Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners
(USC Thesis Other)
Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES
1
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by
Yulonn M. Harris
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
December 2015
Copyright 2015 Yulonn M. Harris
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to first and foremost thank my Heavenly Father God who chose to have me
write this dissertation, Jesus Christ who is my example as I continue to walk out my purpose here
on earth, and the Holy Spirit who guides me into all truth.
I would like to honor my parents, John, Sr. and Nadine Harris, who have blessed me with
a foundation of excellence in all that I do. Thank you immediate family as well as my family afar
and church family.
Next, I want to thank the many friends I met along the way, Dr. Arlene Platten who has a
resilience that is honorable, Dr. Rochelle Tawiah who kept me smiling endlessly, my entire
thematic group, and my committee members, Dr. Darline Robles and Dr. Maria Ott, who both
were so patient until the very end.
Finally, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau. Dr. Rou you started as my professor in Diversity class and
then took me on in your position as Chair. I thanked God everyday throughout this process for
the wisdom and guidance “He” continued to give you specifically designed for me. I know I
have been “The student you never had”, so I want to say thank you for being the blessing I could
never have expected. God bless you, Dr. Rou, and I love you!
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview 8
Background of the Problem 9
ELL Students 10
ELL Programs 11
Reclassification 12
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 15
Importance of the Study 15
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Background of ELLs 19
ELL Challenges in America 20
ELL Challenges in California 23
Balanced Literacy Theory in Language Development 25
Social Constructivist Theory 26
Instructional Strategies 26
ELL Assessments in the Classroom 39
Formative assessments with integrated ELL Instruction 40
Summative Assessments and Formative Assessments. 41
Policy Influences Instructional Practices 43
Summary 48
Overview of the study 49
Conceptual Framework 49
Chapter Three: Methodology 51
Research Design 51
Research Questions 53
Sample and Population 55
Site Selection 56
Data Collection 57
Data Analysis 58
Validity and Reliability 60
Limitations and Delimitations 61
Ethics 61
Chapter Four: Results 62
Research Questions 62
Results for Research Question One 65
English Language Teachers Using ELA and ELD Standards 65
Summary 72
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 4
Results for Research Question Two 74
Summative and Monitoring Assessments 76
Student Sample Responses for Written Assessments 80
Summary 85
Results for Research Question Three 86
Classroom Practices 86
Summary 91
Primary Language Use 93
Summary 95
Conclusion 95
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings 97
Methodology 97
Discussion of Findings 98
Research Question One 98
Research Question Two 100
Research Question 3 102
Implications for Practice 103
Recommendations for future research 105
Limitations 106
Delimitations 106
Conclusion 107
References 108
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 120
Appendix B: Observation Protocol (Modified) 123
Appendix C: Teacher Confidentiality Agreement 127
Appendix D: Document Analysis Rubric Modified 128
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 5
List of Tables
Table 1: PLD Collaborative Aligned Standards 35
Table 2: Research Design Matrix Chart 54
Table 3: Matrix of Protocols to Research Questions 55
Table 4: Description of Participants 64
Table 5: ELA/ELD Collaboration/ELD Teaching Experience 65
Table 6: Matrix of ELA/ELD Standards Discussed (Interviews) and Posted (Observations) 66
Table 7: Matrix of Teachers Use of CELDT/Monitoring Assessments to inform practice 76
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: T1 Beginner and Early Intermediate Student Samples (left to right) 81
Figure 2: T2 Beginner and Early Intermediate Student Samples (left to right) 83
Figure 3: T3 Beginner and Early Intermediate Student Samples (left to right) 84
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 7
Abstract
In the United States, proficiency development has been the source of an ongoing dispute
among policy makers, the public and many teachers, especially English Language Arts teachers
and English Language Development teachers whose primary focus is helping students become
proficient in Standardized academic English. While the overarching goal of English Language
Learner (ELL) programs is that students achieve proficiency during their K-12 learning
experience, many students remain ill prepared to thrive in American society post high school
(Oliveira & Shoffner, 2009). Additionally, few teachers are equipped to design instructional
strategies to increase proficiency within policy-driven timeframes (Rueda, 2011). The purpose of
this study was to help school educators improve instruction for middle school ELLs in the
Beginner and Early Intermediate English Language Arts/English Language Development
coursework and examine their instructional strategies in relation to the existing timeframe (K-12)
that ELLs have to become proficient in SAE.
The research provided extends language education to promote ongoing proficiency
development in the modern classroom. Some of the most effective instruction builds onto the
language students have upon entering the classroom and the consistent practice of tailored skills
to increase language opportunities inside and outside the classroom (Cummins, 2009; Hudley &
Mallison, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW
This qualitative dissertation explored the impact English Language Learner teachers have
on proficiency development for English Language Learners in public schools. According to
Hudley and Mallison (2011), many K-12 educators expressed concerns with appropriately
distinguishing challenges related to non-standardized English variations from those related to
proficiency in Standardized academic English (SAE). In the United States, proficiency
development has been the source of an ongoing dispute among policy makers, the public and
many teachers, especially English Language Arts (ELA) teachers and English Language
Development (ELD) teachers whose primary focus is helping students become proficient in
SAE. Because the growing population of immigrant children in American schools has reached
over 11 million and is more than two-fifths of the school-aged population (Lee, 2012), ELLs are
the highest growing number of students who do not gain proficiency by 12
th
grade, yet they
advance from one grade to the next (Rueda, 2011).
As this problem continues, educators remain concerned with the oral and written
language challenges ELLs face. While the overarching goal of ELL programs is that students
will achieve proficiency during their K-12 learning experience, many students remain ill
prepared to thrive in American society post high school (Oliveira & Shoffner, 2009).
Additionally, few teachers are equipped to design instructional strategies to increase proficiency
within policy driven timeframes (Rueda, 2011).
This study examined the connection between standard-based instruction and assessments
for developing ELLs’ SAE proficiency during 6
th
through 8
th
grade. It also shared how English
Language teachers promote instructional strategies and concepts required by students with low
levels of academic English proficiency.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 9
Background of the Problem
Over the last several decades, public school teachers concluded that helping ELLs
acquire grade-level academic language proficiency is problematic (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton,
2009). The stages of language development (Beginner, Early Intermediate, Intermediate and
Advanced) require strategic instruction that matches students’ language learning needs, as
demonstrated in annual assessments, for reclassification (California Department of Education,
2010). The long-term negative effect of ELLs’ content proficiency is related to lack of
instruction that embraces their current language stage to establish academic English proficiency
within a reasonable timeframe (Cummins, 2007). Some difficulties ELLs face happen as they
continue to use their native language in the home rather than the SAE learned (Rueda, 2011).
They have limited opportunities to build on these learned experiences using SAE within their
day-to-day environments. English Language Development (ELD) programs assist ELLs during
their daily instruction to progress in academic language usage; given the current instructional
practices, however, ELLs in California schools continue to face challenges in developing
proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) and other content areas at a rate that is comparable
to non-ELLs (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009).
Some research shows that the limited time ELLs are exposed to academic English in the
classroom is not sufficient to acquire and use academic language (Cummins, 2007). Little
consideration is given to the proficiency timeframes research shows are necessary to mastering
academic English. At a minimum, ELLs need 5 years, while some may take as long as 10 years
(Cummins, 2007; Laija-Rodriquez, Ochoa & Parker, 2006). In addition, there is concern over
how ELA and ELD teachers provide language instruction effectively and strategically to build
proficiency during the early stages (K-6) of language development. According to the California
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 10
Department of Education (2010) ELLs move through the grades but do not leave high school
with the proficiency required by formal assessments such as the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) and the California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
While ELLs’ challenges can be seen in the various stages of language development
during all grade levels, but major challenges show up in terms of classification during middle
school (Payan & Nettles, 2008). ELLs who attend middle and secondary schools in California
make up 59% of the population of students who fail to reach fluency before high school
graduation (Luster, 2011).
ELL Students
Students who speak a language other than English in their homes make up 43.1% of
public school enrollment in California and are considered ELLs(California Department of
Education, 2013).In California, of the 1.6 million ELLs, 85% are Spanish-Speakers (Payan &
Nettles, 2008). This statistic follows national trends, as Spanish is the second most spoken
language in America (Allison & Rehm, 2011).
Additionally, countless foreign-born children face learning barriers caused by significant
differences between their native language and the academic language of the classroom. While
they are trying to learn English, they also try to maintain their native language, which they need
to communicate within their families and communities and to acquire new knowledge (Pufahl &
Rhodes, 2011). The combination of these challenges creates a struggle for throughout education
(Lee, 2012).Another challenge for the ELL is that, starting kindergarten and through high school,
the California Department of Education requires them to take standardized tests (CELDT) to
assess their proficiency and academic skills for reclassification purposes. These tests are given in
English and, although many ELLs receive accommodations based on their level of proficiency
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 11
(Payan & Nettles, 2006), they are tested in a language they have yet to acquire (Goldenberg,
2008). This inflexibility in testing policy creates a challenge to ELLs.
In addition, research shows that a person takes 6 to 7 years to become proficient in a
second language, but the K-12 timeframe expectations are much more rigorous in that they
require ELLs to show proficiency or significant progress on standardized tests after only one
year (Oliveira & Shoffner, 2009). This requirement creates an overwhelming expectation to
attain proficiency in content areas while also learning SAE along. The instructional practices
currently in place and the short timeframe contribute to the large number of ELLs who enter to
12
th
grade lacking the SAE proficiency.
ELL Programs
Sheltered instruction can begin as early as elementary school (Hansen-Thomas, 2008) but
is also used throughout middle and secondary education (Goldenberg, 2008). ELD programs (a
type of sheltered instruction) combined with aggressive timeframes are problematic, especially if
enforced when a learner is at the beginning stages proficiency. Statistics demonstrate ELD
programs are intended to result in a basic level of SAE proficiency over time (Lee, 2012).
