the need for teachers to socialize students into academic Discourse
through dynamic, multimodal and socially situated processes that can be multilingual and highly
intertextual (Duff, 2010). Academic discourse socialization is characterized by modeling, giving
feedback and negotiating power and identities (Duff, 2010). Duff concludes that social
positioning by participants affects engagement and performance in this type of learning
community. Furthermore, much of academic discourse is now mediated by blended modes of
socialization that include oral, written and electronic mediums. Consequently, more attention
needs to be given to how social literate identities are formed and sustained (Duff, 2010). This
work sheds light on the need to include electronic media as a form of academic language and to
analyze its impact on social literate identity.
Walqui (2006) argues that minority youth develop an academic identity by being in a
classroom climate that validates and empowers them to speak. This is done through scaffolding
their language practices until they feel full control of the academic discourse (Walqui, 2006).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 48
This scaffolding is in line with Vygotsky’s theory of learning within a zone of proximal
development. The zone of proximal development is the primary activity space in which learning
occurs that is at the developmental level of the student (Walqui, 2006). Walqui states that
teachers scaffold by presenting content through structures and processes. Academic tasks need
to be repeated with variations and connected to one another while academic language needs to be
given contextual support via multiple media such as pictures, videos or manipulatives. Tasks are
adjusted depending on the learners, and the student’s role and participation increases as they
show readiness (Walqui, 2006). ELLs need language modeling, and bridging, to activate their
prior knowledge. As opposed to presenting information in a linear manner, ELLs need more re-
presenting and cycling of text structures across different contexts (Lindholm-Leary, 2005;
Goldenberg, 2011). Lastly, minority students need to develop metacognition to think about how
they are learning (Lindholm-Leary, 2005).
While all these scaffolding strategies are good practices for all learners, ELLs need to use
them more extensively, continuously and with more depth (Goldenberg, 2011; Walqui, 2006).
This work is important to our review of the literature because it builds on the academic language
theory and highlights what academic language practices look like in a classroom setting.
Studying what Latino ELLs do within a real classroom environment moves academic language
development beyond static, over-generalized traits attributed to an ethnic group. Instead, it
focuses attention on how these group members interact in a context and how their engagement
contributes to individual literacy learning and development (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2013). Much
can be learned by analyzing how Latino students, who are often socialized to be cooperative and
dependent, adapt to a mainstream environment that often promotes academic language through a
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 49
climate that values opposing goals such as competition, autonomy and self-reliance (González,
2001).
Honoring bicultural identities. Classrooms that have high expectations, and honor
bicultural identities help Latino bilingual students adapt to the academic Discourse (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Valdes, 2003; Gee, 2007). Developing dual identities is a
notion described in Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) social capital framework. Stanton-Salazar states
that Latino bilinguals encounter success when they can develop and maneuver dual identities.
He describes that, when minority children develop bicultural networks, they are able to cope and
adapt to the schooling discourse. These networks not only create a consciousness that crosses
cultural borders and institutional barriers, but also facilitate entry into multiple communities
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Instrumental social relationships can be formed that provide social
support and access to knowledge (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
A bicultural social framework creates a constellation of structures that can expand
options for minority youth and assist in the successful socialization into multiple mainstream
worlds. Thus, the bicultural network can provide ways for them to access resources and build
relationships with gatekeepers who provide access to the academic world (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Furthermore, research also states that students need to develop dexterity in using both
familiar and new approaches to accessing literacy knowledge (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, &
Tejeda, 1999; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). This framework contributes to understanding of
academic language discourse in that it demonstrates academic language is dynamic and
encompassing of multiple language and cultural communities.
Some theorists argue that building dexterity upon home literacy practices in order to
develop multiple discourses is not enough (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 1999;
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 50
Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris, 2014). Using culturally relevant
pedagogy should also help sustain the primary language and culture (Ladson-Billings, 2014;
Paris, 2014). One way this has been done is through dual language programs. These programs
not only develop and honor a dual identity but also sustain the students’ native language and
culture of. The dual language program’s goal is not to extinguish the Spanish language while
enabling students to become dominant in English, but to allow them to develop full biliteracy
(Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Hybrid language practices. Longitudinal studies demonstrate that two-way dual
immersion bilingual education is among the most effective ways to teach ELLs (Thomas &
Collier, 2002). ELLs accelerate their learning through content material in their primary
language. These two-way immersion programs teach the content areas using standards-based
instruction in both English and the primary language for at least 5 to 7 years, hence giving ELLs
the time necessary to develop cognitive academic language in English (Hakuta et al., 2000).
Terms such as two-way immersion and dual language are often used to describe similar
programs (Howard et al., 2007).
What makes two-way dual immersion different from other forms of bilingual education
in the United States is that this model aims to integrate minority-language speakers and majority-
language speakers in order to promote learning in two languages and positive opportunities for
cross-cultural interaction (Howard et al., 2003). This approach not only improves the literacy
skills of ELLs in both languages, but studies show that bilinguals in these programs often
outperform English only students in metalinguistic knowledge (Genesee et al., 2005). Helping
ELLs acquire academic language skills is critical to their school and career success (Cummins,
2008).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 51
Furthermore, the students in these dual language programs, experience the culturally
sustaining pedagogy that honors and sustains their dual identities over time (Collier & Thomas,
2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2005). Supporters of this hybrid language and cultural educational
experience state that dual language programs enable teachers to view the academic language
development of Latino ELLs through various facets (Genesee et al., 2005). Monitoring the
language and literacy growth in both English and Spanish provides a comprehensive view of
how a Latino ELL develops academic language.
Theme Three: Multidimensional Assessments
Using hybrid language practices, such as dual language, is one of many ways to view
students through a multidimensional lens (Howard et al., 2007; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). Schools and teachers need to use broad measures to diagnose, teach and monitor
the literacy development of Latino ELLs (Collier & Thomas, 2004; González, 2001). Using
multiple methods and measures ensures that students are seen through various perspectives,
rather than through narrow parameters that are often skewed toward monolingual English
speaking students (González, 2001; Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012).
The ways researchers and teachers often mine for data creates generalizations about what
is normative for ELLs’ language and literacy practices, rather than looking at student’s existing
repertoires of language and literacy practices (Gutiérrez, 2006). Literacy practices should be
observed across a range of settings, tasks, and contexts over sustained periods of time (Gutiérrez,
2006). Furthermore, they should include growth monitoring over time, rather than just
benchmark achievement measures (Kieffer, 2008). Classrooms that use broad and multiple
modes of instruction and assessment are less likely to perpetuate the notion that language and
cultural diversity equate to being “deficient” (Paris & Alim, 2014).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 52
Differentiated practices foster a climate of growth and honor that learning is a process
that is unique to each student (Kieffer, 2008). This theme is important to our understanding of
academic language because it counters the notion that English learners are one-dimensional and
static. Use of various methodologies and assessment measures creates a wider view of the
plurality involved in academic language development.
Theme Four: Teacher Perceptions
The other theme that surfaced in the review of the literature was the importance of
examining teachers’ perceptions and expectations of Latino ELLs. One of the most important
sources of influence on the developmental process in minority children is the particular set of
cultural beliefs and values held by teachers (Bailey & Sirota, 2009; Ferguson, Phillips, Rowley
& Friedlander, 2015; González, 2001). A significant correlation exists between teachers’ views
of racially diverse children and how children feel about themselves. This finding is critical for
both in-service and preservice teachers. Teachers of children from diverse backgrounds must
know that regardless of whether their views are positive or negative, they influence students’
learning outcomes and self-perceptions (Alexander, Entwisle, & Thompson, 1987; Gonzalez,
2001; Abedi et al., 2003; Fergusen et al., 2015).
Teachers’ perceptions of students affect the instructional practices and the climate of the
classroom (Bailey & Sirota, 2009; Delpit, 1988; Fergusen et al., 2015; Gonzalez, 2001; Soltero-
Gonzalez et al., 2012). Teacher biases are evident as early as kindergarten. Alexander et al.
(1987) found that teachers of minority children in kindergarten and first grade had lower
achievement expectations of students based on the children’s speech, dress patterns, and
socioeconomic status. The research concluded that teachers’ backgrounds have a strong
influence on how they react to minority students (Alexander et al., 1987). Minority students
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 53
experienced their greatest difficulties in the classrooms of high-status teachers because those
teachers held lower performance expectations for them, and gave them lower literacy scores
(Alexander et al., 1987). This study also showed that negative perceptions translated to less
positive attention, fewer learning opportunities, and less reinforcement of good performance.
These negative perceptions and expectations were based on middle-class teachers’ racial biases
stemming from unfamiliarity with minority students’ language and culture (Alexander et al.,
1987).
Another way teachers’ perceptions are affected is through assessment results (Abedi et
al., 2003; González, 2001). Teachers do not often receive opportunities to be critical consumers
of assessment products. Rather than analyzing the appropriateness of the test itself for Latino
ELLs, many teachers administer tests and interpret the results much in the same way they would
for English only students. The test results often skew the perceptions teachers have of Latino
ELLs’ potential, which may deny them access to higher-level curriculum and rigorous academic
discourse (Abedi et al., 2003; Delpit, 1988; González, 2001; Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012).
In order for teachers to empower students to fully engage in academic language, they
must reflect on mainstream cultural beliefs and practices (Purcell-Gates et al., 2011; Stillman,
2011). What counts as knowledge and appropriate discourse in many classrooms is shaped by
the questions asked by the teacher, the feedback the teacher provides and the type of dialogue
allowed within the class (DiCerbo et al., 2014; Gibbons, 2003; Scott et al., 2008; Zentella, 2005).
Current research on teacher talk and the language of instruction focuses on the oral academic
language used by teachers to analyze how classroom discussions, particularly teacher talk,
influence and shape students’ beliefs, ideas, values, and understanding (Ernst-Slavit, & Mason,
2011; DiCerbo et al., 2014). Consequently, to provide a supportive classroom environment for
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 54
Latino ELLs, teachers need to be critical of the assessments used, how those results affect their
perception about those students and the teacher talk that is produced as a result (Ernst-Slavit, &
Mason, 2011; Bailey & Sirota, 2009).
Research by Soltero-Gonzalez et al. (2012), demonstrates that negative perceptions of
language-minority students can change. Work has been done to develop hybrid assessment
practices that honor students’ individuality and cultural and linguistic diversity (Gonzalez, 2001;
Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012). For example, in Literacy Squared teacher professional
development sessions, teachers are trained to use writing rubrics that identify the cross-language
strategies students’ use when writing in either Spanish or English. Rather than grading the
hybrid use of English and Spanish, often referred to as “code switching,” as something that needs
to be fixed, the rubric notes it as a developmental milestone. Hence, teachers’ perceptions of
what is acceptable grammar usage and correct orthography are challenged by a new more
progressive paradigm that redefines the literacy trajectory of a Latino bilingual (Soltero-
Gonzalez et al., 2012). After attending ongoing in-house professional development, the teachers
reported changing how they assessed bilingual student writing (Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012).
Although there is still a scarcity of these alternative assessment models, teachers who
provide these culturally sensitive measures are less likely to view Latino ELLs as “deficient” and
are more likely to provide an academically rigorous environment that honors and hones in on
their cultural and linguistic assets (Delpit, 1988; González, 2001; Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006;
Purcell-Gates et al., 2011). Teachers must have high expectations of their students and create
classroom climates that foster critical thinking. In order for this to develop, teachers must
empower students and help them develop their social literate identity (Gee, 2012; Gutiérrez &
Orellana, 2006; Scott et al., 2008).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 55
Socio-cultural Theoretical Framework
Consequently, to broaden understanding of the role that academic language plays for
ELLs, it is important to be mindful of the connection between language use and larger social and
cultural domains. Literacy learning cannot be separated from the setting in which it occurs
(Davidson, 2010). Consequently, this study is informed by socio-cultural learning theory. This
theory that learning and development are socially and culturally situated is credited largely to
Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist (Davidson, 2010). The socio-cultural perspective states that
being literate means being able to read and write in a culturally appropriate way, and that it is an
interactive process modified according to the environment (Davidson, 2010). Consequently,
literacy is constantly changing according to the interactions between the teacher, students and the
environment.
Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory involves analyzing the social and cultural factors that
affect how a person learns and develops (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Vygotsky’s approach
cautions researchers against taking the person out of his or her context when trying to understand
the learning happening in the classroom. For example, looking solely at achievement measures
on literacy assessments or discrete literacy skills scores lacks a contextual understanding of the
pluralism in diverse student populations (Davidson, 2010). Such a narrow cognitive perspective
of literacy development risks perpetuating social inequalities that stem from social and cultural
diversity (Davidson, 2010). Examining the socially embedded factors that have an impact on
literacy learning and factors that comprise academic language is vital to broadening our
understanding of serving diverse students (Walqui, 2008).
Gee (2007) is another theorist who informs this study and reminds us of the advantages
held by students raised in middle- and upper-class homes where the language of school is
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 56
spoken. For these students, the school language is supported by a wide range of linguistic,
cognitive, and cultural patterns acquired at home. Consequently, these students more easily
acquire the linguistic conventions and thinking processes necessary to succeed in school. In
addition, Gee’s (2007) theoretical framework highlights that the discourse of teachers not only
contain utterances to be understood, but also signs of authority and status to be accepted,
imitated, and reproduced. Furthermore, teachers need to be deliberate and systematic in
modeling and teaching the kind of academic discourses needed to achieve academic success.
Failure to model and overtly teach academic discourse equates to requiring of students what
teachers do not explicitly teach.
The New London Group (1996) is another organization that moved understanding
forward by developing a new construct for literacy development called multiliteracies. This
group of educational researchers broadened views about literacy pedagogy by moving it from a
traditional to a language-based literacy approach. Their work developed a multiliteracies
approach as a response to the various communication mediums as well as to the vast cultural and
linguistic diversity in classrooms today. The multiliteracies approach goes beyond the traditional
literacy concepts of reading and writing to include the socio-cultural contexts (New London
Group, 1996).
The New London Group states that students must be versed in multiliteracies so that they
may navigate variations in registers and relationships among people of diverse backgrounds.
This type of literacy allows for a broader range of cultural competencies that grants access to
resources, regardless of identity markers such as language, dialect, social status and social
futures (New London Group, 1996). Within this pluralistic view of multiliteracies, teachers need
to provide students transformational pedagogy that promotes social capital while not requiring
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 57
them to leave their diverse backgrounds behind. Multiliteracies pedagogy embraces dexterity in
language registers and enables students to access the language of work, power, and community
as well as to participate in critical engagement for their social futures and success in fulfilling
employment (New London Group, 1996).
Summary
Much has been written about different facets of academic language development.
However, this literature review points to the need for using a multidimensional approach,
especially in analyzing academic language acquisition in Latino ELLs. Consequently, this
review included both cognitive word level and socio-cultural studies to provide a wider more
integrated lens to frame and analyze this study. Furthermore, by using aspects of both of these
seemingly opposing theoretical camps, a comprehensive approach was applied to concrete
language practices observed within a natural classroom setting.
This literature review highlighted several perspectives on and definitions of academic
language. Although there are various interpretations of academic language, some common
features are shared among most literacy experts (Baumann & Graves, 2008). Academic
language is generally understood as a separate and distinct language register that is necessary to
be proficient in school and beyond. Several studies also make it clear that academic language is
dynamic and encompasses multiple literacies in order to meet the demands of maneuvering in an
oral, text-driven, digital and global world (New London Group, 1996; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Word level studies classified the types of academic vocabulary that should be included in
literacy instruction (Baumann & Graves, 2010). This research pointed to the types of literacy
practices that affect literacy achievement scores (Dalton et al., 2011; Hyland & Tse, 2007;
Lubliner & Smetana, 2005). In addition, this review pointed to the need to develop word
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 58
consciousness within classroom practices and explicitly teach academic vocabulary (Dalton et
al., 2011; Hyland & Tse, 2007; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005).
However, learning happens within a context (Gee, 2007). Therefore, isolated cognitive
word level approaches have limitations (Hyland & Tse, 2007; Scott et al., 2008). Contextual
factors contributing to academic language must also be examined. Thus, the literature review
also included studies pointing to socio-cultural factors that contribute to academic language
development specifically for Latino ELLs. These studies described the need to examine the
cultural and linguistic differences between Latino ELLs, to connect to their backgrounds, and to
enable their development of a bicultural identity. Furthermore, some studies advocated for
creating classroom climates that not only incorporated culturally relevant pedagogy, but also
helped sustain dual identities (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Moreover, in order to create positive classroom climates and support students in
developing dexterity in language discourse, the literature review points to the need to analyze
teachers’ perceptions about teaching literacy to ELLs.
Yet, there is limited research on teacher perceptions about ELLs and their academic
language development as these pertain to both word level knowledge and socio-cultural factors.
As described in the review of the literature, it is critical to study the way teachers think and speak
about their practice (Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012). Thus, this study was designed to look at
teachers’ perceptions and practices in order to discover the underlying repertoire of specific
language instructional practices that support academic language and describe those practices in
ways that may be useful to other teachers working with similar students.
Another unique aspect of this study was that it focused on outstanding schools with high
poverty, high Latino ELL populations and high academic performance. Educational statistics
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 59
state that most high-poverty schools with high Latino ELL populations perform poorly on
standardized literacy assessments (Abedi et al., 2003). However, there were schools that were
“beating the odds.” These schools were referenced as “positive deviant schools” in this study.
Despite high poverty and high linguistic and cultural diversity, they were high-performing. Not
enough research focuses on what these types of schools are doing to support minority students’
acquisition of academic language. Hence, this research studied three positive deviant classrooms
in order to learn how teachers addressed the complex factors affecting academic language
development while sustaining the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of diverse students.
This study is especially pertinent not only because Latino ELLs are the largest growing
school age population (U.S. Department of Education, 2006), but also because many teachers
feel ill prepared to work with this language-minority group (Abedi et al., 2003; Soltero-Gonzalez
et al., 2012). Furthermore, this study is pertinent because it addressed issues affecting the
political climate in California where proponents of hybrid language practices attempt to legalize
dual language instruction. Yet, despite the growth of dual language programs, many questions
remain unanswered about the academic language practices in dual immersion schools. Hence,
one step to further develop our understanding on this research topic was to focus on how teachers
create instructional learning environments that maximize the language and literacy development
of Latino ELLs.
In summary, this study was guided by both socio-cultural and academic language
research as a way to understand some of the multiple variables affecting academic language
development. Using these two theoretical perspectives shed light on how academic language
development was understood by teachers within these positive deviant schools and helped
examine both the interactions between participants and the socio-cultural factors contributing to
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 60
academic language learning. The themes that emerged from this study where informed by the
collective knowledge of academic language research and socio-cultural theory in order to
provide equitable pedagogy, effective curriculum development, multidimensional teacher
professional development and fair language and literacy policies that have an impact on
language-minority students.