However, in practice, long-term negative effects can be traced to aggressive timeframes as well
as ineffective instruction. Sheltered programs under the current time structure prevent many
ELLs from acquiring SAE (Genzuk, 2011). Furthermore, California ELLs have limited access to
structured or predictable programs with a concrete linear timeline that aligns language
proficiency with content proficiency (Jespen &Alth, (2005). When ELL teachers identify more
effective instructional strategies and combine language development opportunities with language
development stages, it is possible for ELLs to acquire SAE proficiency despite the timeframe.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 12
Patterns of ELL proficiency development increase and decrease based how much they
use academic language among peers and in their homes in addition to in-school instruction (Lee,
2012). Repeated reporting at each grade level reveals neither the challenges ELLs face nor the
clear instructional strategies that ELA or ELD teachers can implement to increase proficiency for
reclassification (Lee, 2012).Spanish speakers make up the largest percentage of ELLs, but 29% are
not proficient in SAE. Similarly, other ELLs, such as Asians, struggle with these same language
barriers. Research shows 27% of them do not reach proficiency either (García, Kleifgen, &
Falchi, 2008).
Reclassification
Reclassification takes place when ELLs are tested and determined to be capable of
functioning in mainstream classrooms independently (California Department of Education,
2010). At this point, they are considered Reclassified as a Fluent English Proficient (RFEP).
Implicit in this determination is that instructional and assessment staff members, especially ELD
and ELA teachers, know their students’ proficiency levels. Currently, California research shows
a maximum of 40% of ELLs reclassify after 10 years of consistent uninterrupted education (Kim
& Herman, 2012). According to a report by the Public Policy Institute of California ([PPIC],
2014), ELLs reclassify when their education is uninterrupted and they perform at a basic or
higher level of achievement as compared to their non-ELL peers. Research shows that ELLs who
advance through early and intermediate stages of language development before fifth grade
typically reclassify by then. A few who do not reclassify then, do so by eighth grade. If
reclassification does not happen by eighth grade, ELLs become Long-Term English Learners
(LTELs) and struggle to gain proficiency throughout their remaining years in K-12 education
(PPIC, 2014).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 13
Secondary ELL teacher’s target language instruction with hopes that reclassification
becomes easier, but 75% of ELLs stay in pre-reclassification status throughout their K-12
education (Kim & Herman, 2012). This pattern makes high school dropout rates high amongst
ELLs and their potential for being admitted to college is small in comparison to their non-ELL
counterparts (Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2003). Although higher socioeconomic status and
being bilingual at an early age are considered to contribute to reclassification (Callahan,
Gandara, Rumberger, & Maxwell-Jolly, 2003; PPIC, 2014), reclassification research does not
consider the challenging timeframes discussed earlier. Therefore, ELL teaching needs to consist
of effective language development strategies that improve progression during middle school and
between the beginning and early stages of language development in order for students to develop
proficiency by twelfth grade.
Statement of the Problem
As of the 2005-2006 academic term, California has the largest and fastest growing ELL
student population in the nation (Payan & Nettles, 2008). Twenty-five percent of California’s
students are ELLs who have been in school since kindergarten and are not deemed proficient by
grade twelve (Dixon, 2009). The fact that 85% of Spanish-speaking ELLs are in California
makes this issue a state and national concern (Payan & Nettles, 2008).
Byrnes and Wasik (2009) outline the components of ELA proficiency as speaking,
reading, writing and listening. However, the opportunities ELLs have in oral SAE language use
during early stages of second language development differ from that of their mainstream peers.
Specifically, research overlooks ELL students who start kindergarten in America, have no
interruption in their schooling, and still do not achieve proficiency by high school (Rueda, 2011).
The policies and structures operating within the K-12 timeframe, which are not always based in
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 14
research and evidence, plus inadequate language instruction contribute to this lack of
achievement (Flores, Painter, Harlow-Nash, Harry & Pachon, 2009). Students who reclassify in
elementary school tend to graduate on time (Kim & Herman, 2012), but those who do not
reclassify by the end of middle school make up the largest number of students who do not
graduate being proficient (Payan & Nettles, 2008). This problem places a large responsibility on
middle school instruction because, if these students do not achieve proficiency before grade
twelve or reclassify into a mainstream classroom, their postsecondary experience becomes a
struggle. The issue, then, becomes a lack of instruction and timeframe that adequately prepare
ELLs for accomplishing higher language goals.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the influence ELL teachers have on ELLs at
the beginner and early intermediate stages of language development through strategies
specifically designed for middle school. The purpose was to help school educators improve
language instruction in beginner and early intermediate ELA/ELD coursework and examine
these strategies in relation to the timeframe Ells have to acquire proficiency. Further, the findings
from this study may help educators identify more effective ways of instructing ELLs within the
K-12 timeframe. The findings from this study have the potential to help educators identify
educational influences (such as policies) that indirectly impede ELLs despite their uninterrupted
formal education.
Though many ELL teachers use instructional strategies at different stages of language
development, few measure their effectiveness in increasing proficiency within a specific
timeframe. Many reports find integrating content standards such as ELA and ELD standards in
instructional efforts is essential to second language acquisition (Emeldi, 2012). However, more
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 15
research is needed on how ELL teachers embrace effective strategies) to promote proficiency at
various stages of language development.
Research Questions
This study aimed to answer these research questions:
1. How do ELL teachers use ELA/ELD Standards to develop instructional strategies and
activities that promote proficiency in SAE at the Beginning and Early Intermediate stages
of language development?
2. How are formative or summative assessments used to inform instructional strategies and
to monitor ELL proficiency progress from one stage (Beginner and Early Intermediate) of
language development to the next?
3. What classroom practices do ELL teachers implement using students’ primary languages
to influence second language acquisition for ELLs during the Beginner and Early
Intermediate stages of language development?
Importance of the Study
Factors such as Inadequate ELD programs, rapid immigration, lack of training of second
language acquisition on behalf of teachers, differences between home language and academic
language use all contribute to ELLs’ difficulty in acquiring proficiency in SAE. Negative
consequences beyond the classroom fall on students who do not achieve proficiency in a system
that fails to prepare them for higher education goals. These students will be required to function
in society not having the basic language skills to meet the demands of the workforce.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 16
Definition of Terms
CAPs– Acronym for Common Assessment Practices that teachers use in their classrooms.
CCSS – Acronym for Common Core State Standards which is use to describe the 21
st
Century
state standards.
CELDT – Acronym for the California English Language Development Test. CELDT is a state
and federal law assessment for elementary and secondary educators to administer annually to
measure proficiency development (PPIC, 2014).
ELA –An acronym used for English Language Arts curriculum and teachers in K-12 education.
ELD – Acronym for English Language Development, a systematic instructional model designed
to develop the English language proficiency of ELLs. ELD instruction emphasizes the
development of all four-language domains: reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
LEPs -Acronym for Limited English Proficiency. Students considered LEP do not speak English
as their primary language, have a limited ability to read, speak, write, and listen in English.
These individuals may be entitled to language assistance with respect to a particular type of
service, benefit, or encounter.
LTEL – Acronym for Long Term English Learner, a student who has been enrolled in US
schools for more than 6 years, is slowly progressing towards English proficiency and is
struggling academically. They are challenged in developing the English skills needed for
academic success and accumulated major academic gaps in their elementary school and/or
middle school years.
PLDs – Acronym for Proficiency Level Descriptors, part of ELD Framework to use in
conjunction with state standards to identify language stage.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 17
PPIC – Acronym for Public Policy Institute of California, which shares the terms associated with
implementing academic English instruction for ELLs.
RFELPs/FEPs – Acronym for Reclassified Fluent English Learner Proficient/Fluent English
Proficient. RFELPs and FEPs are students who met the criteria to establish they have sufficient
English proficiency to be reclassified.
SAE – Acronym for Standardized Academic English
Limitations
The researcher in this study selected the pool of participants based on convenience and
the accessibility of the participants. Time constraints did not allow for interviewing or observing
a larger group of teachers. Also based on time constraints and convenience the researcher
analyzed a small number of student work samples to find evidence of the impact of the
instruction they experienced. Multiple variables could have influenced their writing, including
their background knowledge before instruction and the various levels of SAE knowledge within
the groups of students.
Delimitations
The small number of teachers studied and the short period of time over which data were
collected limit the generalizability of this study. The researcher observed the teachers over a
period of two weeks. The researcher also held only one interview with each of the teachers who
were observed.
Organization of the Study
Chapter One includes the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose,
and importance of the study. It also includes the research questions, definition of terms and the
organization of the study. Chapter Two contains a comprehensive review of literature and
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 18
theoretical framework related to the background of ELLs in America and in California, current
instructional strategies, assessments and language development classroom practices to promote
proficiency and policies that influence educators as they teach in the middle school classroom.
Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the study and includes the sample and population
selection, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis. It also includes statements of
limitations, validity, and ethics. Chapter Four presents the summary of the findings resulting
from the analysis of the interviews, observations, and examination of documents. Chapter Five
offers a discussion of the findings, implications, recommendations for future research and
conclusion of the study.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to describe the instructional needs of ELLs in
public schools. First, it identifies some of the historically recognized language challenges of
ELLs in American and Californian schools. Next, the chapter contains an overview of the
theoretical foundation used as the lens for analyzing the data collected. Additionally, it outlines
some of the current instructional ELL teaching strategies used to promote proficiency in the
classroom as well as the role assessments play in these instructional practices. Finally, the review
concludes with federal and state policies, such as Proposition 227 and No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), which influence instruction and outcomes.
Background of ELLs
California schools have the highest number of ELL populations and could provide insight
for understanding why they advance through their education without becoming proficient by
grade twelve. Many ELL challenges can be tied to policies that date as early as the 1980’s. The
historical language foundation of how ELLs develop proficiency is connected to how they are
taught and classified into mainstream classrooms today (Goldenberg, 2008). Although
Goldenberg (2008) states ELLs make up almost 6 million of the nation’s students, one third of
them are in California classrooms (Payan & Nettles, 2008).