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 61

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
As demonstrated in the literature review, many studies have been conducted analyzing
academic language through word level studies or a socio-cultural lens. However, few studies
have used both a word level and socio-cultural lens in identifying factors contributing to
academic language. The purpose of this study was to advance understanding of how dual
language teachers understood and taught academic language development to second language
learners within positive deviant K-5 schools.
Exploring this topic was important to me as a researcher because I started school with
very limited English and struggled to find my way during my primary school years. My own
struggles as an ELL drove me to learn more about how language develops and how to optimize
learning for Latino ELLs. I have been in the field of education for over 18 years as a classroom
teacher, reading specialist and, now, instructional coach and educational consultant. In my role
as an instructional coach and consultant, I educate teachers within dual immersion programs.
However, I was not affiliated with these schools in any way other than as a researcher.
This study outlined the perceptions of dual language teachers as they relate to academic
language development. The themes that emerged inform collective knowledge of literacy
development for Latino ELLs. The following questions guided the research:
Research Questions
1. How do 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers at two positive deviant schools
understand and teach academic language development?
2. What are 4th and 5th grade teachers’ at two positive deviant schools perceptions of socio-
cultural factors that contribute to high performance in academic language development?
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 62

Qualitative Case Study
Qualitative methodology was selected for this study because it provided interpretation of
data that surfaced themes or concepts that might otherwise go unnoticed in quantitative research.
Ideas that emerged were explored fully and viewed from multiple lenses, as was recommended
in the literacy literature when working with diverse student populations (New London Group,
1996). The themes that surfaced were categorized systematically to describe the phenomena of
academic language acquisition (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The research questions guiding this
study led to a deeper understanding of teacher’s perspectives and contextual factors surrounding
academic language development. Through qualitative methods, teachers’ perceptions were
captured using semi-structured interviews, and data were collected from school observations
(Merriam, 2009). The primary research instrument was the researcher who conducted the semi-
structured interviews and observed the classrooms (Merriam, 2009).
Boundaries of Case
This study focused on a purposeful sample (Maxwell, 2013) whereby participants were
selected using very specific criteria. Exceptional 4th and 5th grade teachers were studied within
two high-performing Spanish dual language schools located in the Los Angeles area. These
schools had a high proportion of students living in poverty as determined by their receiving free
or reduced price lunch, high Latino ELL populations and high academic performance. These
teachers were selected not only because they taught in a high-performing program, but also
because they were identified as exceptional by their administrators.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 63

Participants and Site Selection
Exemplary 4th and/or 5th grade teachers in high-performing dual language programs
were selected for this case study because they served a high number of students living in poverty
and with high linguistic and cultural diversity who achieve high academic performance.
Consequently, these schools were selected because they met all the following criteria:
1. The school had more than 50% of the student population on free or reduced lunch, as
determined by federal guidelines
2. The school’s student population consists of more than 50% Latinos
3. Close to 50% of the student population is ELLs as determined by language testing done
upon school entry
4. The school exceeded its Academic Performance Index (API) scores over the last three
years with a score of 800+, or has been identified as a California Distinguished School
Participants
Fourth and fifth grade were selected as the grade levels to study because 4th and 5th
grade teachers work with the students who, presumably, have been in the dual language program
the longest. Hence, it was assumed that 4th and 5th grade teachers worked with the most
proficient bilingual students and witnessed the results of many years of dual language instruction
in a K-5 elementary school. Consequently, it was important to gain the perspectives of the
teachers who worked with the students with the most advanced levels of academic language
within the K-5 dual language school because they could describe the academic language
proficiency of the students they graduated. The interview and observation data showed how
these upper grade elementary teachers bridged and prepared their students for academic language
at the middle school level.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 64
The focus on exceptional teachers is due to various reasons. One reason is that many
academic language studies focus on the deficits of second language learners and the limitations
of the teachers who work with them (Abedi, 2003; Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012). Consequently,
there is a need to learn from teachers who are identified as exemplary by their administration and
who work with Latino ELLs. Furthermore, there is limited research on exemplary teachers
working within dual language programs using both a word level and socio-cultural approach to
developing academic language. Lastly, few studies looked at how dual language teachers
implement the newly adopted Common Core State Standards within the Spanish and English
language arts curriculum in the upper elementary grades.
Data Collection
Various data sources were used to investigate academic language and triangulate data
(Merriam, 2009). Three teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured format and each was
observed in their own two-way dual language classroom. Several classroom observations were
conducted, and artifacts were collected to enhance the data (Merriam, 2009).
Interviews
Interviewing was selected as one of the main data collection methods because it provided
purposeful conversations about non-observable beliefs and perceptions (Merriam, 2009).
Through the interviews, teachers’ thoughts and feelings about academic language development
were captured, and perceptions about the socio-cultural factors contributing to academic
language were also described.
Interviewing was an important measure to use in this study because it provided a wider
lens through which to capture teachers’ understandings about academic language data. Many
studies about academic language used narrow descriptors monitoring discrete language skills
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 65
(Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012). However, experts in the literacy field caution against using only
discrete language measures to assess and understand academic language, especially when
working with culturally and linguistically diverse students (Abedi, 2003; Bunch, 2006; Valdes,
2003; Martin-Beltran, 2009). Consequently, this study focused on qualitative measures that
included teachers’ interpretations and perceptions about academic language measures through
interviews and observations.
A semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A) was used with predetermined
questions organized according to the study’s research questions. However, there was flexibility
during the interview process, so respondents could add more details or context to their answers.
Some of the interview questions were open-ended to prompt a more relaxed conversation about
academic language while other questions were directly focused how teachers understood and
defined academic language in their natural classroom contexts.
Each teacher participated in at least three 30-minute interviews. Interviews occurred
after each observation in order to have a deeper understanding of the lesson observed and the
structures in place that support academic language instruction. Each interview was audio
recorded for accuracy.
Observations
Classroom observations were also part of the data collection process. Observations were
important because they provided data about the setting where academic language naturally
occurred (Merriam, 2009). Observations also provided a firsthand encounter of the teachers
working within their class (Merriam, 2009). This data collection method also allowed for
triangulation of data, and the knowledge gained solidified ideas gathered from the interviews.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 66
Furthermore, observations were selected because there is little qualitative research
describing how academic language development is taught in a natural dual language classroom
setting. Consequently, observations allowed the researcher to capture and describe the multiple
factors and practices used in an exemplary teacher’s classroom. Three one-hour observations
were conducted for each classroom during the same English instructional time block. An
observation protocol (Appendix B) was used during each observation.
At the end of each observation, extended notes were written connecting observations and
interview data with literature related to academic language (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Some observations were audio taped and transcribed as a way to support note taking. For
example, when teachers provided extended speech or multistep directions, audio recording was
used to capture the entire discourse to ensure accuracy of the observation notes. Expanded field
notes marked instances where novel interactions or new insights were developed. These
reflections were written and compiled within 24 hours of the observations in memos, which
reflected on how the data related to and affected the research questions. Furthermore, tables
were created to show how interview and observation data outlined instructional practices that
contributed to academic language (Maxwell, 2013).
Artifacts
School artifacts were also collected to triangulate data. These artifacts included
professional development agendas, district curriculum guides, teacher assessment tools and
parent literacy session flyers, which were analyzed to see how they supported academic language
development. These artifacts added to the understanding of how these 4th and 5th grade teachers
implemented and adapted the district academic language development expectations for their
diverse student population.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 67
Data Analysis
After the interviews and the observations were completed, all the data were analyzed
using various qualitative methods. Emerging themes were defined after analyzing categories that
created by data patterns in the transcripts and field notes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This was
done through audio logs of all the interviews and an analysis of the observation notes. Then, an
open coding process was used to uncover themes in the data. In addition, the data were analyzed
through various memos that build off the field notes.
The following procedures were used to analyze the data. First, all interview audio logs
were transcribed and summarized at five-minute intervals to get a sense of the corpus of data.
After compiling all the transcript data chronologically, open coding was used and guided by the
research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Then, observation and field notes were also coded using
the same open coding methodology.
Once data patterns were grouped, distinct categories were compared to the socio-cultural
and academic language research. These categories were organized and aligned to address the
research questions (Merriam, 2009). Four main themes surfaced after studying how the
categories and the research questions intersected (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
During this analysis, memos were written about the data itself and the school context in
order to develop new insights. The data were continually revisited data in order to create
connections between the data pieces (Maxwell, 2013).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Several steps were taken to ensure the data collected were credible and trustworthy.
First, the data were triangulated using interviews, observations and field notes until saturation
was reached (Merriam, 2009). Then, member checking was done with the participants and other
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 68
staff members at the school to verify data (Merriam, 2009). Then, interviewees’ responses were
cross-referenced to identify patterns across interviews (Merriam, 2009).
Furthermore, reliability was established by observing in the same classroom over an
extended period to ensure study findings were prevalent (Merriam, 2009). Consequently, the
same teacher was observed during the English language arts block three separate times. Visiting
the same classroom over a period of time ensured the findings were pervasive, thus adding to the
trustworthiness and reliability of the findings. In addition, member checking with each teacher
after the observations were completed was another way to verify the data for credibility
(Merriam, 2009).
Limitations
There were some limitations to this study. Due to the time frame, it was difficult to
disconfirm data using other participants (Merriam, 2009). For example, there was not enough
time to interview most of the teachers at the school, some of whom might have had varied
opinions about academic language development. Furthermore, having more variation in the
interviewees may have helped confirm whether the themes that surfaced were pervasive at the
school and whether the findings might have a greater range of application. Including more
participants would have provided another way to look at the data critically and could have
promoted validity and reliability (Merriam, 2009). However, due to schedules and time
constraints, all staff at each school were not interviewed.
Ethics
Ethical concerns should be involved in all aspects of research design (Maxwell, 2013). In
order to ensure this study was done ethically, several steps were taken. First, all of the
participants were made aware of the research purpose and design and were asked for permission
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 69
to collect data. Then, research questions were aligned to the methodology, and validity issues
were addressed by constantly checking the data collected against the research purpose. After the
data were collected, all school sites and participants were given privacy through the use of
pseudonyms, so they were not identifiable. To further disclose any possible bias within the
study, a brief description of the researcher’s interests in the study and involvement with the
school were disclosed. All the above-mentioned factors may have affected the study, which
made it important to be transparent about possible bias within this research (Merriam, 2009).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 70

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The first three chapters of this dissertation offered an introduction to the stated problem
of academic language development for ELLs, outlined the perceived literacy gaps for Latino
ELLs, and reviewed methodology. Despite many studies looking at the efficacy of Spanish dual
language instruction for Latino ELLs, little research examined the perceptions of dual language
teachers in relation to academic language development and the instructional practices used
within high-performing dual language programs (Cummins, 2007). Consequently, the purpose
of this study was to unearth how dual language teachers perceived academic language and
created learning environments that maximized the bilingual language and literacy development
of diverse students. In addition, this study looked at the socio-cultural factors contributing to
academic language development in Latino ELLs.
Chapter Two provided a literature review of the academic language research using a
socio-cultural lens. The overarching findings in this review of the literature highlighted the lack
of a universal definition for academic language (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Cummins, 2008;
Snow & Uccelli, 2009). The review also described the limited role context and culture play in
most discrete language research (Bunch, 2005; Gee, 2012; Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012).
Furthermore, the literature analysis stressed the impact socio-cultural factors have on the
acquisition and proficiency development of academic language in students of diverse
backgrounds (Delpit, 1992; González, 2001; Gee, 2012; Hyland & Tse, 2007; Lesaux, 2011;
Mancilla-Martinez, 2011; Scott et al., 2008). In addition, the analysis called attention to the
language and literacy socialization practices used to engage diverse students, such as the
importance of developing a social literate identity and creating bicultural networks of support to
help in the successful socialization of minority youth (Gee, 2007; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Walqui,
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 71
2006). Lastly, the review pointed out how teacher perceptions affect the instructional practices
and expectations held of Latino ELLs (Abedi, 2003; Delpit, 1988; González, 2001; Soltero-
Gonzalez et al., 2012).
The third chapter explained the methodological design that was utilized for the study.
Chapter Three presented how the data would be collected and analyzed using a qualitative case
study methodology. Data were collected from observations, interviews and documents across
multiple school sites (Merriam, 2009). Pseudonyms for the school sites, principals and faculty
participants were created to ensure that all participants’ identities were kept private. All findings
presented served to answer the following research questions for this study:
1. How do 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers at two positive deviant schools
understand and teach academic language development?
2. What are 4th and 5th grade teachers’ at two positive deviant schools perceptions of socio-
cultural factors that contribute to high performance in academic language development?
This chapter describes the participants and presents the findings of the study. In both the
schools, the dual language teachers taught both the English and the Spanish part of the day,
incorporating the content areas along with the language arts standards. The observational data
shared here were collected during the English language arts block, aligned to the study’s purpose
of developing academic language. The themes that surfaced were organized by research
question and elaborated upon using supportive data and analysis. Although some findings
overlapped within themes, the data were placed under the theme where they were most
prominent.
Four major themes surfaced when exploring the research questions through interviews
and classroom observations across three different classrooms. The first theme that surfaced
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 72
related to the first research question involved how teachers provide authentic purposes for
learning. The data revealed that all teachers in this study integrated and contextualized language
and content. In addition, the teachers explicitly instructed students using academic language
socialization practices with oral and written scaffolding. The second theme associated with this
research question involved teachers empowering students as intellectuals. The data collected
highlighted the three teachers’ use of varied and strategic student grouping to facilitate more
balanced power relationships and problem-solving skills, which upheld high expectations of
diverse learners. The third theme involved administrative support and teacher empowerment.
Lastly, the final theme highlighted the impact of school, home environment and community
collaborations. All findings are presented as they relate to the research questions.
The next section delineates the schools and the participants in the study. First, there is a
description of the two schools involved, Del Mar and Glen Oaks. Two classrooms at Del Mar
and one at Glen Oaks were observed. Each school was part of a different school district in
Southern California. Then, an account is given about each of the three teachers who participated
in the research. Two teachers were at Del Mar and one was at Glen Oaks.
Sites and Participants
As mentioned in Chapter Three, the site selection for this study was based on a
purposeful sample whereby the schools chosen had to have a Spanish dual language program,
high test scores, large ELL populations, and high poverty levels (as determined by free or
reduced lunch participation). Interestingly, once the school observations were conducted, several
more similarities surfaced. Both schools were located in industrial neighborhoods with high
poverty, yet had access to a variety of resources from the bordering more affluent communities.
They both served predominantly Latino families in their local neighborhoods, but also attracted
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 73
diverse families outside their school boundaries who petitioned to transfer their children from
their local districts into the dual language program. Another similarity that surfaced between the
two schools was the collaborative relationships the sites developed with their local community
agencies to supplement their educational programs. In addition, both schools used two-way dual
immersion models, and employed culturally diverse personnel who were highly trained in
working with ELLs, as was evident by their years of experience and ongoing professional growth
activities. Furthermore, the three participants were self-contained Spanish dual language
educators who taught in both the Spanish and English instructional blocks through thematic
units.
Both Del Mar and Glen Oaks schools were located in transitional neighborhoods
bordering more affluent communities. The schools’ neighborhoods were located within
industrial areas housing large factories and old apartment buildings. Del Mar was nestled within
blocks of older housing units, auto shops and junkyards while Glen Oaks was situated across
from old apartment buildings on a busy commercial street. A few blocks away, families had
access to downtown areas with upscale retail shops and businesses.
Both schools served predominantly Latino families in their local neighborhoods.
However, the dual language programs attracted families outside their school boundaries who
could enter a lottery system, and, if selected, could transfer school districts. Participants in the
study mentioned the juxtaposition of these two neighborhoods surrounding the schools provided
diverse opportunities for the school children and their families.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 74