ELLs are typically classified as LEP by third grade (Rasinski Rupley, & Nichols, 2008).
LEP students are considered to have a limited vocabulary and be unable to communicate
effectively using SAE (Callahan et al., 2003). Students who do not reclassify by fifth grade
become identified as LTEL based on their difficulties with oral and written forms of SAE
(Goldenberg, 2008). They are not familiar with the academic language of other content subjects
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 20
nor the balance they have to maintain in learning to use SAE while simultaneously becoming
proficient in content subjects (Rasinski et al, 2008).
For example, reading comprehension is the ability to use one’s background knowledge
and thinking ability to make sense of what one reads (Hudley & Mallison, 2011). Text written in
SAE is less of a challenge for non-ELLs because their comprehension is based on background
knowledge they have already developed whereas ELLs do not have comparable language
backgrounds. Although non-ELLs come to the classroom with an ability to access their
background knowledge through use of SAE in their homes, ELLs require specific instruction to
help them transition from accessing and using their background knowledge in their native
language first and then in SAE second (Goldenberg 2008).
Specialized instruction provides language support that decreases the difficulty ELLs have
in grasping content knowledge in their first language while simultaneously developing
proficiency in academic language (Kieffer et al, 2009). For example, some ELL teachers in dual
immersion classrooms support second language acquisition by using ELLs’ primary language to
build their ability to transition between languages while learning SAE (Hubbard & Carpenter,
2003).This type of language support for ELLs allows increased language development within the
school environment they can also use at home.
ELL Challenges in America
In 1980, ELLs were known as the immigrant learners who arrived in American
classrooms with the ability to speak a language other than English (Eubanks, P. 2002).In the
1980’s, the methods used to identify ELLs were fairly new, and much of the data on them were
not disaggregated to effectively address ways for English language teachers to implement
specialized instruction (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). This gap in data caused
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 21
educators to overlook possible specifics that could inform policy, as well as educators, regarding
how ELLs were to be measured for proficiency development progression. By 1990, these
immigrant learners became known as ELLs, “second language learner” or “bilingual speaker”
(Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011). Recently, several statistics displayed an increase in the ELL
population from 2 million in 1990 to 5 million almost two decades later in American public
school classrooms (Goldenberg, 2008).
Schools requirement that ELLs put aside the language of their homes and communities
and adopt a language that is unfamiliar during the early stages of language development presents
instructional challenges and increases the difficulties teachers face (Goldenberg, 2008).These
instructional challenges contribute to delayed proficiency in ELA classes as well as in learning to
use SAE in other content areas because teachers in other content areas may not be recognize or
acknowledge for students’ lack of proficiency (Flores et al., 2009).
ELL’s score lower than average in comparison to their non-ELL counterparts on
standardized testing and fall at the low end of the achievement gaps identified in standardized
testing (National Education Association[NEA], 2008). Upon entering school, many ELLs are
declared by their parents to have a home language other than English, which is how ELLs
become identified as LEP (California Department of Education, 2013). Eventually, they move
into ELD programs, receiving specialized instruction designed to help them acquire SAE and
learn subject content (Lee, 2012).
ELLs are considered a highly diverse and a complex group. As they enter school, they
face proficiency challenges that increase each year, based on their need to use academic
language in social and academic settings simultaneously (Hudley & Mallison, 2011). Each year,
the academic demands become more rigorous and require teachers to address ELL needs more
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 22
effectively. The early detection of ELL language background gives educators insight into how
learners should be grouped and purposefully placed within instructional settings instead of being
placed randomly based on grade level (Rance-Roney, 2009).These placements help identify
levels of academic language use based on language backgrounds and specific needs to establish
proficiency. After these initial placements are established during the early stages of language
development, the hope is for ELLs to have their language needs met as they advance within the
remaining timeframe (Anthony, 2008).
The accuracy of timeframes set for language development is limited in research. For
example, one ongoing concern for teachers is fluency or how long it takes to develop accurate
language skills during the early stages of learning SAE (Crosnoe, & Turley, 2011). Cummins
2007, points out that the misplacement of ELLs in K-12 education can sometimes cause
difficulties for language development. Essentially, educators do not consider ELL language
background knowledge during placement, and this can have an impact on proficiency
performance. As teachers design instruction, they often choose lower level expectations that
become problematic for promoting ELL progression (Cummins, 2000, 2009). These concerns
create ongoing difficulties for teachers as they work to identify which instructional strategies are
most effective to address ELL language needs at a given point before these students move on to
the next grade (Cummins, 2009; Ellis, 2008).
The proficiency timeframe is an essential element for ELLs to rehearse academic
language to a point of familiarity and fluency so they can use it outside the classroom (Cummins,
2009; Hudley & Mallison, 2011). Second language acquisition depends on the learner’s access to
opportunities to engage in meaningful and intrinsically stimulating communication as they learn
(Ellis, 2008). This distinctive trait of language development is what teachers must consider as
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 23
they implement instructional strategies and activities that allow language practice (Ortiz-Marrero
& Sumaryono, 2010).
ELLs face the challenge of exploring unfamiliar background knowledge that comes to
them in unrecognizable sounds, which differ, from their primary alphabet or pattern of words
(Garcia, 2000; Ortiz-Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010). Reclassified FEPs remind us that translation
takes practice in order to develop SAE proficiently (Krashen & Clara, 2005; Slama, 2011).
Slama (2011) shares that ELLs who do not become fluent English learners before entering high
school are expected to double their academic workload to catch up with their non-ELL peers.
However, research demonstrates that ongoing engagement and specialized instructional practices
for language development improves proficiency outcomes over time within the K-12 structure.
Research states that it takes ELLs almost 10 years to develop academic language when they have
had a minimal support at home or in their native language (Cummins, 2008; Thomas & Collier,
1995).California research shows no more than 40% of ELLs reclassify after 10 years of
consistent uninterrupted education, and, currently, 75% stay in reclassification status throughout
the duration of their learning (Kim & Herman, 2012).
ELL Challenges in California
In California, one out of four students in K-12 public schools is an ELL, and one out of
three elementary students enter kindergarten as an ELL (California Department of Education,
2013). The numbers of this population have risen for more than 30 years (Janzen, 2008). The
different levels of ELL experiences indicate a variety of groups as RFEPs, LTELs or other
categories that call for specific types of identification and assessment (Crosnoe et al., 2011).
Early 2000 statistics show 79% of ELLs in the United States speak Spanish and 83% of
this group lives in California (Callahan et al., 2003). Additionally, the low proficiency of ELLs
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 24
in California public schools is a major and increasing concern. Educators seek to implement
language programs and scaffold learning strategies to establish clear trajectories of proficiency
development from elementary to secondary education. However, solutions for this challenge
have yet to be found (Jespen, 2005). Cummins (2007) states that clear trajectories include Ells
having time to practice expressing themselves in SAE so that they not only communicate their
message but also validate the language they are using.
Overall, the low proficiency of ELLs is a national problem, most notable in the state of
California, and can be seen at every grade level (California Department of Education, 2013). As
research gives a display of ELL populations in American classrooms, it also identifies their
needs through the stages of language development (Rueda, 2011). These needs begin to show
how proficiency progression has or has not taken place through grade levels (Molle, 2013).
Without research-based responses to these needs, language instruction becomes ineffective while
the ELL continues to advance through grade levels (Kim & Herman, 2012). ELL advancement
through grades does not necessarily mean language development growth has taken place (Ball&
Gettinger, 2009).
While ELLs make up more than 52% of many California classrooms (Payan & Nettles,
2008), research shows they do not have a foundation of academic language in English (Ellis,
2008)nor do they have a strong foundation of using their native language in American
classrooms (Payan & Nettles, 2008). Instead, they are immersed into K-12 education without
minimal knowledge of speaking, reading, listening or writing in either SAE or their primary
languages (Callahan et al, 2003; Ortiz-Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010). This makes literacy
development challenging, even with specialized instruction (Hudley & Mallison, 2011).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 25
Because 76% of elementary ELLs are born in California, and two-thirds of the ELL
population in public schools are from low-income families, it can be considered that
environmental challenges also influence how and why they score low or do not develop
proficiency (PPIC, 2014). ELL’s score lower than average on standardized testing and increase
the achievement gap between them and their peers (NEA, 2008). Despite the language support
they receive, many ELLs are still leaving California elementary schools as LEPs, entering
middle schools as LTELs and remaining LTELs as they enter high education (Slama, 2011).
Furthermore, research shows many are still without developed language proficiency as they
leave high school (Kim & Herman, 2012) causing ELL teachers to remain concerned with how
to adequately address language development needs.
Balanced Literacy Theory in Language Development
Research shows that using primary languages to support second language acquisition is
effective (Hubbard & Carpenter, 2003). In a balanced literacy approach, teachers combine skills
development with literature and language to forward cognitive development (Au, 1998).
Authenticity and classroom discourse make up the continuum for balanced literacy instruction
along with the teacher’s role as participant in finding ways to deliver explicit instruction for each
learner (Au, 1998). When the teacher can relate to a student’s background language and use it as
a foundation in the early stages of language development, proficiency may increase within the
given timeframe so that ELLs reclassify and develop effective literacy skills as they move onto
the next grade or stage.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 26
Social Constructivist Theory
Based on social constructivist theory, ELLs create their understanding of language based
on how they feel in their educational environments, on what they observe in these environments
and in a personalized reasonable timeframe. Socially constructed classrooms with effective
teachers share the cultural dynamics of the classroom as well as the verbal and non-verbal
language challenges that take root before many students leave their home environments (Gee,
2001). When teachers position themselves as learners in a community of learners, students can
build social constructive means to develop language and literacy. Au (1998) shares that people
perceive and describe the world of language by social exchange and by how we generate
meaning as human beings.
As we consider the differences in our schools and universities as they relate to learning
during the various stages of K-12 education (Au, 1998), language development depends on
instruction that embraces diverse cultures to give students a more balanced language learning
opportunity (Gee, 2001). Social constructivism theorizes that learning happens through social
interaction with others at school and in home environments and helps to influence the student to
collaboratively create a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings with each other
(Van Lier & Walqui, 2013).
Instructional Strategies
Introduction of early stage instruction. Instructional strategies used to promote
proficiency through learning have always been a part of students’ beginnings in K-12 education
(Goldenberg, 2008). Language instruction strategy design is important in the early stages of
language development (The Clute Institute, 2011) because it facilitates progression, making the
development process critically dependent on strategic ELL language instruction (Hudley
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 27
&Mallison, 2011). Strategies to build ELLs’ background knowledge and second language, used
in the early stages of language development, are essential for increasing their reading
comprehension (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009)in their second language (Krashen & Clara, 2005). Early
stage learning strategies for ELLs require intensive assistance as they transition between primary
language use and use of SAE on a routine basis (Hudley & Mallison, 2011). This type of
learning requires that instruction be strategically scaffolded for ELLs to adapt within specific
timeframes during language development stages (Ellis, 2008; The Clute Institute, 2011).
Specifically, research states that middle school instruction, a three-year timeframe, is a time for
educators to build students’ content knowledge, as well as their of use newly developed
knowledge and newly acquired language in different contexts (King, 2011)such as home and
community. Using the newly acquired language and content in these environments provides
ELLs with ongoing skills resulting in language proficiency (Molle, 2013). Moreover, early stage
instruction must include strategies designed to promote proficiency, if the student has reached
middle school without reclassifying.
Early stage language learning for ELLs is complex because it goes beyond the language
or literacy instruction that a teacher can impart in the classroom (Au, 1998). It extends to the
influence of peers and the family members with whom students identify (Sperling & Freedman,
2001). Furthermore, Heath (1991) confirms that becoming literate means learning in ways that
are similar to how people learn in their day-to-day environments. The explicit instruction
teachers give needs to promote language skills and guide ELLs in developing those skills
through modeled and scaffolded instruction as they build background knowledge (Ball, &
Gettinger, M. 2009).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 28
Rasinski et al., (2008) discuss the elements to building language by making learning
authentic so that it is engaging and effective during early stage language development. For
example, in the early stages of reading proficiency, elementary students learn pronunciation in
common spelling patterns as they rehearse in rhyme schemes out loud. This builds a general idea
of how to develop a background knowledge and decoding process for accurate pronunciation.
Another example of instruction during the early stages of development is teachers’ use of visual
stimulation. Using visual aids, body language and gestures as supplements before instruction and
during guided instruction makes a stronger emphasis for ELLs as they make language
connections (Oliveira & Shoffner, 2009). Asher, 2003 advocates for using body movements to
acknowledge understanding of second language acquisition. This strategy, known as Total
Physical Response, is an instructional strategy many educators find effective for comprehension
even before second language acquisition occurs (Garcia, 2002, Asher, 2003).
Early stage ELD/ELA Instructional Strategies. ELLs’ language development relies on
effective instruction from both ELA and ELD teachers (Callison, 2013). The California Board of
Education (2014) adopted the ELA an ELD Framework for K-12 public schools to be used in
conjunction with the California Common Core Standards as a guide for developing instructional
strategies and assessments that prepare ELLs for proficiency (Callison, 2013;California
Department of Education, 2013).
Specifically, ELL teachers are expected to design instruction using ELD and ELA
standards along with those of Common Core within the middle school timeframe (California
Department of Education, 2013; Torlakson, 2013). When teachers provide a balance of whole
classroom instruction that includes a modified lesson for ELLs that is not segregated and the
scaffolding to support and address ELL language needs, learning is increasingly recognized as
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 29
successful (Allison, 2011). This strategy accelerates proficiency in the early stages of language
development even in middle school (Kim & Herman 2012). Furthermore, teachers identify the
unique teaching strategies as ways to scaffold learning so that ELLs develop proficiency in ELA
and ELD classrooms together as they learn in different contexts. Teaching expectations,
collaboration through integrating ELA and ELD Standards and formative and summative
assessments that parallel this instruction benefit teachers and ELLs for progressive proficiency
development across content areas and in different contexts (Garcia& Ortiz, 2008).
Identifying summative and formative assessments aligned with ELA and ELD standards
helps teachers plan instructional strategies to promote proficiency within the ELL classroom
(The Clute Institute, 2011). Also, analyzing the results of assessments can guide or inform
instruction. Aligning standards-based instruction with formative and summative assessments
prepares ELLs for early stage language development and reclassification. Aligning standards
with instruction for assessment is an integral part of how teachers establish proficiency before
the end of ELLs’ elementary educational experience (Garcia & Ortiz, 2008; Goldenberg, 2008,)
but it is necessary at every stage of language development.
Additionally, since ELLs will have to take formative and summative assessments like the
CAHSEE or CELDT, being able to identify effective language development strategies aligned
with these assessments helps them establish proficiency before they reach secondary education.
Making use of assessment to identify ways to improve language development during the early
stages of allows for more effective instructional practice. Studies show that, even though
students score at an intermediate level of proficiency, this still does not constitute passing scores
for annual testing (Slama, 2011). Many of these assessments entail grammar and specific
language, which ELLs have yet to acquire or familiarize themselves with.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 30
Research provides ideas for effective instruction for ELLs overall but is limited for
effective instruction in the various stages of language development during middle school. When
we consider the differences in our schools related to learning during K-6 education, research
shows that language development deepens when instruction embraces diverse cultures and
includes forms of explicit instruction (Gee, 2001). After being nurtured in the early stages of
literacy development by the teacher, ELLs have an increased need to collaborate and practice
newly learned language skills together and in various environments (i.e., home environments) to
reinforce the new language.
In one study (Oliveira & Hoffner, 2009), one teacher displayed how she used visual aids
and manipulatives as part of the instruction to build vocabulary and grammar. The teacher used
manipulatives as she read a poem from a children’s cultural storybook out loud. As she read, she
pointed and made gestures to indicate the differences between burrao (Portuguese for big
donkey) and burrinho (Portuguese for small donkey). She also allowed ELLs time to practice
orally as she rehearsed the pronunciation and identified suffixes by pointing out ao (big) and
inho (small) to display suffixes as preparation for SAE (Oliveira & Hoffner, 2009). This use of
primary language is a strategy for ongoing instruction that deepens understanding of how to use
grammar as a form of explicit instruction that is authentic.
One of the instructional strategies of ELD teachers is using ELLs’ primary languages to
influence second language acquisition. In many classrooms, teachers use ELLs’ primary
languages to help them understand academic language by having discussions in their home
languages (Sperling & Freedman, 2001). For example, some ELL teachers use journal writing in
students’ primary languages to develop student’s academic writing first in their primary language
(Hubbard & Carpenter, 2003).Students who develop academic writing in their first language can
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 31
transfer the skill to the new language more easily. This strategy allows language teachers to
influence literacy development in a way that speeds up the process of learning SAE. Many ELLs
find it challenging to transition from one language to the other and continue in the flow of
becoming proficient; however, ELLs find it less challenging when they can use their primary
languages to transition into Standardized English (Hubbard & Carpenter, 2003).
Specifically Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE).Research shares that
one way to build on language development is through the use of Specially Designed Academic
Instruction in English (SDAIE), which embraces different techniques as a part of ELL sheltered
instruction (Hubbard & Carpenter, 2003). A few SDAIE instructional strategies are KWL charts
(charts used to identify what the student K-knows; W- wants to know; L- wants to learn), jigsaws
(creative puzzles that help students match pieces of the learning during group instruction), and
brainstorming as a way to begin exercises for language development and infuse these techniques
with content to build a language learners’ familiarity, understanding and use of SAE (Genzuk,
2011). For example, teachers start with a word or phrase to stimulate the student’s mind to
participate peer-sharing language activities or whole-class discussion. Teachers build strategies
to develop the second language through the use of the primary language or through interactive
exercises. SDAIE strategies give ELA and ELD teachers a way to create a foundation for
designing instruction and building students’ language development in a way that infuses their
own creativity and the culture or language background of the student (Genzuk, 2011). When the
teacher provides learning tasks that model the use of primary language with literacy
development, she creates a social environment in which students can construct meaning together
as they use their primary language and their emerging academic language for second language
acquisition (Heath, 1991).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 32
Peer Tutoring. Using peer tutoring is another instructional strategy for ELLs that allows
interaction between the tutor and the learner to increase language development. Gee (2001) states
that building language by connecting socially through conversation using SAE in the classroom
provides language opportunities that strengthen proficiency development. This strategy gives the
teacher a way to observe and correct language as it is used and developed during students’
practice with one another in a natural way. Language development depends on access and
engagement during a reasonable timeframe for students to build knowledge as well as use newly
developed knowledge and language in different contexts (King, 2011).When ELLs have time to
share and talk, they make text-to-text connections between books hey have been reading during
their reading time. In essence, students’ talking and reading builds their communication using
SAE. Teachers have to provide opportunities to practice reading skills such as texts-to-text talks
and making connections with academic language. This method to increase students’ language
development (Columbo & Fontaine, 2009in middle school is more effective when educators
provide opportunities for ELLs to practice academic language in speaking and listening in
addition to reading and writing as a combined effort. language development is more effective in
the early stages of timeframe (Cummins, 2008).
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) emphasize the important role language
development, including listening and speaking, plays (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012) in literacy
development in today’s classroom (Payan & Nettles, 2008). Vygotsky (1978) put forth the
concept that the exchange between student and teacher underscores how the teacher’s speech
later becomes the internal speech of the student and is a powerful psychological tool for learning.
Combining the language domains of reading, writing, listening and speaking in preparation for
ELL progression will increase language development (Schleppegrell, 2003).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 33
Hawkins (2004) states that the Zone of Proximal Development and Apprenticeship are
two constructs that combine to create an atmosphere that shows the ELL how to use already
learned language skills with those newly developed. For example, when ELLs (apprentices)
practice language development with the teacher while higher level ELLs or non-ELLs (experts)
practice language with each other, the classroom becomes a language-learning arena where
higher and lower levels are shared in discourse that leads to new knowledge and development.