Table 1
Positive Deviant Schools in Study
Del Mar School Glen Oaks School
Academic Performance
Index 2013
804 853
Latino Population 76% 80%
English Language Learner
Population
48% 35%
Free or Reduced Lunch
Population
80% 68%
Source: California State Department of Education 2015
Del Mar School
Two of the three participants in this study, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Garcia, were at Del Mar
School. There are many bilingual programs in this large urban district, yet Del Mar was the first
to use the dual language bilingual model beginning in 1997. The participants shared that the
school demographics changed over the last decade. Traditionally, the program attracted
primarily Spanish-speaking families from the neighborhood. However, they stated that the
school now attracted families from outside the area who want bilingual education for their
English-dominant children. Consequently, more families from neighboring schools and districts
have requested permits to attend Del Mar. Currently, 76% of students are Hispanic, 12% are
Black, 9% are White, 2% are Asian and 2% identify as other (California State Department of
Education, 2015). The student population consists of 48% ELLs, with 80% of students identified
as Title I, participants of the free or reduced-price lunch program (California State Department of
Education, 2015).
Despite high poverty, Del Mar School has been honored by the district for program
improvement since 2012 for high performance on state standardized tests. The school improved
126 points over the five years prior to this study, with an API of 804 in 2013. At the time of this
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 75
study, Del Mar School was celebrating 25 years of being the only 90:10 bilingual model in the
district.
In addition, the school had a full inclusion model for special education students who are
transported from across the district. They have collaborations with local organizations such as
the Garden School Foundation’s Seed to Table Program, P.S. Arts, 826LA Writing and Tutoring
Center, LA’s Best After School Program and Windward High School. Through these
collaborations, the school provides a performing and written arts program, media arts, visual arts
and music classes. The school enrollment hovers at just over 700 students in kindergarten
through fifth grade. Of the students, about 75% participate in the Spanish dual language
program.
Del Mar School teachers. Both teachers at Del Mar School were raised speaking
Spanish at home and come from Latino families. They have been bilingual teachers for many
years. Ms. Garcia helped develop the dual language program 18 years ago, and was the 5th
grade bilingual teacher during the time of the study. Ms. Baldwin joined the bilingual program
as an elementary teacher 13 years ago, and currently teaches 4th grade. Both of these teachers at
Del Mar School expressed being very committed to working with second language learners and
their families. Each of them came from Mexican households and stated they feel it is important
to help the Latino community.
Although Ms. Garcia and Ms. Baldwin share a similar mission to work with Latino
students, each had a distinct approach. Ms. Garcia’s classroom was filled with chatter about
ongoing projects and students walking around each other’s desks sharing their ideas. Her
classroom shelves were stocked with math manipulatives and Western Movement wagon models
created by students. The desks were organized into small groups, with two desks facing each
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 76
other. In the center of the room was an overhead projector facing a large white screen. The
projector had piles of student work and math cubes. The back walls showed evidence of anchor
charts in English and Spanish that delineated sentence starters and discussion prompts. Her
room also had charts that described how to work in a collaborative group, with explicit listening
and speaking sentence frames and descriptors.
In contrast, Ms. Baldwin’s students were primarily seated in their chairs, which all faced
forward. The seats were paired so that partners sat side by side. The classroom walls displayed
orderly rows of neatly written student writing. One bulletin board was devoted to Spanish
writing, while two other walls displayed English writing and artwork. Under each stapled cover
were pages and pages of the students’ edits and drafts. Most of the student work was written
with clear and elegant penmanship. On the far west wall, great precision was taken to align
student poetry alongside painted artwork. Colorful portraits of European explorers painted by
students dangled from the rafters clipped onto a thin string. The classroom bookshelves had neat
piles of English and Spanish textbooks, and the front of the room had a carpeted area for students
to sit on during whole group lessons. There was little to no speaking during class, except when
directed by Ms. Baldwin.
Despite the different teaching environments of the two teachers, they both employed a
variety of strategies to support ELLs. This was evident in their classroom walls, which outline
sentence frames, discussion starters and writing exemplars that scaffolded the language learning
in both languages. They also had rubrics and standards clearly posted that described the
language expectations of student writing and discussions. Lastly, many of the writing projects
displayed showed evidence of ongoing collaborative group work. The work showed multiple
writing drafts, which listed the names of the various students involved.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 77
Glen Oaks School
The third participant in the study, Ms. Ray came from a district located outside a large
urban city. She taught at Glen Oaks, a Title I school, which was also the first Spanish dual
language program in the district. The school not only had a 15-year-old Spanish dual language
program, but it also recently became a technology magnet school. With over 68% of the student
population participating in the free or reduced-price lunch program, it held among the highest
test score growth in the state when compared to similar schools (California Department of
Education, 2015). Of the 853 students, 35% of them were ELLs, 70% were Hispanic students,
29% were white, 8% were Filipino, 2% were Black, 3% were Asian and 2% were listed as being
of two or more races. Glen Oaks School received both the Academic Achievement Award and
Distinguished School Award in 2014 from the California Department of Education, and earned
an API score of 853 in 2013 (California Department of Education, YEAR).
Glen Oaks School had three main buildings, early primary, upper elementary and
administration, and each housed elaborate displays of student work across the hallways. Murals
with positive messages decorated the playground and the concrete walls leading to the library
and technology lab. Within the 4th and 5th grade level area, referred to as the 4th and 5th pod,
social studies and science themes were depicted within neatly painted portraits at the entrance of
each corridor. Large skylights highlighted tapestries woven by previous classes. Outside the
4th/5th classroom door were intricate mosaics with student self-portraits accompanied by student
writing. Large green potted plants adorned the patio area and added a contrast to the cement
floors. Overall, the school appeared very clear, orderly and inviting to children.
Glen Oaks School teacher. Ms. Ray was a non-native Spanish speaker who learned
Spanish as an adult. She was also a National Board Certified teacher who had been teaching for
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 78
over 29 years. She began her teaching career in a transitional bilingual classroom, and then
taught out of state as a foreign language teacher for many years. She joined the Glen Oaks dual
language program as a bilingual teacher 7 years prior to this study. During this study, she was
one of the 4th/5th grade combination teachers for the dual language program.
Ms. Ray’s classroom was divided by grade level, and desks were arranged by rows facing
the front projector screen. The far west corner of the room held shelves of books with a rug for
students to use while reading books independently. One side of the shelf had Spanish book titles
while the other had English titles. Students moved freely from their desks to the library rug area
during class. In addition, her classroom was filled with anchor charts depicting how to write
different writing genres such as a personal narrative, informative reports and persuasive writing.
The east side classroom wall was labeled with a variety of graphic organizers with titles
translated in both English and Spanish. There were also charts that depicted literature circle
roles students took on during academic language development time.
Ms. Ray encouraged students to work together during class, and emphasized the
importance of learning from each other as they developed their ideas. While she instructed one
side of the class on a project, she expected the other side of the class to work in pairs. During the
three observations, Ms. Ray’s class was frequently asked to use a graphic organizer to collect
information from the social studies and science texts. Students often worked together to gather
the information. Then, Ms. Ray facilitates a discussion with the entire grade level group and
reviewed the responses written in their graphic organizers. Students seemed to be very familiar
with this instructional format as was evident in their systematized way of arranging themselves
and their written work. Ms. Ray also provided time for students to discuss among themselves
and use each other as language resources.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 79
In summary, many unexpected similarities surfaced during the observations when
analyzing the school’s physical locations and personnel. The schools had similar neighborhoods,
and served predominantly Latino families while also attracting other diverse families in
bordering communities. These collaborative relationships added to the resources available for
their families. Lastly, both schools used two-way dual immersion models and valued employing
culturally diverse personnel who were experienced in working with ELLs and taught both the
English and Spanish parts of the instructional day.
Themes for Research Question One
Research question one asked how 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers at a positive
deviant school understand and teach academic language development. This study interviewed
three teachers: Ms. Ray, a 4/5th grade teacher; Ms. Baldwin, a 4th grade teacher; and Ms. Garcia,
a 5th grade teacher. All taught in high-performing dual language schools, as indicated by the
schools’ Academic Performance Index scores. These teachers were identified as highly effective
by their administrators and taught in upper elementary grades, which presumably have the most
proficient ELLs in the elementary schools.
Much research has taken a deficit perceptive about Latino ELLs’ academic language
development and documents the inadequacies of their achievement (Gee, 2014; Gutiérrez, 2006).
However, this research question focuses on teachers’ perceptions in high-performing schools and
documents their understanding about academic language growth within their school. Capturing
teacher’s perspectives about academic language excellence within a high-poverty and high-
performing school adds to our understanding of the academic language phenomena and offers a
counter story to the deficit perspective on Latino ELLs.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 80
As stated in Chapter Two, academic language is essential to the literacy development of
all students, especially that of Latino bilinguals (Cummins, 2008; Baumann & Graves, 2010;
Gutiérrez, 2006; Street, 2007; Duff, 2010). Thus, the first research question honed in on how
these effective teachers defined and understood academic language development, especially as it
related to Latino bilinguals. This question also captured the types of instructional practices these
teachers used when teaching academic language to Latino ELLs during the English instructional
block.
This next section describes how the 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers in this study
understand and teach academic language. The first theme describes how the teacher participants
created classroom environments and lessons that provide authentic purposes for learning during
the English block of the instructional day. This theme encompassed how teachers integrate
language and content lessons and explicitly instruct students using academic language
socialization practices with oral and written scaffolding. The second theme associated with this
research question involves teachers empowering students as intellectuals. The data showed how
all teachers’ used a variety of strategic student grouping to facilitate more balanced power
relationships, which upheld high expectations of diverse learners.
Providing Authentic Purposes for Learning
The research interviews and observation data below depicted how the three teachers
developed a variety of authentic classroom experiences to promote learning during the English
instructional block. Authentic learning experiences integrated and contextualized language and
content rather than provided isolated discrete skill lessons (Street, 2007; Purcell-Gates et al.,
2011). In addition, authentic learning experiences provided opportunities for students to learn
explicit academic language through socially mediated activities in which students were
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 81
socialized to learn how to communicate like disciplinarians (Purcell-Gates et al., 2011; Pytash,
2012; Walqui, 2008;).
Integrated and contextualized language and content. One facet of authentic learning
that surfaced from the interviews and observations was the integration of language and content
subject matter in both English and Spanish. The following findings show how teachers
integrated language and content area lessons with explicit language objectives while teaching
core science, social studies or math material during the English language arts block.
Furthermore, all three teachers described the importance of not only frontloading the vocabulary
necessary for a content area task, but also described the need to connect academic language to
the students’ background or previous experience in a socially situated manner. From the data
presented, the three teachers were very intentional about pulling language from the content area
texts and weaving language lessons throughout the thematic unit. Although the observation data
were collected during the English language arts block, the teachers all stated they used an
integrated thematic unit approach during both English and Spanish instructional blocks.
Interviews with community members and oral language presentations. Ms. Ray
recounted how she integrated the social studies curriculum and made it meaningful by
connecting it to the local community through interviews. She stated that she began the thematic
unit on goods and services by connecting it to her students’ neighborhood. During this unit,
students were asked to interview community members who provided either a good or service to
the neighborhood. Students were encouraged to select a community member who was culturally
relevant or connected to their own background and interests. After reading about goods and
services, students created interview questions for their community member. The students
conducted the interview in either Spanish or English and, then, wrote and presented their
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 82
findings. Students were encouraged to use visuals such as posters, models or a digital
presentation to share their new knowledge about goods and services. All students were held
accountable through a self and peer oral report rubric.
During the community workers interview project, Ms. Ray said she integrated lessons on
how to ask questions, take notes, and how to connect their interview information to the social
studies content in both English and Spanish. Ms. Ray described that she integrated key
vocabulary related to the theme, and taught specific strategies for understanding the academic
vocabulary of the text as well as the language structures needed for sharing the new information
about goods and services in their oral presentations.
Providing explicit lessons on how to write interview questions, conduct an interview,
access information and present interview findings on goods and services scaffolded the academic
language learning of her students (Walqui, 2006). Furthermore, Ms. Ray provided an authentic
purpose and context for students to learn and apply their academic language. Students
participated in a situated use of particular language forms within and outside the classroom by
conducting interviews in the community and discussing the results with their classmates. They
also had instruction on the language structures necessary to conduct their interviews, summarize
the results and connect it to the social studies curriculum on economy. By giving students the
power to decide how they wanted to express their new understanding to a real audience, students
took ownership of their learning (Delpit, 1988; Purcell-Gates, Duke & Martineau, 2007). In
addition, infusing culturally relevant pedagogy and providing ample opportunities for oral
language development support the developing academic literacy skills of linguistically diverse
students (Goldenberg, 2011; Vogt et al., 2015).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 83
Ms. Ray also stated that social studies were primarily taught in Spanish during this unit,
yet her students readily transferred their knowledge to English, as was evident in their oral
presentations. Since English and Spanish have a similar Latin base, the orthographies are more
transparent, so most vocabulary transfers across languages without explicit instruction (Bunch,
2010; Carlo et al., 2004; Genesee et al., 2005; Serrano & Howard, 2007; Thomas & Collier,
2003). Hence, Ms. Ray stated she focused her language lessons during English block on the
language forms that did not transfer easily between the languages (Carlo et al., 2004).
Students moved between English and Spanish in their small group discussions. Ms. Ray
stated that she expected the finished product to be in English, but knew some students needed to
use Spanish in order to elaborate their ideas during the planning stages. This was evident during
the independent practice time when some students mixed Spanish words as they engaged in
conversations with their peers over the interview findings. Planning language involves using
everyday language and the more precise vocabulary related to their topic or discipline (Bunch,
2006). Furthermore, having students work on oral presentations of their interview findings
created a space for students to move from planning language to the more formal academic
language of display when doing their English presentations (Bunch, 2006).
Through this unit, students’ academic language development was situated within the
social studies context, and the students were learning the specific language features in English
needed to communicate knowledge within the discipline (Gee, 2005; Scheppegrell, 2004). This
finding is important because it shows Ms. Ray explicitly taught students how to use academic
language within social studies as opposed to teaching generic academic language terms that may
have multiple meanings and may not be applied accurately within another given context (Hyland
& Tse, 2007).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 84
Graphic organizers, sentence frames, anchor charts and discussions. The integration
of language and content subject matter was also evident in Ms. Garcia’s and Ms. Baldwin’s
interviews and classroom observations. They mentioned that, despite having mandated English
language development and academic language development time blocked off to meet district
mandates, they felt that academic language needed to be purposefully woven into the entire day
in both languages. They also integrated language lessons within thematic units focused on the
content areas.
Ms. Garcia felt that language lessons needed to be taught within each discipline and that
students needed to be exposed to a variety of text types. For example, during one of her
interviews, she stated,
I teach language arts through social studies and we’re studying U.S. history. There’s old
English in historical documents, and it would be the key vocabulary that helps them
understand the concept, whether it’s in math, science, social studies. It’s that vocabulary
that you have to almost teach within it. It’s you know, deep…jargon, wel,l you know
law, medicine, etcetera have it. (Interview #1 pg. 1)
Ms. Garcia described the importance of focusing on key vocabulary while
contextualizing it within a thematic unit. She stated that each thematic unit lasted up to a month,
which allowed the students time to deepen their understanding of the content area and the
language demands. During their thematic unit study, they read primary historical documents,
and discussed how key vocabulary related to their understanding of the content.
When asked about how she integrated the language with the content, she stated that she
gave students multiple exposures to the key words and many opportunities to apply them in
different contexts and within discussions. She stated,
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 85
We read the first time to get the gist of it, there is key vocabulary. Right now [in history]
we are studying [el charro] (the Mexican cowboy) and so the word tumultuous was a key
word in the text. Then, we focus on that word. We’ll break it down using thinking
frames. If it’s a cognate, then, we look for images and we tie them in. We use it to
practice solely with one another–where the word would fit in, and, then, I’ll expose them
to the actual book–it’s an informational piece, so they’ll be able to look at the different
images throughout the story. And say, “Where would you say that the cowboy was
having a tumultuous time?” And, like I said, it’s, like, five to maybe seven, eight words
to do some front loading–the first day you read it and you can see the kids making
connections to the vocabulary. And, by the third day, they really are using it (orally) with
one another and revisiting the story. (Interview #1 pg.5)
Integrating the language lessons within the social studies theme was an important part of
academic language development in her class. She couched her vocabulary lessons within the
thematic unit and revisited the words in small group throughout the week so that students had
multiple opportunities to use them in oral and written forms. Ms. Garcia gave her students
multiple exposures to words and asked her students to apply them in various ways within the
social studies unit. Showing students the multiple ways academic words are used across social
studies texts and other media helps them extend their understanding of the concepts and
academic language (Gibbons, 2008). Furthermore, she modeled explicit word learning
strategies, such as breaking down meaningful subparts of words, but also taught the grammatical
features of how the language is situated in the history context and used across the discipline,
which especially benefit ELLs (Carlo et al., 2004; Kieffer and Lesaux, 2012; Schleppegrell,
2005; Scott et al., 2008).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 86
Ms. Garcia went on to explain that using thinking maps, also known as graphic
organizers, helped students with the language in oral and written tasks. “I always use graphic
organizers when it comes to writing genres,” stated Ms. Garcia. She stated that it helped her
ELLs organize their thinking and develop their academic language. The graphic organizer
became a tool to help them sequence their thoughts and gave them support when they needed
help remembering key words to articulate their ideas in small group. Ms. Garcia said the use of
graphic organizers had been strongly encouraged across the district. She stated that the entire
school district ascribed to specific graphic organizers to teach specific genres. During the
interview, she stated,
[The district] has added depth and breadth to them over the years. So, they went from
simple like descriptions and comparisons to now plugging into historical figures, or you
are plugging in an animal and plant cell and putting in those key concepts or vocabulary
that goes with those higher, upper grade themes. (Interview #1 pg. 2)
Using graphic organizers alongside sentence frames helps organize thinking and scaffolds
the language from emerging language learners (Zwiers, 2011). By providing students graphic
organizers while working in pairs reading social studies text, Ms. Garcia assisted students in
organizing their thinking and accessing the academic language they would need to later
communicate their emerging knowledge (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2009; Zwiers, 2011).
ELL children who have low language levels benefit from visual representation of concepts, not
just language-based explanations (Cloud et al., 2009).
Ms. Garcia’s use of graphic organizers was also seen during group discussions using
sentence frames. During one of the observations, Ms. Garcia began a discussion comparing an
African American cowboy to a Mexican Charro. She referenced charts on the wall and reminded
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 87
students of key sentence patterns used when comparing and contrasting information. Then, she
drew a graphic organizer with two large bubbles on a poster paper (anchor chart), and,
underneath the two big bubbles, wrote “these are similar because…however they are different
because…” After the brief introduction, she asked the students to go back into small groups and
make a compare and contrast organizer to compare the two historical figures while using the
sentence frames to initiate the conversation. She reminded students it was okay to disagree with
their peers’ ideas and referenced another discussion poster hanging from the sidewall that stated,
“I agree with you because….” Or “I see your point about…but I disagree with you because….”
(Observation #1 pg. 1). The students seemed very familiar with the process, and created their
own double bubble graphic organizer with their peers. Later, some groups were called on to
share their insight with the whole group, and many students used their graphic organizer as a
reference.
Ms. Baldwin, who taught in the same school, also used graphic organizers to anchor peer
discussions. This was evident during one of the observations when the students read their social
studies text in pairs, and worked together to fill out a tree graphic organizer about the key ideas
regarding the California settlers. The students worked with their language partners and selected
the information they wanted to include in the graphic organizer. Each partner discussed their
ideas and, together, co-constructed the sentences with the main ideas in preparation for an
English oral presentation. There were guidelines written on the board for what constituted a
main idea and details, and students were required to support their ideas with evidence from the
text. The students primarily spoke in English during their discussion, with occasional Spanish
words used when stuck on how to express an idea in English.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 88
The students engaged in discussion with their language partner without much prompting
from the teacher. Often, the more proficient student recast the responses of the emerging
language learner and helped them articulate their ideas. Other times, the emerging language
learner read directly from the text to use the precise terminology to make their point. It was
evident that turn taking and elaborating their ideas with their partners was an experience they
were very familiar with.
After the graphic organizer and posters were completed, students stood up in front of
their small group to rehearse their oral presentation in English. The less articulate students often
referenced their graphic organizers to help them with the specific academic language needed to
convey their knowledge about the California settlers.
In these findings, Ms. Garcia and Ms. Baldwin provided students multiple opportunities
to co-construct and apply planning language as well as negotiate the meaning of the text before
moving to more formal English registers for oral presentations (Bunch, 2006; Martin-Beltran,
2009; Moll et al., 1992; Walqui, 2006; Zwiers, 2011). Although all observations occurred during
the English language arts block, students were allowed to use both English and Spanish. The
students went from simple sharing of words to negotiating meaning and creating academic
explanations that do not depend as much on the shared experiences (Gibbons, 2008). Through
ongoing class discussions, Ms. Garcia and Ms. Baldwin created a community of learners who
develop deeper conceptualizations of academic language within the specific content area (Gee,
2005; Zwiers, 2011).
Explicit instruction on academic language socialization. Another pattern that surfaced
across all three classrooms was that teachers socialized students into academic language
discussions and writing within integrated instruction. Each teacher was very explicit about the
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 89
need to provide language scaffolding for the ELLs during large and small group work. Explicit
language scaffolding was often done through reading aloud, language partners working on
graphic organizers, and sentence frames as well as teacher feedback. Students were also
afforded many opportunities to be language resources to each other, often moving between
English and Spanish in their small group discussions.
Developing language through reading, explicit word knowledge and rich discussions.
In one of the interviews, Ms. Ray described the impact that reading had on academic language
development. She believed that the more students read, the more extensive their vocabulary and
academic language. Hence, she felt it was important to explicitly teach how to be a good reader
within and across the various content areas. For example, she described that, within a content
area lesson, she modeled a way to monitor comprehension through a word reading strategy that
students could apply while reading across any subject matter. In the interview, she stated,
We do so much based around reading, and part of that is, you know, vocabulary,
strategies for understanding vocabulary in the context of reading….like, every time I
have to read a text, I use a lot of sticky notes and annotating around the text, so, pretty
much every time they read a text, they are annotating with sticky notes and they mark
terms they don’t know, and, then, we get into deep conversations about those words and
relate them to the reading…and I specifically teach them strategies so they are more
independent like look at the word parts where are the context clues and we do that in
science and social studies not just reading time. (Ms. Ray, Interview #2).
Ms. Ray explicitly provided her students multiple opportunities to contextualize new
words and deepen their understanding within class discussions around reading material. She
modeled how to access rigorous text through a direct instruction lesson on what it looked like to
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 90
read, monitor comprehension, annotate new words and talk with peers to clarify their
understanding. The discussion allowed students to solidify how the new vocabulary connected
to their understanding of the social studies content (Purcell-Gates et al., 2007). Rather than
isolating the comprehension and vocabulary lesson, Ms. Ray provided explicit strategy modeling
and contextualized it within the social studies reading and class discussion (Proctor, Dalton,
Uccelli, Biancarosa, Mo, Snow & Neugebauer, 2011; Zwiers, 2007).
Furthermore, Ms. Ray provided explicit feedback as she walked around the classroom.
She often asked students probing questions such as “why do you think that?” or “tell me more,”
to elicit deeper thinking and discussion. If the students replied using incorrect grammar, she
rephrased their responses so they could hear their ideas in complete sentences using conventional
English. Then, she asked the students to echo her response. She also provided this language
modeling to English dominant students who did not respond in complete sentences. If the
Spanish dominant students did not know how to translate their ideas into English, she asked their
peers to help them, but interjected if they were unable (Martin-Beltran, 2009). By scaffolding
the language necessary to participate in a social studies discussion, Ms. Ray explicitly socialized
students in the academic language (Duff, 2010).
Explicit language in writing summaries. Ms. Baldwin’s lesson on a literature summary
is another example of explicit language socialization. In a direct instruction lesson, she detailed
each section of a literature summary by pointing out key writing concepts and words from the
text. First, she modeled how to write a title based on the main idea. Next, she asked students to
use evidence from the text in the introduction, which she explained as details and actions from
the story. She explicitly used phrases like “opening sentences” to describe how the summary
should begin. “First is the introduction. What are the steps to the introduction? Go ahead talk
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 91
with your partner.” After students shared ideas with each other, she stated, “I don’t want you to
get confused; the introduction is in the first paragraph. It tells about the place and main
characters.” (Observation #3, pg. 5).
Then, she modeled a summary sentence by sentence with the whole class. She paused
after each section and asked students to share their ideas about what to write next using evidence
from the text. This continued until she got to the part she called the “writer’s thesis” within the
story recount. During this part, she asked the students to come up with their own ideas about the
lesson being taught in the story:
What is the lesson that the author thinks the reader should learn? Use evidence to support
your thesis. I have given you a guide, I want you to follow the pattern. The thesis is
what? The lesson. What is the lesson? That is the question, it could be anything. How
do I start? Talk with your partner, how do I put all this stuff into one sentence? Talk to
partner.
After the students shared, she stated,
Okay, ready to write your own? You can write your own summary as long as you can
support your lesson and make sure you use evidence, you need to be able to prove it, you
can begin: ‘the author is trying to teach us’…what? (students start talking with peers) A
lesson about money, using money wisely, good guys, someone else said about being
patient, is there more than one lesson? You choose but provide evidence. If your partner
needs help, you can always help (Observation #2 pg.4).
Students shared ideas with each other on the rug, and, then, they went to work at their
desks in small groups. Each group talked about what to write next. Some referenced the example
on the board, and others used their own words to co-construct the summary sentences. Groups
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 92
talked in both English and Spanish as they shared ideas from the book and negotiated what to
write next.
In this lesson, students co-constructed an explicit example of a summary with feedback
from their peers and teacher. Then, they had the opportunity to work in small groups to apply
their language and use each other as language and knowledge resources (de Jong & Howard,
2009; Shohamy, 2006). Ms. Baldwin also taught the academic discourse by showing students
how to provide evidence from text to support their argument and present it to a peer (DiCerbo et
al., 2014; Pytash, 2012).
Clear discussion and language objectives. Language socialization practices are also
evident in an interview when Ms. Garcia expressed the importance of explicit language
objectives. She described that, at the earliest levels of language development, clear language
objectives need to be developed by the teacher in order to target academic language growth and
that integrated thematic units need to include explicit language objectives. For example, Ms.
Garcia described how using repetitive text in songs and poetry as early as preschool improved
students’ oral language skills. However, she also stated that teachers needed to be clear on what
aspect of oral language they wanted to highlight in the song or poem. She stated, “I think a
teacher has to have in mind what they want to teach linguistically. Is it ‘el’ and ‘la’ the articles,
you know. Yes, it’s whole language but what is your target goal?” (Interview #1 pg.3)
Ms. Garcia demonstrated explicit language expectations during one of the group work
observations. Before breaking the students up into groups, she prompted students to use good
listening and speaking skills. She referenced a previous lesson on what language to use while
holding a discussion in small groups. Then, Ms. Garcia explicitly went over expectations for
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 93
collaboration and listening during small groups.
Teacher: What does a good listener do when listening to their partner?”
Student: Look at the person.
Teacher: Looks at the person. That is the first indication that I know you’re listening
cause you are looking at that person. What does it look like or sound like?
Student: You are not looking at the person across from you.
Teacher: You’re not talking to anyone else, your lips are sealed. I know you probably
have questions for that person, would you interrupt them while they are reading or
speaking?
Student: No, you wait until they are finished.
Teacher: That’s right, so I’ll be looking for that, you have about 10 minutes. I’ll be
walking around looking for good listening. Go ahead.
(Observation #3 pg.1)
Through observing the collaboration between students in the group, it was evident they
were accustomed to using certain phrases in their conversations such as “I agree, but we also…”
“That is one way of doing it. However, I also think…” (Observation #3, p. 2). Students were not
only explicitly taught to use academic language to delve into discussions and elaborate on their
ideas, but also the language to collaborate and share ideas (Duff, 2010; Walqui, 2006; Zwiers,
2011).
Teachers explicitly taught students how to access the academic language within content
area texts by frontloading vocabulary and providing lessons on using graphic organizers to
organize ideas and language. Then, they taught students the different discourse patterns needed
to communicate their new knowledge within the discipline to their peers (DiCerbo et al., 2014;
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 94
Gee, 2012; Pytash, 2012; Walqui, 2008). Furthermore, these lessons were supported by group
discussions and teacher feedback that provided students multiple opportunities to apply their
language skills to the specific discipline Discourse (Cloud et al., 2009; DiCerbo et al., 2014; Gee,
2012; Goldenberg, 2011; Valli & Chambliss, 2007; Zwiers, 2011). The teacher feedback
provided reflective questions and encouraged students to listen and paraphrase what they heard
their peers say as well as explicit collaboration skills (Martin-Beltran, 2009).
Empowering Students as Intellectuals
The second theme that surfaced related to this research question involves how teachers
empowered students as intellectuals to help develop their academic language. Vygotsky stated
that cognitive development is constructed through communication with others. An individual’s
cognitive system is a result of communication in social groups and cannot be separated from
social life (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Vygotsky focused on the individual powerfully rooted in the
group context. Hence, each member of the group, including the teacher, has an impact on the
others’ learning and language development. In releasing the responsibility to the students and
having high expectations for behavior and achievement, students are empowered as learners and
teachers (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez & Chui, 1999; Slavin, 2015).
The three teachers observed in this study frequently provided spaces for students to learn
from each other. Rather than assigning individual work where students quietly completed
assignments in isolation, students were frequently seated in groups and asked to work
collaboratively. In addition, the small group work often provided opportunities for students to
use both languages to co-construct their understanding before presenting their knowledge in the
language of the instructional block (Martin-Beltran, 2009).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 95
Varied and intentional student groupings. Teachers used group work to promote
socio-cultural learning and strategically shift the classroom power dynamics between peers
(Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Slavin, 2015; Vygotsky, 1978, 1989). The findings
below show teachers encouraged students to build on each other’s funds of knowledge, be
language models to each other and be responsible for their own learning (Moll et al., 1992;
Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez & Chui, 1999; Walqui, 2006; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Duff,
2010; Slavin, 2015).
Collaborative classroom culture which promoted student led learning. During an
interview, Ms. Garcia stated how important it was to create a classroom culture where students
can always help each other and felt this collaborative approach to learning motivated and
engaged her students as well as improved their behavior. She felt each student, despite their
background, had deep funds of knowledge they could contribute to the class if given the
opportunity (Moll et al., 1992). So, she used a variety of student group formats to shift the
power dynamics of the classroom and the language used for instruction (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-
López, Alvarez & Chui, 1999; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Slavin, 2015). She stated that, sometimes,
she organized students by language level. Other times, she paired emergent speakers with
proficient ones, and still other times gave students a choice to select their group. Ms. Garcia also
explained that, throughout each unit, the language arts block alternated between being in English
and Spanish to help cement the core knowledge and to give an equal amount of time to develop
both languages (Martin-Beltran, 2009; Moll et al., 1992; Zentella, 2005).
Her approach to teaching was almost entirely socio-cultural in nature because she
provided very little teacher talk, and gave brief lessons which encouraged students to lead their
learning (Duff, 2010; Ernst-Slavit & Mason, 2011; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Walqui, 2006). “I
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 96
don’t really teach. I just walk around and clarify,” she explained (Observation #1 pg.3). The
data below show how her lessons briefly introduced a topic, then provided students with
resources to engage in conversations to explain the content to each other and held each other
accountable for learning. For example, during one of the observations, the class was divided into
small groups, each of whom was responsible for planning and creating a paper box that would
hold small math manipulative cubes. The students discussed how they would apply the volume
formula they learned in their math book, transfer that math knowledge to draw a box on graph
paper, and, then, construct a model. Despite working in small groups to brainstorm and discuss,
each member was held accountable for making their own box. Each group could self-correct by
placing the small cubes inside their box to see if, in fact, it held the amount specified in the
volume formula. Then they had to write down the procedures they used in order to present their
process and findings to the class. Often during group work, the students would move between
English and Spanish to explain their ideas and negotiate what they were going to present
(Martin-Beltran, 2009).
During this observation, it was evident Ms. Garcia had created an environment where
students were encouraged to self-discover, create, and collaborate fostering a social literate
identity (Gee, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris, 2014). The project required students to
problem solve using complex thinking and created a context to apply many of their language and
math skills in a socially situated manner (Gutiérrez et al., 1999). Some students failed to make a
box that held all the cubes, but were internally driven to keep trying. They went to other tables
where students were more successful and asked them questions about how they got their box to
work. Then, they wrote down the procedures and tried to replicate them at their tables. Students
took ownership of their learning and held themselves accountable (González, 2001; Gutiérrez et
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 97
al., 1999; Vogt et al., 2015; Zentella, 2005). Furthermore, by giving the small groups an
opportunity to discuss how to construct and present their new knowledge, Ms. Garcia created a
space for students to move from simple explanations to more elaborate conversations, which
engaged her pupils in the interrelationship of listening, speaking, reading and writing (Bunch,
2006; Gibbons, 1998; Zwiers, 2006). They used the two languages as academic tools to co-
construct and elaborate their thinking (Martin-Beltran, 2009).
Student empowerment through strategic grouping was also evident during an observation
when students learned about the Western Frontier. Ms. Garcia had each student select and take
on the persona of a pioneer historical figure. Then, they had to pull out a white slip of paper
describing a blessing or hardship that figure experienced while moving to the Western Frontier.
There was a sense of excitement in the room as students put their hands into a brown paper bag
and pulled out the white slip of paper that described their pioneer life hardship or blessing. The
students had to read the description, discuss it with their peers, and write a reaction to it in their
journal. In one instance, a student pulled out a slip that described that their family wagon got
stuck in a ditch, and, when trying to get out, the front left wheel got damaged. The student
needed to decide what to do: either fix it by purchasing materials from the local blacksmith or
purchase a new wheel from a carpenter. In either case, the student had to check if he had enough
money in their family budget to take action. So, he walked around the classroom to negotiate
with the carpenter and the blacksmith.
S1: I need a wagon wheel.
S2: We have another baby, and now I need to buy diapers.
S3: Did you check your budget?
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 98
S1: I can’t buy supplies because I am in the wilderness. I just need to trade because
there are no shops.
S3: Do you have canteens? I need canteens.
S1: Un dolar, or I can trade some of my rope.
S2: Wait, but remember the Oregon trail had some shops along the way.
Although the student pioneer roles were artificial, they provided a platform for students
to engage in conversations that brought history to life and provided various ways to apply their
language skills to understand content. During these exchanges, students were able to use the
specific terminology that described pioneer life in the United States, such as “wilderness,”
“canteen,” and “Oregon Trail,” and applied it to negotiation language. They were also able to
take on the perspective of pioneers while engaged in bartering for goods or services. This was
evident in the first person narrative language they used in their journal. This language exchange
provided students multiple opportunities to deepen their understanding of history as well as a
space to apply the academic language across different contexts, an important feature of academic
language development (Hyland & Tse, 2007; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Walqui, 2010;).
Furthermore, students built a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices, using
everyday language with key vocabulary in both English and Spanish (Gutiérrez et al., 1999).
Independent thinkers. Ms. Ray used reciprocal teaching while teaching about the
California Gold Rush as a way to support student-led instruction and promote problem-solving
(Paliscar & Brown, 1984). She explained that, in reciprocal teaching, each student selected a
role and task to “teach” the group after reading information in their social studies text. Each
group had six students with a different task to teach their peers. For example, one student had to
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 99
summarize the text, while another was responsible for making explicit connections to the text.
Then, students were expected to share and discuss their findings with the group.
Through the class observation, it was evident students were familiar with giving each
other feedback. Students often paused when they were confused and asked the group for
clarification, and their peers readily answered with phrases such as “look for context clues” or
“what words are surrounding it?” They also asked each other to elaborate their ideas with
evidence from the text. Although Ms. Ray walked around prompting students to agree,
challenge or add new understandings to those sharing, the students led the discussions. Some
used specific language about text features such as how “the boldface words related to the main
idea”, and others crosschecked their graphic organizer notes to ensure they included the ideas
discussed within the group.
In an interview, Ms. Ray stated that she promoted independence and self-regulation by
holding students accountable for their learning through self and peer reflections. She stated that
all students were required to reflect on their learning during reciprocal teaching projects, oral
presentations and writing. She felt that providing students self and peer reflection time helped
them process peer feedback, which contributed to their content knowledge and academic
language learning. This reflective cycle was also evident in the classroom writing portfolios,
which had self-assessment rubrics with peer evaluation comments written in them and stapled to
each writing piece.
Providing students opportunities to work independently and develop their ideas while
receiving modeling and feedback from their teacher and peers is evidence of socio-cultural
learning (Cummins, 2008; Duff, 2010; Walqui, 2006). In addition, empowering students to
participate in self-reflection and peer feedback encouraged a collaborative classroom culture, and
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 100
distributed the power dynamic across all students as well as contributed to developing a social
literate identity (Gee, 2012).
Discussion Research Question One
The 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers in this study understood academic language
as more than involving isolated vocabulary and grammar lessons. Rather, they taught academic
language through rich and ongoing content units that provided authentic purposes for learning
and were socially situated. They integrated language and content lessons and explicitly
instructed students using academic language socialization practices. Through the explicit
instruction, students had a clearer idea of the language expectations to access and display their
knowledge, which is an important aspect of academic language development (Walqui, 2006;
Snow & Uccelli, 2009). In addition, diverse learners were empowered to be intellectuals through
strategic student grouping and participated in more balanced power relationships that upheld
high expectations and independent thinking. These interactive spaces allowed students to co-
construct and build on their funds of knowledge while using their two languages as academic
tools (Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Moll et al., 1992).
The tables below outlined many of the contextualized academic language instructional
practices and tools observed across the three classrooms during the study.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 101