DelliCarpini (2009) shares that teachers can manage peer language development exercises to
increase language development in an authentic setting by having ELLs share in SAE discussions
with non-ELLs. This example of authenticity is what a teacher must always return to as authentic
instruction (Au, 1998) for developing language skills as students apply learning in their own
settings and independently (NEA, 2008).
Authenticity becomes a whole-part-whole approach, which means the teacher balances
instruction with assessments to monitor students’ progressive efforts in becoming proficient (Au,
1998).Additionally, it allows a teacher to use his/her creative abilities to match unique language
needs during instruction with scaffolding learning exercises to produce a more effective and
meaningful skills. This strategy is based on the teacher’s ongoing assessment of her/his students,
making the teacher intrinsically connected while building a relationship with students through
language as they acquire SAE proficiency (Valencia & Wixon, 2013).
The whole-part-whole experience is an example of students’ having the opportunity to
share in their current level of language their explicit content learning as they develop their
language skills. These types of experiences identify how teachers can effectively create strategies
designed specifically for ELLs. This view of language is consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978)
notion of the role of speech in organizing higher psychological functions for ELL’s unique
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 34
language development. Speech can determine the course of action a child takes in performing a
task or in learning a concept. In other words, speech and action are combined to learn the
language of the classroom modeled by the teacher while simultaneously being imparted to
students. This use of language becomes part of the instruction for making complex
comprehension recognizable in ELLs’ thinking skills. This recognition of speech and action can
then be assessed for the student’s progression throughout the educational process and is
necessary to incorporate when identifying effective strategies during instruction for sixth through
eighth grade English language teachers (Kim & Herman, 2012).
Combining ELA and ELD Strategies in Middle School Instruction. As students
progress from elementary school to middle school, they face increasingly rigorous ELA
standards, yet many students who have not reclassified still function in the early stages of
language development. This is a challenge for middle school teachers. It requires them to
support ELA standards with the ELD framework consisting of the four domains through which
students must progress: reading, writing, listening and speaking (California Department of
Education, 2013; Torlakson, 2013); these domains provide a foundation for teachers to scaffold
ELLs into proficiency in SAE. Strategies that integrate ELA standards and ELD language
domains support the LTEL in language development as well as in literacy development
(California Department of Education, 2013; Torlakson, 2013
Interactive classrooms are centered on the students, which allow ELLs time to practice
with peers. This practice in small groups or in pairs develops ELLs’ use of SAE much more
quickly during natural language development practice. Research says that interactive classrooms
should include time for open discussion and communication that is not scripted in which students
share openly about the content. These effective instructional strategies can be adapted to increase
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 35
language development over time through classroom instruction and for assessment (Allison &
Rehm, 2007). Finding strategic ways to combine ELLs’ proficiency levels with ELA and ELD
standard objectives can create a more productive language development process.
ELA and ELD standard alignment with Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) provide
benchmarks that help teachers monitor student progress and develop additional specific
standards-based strategies (and assessments)for developing the skills of second language
learners, as shown in Appendix H (C.A. Dept. of Ed., 2013; Torlakson, 2013). The example
below matches ELD and ELA Standards/CCSS for outlining instruction so that the ELA and
ELD alignment of content standards match the language development standards and language
domains. These may serve teachers as they plan instruction, design benchmarks and monitor
language progression from one stage to the next (CA Dept. of ED., 2012). Table 1 provides an
example of alignment between an ELD standard and ELA standards with a PLD to help teachers
provide a sociocultural context that supports ELLs’ progress.
Table 1
PLD Collaborative Aligned Standards
PLD Mode of
Communication
ELD Standard 6
th
grade
Corresponding CCSS with
ELA State Standards
Collaborative Mode:
Engagement in dialogue with
others
Exchanging information and
ideas with others through oral
collaborative discussions on a
range of social and academic
topics.
Common Core State Standards
for English Language Arts:
Speaking and Listening.6.1, 6;
Listening.6.3, 6
Middle school is a critical turning point in students’ academic progress and 59 %of ELLs
in California middle schools fail to reach fluency level proficiency by 6
th
or 8
th
grade (Luster,
2011). As LEP or ELLs maneuver into middle school, they become increasingly aware of their
lag behind non-ELL counterparts and begin to show low confidence levels in developing
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 36
proficiency (Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2003). One of the most challenging obstacles for
middle school ELLs is the use of content area vocabulary in reading, writing and speaking
(Gomez & Madda, 2005). For the average eighth grader, pronunciation of unfamiliar vocabulary
words not only presents speech challenges, but it also requires a level of confidence in the use of
vocabulary words they may have yet to develop. ELLs need practice not only in the use of
vocabulary for various content areas but also in practicing opportunities that are similar for both
ELA and in ELD classrooms (Allison & Rehm, 2007).
For example, ELL teachers can benefit from peer assisted learning strategies to help less
capable readers or in classrooms that are overcrowded and where both students and teachers
become overwhelmed. These strategies (combining ELA/ELD standards and domains) not only
build more proficient learners but also increase student achievement (Almaquer, 2005). These
gains are particular salient when the teacher can match weak/strong ELLs together within the
same level of learning. This is also what Vygotsky (1978) calls social processes of learning
where students socially construct meaning together. Furthermore it has been stated that students
learn more in cooperative learning than they do independently (Allison & Rehm, 2007).
In mainstream education, the listening skill is crucial, and using vocabulary in
meaningful ways becomes the building block from elementary pronunciation and fluency in
reading to middle school comprehension of listening and speaking (Garcia, 2000). These skills
for language development are outlined in the recent standards aligned instruction for ELD and
ELA Frameworks (CA Dept. of ED, 2012) and, thus, require teachers to build content knowledge
for language learners as well as skills that promote proficiency.
Integrated Standard Frameworks have been designed for easy access through technology
to make strategy development appealing for addressing ELL language needs while
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 37
differentiating instruction. For example, Integrated Language Standard 3.1 (3
rd
grade
ELA/ELA/CCSS) connects teaching instruction to simple ideas for how to create activities and
lessons for the different stages of language development and for students to demonstrate
commands of the conventions of standard English grammar usage when writing. The
corresponding ELD standard shows teachers how to design a lesson for students to interact in
meaningful ways through collaboration at each proficiency level (Emerging, Expanding or
Bridging-levels of Proficiency) to build students’ knowledge of the language (California
Department of Education, 2014). Since lessons are predesigned for easy access, teachers can
model instruction so the expectation for learning is balanced through authenticity. These
strategic measures across content and grade levels organize instruction by stages, so that the
teacher can quickly identify the development happening as s/he addresses ELL language needs.
Moreover, this helps teachers to identify what is effective for ELL progression (CA Dept. of Ed.,
2013; Torlakson, 2013).
ELA and ELD standards calling for collaboration helps create opportunities for ELLs to
build language inside and outside the classroom, so that they increase their understanding of
applying academic language to academic tasks (Schleppegrell, 2003).One example of how ELD
teachers can use combined standards as part of their collaboration for strategy design is through
Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs). As seen in Table 1, PLDs are used to monitor language
development in stages. They describe knowledge, skills and the abilities of ELLs as they develop
across a continuum. The three levels (Emerging, Expanding and Bridging) of the PLDs guide
teachers to target and differentiate instruction simultaneously (California Department of
Education, 2012).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 38
Some of the teaching strategies used in ELD classrooms allow ELLs to transition
between two languages, which becomes a difficult task to adopt as literacy develops. Translation,
pronunciation and fluency are part of an overall process; however, this task is challenging for the
ELL (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012). Using PLDs, teachers facilitate a particular proficiency
level and match it with the student’s performance level as s/he develops proficiency from the
beginning stages to the bridging stages. PLDs make it more concrete to accurately identify where
a student is. Rasinski et al. (2008) state this is an awareness educators should have at the
elementary level (or early stages) for students to process reading words accurately and
efficiently.
Additionally, California Content Standards state that readers should also know how to
recognize and use word families interchangeably in social and academic settings (California
Department of Education, 2013). Several hundred-word families presented in stages as
background knowledge for elementary students and to clarify what students are expected to
know before fluency takes place are important for language development process (Garcia & Di
Cierbo, 2000). PLDs (Torlakson, 2013) illuminate where a language deficiency in vocabulary
may exist by monitoring what the student can do and what the student knows at a particular stage
(CA Dept. of Ed. 2012, 2013).
Many overlook the language levels of literacy for ELLs as well as the specific challenges
they face in developing proficiency (Garcia & Di Cierbo, 2000) and why ELA and ELD
standards collaboration as well as instructional collaboration among ELA and ELD teachers is
necessary (CA Dept. of Ed. 2013). Although ELA and ELD collaboration on how PLDs are to be
used for proficiency development makes teachers aware of how to scaffold students into SAE
proficiency, it does not include a way to address ELA proficiency within specific timeframes.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 39
Educators need to have appropriately constructed assessments or assessment tools that can
increase this awareness for specific students to meet specific timeframes. Assessments that
identify or monitor language progression in reading, writing, speaking, listening and thinking for
ELLs as part of their language development process during middle school are crucial stage by
stage and not just within the three year timeframe (Afitska, 2014).