Table 2
Teacher Driven Academic Language Practices
Language Practice Identified: Description Research Connection
Interdisciplinary thematic units
with language lessons
Teachers created interdisciplinary
thematic content units and taught
language lessons to deepen the
language and content knowledge.
Purcell-Gates, Duke &
Martineau, 2007
Focused language lessons on
nontransferable skills
Teachers honed in on areas in
English language that do not
transfer from Spanish.
Carlo et al., 2004
Whole group discussion time Whole class discussions
facilitated by teacher based on
literature or content area text.
Zwiers, 2007
Valli & Chambliss, 2007
Slavin, 2015
Explicit lessons on listening
and speaking
Teachers provided direct
instruction on listening and
speaking expectations.
Valli & Chambliss, 2007
Walqui, 2006
Duff, 2010
Zwiers, 2007
Explicit language socialization
techniques for specific
discipline
Teachers provided direct
instruction on ways to access and
display language according to
specific discipline (i.e., math,
science, social studies).
Walqui, 2008;
Hyland & Tse, 2007
Purcell-Gates, Duke &
Martineau, 2007
Duff, 2010
Turkan, De Oliveira, Lee &
Phelps, 2014; Pytash, 2012
Language Experiences/Projects Teacher created a class
experience/project and built
language and literacy lessons
around event.
Purcell-Gates, Duke &
Martineau, 2007
Gee, 2007; Ladson-Billings,
2014; Paris, 2014, Slavin, 2015
Explicit vocabulary lessons
extracted from text
Explicit attention given to words
needed to stay socially engaged in
conversation and/or topic.
Snow & Uccelli, 2009
Proctor, Dalton, Uccelli,
Biancarosa, Mo, Snow &
Neugebauer, 2011
Explicit grammar lessons based
on genre
Teacher integrates grammar
lessons specific to discipline
studied.
Turkan et al., 2014; Pytash,
2012
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 102