ELL Assessments in the Classroom
Assessment policies have an impact on English language instruction and English
language development in a way that demands monitoring over time. In 2002, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed performance assessments amongst ELLs
can improve instruction for language development when language development patterns are
identified and tracked over time. Meeting ELLs’ language needs can improve through
establishing an ongoing trajectory of progress as well as increasing clarity around teaching
practices (NAEP, 2002). Although the number of students who do reclassify by tenth grade, after
the CAHSEE, is over30% of the ELL population in California schools, research shows that
language demands of high stakes assessments can negatively influence performance
measurements (Jespen, 2005) as the pressure can influence ELLs in various ways during their
language development process. Conversely, formative classroom assessments can positively
influence language development and improve instruction. Instead of depending on summative
assessments like CAHSEE, teachers’ assessments in the classroom can measure the effectiveness
of language development during classroom practices (Luster, 2011).Unfortunately, English
language teachers struggle to prepare the summative and formative assessment ELLs need to
help them reclassify (Abedi & Dietel, 2004).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 40
Formative assessments with integrated ELL Instruction
Buxton et al. (2013) initiated a project that identified ELLs assessed in middle school
science classroom, using writing to help teachers identify ELLs’ emerging language challenges
and how to improve instruction in a way that increases proficiency efforts rather than just moves
students along from grade to grade. The project called for using monitoring assessments that
provide several steps of scaffolding to support students’ written responses. These types of
assessments allow teachers to focus on the details of what the students understand. Through this
project, educators outlined the specifics of how to illuminate students’ thinking in a way that is
explicit for tracking language progression within specific content areas in middle school. One
example in this research is teachers using scoring rubrics to assess the progression of student
language used in science classes as distinct from everyday language. After collaboration and
detailed explanations of their findings, teachers explained how to teach with more explicit
instruction to foster students’ understanding/thinking before students took the next assessments.
Afitska (2014) also shares that while teachers inform each other on how to support the ELLs in
the mainstream classroom, teachers also need training for how to support ELL language
progressions through all their students’ educational experiences.
The CCSS identify ways to inform instructional practices that can be aligned with
improving ELL proficiency outcomes as measured by assessments. K-12 literacy performance
outcomes in CCSS provides way for teachers to outline objectives and for students to establish a
trajectory of growth at each grade level as they are monitored in each content area (California
Department of Education, 2013). The CCSS connect the domains of literacy for ELA and ELD
teachers to scaffold proficiency development strategically. For example, CCSS provides a
framework that helps teachers form clear expectations for students to learn content and acquire
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 41
Standard English in developing vocabulary, formulating language, and engaging in structured
oral interaction across ELA, ELD, history and social studies, science, technical subjects and
math. Teachers combine key ideas, text complexity and phonological awareness in lessons and
activities through CCSS’s organization of the literacy domains that are consistent across grade
levels within each set of content standards (Callison, 2013). ELD Standards provide specific
additional scaffolds for ELLs to meet the ELA and content standards in the CCSS.
Summative Assessments and Formative Assessments.
The California English Language Development Test and California High School Exit
Exam are two major formal assessments that English language teachers can use in monitoring the
ELLs progress into proficiency. English language teachers can also use mock examples of these
assessments as formative or monitoring assessments and as summative assessments to design
instruction.
Proficiency data continue to illuminate the demand for improving ELL instruction during
elementary and middle school education (Janzen, 2008). In 2006, California legislation enforced
the CAHSEE as a requirement for all high school students to pass in order to graduate high
school (California Department of Education, 2008). This high stakes test requires all students to
demonstrate proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics as they complete tenth grade, but
certainly by the time they are scheduled to graduate from high school. Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute (TRPI) study shows that, when ELLs reclassify before high school they have a lower
rate of dropping out and of not passing the CAHSEE before 12th grade. This high stakes test
increases the need to monitor ELL progression within middle school.
A study conducted in the Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest school district
in California, covered a period of 7 years and reported that three-fourths of the ELL population
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 42
who entered 9
th
grade were not proficient despite their continuous US education as early as
kindergarten. The report showed that at the stage of their secondary schooling, 74.9% of ELLs in
mainstream classrooms had not reclassified, even with accommodations during the test that were
implemented through an ELLs Instructional Education Plan, (CDE 2010).Although ELLs are
required to pass annual assessments to reclassify within an eight to ten year period during their
K-12 education (Cummins, 2008), large numbers of them remain LTELs throughout high school
despite accommodations. The need for language supports during assessments only proves that
ELLs still struggle to gain proficiency as they advance in K-12 education.
Research shows that language demands of high stakes assessments can negatively
influence performance measurements and the demands become expectations that are placed on
ELLs during learning and instruction over time (Abedi & Dietel, 2004).The number of students
who do reclassify by 10
th
grade (after passing CAHSEE) is 30% of the ELL population in
California schools (Jespen, 2005). ELLs perform slower and at 20 to 30 percentage points lower
over the K-12 timeframe; ELL instructors and students are affected by these artificial time
restrictions. Because of this timeframe pressure on English language teachers and students,
reclassification becomes more difficult and the statistic for ELL proficiency continues to
decrease with more challenges in the midst of pressure for literacy development to occur before
high school graduation.
Although ELA and ELD standards and objectives have been aligned with one another
(California Department of Education, 2013) to increase aligned instruction for ELLs, there is
minimal empirical research that shows increased effective instructional practices are happening
in ELA and ELD classrooms at the middle school level to improve proficiency development
(DelliCarpini, 2009). Presently, summative assessments are not aligned with ELA and ELD
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 43
standards (CA Dept. of Ed., 2013) and, to improve proficiency development during annual
assessment, the question becomes how are English language teachers use these annual
assessments to monitor progress toward proficiency and to design more effective instruction that
enables students to earn passing scores on the CELDT and/or CAHSEE. Additionally, a middle
school timeframe for this development to take place seems to still be the challenge for ELL
reclassification to take place before high school. Currently, ELL reclassification is very low in
California secondary schools, and the numbers are rising slowly for middle schools and
elementary schools (Flores et al., 2009).
Reclassification takes place when ELLs pass annual assessments that place them into
mainstream classrooms (Flores et al., 2009). It also includes a comparison of ELLs’
performance in reading, writing, speaking and listening against other peers. The final decision is
locally made among all stakeholders involved to confirm that ELL proficiency has been
established (California Department of Education, 2013). CELDT is used to identify ELLs,
determine levels and assess their progress in literacy beginning with their time of entrance up to
their exit of K-12 education.
Policy Influences Instructional Practices
In 2008, the National Policy Institute on Immigrant Integration Policy reported that
almost 50 million ELLs were enrolled in public schools (ELL Information Center, 2010). The
large number of ELLs who live in California (1.6 million), is greater than the number in Texas,
Florida, New York, Illinois, and Arizona combined. Since 2001, California has been listed as the
state with the largest number of ELLs, and most of the ELLs in California are Spanish speakers
(Migration Policy Institute, 2010). Statistics about the numbers of ELLs in a state or district help
educators to identify language patterns and plan for student needs based on language
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 44
backgrounds. Statistical data in California helps educators anticipate the many challenges ELLs
will face in developing proficiency (Kieffer, et al, 2009).
Policy implementation over the last decade increased the challenges for ELLs, and these
challenges increase at a faster rate as ELLs enter middle school (Department of Education,
2010). The overcrowded classrooms (Menken, 2009) force teachers to develop new strategies
continually and sometimes with minimal resources to address ELL needs and stay in alignment
with implemented policies. Additionally, the California state legislatures say ELLs should only
receive support services or participate in language programs for short periods of time (National
Clearinghouse on Bilingual Education, 2000). This perspective is reflected in state policies that
seek to place ELLs into the mainstream classroom as soon as possible with no regard for how
much time is reasonable for them to acquire academic English nor consideration for effective
teaching in overcrowded classrooms.
Policy shows that the intent for ELLs was to provide opportunities to acquire proficiency
as they progress through K-12. However, it takes ELLs anywhere from 5 to 10 years to acquire
SEP (Garcia& Curry-Rodriquez, 2000). This means that ELLs who leave middle school and are
still not proficient have a maximum of 4 years to develop proficiency along with the pressure and
anxiety they experience in taking annual assessments. State policies make it essential that ELLs
show continuing progress starting from kindergarten (CA Dept. of Ed., 2013).
Proposition 227. Proposition 227 decreased teachers’ opportunities to embrace primary
languages as a way to build English proficiency (Paredes, 2000).In 1998, a variety of
standardized testing for all students had just begun in grades 2 through 11, and, when Proposition
227 passed in California, ELLs were expected to learn in sheltered immersion programs within
one year before transitioning into the mainstream classroom (Jensen, 2005). In an effort to
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 45
adhere to the new law, California schools started ELD programs, dual immersion and bilingual
education initiatives that aimed at improving instruction for ELLs (Ullucci & Spencer, 2009).
However, these efforts pressured teachers but did not increase proficiency among ELLs. This
policy shaped ELLs’ instruction in a way that kept them immersed for a period of time, and,
when that time was up, they were transitioned into mainstream classrooms whether they were
proficient or not (Garcia& Curry-Rodriquez, 2000). This transition was based on the expectation
that ELLs would demonstrate proficiency and mainstream classroom readiness; however, the one
year timeframe for becoming proficient became unreasonable and influenced teachers to start
seeking more effective instructional strategies to increase literacy development overall (Lee,
2012).
One study showed Proposition 227 does not facilitate development of the ELL in the
classroom because it does not allow teachers to utilize their students’ entire language and cultural
background as a strategy for developing proficiency. Primary language used to learn a second
languages is crucial for building on the thinking process while learning (Lee, 2012). Research
provides evidence that ELLs who can use their primary language in learning a new language
have more literacy confidence to give detailed explanations in primary languages than they do to
speak SAE in general conversations (Paredes, 2000). This strategy of allowing students to
explain their thinking in their primary language increases language proficiency development so
that ELLs can strengthen their language ability independently while utilizing what is natural in
their own language as a base in the classroom. The strategy of allowing students to use their
primary language makes cognitive connections for their acquisition of a second language
(Hubbard &Carpenter, 2003). Moreover, the use of the ELLs’ primary language releases them
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 46
from having to force a response without clearly understanding what is being said. However, this
process takes longer than one year.
The goal of being ready to learn in a mainstream setting after one year of intensive
English language instruction is simply too big of a challenge for ELL students to become
reclassified by the end of elementary school, and it is unlikely they will become proficient in
SAE by 12
th
grade. This challenge ultimately established the high rise in low ELL achievement
over the years. Districts now have large numbers of ELLs who do not become proficient by 12
th
grade despite the one-year timeframe implementation specified in Proposition 227 (Parrish et al.,
2006).