Table 2, continued
Rephrasing and recasting
student responses
Teacher provided feedback to
students through rephrasing and
recasting students language
attempts.
Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan,
2009

Partnerships Across
Teachers/Community Educators
Teachers pairing with other
credentialed teachers on
integrating and extending the
academic language discourse for
students who might not otherwise
get exposure to those discourses

Experts from community come in
to help connect curriculum to
“real world”.
Webster-Wright, 2009
Zentella, 2005
Purcell-Gates, Duke &
Martineau, 2007

Table 2 displays many of the teacher led instructional practices used to promote academic
language during this study. All three teachers used interdisciplinary thematic units to teach
content areas lessons, and couched their explicit language lessons within those broader topics.
Often the language lessons taught specific vocabulary or grammar structures related to a
particular genre within the content area discipline.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 103

Table 3
Student-Driven Academic Language
Language Practice Identified Description Research Connection
Role playing Small group of students model
what a literature discussion
looks like and sounds like to
entire class.
Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan,
2011
Gibbons, 2003
Paired co-constructed of writing
(by language pairs: emergent
with more fluent speakers
together)
Students are asked to
collaborate with each other to
co-construct writing by building
on each other’s funds of
knowledge and language
resources.
Moll, Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez,
1992
Slavin, 2015
Strategic small groups Students divided up in a variety
of formats throughout the day
to promote a social literate
identity. Sometimes groups are
by language development
levels, literacy ability, group
interests or topics.
Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan,
2009
Lindholm-Leary, 2005;
Goldenberg, 2011
Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López,
Alvarez & Chui, 1999; Martin-
Beltran, 2009; Slavin, 2015
Oral presentation planning and
display
Students asked to engage in
planning language as they
moved toward more formal
display language in oral
presentations on content areas.
Bunch, 2005
Slavin, 2015
Interactive Journals Student read writing to each
other and provide oral/written
peer feedback.
Freeman & Freeman, 1996
Publishing party Students asked to orally share
their writing to parents and
other classroom audiences
within and outside of school.
Bunch, 2005
Purcell-Gates, Duke &
Martineau, 2007
Zentella, 2005; Vogt et al., 2015
Reciprocal teaching Students learn and teach each
other text by using
summarizing, predicting,
questioning and clarifying
strategies.
Lindholm-Leary, 2005
Paliscar & Brown, 1984
Slavin, 2015
Face to face interviews Student select a community
member to interview in order to
deepen knowledge about a
curriculum topic.
Cloud, Genesee & Hamayan,
2011
Purcell-Gates, Duke &
Martineau, 2007
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 104

Table 3, continued
High School pen pals Students engage in ongoing
Spanish literacy activities with
high school Spanish class:
creating stories, and orally
sharing.
Purcell-Gates, Duke &
Martineau, 2007
Self-Reflection Students reflect on their own
learning through self-reflection
rubrics and journals.
Walqui, 2006; Cummins, 2008;
Duff, 2010
Peer Reflection Students learn from peers
through oral and written
feedback on oral presentations
and written work.
Walqui, 2006; Cummins, 2008;
Duff, 2010

Table 3 shows how students led their language and content area learning through
strategic groupings and authentic purposes for using language. Students collaborated with peers
in literacy activities such as co-constructing writing responses, posters, journals and oral
presentations. They also engaged with other audiences such as community members and parents
through interviews and oral presentations.
Table 4
Tools Used to Promote Academic Language Practices
Language Practice
Identified
Description Research Connection
Sentence starters A phrase to start oral conversation and/or
writing.
Duff, 2010
Reciprocal teaching task
cards
Printed cards that delineate activity that needs
to be completed and prompts to assist the
conversations and student work.
Paliscar & Brown, 1984
Slavin, 2015
Videos and multiple media
sources
Students used multiple media sources to
access and learn language and content.
Cloud, Genesee, &
Hamayan, 2011
Multiple Assessment
Measures
Teachers used summative and formative
assessments as well as portfolios to monitor
student language growth.
Escamilla & Hopewell,
2012
Valdes, 2003

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 105

Table 4, continued
Anchor charts Posters with prompts and sentence frames that
describe how to:
-ask for help
-gain more information
-argue with a peer
-debate an issue
Goldenberg, 2011
Zwiers, 2007
Discussion guides Large posters that delineate how to start a
discussion, provide feedback and stay
engaged in conversations
Zwiers, 2007
Valli & Chambliss, 2007
Graphic organizers Visual maps that help organize thinking and
scaffolds language for a specific purpose
Cloud, Genesee &
Hamayan, 2011
Zwiers, 2007