Policies’ Influence on ELL Proficiency Timeframes. The National Center for Research
on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (NCRESST) dictates that second language
acquisition timeframes vary as students develop in subject matter content (NCRESST, 2010).
Garcia &DiCerbo (2000) discuss the differences among students developing proficiency as an
ELL and, in many cases, the variability is extremely high for second language acquisition.
Educators find it difficult to master a pattern of specific indicators and predictors that assume a
way to align ELL proficiency with ideal instruction in a reasonable time (Cummins, 2008). A
specific timeframe for ELL proficiency development has become ambiguous, and emergent
timeframes do not allow educators an identified way to continue measuring the progression of
ELLs through K-12 education accurately (Garcia & DiCerbo, 2000). Without a means of
formulating realistic progressions, the achievement standards for knowing how to address
language needs for ELLs continue to be a challenge, as does the expectation, they will develop
along with their non-ELL peers and meet the same standards during K-12 education.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 47
NCLB.NCLB’s ultimate goal is to have all student subgroups establish proficiency in
SAE. Reclassification takes place when improved academic outcomes are continuous and ELLs
pass proficiency assessments (Flores et al., 2009). When ELLs do not reclassify before entering
or exiting middle school, it becomes necessary for resources, as well as instructional strategies,
to be revised and implemented at the current level to increase proficiency outcomes before the
student enters 12
th
grade (Kim & Herman, 2012).
Government actors have much more influence in policy making than any other group or
organization. Therefore, effective instruction includes the teacher’s awareness of how
implementation of policies can influence the outcomes of student achievement, especially as
proficiency is a major concern. The US Department of Education instituted several policies as
they relate to ELL instruction in K-12 (US Department of Education, 2008). The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires all subgroups, including ELLs, to make continuous
progress towards proficiency requirements or schools can suffer serious consequences (NCLB,
2001). NCLB increased pressure throughout the last ten years for English language teachers,
making schools and districts accountable for student performance and for outcomes based on
high stakes testing requirements (Coburn et al, 2011). This policy influenced ELLs’ performance
outcomes and teachers’ classroom instruction to require more in-depth alignment even if teachers
lack training in this area (Aguirre-Munoz & Boscardin, 2008). This kind of impact on American
schools demonstrates how teaching and learning anxiety is connected to performance outcomes
(Goldenberg, 2008). Although NCLB’s goal is intended to narrow achievement gaps for student
populations, it seems to increase pressure on English language teachers and ELLs to show
satisfactory achievement within a general timeframe (Abedi & Dietel, 2004).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 48
Research revealed that ELL performance is 20% to 30% lower than that of the average
K-12 students (Hudley & Mallison, 2011). Despite NCLB’s goal to measure academic
performance primarily through standardized assessments, this goal affects the language demand
on ELLs (Goldenberg, 2008). A report by CRREST demonstrates that this type of language
demand negatively influences the accuracy measuring ELLs in academic achievement and in
language ability. Since ELLs perform lower on language assessments in comparison to other
subjects, these measures raise questions about the influence of language demands to learn
content and acquire academic language proficiency (Ellis, 2008). Therefore, measuring ELLs’
academic performance outcomes can be misconstrued without consideration for those who have
not had the full opportunity to learn the language in which they are tested. This is the kind of
pressure caused by high stakes testing under NCLB (Coburn et al., 2011).
Summary
The history of ELLs gives educators an idea of how and why they possibly make up the
largest number of students who do not gain proficiency by 12
th
grade (Hudley & Mallison,
2011). Since ELLs’ language challenges in California are the highest nationwide, California ELL
teachers have an ongoing concern to identify best practices for promoting their proficiency.
Using a balanced literacy theory illuminates which instructional strategies, assessments and
practices ELL teachers should use to be most effective in promoting proficiency, while Social
Constructivist Theory outlines how these language skills can be implemented in the classroom.
Additionally, it helps ELL teachers identify creative ways for ongoing research to take
place that address future ELL challenges. Policies such as Proposition 227 and NCLB influence
instructional strategies that ultimately lead to how teachers create their instruction and use
assessments to reclassify or monitor ELLs’ language development (Jespen & Alth, 2005).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 49
Although policies like NCLB and Proposition 227 indirectly influence the planning of instruction
using ELD and ELA language development standards (PPIC, 2014), the K-12aggressive
timeframe creates an added pressure for both teacher and student (Kim & Herman, 2012) to
produce effective proficiency outcomes (Goldenberg, 2008; Payan & Nettles, 2008).
Overview of the study
In this dissertation, the researcher allowed the voices of the ELA and ELD teachers to be
heard by using qualitative research tools. The qualitative study approach was utilized in order to
explore how English Language teachers promote ELL proficiency in the classroom and what
specific strategies are effective between stages of language development. Teachers were
questioned and observed as to how they monitor the progression of ELLs toward proficiency via
formative and summative assessments. They also shared ELL documentation that demonstrates
the effectiveness of instructional strategies as a measure to produce increased proficiency
performance. This case study was bound by time and place (Merriam, 2009), meaning that it is
used to purposefully cover the early stages and exiting stages of ELL proficiency development in
ELA/ELD classrooms.
Conceptual Framework
The theoretical perspectives of balanced literacy instruction and social constructivism
guide the analysis of data. Additionally, seeking how ELA/ELD and English language teachers
socially construct in collaboration with each other to form these lessons for the ELL is the basis
of the study. The interview protocol is used to highlight ELL teaching strategies and contrast
ELA and ELD strategies with the instructional standards and assessments to use as teachers
promote proficiency. This comparison shows the in-classroom use of standard aligned instruction
to understand key connections at the beginning, early intermediate and intermediate stages of
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 50
proficiency development. This study identifies how ELL teachers prepare ELLs for pre- and
post-assessments for reclassification through daily classroom instructional efforts. Interviewees
also shed light on how they use assessments to monitor progress between stages of language
development. Uncovering the effective components of how these teachers connect all parts of the
language learning experience for ELL proficiency development during middle school education
was essential to this study.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Understanding the increasing phenomenon of how so many ELL students in K-12
education do not gain proficiency of SAE by 12
th
grade is necessary to explore and analyze for
improving language development in today’s classroom (Payan & Nettles, 2008). Over the last
several decades, teachers concluded that helping students acquire grade-level academic language
proficiency and content area knowledge at the same time is problematic (Hayes, Rueda, &
Chilton, 2009). Understanding how ELL teachers use specific strategies so proficiency in SAE
readiness increases instead of students remaining in the status of Long Term English Learners
(LTELs) beyond middle school education is the focus of this study.
The literature review describes the impact ELL teachers have on proficiency outcomes by
using effective instructional strategies that help students perform best both in the classroom and
on annual assessments during the early stages of language development. Additionally, the
literature review addresses how policies influence the way teachers implement language
proficiency instructional strategies into current instructional practices. As ELLs move between
grade levels and enter and exit at different stages of language development, teachers display
instructional practices that can shape literacy development. Interviews, observations, and
document analysis yielded in-depth rich descriptions of teacher practices and strategies intended
to promote SAE language development.
Research Design
In qualitative research, the focus is on process, meaning and understanding, and the
researcher serves as the main instrument for collecting and analyzing data (Merriam, 2009).
Qualitative methodology is appropriate for this study because the researcher sought meaning for
how instructional strategies were created, monitored and used to assess and improve proficiency
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 52
during the early stages of language development. This analysis was an attempt to develop an
understanding about teaching strategies that prepare ELLs for proficiency in using SAE beyond
middle school education. A qualitative design was most appropriate in making meaning in
context for teachers’ decisions to use certain strategies in teaching ELLs and how these decisions
affect students’ performance on annual assessments that determine their classification.
The researcher conducted a case study of ELD and ELA teaching in one middle school to
answer the research questions. In order to examine the different instructional strategies used by
ELA and ELD teachers in the same school, the researcher conducted interviews, observations
and collected samples of unidentified student work for data related to the research questions.
These methods of data collection helped the researcher understand the process by which events
and actions took place during instruction (Maxwell, 2013).
Thus, the researcher gained insights about the process teachers used and the impact of
those strategies on ELL proficiency development. The researcher used the semi-structured
interview approach that allows interviewees to elaborate and respond to additional questions
beyond those in the scripted interview instrument. The interviewer focused on one ELA teacher
each in sixth, seventh and eighth grades, as well as one ELD teacher who teach all three grades.
All four teachers participated in 60-minute interviews.
Next, the researcher addressed research questions by conducting two 45-minute
observations per interviewed teacher. Each teacher was observed twice for a total of 8
observations. Finally, the study included analysis of one ELD/ELA standards-aligned student
work sample from each teacher, representing the early stages of language development. Also,
these samples represented student responses to specific instruction the teacher provided in the
observation. Two samples represented students in the class who were at the beginner stage and
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 53
two represented students who were at the early intermediate stage. The researcher then randomly
selected one sample of each stage from the four samples. The researcher analyzed these samples
as evidence of students’ response to the teaching of specific standard-based instruction. The
researcher’s initial random selection produced beginners and early intermediate samples. The
researcher then made an additional random selection to ensure that she had samples from both
beginner and early intermediate students per teacher.
The researcher framed research questions to understand how ELL proficiency needs are
met through instructional strategies as evidenced by student’s performance on annual English
proficiency assessments and during classroom instruction time.
Research Questions
This study aimed to answer three research questions:
1. How do ELL teachers use ELA/ELD Standards to develop instructional strategies and
activities that promote proficiency in SAE at the Beginning and Early Intermediate stages
of language development?
2. How are formative or summative assessments used to inform instructional strategies and
to monitor ELL proficiency progress from one stage (Beginner and Early Intermediate) of
language development to the next?
3. What classroom practices do ELL teachers implement using students’ primary languages
to influence second language acquisition for ELLs during the Beginner and Early
Intermediate stages of language development?
(Chart below matches research questions with research tool to be used during study)
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 54
Table 2
Research Design Matrix Chart
Research Tools Research Question #1:
How are formative and
summative assessments
used to inform
instructional strategies
and to monitor ELL
proficiency progress
from one stage
(Beginner, Early
Intermediate) of
language development to
the next?
Research Question #2:
How are English
Language Teachers using
ELA/ELD Standards to
develop instructional
strategies and activities
that promote proficiency
in SAE at the early stages
(Beginning and Early
Intermediate) of language
development?
Research Question #3:
What classroom practices do
ELL teachers implement
using students’ primary
languages to influence
second language acquisition
for ELLs during the early
stages of language
development?
Interviews -Semi-structured (with
flexibility) questions to
understand which
assessments are used as a
means for closely
monitoring language
development and how do
teachers use these
assessments to inform
their instruction and
instructional strategies
for proficiency
development.
-Identifying which
standards are included as
part of the language
development process for
proficiency.
-Questioning teacher
lesson plan designs with
standard alignment for
connecting teaching with
learning (language
development)
-Which standards are early
stage and used to promote
proficiency.
-What are some of the
differences between
standard aligned
assessments for ELA vs.
ELD?
(This combines RQ1)
-Questions for teachers that
help to determine which
classroom practices are
implemented for
effectiveness.
-Ask teachers to consider
primary languages as an
influence.
-Does knowing a students’
background language help to
promote language
development during the
early stages of language
development.
-Define what practice looks
like during classroom
instruction when teachers
use primary languages as a
strategy to increase
proficiency.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 55
Table 2, continued
Observations -Using observation to
determine what
instructional strategies
the teacher is using
during classroom
teaching and learning.
-During observation
record whether teacher is
using a combination of
ELA or ELD Standards to
promote students
acquisition of proficiency
of SAE the standard that
connects with learning
shows up in teaching and
how does proficiency
manifest between stages of
language development.
-Do primary languages show
up during instruction
-And how do language
barriers show up during
learning for students as
teachers teach from one
stage to the next (Beginner
and Early Int. language
development) the teacher
aware and how do
teachers/students tackle this
challenge for improving the
proficiency outcome.
Document
Analysis
-Using random student
writing work samples to
determine students’ level
of proficiency and stages
of language development
resulting from instruction
provided by the teacher.
-Identify whether student’s
work samples
demonstrates students
proficiency with ELA and
ELD Standards.
Table 3
Matrix of Protocols to Research Questions
Research Question Interviews Observations Student Samples
1 X X X
2 X X X
3 X X
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling assumes that the researcher wants to understand and gain insight
from a sample population to maximize understanding in a case study (Merriam, 2009). This case
study took place at one school to learn how ELA and ELD instructors provided instruction for
students at the early stages of language development.
The school for this case had the lowest number of ELLs reclassify during middle school
in its district. The school is located at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, and serves 499
socio-economically disadvantaged students. This school’s student population is 80% Hispanic or
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 56
Latino and almost 50% of the population ELL. The researcher used a purposeful typical
sampling approach because, according to Merriam (2009), it reflects the average situation or
instance of a phenomenon that is not extremely unusual.
The four teachers selected have been in the teaching profession for more than 5 years and
are deemed effective in scaffolding instruction for ELLs. They also have knowledgeable
background information regarding their students’ current assessment scores and stage of
language development.
The protocols for interviewing and observing teachers (Appendices A and B) are
designed to assess teachers’ level of knowledge for integrating state standards at the various
levels of language development. The interviews sought to learn how teachers integrate ELA and
ELD standards in classroom instruction for establishing proficiency and preparing students for
reclassification as they exit middle school.
The participants in this study were three ELA teachers of sixth, seventh, and eighth
grades and one ELD teacher of all three grades at a middle school in southern California. These
teachers informed the study regarding connections in instructional strategies for promoting
proficiency and monitoring progress at different stages of language development.
Site Selection
Maxwell (2013) states that a site should be carefully selected for feasibility of access,
data collection, and validity concerns. Ethics and relationships with study participants are
considered of high importance. This consideration is important as the researcher was a high
school English teacher in this district for over 6 years and established an association with many
teachers along the way. During the year of the study, the researcher taught Spanish for three 50-
minute periods at the middle school selected. For this study, the teachers were candid and the
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 57
research did not create ethical challenges that might damage their reputations, since there was a
confidentiality agreement between the teachers and researcher (Appendix C).
Data Collection
Interviews. The main purpose of interviewing is to obtain detailed information in the
interviewee’s mind (Merriam, 2009). The research questions described a focus on how teachers
use strategies to connect ELLs to proficiency development. Teachers were asked about
assessment outcomes and goals they strived to meet to prepare students for the CELDT or
reclassification during middle school. Open-ended interview questions served to identify the
major themes of ELL progression that indicated or predicted proficiency outcomes. Through
coding, transcriptions and recorded sessions, this data served to answer the research questions.
The semi-structured format allowed the researcher to probe beyond the interview questions. The
interview protocol was modified to include proficiency expectations and aligned California State
ELA Standards and ELD instructional practices.
Observations. Additionally, the researcher conducted two observations per classroom for
which the researcher created field notes and comments. These observations addressed how
teachers used strategies they consider to be effective for ELL proficiency development. The
observation protocol (Appendix B), combined with additional attention to the instructional
strategies the research presented, was used as a means for observing teachers’ attempts to
develop students’ language skills (Appendix B). The protocol was adapted from the Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Local Education Agency (LEA) Handbook, and
Echevarria, Short, & Powers’ (2006) SIOP Model. This combination allowed the researcher to
critique and personalize the protocol so it included sections for teacher responses, field notes and
comments. This observation protocol was a tool to address specific research questions to produce
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 58
dependable results (Merriam, 2009). This tool was a way to identify clear connections ELA and
ELD teachers made (or did not make) during teaching to illuminate strategy usage as ELLs
develop.
Documents. Finally, the researcher analyzed documents that were incorporated as
student completed assignments and used also as monitoring assessments. These student random
samples gave insight to the strategy the teacher used in conjunction with State standards to
promote proficiency. The samples were to confirm levels of proficiency in the early language
stages. The students’ work assignments are not personal documents. Documents were considered
the written observations used as snapshots of what the author considered important (Merriam,
2009). Student growth between stages was documented as snapshots of possible progression.
Additionally, student assignment samples displayed the teacher’s influence in scaffolding and
monitoring learning exercises. This part of document review showed how effective the teaching
strategy was. The anonymous student samples serve as a connection to the strategies used during
observation and outlined during the interview.
Data Analysis
Merriam, (2009) discusses beginning the analysis early during data collection and
maintaining organization and management of the data throughout so the process is not
overwhelming. This intensive analysis was structured so the researcher could prepare data
analysis strategically to answer the research questions. Although CELDT initial assessments and
testing are administered and scored throughout the school year and start in June and July, they
are also scored between October and November. Teachers continue to assess ELLs throughout
the year to progressively show proficiency status for ELD in the early stages. Bogdan and
Bilken, (2007) offer ten suggestions for making analysis simple and enlightening. The researcher
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 59
incorporated four of the ten suggestions in research endeavors: plan data collection sessions
according to what the researcher finds in previous observations, reviewing field notes and
making comments along the way help identify key points for next data collection session, journal
writing (keeping memos) and audio recording ongoing memos as reflection for details which
may not be remembered later, will help to organize and analyze with clarity, probing participants
about themes once and detecting these themes during data analysis to possibly fill in holes or
gaps in research. This process helped the researcher visualize what was being learned to bring
clarity to the analysis. Making simultaneous efforts to collect data and analyze inside and outside
the field using organized files and flash drives and a secure, password-protected laptop for each
section to keep all parts separated and organized for reference.
With these suggestions in mind, the researcher began the process by open coding the raw
data, to identify what was meaningful and informative to the research. Merriam (2009) shares
that bits or units of the data previously identified should be placed into a sub-categories or small
groups. The highly inductive process began with detailed bits (named pieces or color coded bits)
of data such as language or documentation that explicitly connects ELA and ELD strategies in
the classrooms to show proficiency development progress. For example, the strategies used by
the teachers to plan instruction and their idea of effective strategies that promote proficiency
development were used as an open code. The subcategories were given codes by grouping bits
that seem to go with each other into subcategories like matching ELA/ELD connections from
transcripts, observations or documents to illuminate the reoccurring theme. Categories were
appropriate to the purpose of the research (Merriam, 2009). These sub-categories became the
themes, which became relevant for the study. This is the strategic process for which the
researcher conducted analysis. After open coding all data, a chart-table served to color-code all
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 60
major themes to allow for quick identification of a list of major themes for a completed process.
This raw data collection was coded and sorted to identify major themes and parallels with
interviews, observations and documentation for triangulation.
Validity and Reliability
Maxwell (2013) shares that validity requires testing researched accounts against the
world, giving the phenomenon we are trying to understand the opportunity to prove us wrong.
Because the researcher was teaching at the school where interviews, observation, and
documentation took place, it was natural to realize the possible threats that may have emerged
during interviews. Researcher biases include identifying particular values and expectations that
may influence the conduct of the teachers and the conclusions of the study. These biases can be
eliminated by respondent validation, or thoroughly requesting feedback from participants about
the data (Maxwell, 2013). This credibility strategy proposes follow up feedback to probe
participants for thorough responses to drive out misinterpretations. The researcher will pilot
interview, observation and document analysis instruments with experts in the field to give
feedback on the appropriateness each instrument in use during the time of this study.
Returning to the participants to allow them to give insight from their perspective gave the
researcher a sound judgment for maintaining integrity and to address these possible threats
(Merriam, 2009). Validity threats can also be eliminated through triangulation. Triangulation
entails collecting information through diverse methods (Maxwell, 2013). Triangulation provided
evidence that made validity threats unquestionable. This matching of teacher responses with
what was displayed in observations and illustrated in student samples gave the researcher a way
to prove opposing ideas to