Table 4 describes some of the tools used to promote academic language. Teachers used
multimedia tools such as videos, music and interactive screens to access information and provide
student background knowledge on content area topics. It also describes the language scaffolds
used to help promote discussions, such as sentence frames, graphic organizers and reciprocal
teaching cards.
Providing students with literacy events that serve a real social communicative purpose
and a voice in their own learning processes is an important contributor to academic language
development (Delpit, 1988; Purcell-Gates et al., 2007). The data in this study showed teachers
couch many of their language lessons within rich content units that provided opportunities for
students to deepen their discipline knowledge as well as apply their emerging academic language
in socially situated ways. Furthermore, teachers transformed students’ understanding by creating
instructional spaces for peers to be language and knowledge resources to each other across both
English and Spanish (Sembiante & Gort, 2015; Walqui, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978, 1989). Through
group work and class discussions, roles were often asymmetric between teacher and learner, and
many actors provided the scaffolding the learner needed (Gee, 2012; Vygotsky 1978, 1989).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 106
In addition, the observation data showed how the dual language program provided a
structure for students to learn content and language across both languages within an instructional
unit. This crossing over was especially evident during small group collaboration where ELLs
could use the primary language to elaborate their ideas about a particular discipline they had
been studying in both English and Spanish. Although the data were collected during the English
language arts block, the observations showed students often switched between speaking in
English and Spanish during the small group discussions. Code switching between languages as
students construct their ideas is part of the planning register (Bunch, 2006). Providing this space
for students to co-construct knowledge in the language they most understand helps them cement
their learning (Cloud et al., 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Moll et al., 1992).
Furthermore, students engaged in planning language have the opportunity to practice using more
precise vocabulary related to the discipline while using everyday language to elaborate and
deepen their understanding as they move toward more formal schooling registers (Bunch, 2006;
Collier & Thomas, 2002; Howard et al., 2007).
Results Research Question Two
The second research question involves the socio-cultural factors teachers perceive as
contributing to academic language development. As stated in Chapter Two, studying academic
language growth through only discrete language skill studies is very limiting because it does not
take into account the impact of socio-cultural factors and how they may dictate the interactions
and the role language takes (Cummins, 2008; Delpit, 1988; Gee, 2012). Hence, it is important to
understand the impact of socio-cultural context on language. Consequently, the next part of this
chapter focuses on teachers’ perceptions of the socio-cultural factors that contribute to academic
language development.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 107
Two main themes surfaced in addressing teachers’ perceptions of socio-cultural factors
impacting academic language growth in their Latino ELLs. One theme involved the importance
of teachers participating in ongoing professional development and receiving administrative
support to make professional decisions that affect the needs of diverse learners. The other theme
addressed teachers’ perceptions of how home environment and professional community
collaborations support academic language development in their students.
Teacher Empowerment Through Professional Learning and Administrative Support
The interview data showed that all participants felt it was important for teachers to
participate in ongoing professional learning opportunities in order to better serve ELLs’
academic language development needs. Teachers stated they felt they improved their bilingual
instruction by attending relevant and ongoing professional development sessions that focused on
working with language acquisition in diverse student populations. Furthermore, each teacher
described the importance of attending seminars and, then, collaborating with peers on how to
implement their learning to support ELLs’ academic language development.
Another factor they felt contributed to their success was not only attending professional
growth seminars, but also having adequate planning and collaboration time. They felt that
professional growth efforts were optimized when they had time to process the information with
their colleagues and when they had time to assimilate their new learning to their curriculum and
daily lesson planning.
In order for this to happen, the three participants stated their administration provided
them time to plan and implement the training they received to ensure it was tailored to meet the
needs of their school’s context. Providing a space for teachers to collaborate across schools also
enabled them to have a voice in curriculum decisions that were previously often top-down
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 108
administrative dictates. Thus, teachers felt they were better equipped to meet the varied needs of
their students and were allowed to adapt the curriculum to fit their context.
Although they valued professional learning, they stated that, if the professional
development was not relevant or easily accessible, they did not attend. Furthermore, they felt it
was critical for teachers to be paid to attend training and to be supported in the implementation
of any changes through onsite personnel.
Ongoing professional development with curriculum planning time. Ms. Ray, for
example, described attending a weeklong professional development institute every summer that
not only delivered the latest research on second language acquisition, but also provided her
planning time with dual language teachers across the district. When interviewed, Ms. Ray stated
that, aside from the week-long professional learning institute, her district gave all dual language
teachers’ six professional development days throughout the year to create thematic units in
Spanish, which aligned to the English units and the professional development. She stated that,
during those six professional development days, she had the autonomy to collaborate with all the
dual language teachers across the district to write their own grade level curriculum. She liked
this professional development model because, along with new information presented over the
summer, the district provided ongoing professional growth time to create an implementation plan
that incorporated the new strategies and adaptations to fit the context of her school. She found it
helpful to revisit the plan throughout the year to reflect on whether it was connecting to their
thematic units, standards and student needs.
Through this professional learning model, Ms. Ray felt her voice was heard and her ideas
were validated by the administration. Furthermore, Ms. Ray stated that a cadre of teachers
within her school made recommendations for professional development speakers to assist in their
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 109
professional growth. The district listened to their requests, hired consultants and, then, created a
professional development model based on the teacher recommendations:
They hired her to work with the whole district. We [Ms. Ray’s school site] started with
her [the consultant], like, three years ago and, then, we were bragging about how
wonderful she was and how well things were going for us, and, so, the district’s now
going to use her, and the district will follow our model. (Interview #1 pg. 5)
Ms. Ray felt she was encouraged to voice her professional opinion to the administration
during curriculum planning about what was working well with her students in regard to academic
language development. She also recognized that she could make changes not only to how her
school built teacher capacity around academic language development, but also to how her district
did so. The professionalization of teachers as experts in their field who are clear about the
language goals of their students is an important feature in effective dual language programs
(Escamilla, 2006). Thus, administrators need to provide professional development support to
sustain the implementation of those dual language goals (Howard, Christian & Genesee, 2003).
Furthermore, the district honored the knowledge base of their teachers by asking them to
lead the professional learning. The traditional top-down power dynamics of a district office
dictating how curriculum needs to be created and taught was balanced by teacher input. This is a
paradigm shift in professional learning whereby teachers participate in communities of learning
that empower them to be reflective practitioners who take ownership of their learning and
ongoing improvement (Webster-Wright, 2009).
Relevant professional growth addressing diverse needs of students. Both Ms.
Baldwin and Ms. Garcia also shared that they felt supported by their administration at Del Mar
School. They shared that, over the years, they participated in staff development with some of the
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 110
leading researchers in the field of bilingual education. They also stated that they were often
given resources to continue enhancing their instruction.
Ms. Garcia stated that she felt she was a very competent and knowledgeable bilingual
teacher. She stated, “The amount of training that we went to, eighteen years ago, the first
probably five to eight years, it was intense, and it was, I think it established kind of my
foundation as a bilingual and dual language educator.” (Interview #1 pg. 2).
Ms. Garcia stated that staff development was provided every year, and that the current
focus was on integrating academic language with content units. She felt confident as a bilingual
teacher because of all the years of professional learning that was accessible, free and relevant to
her context. Ms. Garcia felt confident as a bilingual educator, and she knew both her curriculum
and her students well. During her interviews, she readily pulled reading data and writing
portfolios for each of her students and discussed their language levels and needs. She was also
well informed about the district standards for language development and explained the rubrics
used to determine academic language proficiency with much ease.
Professional learning was collaborative and transferable to setting. Ms. Baldwin also
felt supported through the professional development provided by her administration. She stated
that the professional development they received helped them apply new skills and strategies
immediately, especially as these relate to ELLs’ developing academic language. She went on to
describe that, over the last few years, there was training on using student groups as a means of
encouraging oral language. Ms. Baldwin described the professional development activities:
Some of the activities we do... Make sure the students are using the AL [academic
language] and, yeah, the grouping where they just work with groups, and, then, they
practice. And, for example, at the end of the lesson, maybe, we’ll be, “Okay, guys can
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 111
you talk to, not necessarily a partner, it could be in the table group and then just rotate.
Or do the inner and outer circle. Could you just tell someone two concepts you learned
today or three concepts?” So we’re trying to get that vocabulary and hopefully the key
words somehow to be there. (Interview #1 pg. 3)
Ms. Baldwin stated the professional development was meaningful because it taught her
the research behind oral language development and a variety of activities that she could select to
use in her classroom immediately. She stated that the presenters allowed her to engage in the
activities with her colleagues and experience the impact the new strategies had on her
instruction. Then, she stated she also had time to discuss and collaborate with her colleagues
about ways to implement their new knowledge to meet the specific needs of their students.
Ms. Baldwin explained that ongoing training allowed her time to reflect on her practice
and try new strategies to help her students. Ms. Baldwin experienced effective professional
learning because it focused on engaging her as a professional who was self-directed in her
learning. She was an active learner, as opposed to a passive participant (Webster-Wright, 2009).
After participating in different group activities that encouraged oral language, she had the
opportunity to reflect with colleagues and select strategies that would benefit her students.
Ms. Baldwin’s stated in several of her interviews that she felt she had a supportive
administration. She said her administrator encouraged and supported teachers’ learning from
each other. For example, one of her colleagues approached her about how to teach her ELLs
during intervention time.
She just came in to see me after school and asked, “How do you teach to get it to the
kids? You know, cause whatever I’m doing is not working,” so we try to do that. If we
ask for coverage to come and observe a lesson, they’ll provide it. When I say to an
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 112
administrator, he’s totally on board. Like, if we want to ask for, like, observe lessons
from somebody else. We can totally…if you want to. It’s not mandated, but, if we ask
for it, he’ll be happy to give it. (Interview #3, pg.1)
Ms. Baldwin described being empowered as an intellectual by her administration when
they allowed her to collaborate and take active responsibility for raising questions about
curriculum, pedagogy, and what the larger goals for her students are (Giroux, 1988). These
professional learning opportunities encouraged her to be a reflective educator and collaborate on
ways to address the complexities involved in teaching diverse learners. Through ongoing
reflective practices, she may analyze the power dynamics between the school Discourse and her
students and identify ways to infuse culturally relevant pedagogy to enhance their academic
language development (Goldenberg, 2011; Vogt et al., 2015). Furthermore, empowering
teachers to make curriculum decisions and develop their own voice as professionals enables
them to take ownership of their classrooms and student achievement. Professionals learn
through practice experience, and reflection has a valuable role in learning that requires change.
Such learning is contextually mediated (Webster-Wright, 2009).
All three teachers in the two school districts described being provided opportunities to
form communities of practice within their schools so they could be supported within the context
of their classrooms. This is a vital shift to improving professional learning (Webster-Wright,
2009). Applying new learning within the school context implies reflecting on the school
Discourse and the power relations among the school, teachers and students, which is an
important aspect of socio-cultural learning (Gee, 2012). Hence, students learn academic
language from each other within the context of their classrooms, and the teachers learn about
academic language from their students and their colleagues.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 113
Furthermore, through the interviews and observations, these teachers revealed that, in
building their communities of practice, they became more knowledgeable about the curriculum
and language demands expected of their ELL students. They learned more about the language
development levels of their students and about the content standards. Professional development
sessions helped them learn more about how to assess and monitor student academic records.
Through years of teaching experience, professional development and ongoing participation in
communities of practice, these teachers had multiple opportunities to expand their expertise in
teaching ELLs. This is important because experienced and skillful teachers have a greater
positive impact on ELL student achievement (Abedi, 2003). In addition, all three teachers stated
that they continued working within Title I schools because they felt a commitment to their
diverse students, and because they felt supported by their administration.
Relationship of School and the Home and Community Context
In addition to expanding teaching knowledge and receiving administrative support,
participants in this study mentioned parent involvement plays an important role in their students’
academic language development. All participants also stated having high expectations for
diverse students and their families, and perceived that enrichment opportunities and
collaborations were critical to providing a more comprehensive approach to academic language
development. They described the collaboration between teachers at the school site as well as
across the district. They also highlighted the benefits of collaborations within the neighboring
community.
Teachers’ perceptions of home environment impacting academic language. All
participants felt that home environment plays an important role on academic language.
However, two specific patterns surfaced when analyzing the interview data in relation to home
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 114
life. One pattern involved the teachers’ perception that parent involvement is very important to
the development of academic language. The other pattern described the high expectations
teachers had of their students and the need both to acknowledge the diversity in home language
socialization practices and to encourage students and their families to persevere despite
hardships.
Two of the participants at Del Mar School came from Latino households and could
identify with many of the diverse cultural language practices of their Latino families, yet they
highlighted the need to explicitly teach the schooling Discourse in order for their students to
have access to higher education (Gee, 2012). Both of the teachers at Del Mar stated that they
understood their non-mainstream Latino families faced many additional hardships in supporting
their children. Despite acknowledging the different home life, they urged their students and
families to find ways to access the resources they needed to succeed in school.
Rather than describing a deficit perspective on Latino bilingual students and their
families, the three teachers described the need to provide more opportunities to show parents
how to navigate the schooling Discourse and enhance their child’s language development (Gee,
2012; Zentella, 2005). They recognized the different home language practices, but also outlined
ways in which parents could support their children and build stronger academic language at
home. Each of the teachers provided that support in different ways.
Connecting to families. While Ms. Ray was of White-European decent, she had lived
and taught in Latin America and stated that she understood the different language practices of
many Latino ELLs. She was sensitive to their needs and stated it is important to provide
culturally relevant pedagogy to help students connect to the curriculum. She also suggested
ways to help families access academic language:
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 115
My personal philosophy is you get-you know, you get your language from your
environment, so your family. Maybe a tiny bit from your peers, but a huge amount from
reading. And, if kids are not reading, they’re not going to grow their vocabulary. How
do you motivate those kids to read when they’ve already had this huge gap? So, one
thing I’ve been-I did with my kids and I’ve been telling a lot parents about is, put on
audio books for your kids. They don’t like to read? Play an audio book. It works
amazingly well. (Interview #1 pg. 12)
Ms. Ray went on to explain that she feels she cannot just tell parents to read to their kids.
She feels they need to be shown how to do it with the resources they have available to them. She
also described a need to develop a parent education program to help Latino non-English speaking
parents understand how to build literacy skills at home that support what they are learning in
school.
Empowering parents as partners. Parent involvement was very important to Ms.
Baldwin. In her interview, she stated that her students came from varied backgrounds, yet she
expected parents to support their children as best as they could. She went on to explain that she
came from an impoverished Mexican family who did not speak English, yet the expectation from
her parents and teachers was that she was going to attend college. She felt that expectation
helped her persevere in higher education. Consequently, she thinks her students, despite poverty
and limited English, can overcome their hardships:
I tell my parents, you know what, I know what people think of our Latino communities
sometimes. Cause a lot of the times they stereotype it. And I’m, like, but I know, I did it,
and I know you can do it. All you have to do is support. (Interview #1)
Ms. Baldwin stated, “It’s not that we can’t overcome it…. it’s not easy, but it’s doable.”
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 116
Ms. Baldwin connected to families by sharing her personal story. She was a credible
Latina role model for her students. Like many of her students, she came from an impoverished
Mexican family who did not speak English, yet she successfully completed a higher education in
the United States and continued to value being bilingual and bicultural. She stated that it was
important for her bilingual students to see role models who navigated two languages and cultures
and completed a higher education in the United States. She felt that surrounding students with
role models to whom they can relate motivates them to grow in academic knowledge and
validates their bicultural identity (Zentella, 2005).
Furthermore, Ms. Baldwin often stated they she did not allow her students to have
excuses for not doing their work. She believed that each of them was capable of developing
academic language proficiency, but needed to work hard. She acknowledged that they come
from a diverse home life, but emphasized the need to learn the schooling Discourse in order to
have access to a higher education. Her approach to helping them bridge their home life to the
school Discourse was to explicitly teach them strategies to access academic knowledge and to
persevere despite the odds. Ms. Baldwin openly shared her schooling struggles with her students
and their families as a way to foment hope and perseverance. Grit and perseverance are traits
that are important to communicate to students (Ferguson et al., 2015). Teachers who teach their
students agency and self-efficacy have a positive impact on academic achievement (Ferguson et
al., 2015).
In addition, Ms. Baldwin stated that, in the upper grades, much of the curriculum is
accessed through technology, and that, despite lack of resources at home, there were ways to
help families access these resources. She described how many families support their children’s
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 117
academic language by helping them find the technology or resources they needed or by simply
being present. She stated,
So the kids have to have access to a computer or the Internet, so, if they don’t have it at
home, the parent needs to be willing to take them to the library because they need to
bring articles to class so we can discuss and then do the projects they have to do. It’s the
same thing for social studies; it’s done through technology. And then, like, maybe some
kids don’t get articles. They get an easier book from the library, you know,
bookstores…. you see the difference, the kids whose parents are very involved, that have
every single project, even though their English is limited. But, if the parent is involved,
at least they try. You see, their work is up with a lot of mistakes sometimes, but it’s still
there because the parents support them. (Interview #1)
Ms. Baldwin perceived that involved parents, despite not having proficient English skills
or abundant material resources, made a difference in the academic language achievement of their
children. She believed their involvement and supervision communicated high expectations, even
when they did not know the English language.
High expectations and resourcefulness. Ms. Garcia also shared in an interview that she
believed all students could learn to be effective communicators and proficient students in
academic language. She thinks they just need to be resourceful and use what they have to build
upon their educational experiences. She encouraged families to learn about resources and
strategies to help their children at school in order to develop more academic language.
I think all kids can make it. I think it depends on the family and their ability to be
resourceful. I mean, if you have the couponing family, if you have the family that can
hold a communion for their child with a budget of $100, you know, those are definitely
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 118
skills that rich kids don’t have. You have the kid that seeks out technology in the library.
They seek out-they borrow their friend’s phone to do their homework. That’s problem-
solving skills… (interview #1 pg.10)
Ms. Garcia believed students and their families were capable of being successful in
learning the academic language of school if they were resourceful. She explained that many
non-mainstream families had skill sets that helped them navigate through life, sometimes under
very challenging conditions. She felt their resourcefulness allowed them to find ways to meet
their needs, which could be applied to navigating the schooling Discourse. For example, she
stated that students who do not have computers at home could borrow from their friends or use
the library. She went on to explain that, if students do not have the language models at home, it
is important parents reach out to find community programs to broaden and enrich their children’s
experiences. She stated,
[Parents need to provide] lots of listening and speaking opportunities, lots of speaking is
important…I think, as parents, we need to give them lots of opportunities at home to
engage in conversations and projects. For our EL parents that are immigrants, they don’t
have the Americanized kind of parenting where they go to parks right after school, or
have play dates right after school, their kids are constantly socially engaged in
playing…In the upper grades, I notice they (EL parents) keep them (their children) very
sheltered at home. (Interview #2)
Ms. Garcia believed parents would do what is best for their children if someone showed
them how to do it. Consequently, she shared that she will be leaving the classroom in the next
year to be a full-time parent resource teacher. She stated that she wants to help parents access
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 119
resources and provide stimulating environments for their children to develop more academic
vocabulary. During an interview, she stated,
You need to engage in social play. Oral fluency is missing. If you can make it academic,
great, but, even if you can’t, you know, take them to the park every day. Take them to
the beach; take them to the museum, you know. They’re busy, they’re cleaning at home,
and they got to do laundry. And I totally understand. I’ve been there. And I tell them the
house will always be dirty, you will always have laundry, but you will never have this
window of opportunity to teach your children different things. It’s just a different
mindset. (interview #3).
Ms. Garcia acknowledges the different language socialization practices of her Latino
families (Zentella, 2005). However, she feels they need to learn other ways to interact with their
children in order for them to improve their academic language. She felt it was important to
provide Latino families opportunities to learn how to help their children through the educational
system. She went on to explain that she is developing a program for Latino parents to engage
with their children. She is developing contacts at a nearby university to learn to provide more
parent education and support for ELL families.
Both Ms. Garcia and Ms. Baldwin connected to the Latino parents when they shared their
personal stories of perseverance and what it meant to be bicultural and bilingual. Both of them
identified with the struggles their Latino families endured. They mentioned in their interviews
that they understood the mindset of many of their Latino parents because they came from Latino
households. Like Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Garcia believed it was important to talk about credible role
models to whom students could relate. She stated she often used the life stories of faculty at the
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 120
school as examples of people who struggled to get an education, yet persevered and embraced
their bilingualism and biculturalism.
Teachers who have high expectations of their students and build positive relationships
with their families, help students progress academically (Ferguson et al., 2015). All three
teachers tried to influence their students and their families beyond the curriculum, which is an
important facet to engaging students (Ferguson et al., 2015; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;). They have
high expectations of their students and families and provide them explicit practices to help them
build academic language. Building relationships is an important factor because, in order for
parent resources to be successful, alliances between educators and Latino families must be based
on mutual respect for cultural differences and relationships must be built on equal power
dynamics (Zentella, 2005).
Building collaborations. The other pattern that surfaced within this theme was a
collaborative subculture across the schools. Collaborative relationships between teachers and
across schools enhanced the educational opportunities for students. All three teachers described
collaborations among school staff, across academic disciplines and across grade levels. There
were also collaborations developed outside the school, connecting students to other schools or
community agencies. Each teacher shared how cooperative relationships among the school staff
and with outside community agencies supplemented their students’ academic language.
Collaborations within the school staff. All participants stated that working with other
educators in the planning, teaching and evaluation of students was very valuable to them. The
participants described ongoing collaborative projects with other teachers that added to their
students’ academic experiences and worked to the strengths of the staff. Each contributed
specific skills and knowledge based on their background and expertise.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 121
Ms. Ray described the importance of integrating language and content through working
in collaboration with other teachers, such as the technology lab instructor. Ms. Ray explained
that many of the class projects resulted from a collaboration between teachers who each work
from their expertise to complement each other. For example, Ms. Ray explained that she was in
constant communication with the technology teacher to ensure the technology units were tied to
the content standards they were teaching in class. She described that she benefits from the
knowledge based of her colleague:
They’ve done podcasts with her, they have programmed video games with her. They’ve
done really advanced [technical] stuff that’s way beyond my capabilities. She’s [the
technology teacher] not familiar with our standards, but she’d say, “Hey I want to do a
podcast, what are you working on?” And we say, let’s do it on magnetism, or let’s do it
on electricity. (Ms. Ray, interview #1)
Ms. Ray explained that teacher collaboration helped her contextualized language across
many disciplines, including technology. In addition, she thought the students gained from the
different instructional approaches that integrated academic language for them. She stated that
the students learned how language and content knowledge needed to be organized for a specific
format, such as a podcast or a video game programming session. Each writing genre required a
different way of expressing language and content to the targeted audience. Language learning
was deepened when it was incorporated with discipline-specific genres and explicitly taught to
meet the language demands of those tasks (Pytash, 2012; Turkan et al., 2014).
Collaborations across enrichment programs. Ms. Baldwin also discussed building
collaborations with the teachers responsible for enrichment classes in order to build more robust
language experiences for her students. Her students attended enrichment classes once per week.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 122
She stated that these collaborations were opportunities to build academic language and literacy
through a joint class experience. For example, Ms. Baldwin said her class was learning about
California history. So, before their gardening class, she told the gardening teacher about their
social studies unit, and the gardening class was tailored to support their content standards. After
the collaboration between the gardening teacher and her, the students were able to connect
gardening with California history. “So, they learn about the plants that are native to California
and those that are not, and how the natural resources in the California area are used” (Ms.
Baldwin, interv.#2).
Then, Ms. Baldwin stated she integrated a discussion from gardening class during
language arts. She asked the students to include the key vocabulary from both their social
studies book and their gardening lesson to create a written reflection about their learning and the
connections they made between classes. This allowed Ms. Baldwin to connect language across
the classes, and model how to apply the different language forms and structures in different
contexts. Thus, students applied their language skills in multiple ways.
Ms. Baldwin facilitated academic language growth by connecting the language used in
gardening class to academic discussions related to science and social studies. She provided
students multiple opportunities to practice their oral language and transfer it to various settings.
They not only communicated their knowledge through oral discussions but also developed their
academic language in writing. Consequently, in providing connections between gardening class
and social studies content along with the academic language necessary to access and discuss it,
language learners cycle text structures and vocabulary across different contexts (Lindholm-
Leary, 2005; Goldenberg, 2011). Language is best acquired when it is learned within rich
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 123
context and in the service of other learning such as in gardening class and social studies (Cloud
et al., 2009).
In addition, students may benefit from having two different teachers provide them
modeling and feedback as they learn new academic language (Walqui, 2006). ELLs develop a
deeper understanding of the content and the academic language surrounding it when given
explicit feedback (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2012). They also have the opportunity to be evaluated
through multiple lenses, which may result in a variety of assessments that provide a broader
understanding of their language abilities.
Community collaborations. Furthermore, each teacher participant also highlighted the
role of outside agencies supporting their efforts to develop academic language to ELLs. They
felt that these outside agencies provided Latino ELLs’ experiences and opportunities they would
not otherwise have at home. These experiences enriched students’ language and social skills by
exposing them to new concepts and perspectives about the world that surrounds them. Some
organizations provided extracurricular classes within the school day, after school programs or
specialized classes focused on building mentoring relationships.
Del Mar School has built collaborations with organizations that supplement and enrich
the Spanish dual language curriculum. The school partnered with outside supporters to provide
classes such as gardening, art, and instrumental music. Outside agencies have also funded and
staffed a parent resource center. The after school tutoring program and enrichment club is also
run by an outside agency. Aside from academic supports, community partners have also
provided sports clubs such as soccer at a low cost to all students.
Throughout the course of this study, Del Mar offered multiple resources to the Latino
ELL families. During one of the observations, Del Mar partnered with a counseling agency to
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 124
offer parent workshops on improving parent-child communication. The school also organized
with the district office to provide parents support groups focused on homework help. The
courses were ongoing throughout the semester and were offered in both English and Spanish.
Furthermore, the front office was publicizing parent events that taught families how to apply for
literacy enrichment programs in the area.
The teachers at Del Mar School believed it was important to reach out to the local
community to support their efforts in developing academic language within all their student
activities. They felt it was important that Del Mar School continue to provide additional
opportunities to develop academic language through a broad range of classes within the school
day and in after school programs. They also believed that the comprehensive program at Del
Mar promoted their students’ oral language development, and contributed to a sense of
community.
Glen Oaks has also created collaborations with local agencies to support their academic
language program. For example, the school shared the campus with the local public library.
Students had access to the public library during the school day, with the supervision of a school
librarian. Ms. Ray stated she encouraged her students to check out audio books from the library
if they were struggling with reading. In addition, students who did not have computers or
Internet access at home were also encouraged to stay after school and use the library’s resources.
The school librarian was available to help after school every day. There were also family
programs offered in multiple languages to service the diverse family community. Ms. Ray stated
that this partnership had been an asset to the school.
Glen Oaks also worked with the local high school to validate and honor the language and
cultural diversity of their students by hosting multicultural events with them throughout the year.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 125
Ms. Ray stated that the dual language students had Spanish pen pal partners at the local high
school. They corresponded with them throughout the year and coordinated projects together.
For example, during one of their cultural event days, they invited the pen pals to visit with the
students and share their Spanish and English writing with each other. Ms. Ray said that
partnering with the high school Spanish classes added motivation and authenticity to their
academic language learning.
Discussion Research Question Two
All three teachers described the need to engage students in academic language all day
through varied and stimulating environments. Collaboration with other teachers on developing
richer and more meaningful lessons was a valuable asset. Student achievement is positively
affected when teachers create communities of practice whereby they share resources, reflect on
their practices and build on each other’s strengths (Webster-Wright, 2009).
Furthermore, teacher participants felt building outside school collaborations provided
students broad and comprehensive language experiences within and outside the classroom walls.
They thought these experiences allowed students to experience academic language in diverse and
socially situated ways (Walqui, 2006; Gee, 2012). Academic language development was defined
by explicit language lessons and language events that broadened students’ knowledge and
language base. Through school and community collaborations, students learned a wide array of
ways to use language and deepen their understanding about topics they might not otherwise
experience at home.
Summary
The four major themes that surfaced when exploring the research questions through
interviews and classroom observations highlight the complexity involved in developing
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 126
academic language in diverse learners within a dual language setting. The first themes related to
how teachers understood and taught academic language. The data showed how teachers strived
to provide authentic purposes for learning across two languages. They collaborated with
colleagues to build meaningful lessons that were contextualized across various disciplines.
Teachers tried to build on their students’ primary language resources by strategically partnering
them in group activities. They also provided explicit language lessons that were embedded
within larger content themes that enabled students to have multiple exposures to the key
vocabulary and opportunities to apply that language within group discussions. Furthermore, the
classroom power dynamic was often shifted when students worked in small groups.
The next theme that surfaced in relation to the second research question about socio-
cultural factors contributing to academic language described how teachers perceived themselves
to be supported and empowered by their administration to meet the academic language needs of
their diverse students. They also believed they benefit from within-school collaborations where
they built on each other’s strengths and developed a community of educators who reflected on
their practice. They all described the importance of ongoing professional learning that was
context-specific, met their students’ needs and fostered colleague collaboration. Both themes
depict how students as well as teachers created a bicultural network of support to help all
students’ successful academic language socialization (Gee, 2007; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Walqui,
2006).
The last theme highlighted teachers’ perceptions regarding the impact of the community
and home environment on academic language growth. Teachers described the need to strengthen
connections between the school and home life and believed their students were capable of
succeeding academically if given the proper support (Moll et al., 1992; Zentella, 2005). These
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 127
high expectations were conveyed when they detailed ways in which parents supported their
children through the schooling Discourse (Gee, 2008) despite not knowing the English language
(Abedi, 2003; Delpit, 1988; González, 2001; Soltero-Gonzalez et al., 2012). Finally, each
participant described how partnering with other organizations provided a broad and varied way
of developing academic language outside the traditional classroom curriculum and setting.
In conclusion, although the data were collected during the English instructional block,
there is evidence that the dual language program at both schools built on and honored the funds
of knowledge and language resources of each student while providing a culture of collaboration
(de Jong & Howard, 2009; Matin-Beltran, 2009; Moll et al., 1992; Shohamy, 2006). Thus,
students’ diverse backgrounds were seen as assets, and their bilingual skills were an academic
tool that allowed them to co-construct their knowledge and language while promoting a social
literate identity (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Gutiérrez et al., 1999; Zentella, 2005; Martin-Beltran,
2009). The findings in this study outline how academic language learning is highly complex and
beyond the scope of traditional classroom practices which require students to work individually
and in silence while the teacher lectures on discrete language skills.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 128

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Dual language programs have been identified as effective instructional models for
serving the language learning needs of diverse student populations, as their structure fosters a
climate where students serve as knowledge and language resources for one another (Collier &
Thomas, 2002; Lindholm-Leary, 2005). However, few studies examined the actual instructional
practices focused on academic language development within dual language programs (Martin-
Beltran, 2009). The purpose of this study was to look at how teachers in high-achieving dual
language schools understand and teach academic language development and to examine their
perceptions about the socio-cultural factors that contribute to academic language development,
with a focus on Latino ELLs.
Studying academic language phenomena is important because much of Latino ELLs’
academic success in mainstream U.S. classrooms is affected by their academic language
development (Abedi, 2003; Snow & Uccelli, 2009). The academic language development of
Latino ELLs is especially important to our nation because Latinos are the largest growing student
population in schools across the United States (National Center of Education Statistics, 2015).
Consequently, their academic success is critical to the nation, as they form a large part of the
population.
Furthermore, much academic language research focused on a deficit perspective on ELLs
(Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006). This deficit perspective is often fed by literacy reports that point
to surface issues of learning to read and write and often focus on discrete literacy skills, such as
decoding, in isolation of students’ identities or environments (Gee, 2014). Hence, this study was
conducted to describe both the linguistic characteristics for academic language and the socio-
cultural factors that may also contribute to its development. Looking at schools with high
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 129
poverty and high academic performance sheds light on aspects of academic language
development that add to the understanding of the phenomena and offer a counter story to the
deficit perspective.
This qualitative research study was guided by both socio-cultural theory and academic
language studies. Data were collected from observations, interviews and documents at two
schools (Merriam, 2009). All findings presented serve to answer the following research
questions for this study:
1. How do 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers at two positive deviant schools
understand and teach academic language development?
2. What are 4th and 5th grade teachers’ at two positive deviant schools perceptions of socio-
cultural factors that contribute to high performance in academic language development?
Summary of Findings
Four major themes surfaced in this study related to academic language development
within dual language schools. Some rose from the two-way dual language structure, while others
surfaced from the instructional practices and socio-cultural factors evident in the interview and
observation data. The first theme consisted of teachers’ providing authentic purposes for
learning. The second theme pertained to teachers’ empowering students as intellectuals through
varied and strategic student grouping. The third theme involved administrators’ support and
empowerment of teachers, and the last theme highlighted the impact of home environment and
community collaborations.
In the first two themes, academic language was characterized as dynamic and constantly
woven throughout the day via contextualized units that empowered students to develop their
language within varied and strategic peer groupings, which aligned to how the participants
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 130
understood and taught academic language development. These findings are important because
language and literacy is best acquired when embedded in activities that are meaningful and
provide opportunities for extending and engaging students in conversations that help them build
upon their background knowledge (Cloud et al., 2009; Delpit, 1988; Duff, 2010; Gee, 2005;
Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Lindholm-Leary, 2005;
Martin-Beltran, 2009; Moll et al., 1992; Paris, 2012; Purcell-Gates et al., 2011; Street, 2007;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997). These opportunities enabled emerging bilinguals to engage in planning
language that mixed everyday language with specific core content vocabulary and built a peer
bilingual network of knowledge and language support in both English and Spanish (Aguirre-
Munoz & Amabisca, 2010; Bunch, 2006; Ernst-Slavit, & Mason, 2011; Galguera, 2011; Gee,
2005; Orellana & Gutiérrez, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Vogt et al., 2015).
Administrative support and the impact of the home and community environment were
two themes aligned to the research question pertaining to the socio-cultural factors that
contributed to academic language development. Participants felt they were provided
professional learning which was ongoing, context-driven and provided collaborative planning
time. This finding is important because skillful teachers have strong content, language and
pedagogical knowledge and also know how to apply that knowledge to diverse student
populations through ongoing reflection (Bunch, 2013; Galguera, 2011). Participants also
perceived collaboration with their colleagues, parents and community agencies enriched their
curriculum and promoted student engagement with academic language learning (Bailey & Sirota,
2009; de Jong & Howard, 2009; Shohamy, 2006; Zentella, 2005).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 131

Implications for Practice
“All educational practice requires the existence of ‘subjects,’ who while teaching, learn.
And who in learning, teach” (Freire, 1998, p. 67).
Community members, administrators, teachers, students and parents form the fabric
within socio-cultural learning, and are critical stakeholders who learn from and teach each other
about academic language (Freire, 1998; Vygotsky,1978, 1986). The teachers within these high
performing dual language schools stated that the acquisition of academic language occurs all day
within and outside the classroom walls and that it takes a complex network of support to provide
robust academic language development opportunities. All stakeholders must be facilitators who
explicitly teach language in highly contextualized meaningful thematic units and who create
school environments whereby all involved are empowered to learn from and teach each other.
Hence, language is the essential mediator of teaching and learning and connects students to
everyday multiliteracies which enhance academic language development (Bunch, 2013;
Gutiérrez & Orellana, 2006).
This study contributes to the field of academic language development because it is
framed with a more comprehensive and multidimensional approach to language development
that encompasses word level and socio-cultural perspectives. These findings propose that
skillful teaching and intense language instruction is not enough to enhance academic language.
Instead, that it takes a complex network of support from teachers, schools, districts and the
community to provide robust academic language instruction that improves Latino ELLs’
learning. Three main implications can be drawn from this study and can be specifically
applicable to two-way dual language K-5 elementary schools and to most English-monolingual
settings serving diverse student populations. The first implication relates to teachers’ using a
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 132
repertoire of instructional practices and assessments. The second implication involves teachers
and students building and participating in communities of learning, and the last implication
involves addressing economic and social conditions that impact academic language
development.
Repertoire of Practices and Assessments
Using an extensive repertoire of practices and assessments is an important part of
supporting academic language development as seen in the findings of this study. Although
teaching language alongside the content area is part of a dual language program model, using a
repertoire of practices and assessments was evident in this study and transferable to other
monolingual settings. This study showed how teachers in these high-performing schools where
not constrained by a scripted program with narrow, isolated language lessons. Instead, teachers
used a repertoire of instructional practices which integrated language across the disciplines and
engaged students in language and content through socially situated ways. Using integrated,
contextualized curriculum has shown to improve academic language even in monolingual
settings (Hart & Lee, 2003; Lee, Deaktor, Enders & Lambert, 2008; Purcell-Gates et al., 2007;
Spycher, 2009). Students exposed to contextualized instruction that integrated explicit language
lessons along with content curriculum showed more knowledge of target words and were able to
express their understanding more effectively using key vocabulary than were students who just
received isolated subject matter curriculum (Hart & Lee, 2003; Lee et al., 2008; Spycher, 2009).
Therefore, teachers should be encouraged to teach explicit language lessons couched within
content instruction through authentic and real world tasks.
The teachers in this study used summative and formative assessment measures such as
running records, peer and self-assessment and writing portfolios to capture their students’
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 133
academic language development. Hence, using a repertoire of assessment measures to monitor
academic language growth is another important implication. Rather than providing narrow
language parameters to define academic language success, teachers and schools need to provide
broad and meaningful activities that foster higher-level thinking and vocabulary learning, which
can be captured and monitored in varied and nuanced ways (Escamilla, 2006). Using a variety of
assessments provides multiple ways of seeing academic language growth, which is important
when trying to capture a highly complex phenomena such as academic language development in
diverse student populations (Snow & Uccelli, 2009).
Furthermore, despite the current high-stakes testing climate, administrators, teachers,
parents and community agencies need to buffer the pressure to teach to a test, and, instead, work
together to foment stimulating learning environments within and outside the school grounds
where students can bridge their classroom knowledge and apply their language skills in authentic
and relevant ways. Teachers in this study stated they used thematic portfolios, formative and
summative evaluations as well as Spanish and English standardized test data to guide instruction.
Some also implemented self and peer evaluations as part of their repertoire. Teachers tried to
understand and capture the dynamic aspect of language development for emerging bilinguals,
which allows for a simultaneous coexistence of multiple linguistic identities (Bunch, 2013;
Galguera, 2011; Martin-Beltran, 2009; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Zentella, 2005).
Although monitoring growth using native language assessments is part of the two-way
dual language model at these schools, the teachers also stated how important it was to use a
variety of assessment tools because each test honed in on a different aspect of language learning.
While some evaluations had narrow testing parameters, when they were used in conjunction with
other more holistic measures, they provided a broader and richer picture of the academic
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 134
language progress of the student (Escamilla, 2006). Furthermore, using a repertoire of practices
can be done more readily by working in conjunction with other colleagues who can complement
and offer expertise in other areas that have an impact on academic language development.
Communities of Learning
Another implication from this study points to the need to systematically structure time to
develop communities of learning for teachers and students to develop and apply academic
language. As evidenced in this study, students were empowered to be instructional leaders in
small groups; there was less teacher talk and more opportunities for extended academic language
student discourse. Students working in small groups heard a greater variety of contextualized
language, took more turns talking and had the responsibility of clarifying and negotiating their
own meanings. Small learning communities also provide a context for students to practice their
emerging academic language along with everyday language with peers and encourage students to
build on each other’s funds of knowledge as well as see different perspectives on an issue, which
may contribute to more robust problem solving and academic language learning (Bunch, 2013;
Gibbons, 2003; Moll et al., 1992).
The study’s findings suggest that academic language learning is enhanced when teachers
participate in communities of learning with colleagues, parents and community agencies. This
implies that creating structured time for teachers to reflect on their instructional practices and co-
plan with colleagues as an ongoing part of their practice may provide stronger academic
language lessons that are socially situated and contextualized within authentic purposes for
learning. Furthermore, this study suggests that teachers who are more involved in selecting the
curriculum, assessment measures and topics for professional development take more ownership
of their professional learning (Webster-Wright, 2009) and may foment partnerships with others
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 135
to teach and enrich the academic language opportunities available to their students and families.
This research points to the need for teachers to open their doors and co-plan or co-teach lessons
with their colleagues in order to provide an ongoing, rich, contextualized curriculum where
students benefit from added expertise and perspectives such as was the case with Ms. Baldwin
working with the gardening teacher and Ms. Ray working with technology teacher.
Forming communities where all learn and teach each other also allows for natural
apprenticeships to form (Valdes, 2003). Apprenticeships provide more intimate settings to give
and receive feedback from each other as was seen in this study with peer groups and professional
colleagues. It also allows for participants to apply their content and language knowledge in more
authentic contextualized environments (Valdes, 2003; Walqui, 2006). Experts from different
disciplines can be brought in to help facilitate deeper language and content knowledge by
planning and actually co-teaching curriculum units with the homeroom teachers to provide richer
instructional units, as was seen when Ms. Ray worked with local scholars in the field of
California history and co-taught a session on a present day “gold rush” in South America. This
can be financed through grants, as was the case with the two schools in this study, in order to
enrich and supplement the academic language curriculum. In addition, more resources may
become available to teachers, students and their families when reaching out to work in
combination with other colleagues, agencies or schools which may help address other socio-
cultural factors that also impact academic language development.
Addressing Economic and Social Conditions
Another implication from this research points to the need for administrators and teachers
to address the economic and social conditions within their school environments that affect
students’ and families’ academic language. Teachers felt that addressing the economic and
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 136
social conditions affecting students and their families may also be a contributing factor to Latino
ELLs’ academic language development. This is congruent with research that states that
concentrated poverty affects achievement (Berliner, 2012). Teachers perceived that school and
community partnerships gave students and their families access to resources contributing to
academic language learning, such as books, technology and after school enrichment. Teachers
felt that, without those partnerships, students would not have access to the resources they needed
to enhance their learning.
Furthermore, the dual immersion schools attracted families outside of the immediate
community surrounding the school. Consequently, the student population was more
economically diverse. Teachers perceived that this language and economic diversity provided
additional language models and material resources to the school, which they felt were factors
that also contributed to students’ academic language development.
Future Research
The findings in this study can be extended through future research that includes a larger
pool of positive deviant schools with diverse populations to see if the patterns highlighted in this
study are congruent across more sites. Furthermore, a follow-up study can be administered
within these schools focusing on analyzing student discourse patterns during small group
discussions to see how the academic language taught thematically is applied during small group
discussions and in writing in English, Spanish or both. Then, collect and analyze student writing
related to the specific language lessons taught within the content unit instruction. This data can
be compared to classrooms with similar student demographics whose teachers do not use
thematic, integrated instruction for teaching ELLs to see if the academic language oral discourse
and writing varies. In addition, student surveys can be administered before the school year
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 137
thematic instruction with small group discussions, and students can be asked how they feel about
themselves as learners and academicians. Then, after a unit of thematic teaching and discussions
within small groups, students can be surveyed again to learn how they identify themselves as
learners. This research protocol can be replicated across different schools to investigate how
ELLs’ academic language develops within thematic teaching and reflects how they feel about
becoming academicians. This can be done within more dual language schools or across
monolingual environments. The future research in this area would add a larger sample of student
work and survey data to triangulate findings, and would broaden the scope of this study by
including how students perceived their academic language learning development.
Conclusion
This research studied how teachers at two positive deviant schools understood and taught
academic language as well as described the socio-cultural factors they perceived contributed to
its development. The three participants described academic language as more than vocabulary,
syntax and discourse. It is socially situated and affected by the socio-cultural context (Bunch,
2006; Duff, 2010; Ernst-Slavit & Mason, 2011; Purcell-Gates et al., 2007; Walqui, 2006; Zwiers,
2006). Teachers alone cannot provide the wide range of social experiences that are an essential
part of academic language development. The two-way dual language model structure, which
mixes Spanish dominant with English dominant students, inherently created a collaborative
culture where students were language and knowledge resources to each other throughout Spanish
and English instructional blocks (Collier & Thomas, 2002). However, as the data described, the
teachers in this study further tapped into the sociolinguistic resources of their students across
both languages (Martin-Beltran, 2009) and to resources outside their classrooms in order to
provide contexts for more robust language learning.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 138
While this research focused on dual language programs, all elementary schools may
benefit from forming strong collaborative networks within and outside their classroom walls
where participants are empowered to teach and learn from each other. This study suggests that,
when teachers receive ample opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues and community
agencies in reflective and ongoing professional growth, they foment a climate of socio-cultural
learning, which may contribute to building robust systems of support for academic language
learning and family support. Furthermore, findings in this research imply that academic
language learning best practices are contextualized to meet the dynamic needs of a diverse
student population and developed by a cadre of educators guided by experts and scholars in the
field who consistently look at a repertoire of student work and assessments to guide their
instruction and curriculum, as was seen in the ongoing seminars with planning time provided by
each district in this study.
In closing, Latino ELLs are the largest growing student population in schools across the
United States, and their academic success is important to the future of our nation (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2014). This study brought to light many of the perceptions and
instructional practices teachers in high performing dual language schools used to promote
academic language excellence, and counter the deficit perspective about Latino ELLs. Learning
within a dual language context is complex, yet many of the findings from this study add to our
understanding of academic language, which may bolster the academic achievement of all
students, especially Latino ELLs and inform the field on ways to support the academic language
needs of this group and the socio-cultural factors contributing to its success. This study was
unique in that it approached academic language development through a comprehensive and
holistic lens that focused on what works in schools at the discrete language level and the socio-
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 139
cultural level to service diverse students, rather than what was causing them to fail. Other
studies stated the importance of using a broad lens to understand academic language
development, but this study brought to light what it looks like within a natural school
environment. Hence, these findings bring the field one step closer to improving how this
growing student population is prepared to participate fully in communities across the United
States.

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 140

References
Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-
based performance: Analyses of extant data. Center for the Study of Evaluation, National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of
Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Thompson, M. S. (1987). School performance, status
relations, and the structure of sentiment: Bringing the teacher back in. American
Sociological Review, 665-682.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Synthesis: Instruction and professional development.
Developing Literacy in a Second Language: Report of the National Literacy Panel, 321-
335.
Bailey, A. L. (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test Yale
University Press.
Bailey, A. L., & Huang, B. H. (2011). Do current English language Development/Proficiency
standards reflect the English needed for success in school? Language Testing, 28(3), 343-
365.
Bailey, L., & Sirota, E. (2009). The impact of teachers’ expectations on diverse learners’
academic outcomes. Childhood Education, 85, 253+.
Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (2010). What is academic vocabulary? Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 54(1), 4-12.
Berliner, D. (2013). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s
youth. Teachers College Record, 115(12), 1-26.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 141
Bunch, G. C. (2005). Using language to do school: Linguistic minority students and academic
tasks. Paper presented at the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism. Somerville, MA.
Retrieved February, 1 2010.
Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge preparing mainstream teachers for
English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298-341.
California Department of Education. (2012). California standards test. Assessment and
Accountability Division,
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., . . . White,
C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English‐language
learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-
215.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for
enriched education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy instruction for English language
learners Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education
for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-20.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2007). Predicting second language academic success in English
using the prism model. International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 333-348)
New York, NY: Springer.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B.
Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 487-499)
New York, NY: Springer.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 142
Cummins, Jim & Mann Yee-Fun, Evelyn. (2007). Academic language. In J. Cummins & C.
Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 797-810) New
York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_53
Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing for diversity:
The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for
fifth-grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1),
68-100. doi:10.1177/1086296X10397872
Davidson, K. (2010). The integration of cognitive and sociocultural theories of literacy
development: Why? how? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 246-256.
Delpit, L. D. (1992). Acquisition of literate discourse: Bowing before the master? Theory into
Practice, 31(4), 296-302.
DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on
teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research,
84(3), 446-482.
Dooley, C. M., & Assaf, L. C. (2009). Contexts matter: Two teachers’ language arts instruction
in this high-stakes era. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(3), 354-391.
doi:10.1080/10862960903133743
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192.
Ernst-Slavit, G., & Mason, M. R. (2011). “Words that hold us up:” teacher talk and academic
language in five upper elementary classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 430-440.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 143
Escamilla, K. (2006). Semilingualism applied to the literacy behaviors of Spanish-speaking
emerging bilinguals: Bi-illiteracy or emerging biliteracy? The Teachers College Record,
108(11), 2329-2353.
Ferguson, R., Phillips, S., Rowley, J. F. S., & Friedlander, J. W. (2015). The influence of
teaching beyond standardized test scores: Engagement, mindsets, and agency. Boston, MA:
Achievement Gap Initiative Harvard University.
Ford, K. L., Cabell, S. Q., Konold, T. R., Invernizzi, M., & Gartland, L. B. (2013). Diversity
among Spanish-speaking English language learners: Profiles of early literacy skills in
kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 1-24.
Frantz, R. S., Bailey, A. L., Starr, L., & Perea, L. (2014). Measuring academic language
proficiency in school-age English language proficiency assessments under new college and
career readiness standards in the united states. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 432-
457.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2006). Teaching reading and writing in Spanish and English
in bilingual and dual language classrooms Heinemann Portsmouth, NH.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage Rowman &
Littlefield.
Galguera, T. (2011). Participant structures as professional learning tasks and the development of
pedagogical language knowledge among preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly,
38(1), 85-106.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36), 1-54.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 144
Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses Routledge.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language
learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363-385.
Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in
word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50(1), 121-154.
Goldenberg, C. (2011). Reading instruction for English language learners. Handbook of Reading
Research, 4, 684-710.
González, V. (2001). The role of socioeconomic and sociocultural factors in language minority
children’s development: An ecological research view. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1-2),
1-30.
Gort, M., & Sembiante, S. F. (2015). Navigating hybridized language learning spaces through
translanguaging pedagogy: Dual language preschool teachers’ languaging practices in
support of emergent bilingual children’s performance of academic discourse. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 9(1), 7-25. doi:10.1080/19313152.2014.981775.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires
of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano‐López, P., Alvarez, H. H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999). Building a
culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 87-
93.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano‐López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and
hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 145
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Orellana, M. F. (2006). At last: The” problem” of English learners:
Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 502-507.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires
of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Hakuta, K., & August, D. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A
research agenda National Academies Press.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How Long does it Take English Learners to Attain
Proficiency? the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy
Report 2000-1,
Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and
literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475-
501.
Hiebert, E. H., Lubliner, S., Farstrup, A., & Samuels, S. (2008). The nature, learning, and
instruction of general academic vocabulary. What Research has to Say about Vocabulary
Instruction, 106-129.
Hornberger, N. H., & McKay, S. L. (2010). Sociolinguistics and language education.
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., & Rogers, D. (2007).
Guiding principles for dual language education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education. A
review of the research (Report 63). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of
Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 146
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235-
253.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 191-206.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness in
the English reading comprehension of native English, Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese
speakers. Language Learning, 62(4), 1170-1204.
Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N. K., & Snow, C. E. (2008). Promises and pitfalls: Implications of
NCLB for identifying, assessing, and educating English language learners in G. Sunderman
(ed.) Holding NCLB Accountable: Achieving Accountabiltiy, Equity, and School Reform
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press), pp. 57-74.
Kieffer, M. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? initial English proficiency, concentrated
poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the united states. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 851-868.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Impact of a multiyear professional
development intervention on science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse
elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726-747.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005). The rich promise of two-way immersion. Educational Leadership,
62(4), 56-59.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 147
Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effects of comprehensive vocabulary instruction on Title
I students’ metacognitive word-learning skills and reading comprehension. Journal of
Literacy Research, 37(2), 163-200. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3702_3
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). Early home language use and later vocabulary
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 535.
Martin-Beltran, M. (2009). Cultivating space for the language boomerang: The interplay of two
languages as academic resources. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 25-53.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher’s manual.
ERIC.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach Sage.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2),
132-141.
Nagy, W. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection.
Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension, 52-77.
Orellana, M. F., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2006). At last: What’s the problem? constructing different
genres for the study of English learners. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(1), 118-
123. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171719
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 148
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C., & Neugebauer, S.
(2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with
bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 517-544.
Purcell‐Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre‐specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research
Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.
Purcell‐Gates, V., Melzi, G., Najafi, B., & Orellana, M. F. (2011). Building literacy instruction
from children’s sociocultural worlds. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 22-27.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Tech. Rep. No. 2003-1) Santa
Barbara: UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2012). Academic language in teaching and Learning: Introduction to the
special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3, Academic Language), 409-418.
Scott, J. A., Nagy, W. E., & Flinspach, S. L. (2008). More than merely words: Redefining
vocabulary learning in a culturally and linguistically diverse society. What Research has to
Say about Vocabulary Instruction, 182-210.
Serrano, R., & Howard, E. (2007). Second language writing development in English and in
Spanish in a two-way immersion programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 10(2), 152-170.
Sirota, E., & Bailey, L. (2009). The impact of teachers’ expectations on diverse learners’
academic outcomes. Childhood Education, 85(4), 253.
Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elementary schools. Education 3-13, 43(1), 5-14.
Snow, C. E., Uccelli, P., Olson, D., & Torrance, N. (2009). The challenge of academic language.
The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, 112-133.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 149
Soltero-Gonzalez, L., Escamilla, K., & Hopewell, S. (2012). Changing teachers’ perceptions
about the writing abilities of emerging bilingual students: Towards a holistic bilingual
perspective on writing assessment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 15(1), 71-94.
Spycher, B. P. (2009). Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse
kindergarten classes. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 359-379. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/10.1086/593938
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-41.
Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension
and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133-180.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students’ long-term academic achievement.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2003). The multiple benefits of dual language. Educational
Leadership, 61(2), 61-65.
Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance
of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school
students. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 497-518.
Turkan, S., De Oliveira, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for
teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 116(030308), 1-30.
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 150
Valdes, G. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic
language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 102-132.
Valdes, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities
lost or seized? Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 410-426.
Vogt, M. E., Echevarria, J., & Washam, M. A. (2015). 99 more ideas and activities for teaching
English learners with the SIOP model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Zwiers, J. (2007). Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-116. doi:10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2007.00135.x
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 151

Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol
This study focuses on teachers’ perceptions about academic language development in a dual
language school setting. Socio-cultural learning theory and academic language development
research guide the interview questions and study focus.
Introduction for Teacher’s Interviewed
I am interested in learning about academic language development within a dual language
program. I would like to explore how you perceive academic language development within your
dual language school site. I am especially interested in how you perceive this development as
the 4th and/or 5th grade teacher because you see the students in their final years of the dual
language program.
Teacher background questions:
1. How many years have you taught in elementary school?
2. How many years have you taught within a dual language program?
3. What kind of teacher preparation have you had in relation to dual language program
methodology?

1. Research and Interview Questions Table
Research Question Interview Question
How do 4th and/or 5th grade
teachers at two positive
deviant schools, understand
and teach academic language
development?

How do you define academic language development
(ALD) within your program?
What would I see if you were doing a lesson on
ALD?
What kinds of things have you done to learn more
about ALD?

Where do you find out more information about ALD?
Some people think language development occurs
naturally in a child’s environment without a need to
teach vocabulary explicitly, what are your thoughts
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 152
about this assertion?
What do you perceive are the needs of long term
Latino English language learners in relation to ALD?
Suppose I was a parent with my Latino ELL student
in your program, how would I be involved in ALD in
your school?
If I was a new teacher, and I wanted to learn how to
teach academic language. What pedagogical
practices would you recommend I use to accelerate
academic language development in Latino English
Language Learners?
What are 4/ 5th grade
teachers (at two positive
deviant schools) perceptions
of socio-cultural factors that
contribute to high
performance in academic
language development?
What are some factors you feel contribute to
academic language development (ALD)?

Are there specific instructional practices you feel
contribute to ALD?
What kinds of challenges do you experience with
ALD in your class?
If you had a struggling Latino ELL, what would their
day look like?
Suppose you are an advanced Latino ELL student in
your class, what does your day look like?
There are people who believe poverty and language
differences are too great to overcome and cause
children to fail in becoming effective communicators
and proficient students. What are your thoughts
about this stance?

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 153

Appendix B
Observation Protocol
Observation Protocol

Person being observed

Date: Time arrived:
Location (describe space and surroundings)

General notes about participants

Time Observations Research comments

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 154

Appendix C
Consent Form

University of Southern California
(Rossier School of Education-Ed.D. Program)

INFORMED CONSENT

(STUDY TITLE: CAPTURING TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT ACADEMIC
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A DUAL LANGUAGE PROGRAM)

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by GLORIA RAMOS
GONZALEZ at the University of Southern California, because you are an exceptional dual
language 4th and/or 5th grade teacher. Your participation is voluntary. Please read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand. Please take as much
time as you need to read the consent form. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign
this form, and you will be given a copy.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to investigate exemplary 4thand 5th grade teachers’ perceptions of
academic language development for Latino English language learners, and to delineate the
factors that exemplary 4th and 5th grade teachers attribute to academic language development
for Latino English language learners. This study focuses on exemplary dual language schools
that despite serving Latino English language learners in high poverty, they are high performing.

Research Questions:
1. How do 4th and 5th grade dual language teachers at two positive deviant schools
understand and teach academic language development?
2. What are 4th and 5th grade teachers’ at two positive deviant schools perceptions of socio-
cultural factors that contribute to high performance in academic language development?

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to describe your understanding of
academic language development, and the factors you feel contribute to the academic language
development of Latino English language learners. This information will be captured over four
weeks. Each participant will also be observed three times during English language block, and
will be interviewed after each observation. Interviews will be audio recorded to ensure accuracy
of information.

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 155

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Participants will learn about qualitative research and may be adding to our understanding of
academic language within dual language programs.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored in a memory drive indefinitely and will remain confidential. Participants
have the right to review audio recording transcriptions for accuracy. Only the principal
investigator, the advisor and transcribers will have access to all audio recordings. Personal
identities will be shielded using pseudonyms, and all data will be coded to ensure privacy of
participants. Confidentiality will be maintained through a secured laptop. Data collected will be
used for educational purposes, and will not be distributed to any other party.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures you will receive medical treatment;
however, you or your insurance will be responsible for the cost. The University of Southern
California does not provide any monetary compensation for injury.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Gloria
Ramos Gonzalez, at gloriago@usc.edu or (626) 614-9065.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE 156

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The study applies socio-cultural theory and academic language research to describe how teachers understand and teach academic language development and the socio-cultural factors that contribute to its growth. The purpose of this research is to further understanding of how teachers in high-poverty high-achieving schools perceive and maximize the academic language and literacy development of Latino English language learners in natural classroom environments. The research questions involve how teachers understand and teach academic language development within their 4th and 5th grade classrooms and the socio-cultural factors they perceive as contributing to academic language success. This qualitative case study utilized a purposeful sample representing schools with high Latino ELL populations, high poverty and high academic achievement. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations of three Spanish dual language teachers in 4th and 5th grade classrooms across two school districts. Thus, this study highlights the importance of creating a rich socio- cultural context for academic language learning. Findings indicate teachers understand academic language as discipline-specific and taught through contextualized content units using strategic and varied student groupings. Furthermore, teachers perceived that collaborative partnerships and administrative support were socio-cultural factors that contributed to enhanced academic language learning. Findings imply that teachers who use varied repertoires of instructional and assessment practices, develop collaborative learning communities, and address the social and economic conditions that affect academic achievement for diverse students contribute to enhanced academic language development.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

The role of teachers in academic discussion

PDF

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

The use of culturally relevant authentic materials and L1 in supporting second language literacy

PDF

Teaching critical thinking in secondary foreign language classrooms

PDF

Math and science academy literacy instruction: student study strategies, self-perception as readers, and reading achievement

PDF

The role of critical literacy and the school-to-prison pipeline: what was learned from the life histories and literacy experiences of formerly incarcerated young Latino males

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Latino cognitive apprenticeship: creating a meaningful learning environment for Latino students through authentic teacher care

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

Fulfilling the promise to the silent majority: internal systems of accountability and effective site-level evaluations of Latino persistently emergent bilingual learners for reclassification as f...

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language

Asset Metadata

Creator Gonzalez, Gloria Ramos (author)

Core Title Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/17/2016

Defense Date 02/22/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic language,bilingual education,dual language,Latino ELLs,literacy achievement,OAI-PMH Harvest,positive deviance

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula (committee chair), Anya, Uju (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email gloriago@usc.edu,gloriaramosg@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-221926

Unique identifier UC11278432

Identifier etd-GonzalezGl-4211.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-221926 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GonzalezGl-4211.pdf

Dmrecord 221926

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gonzalez, Gloria Ramos

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA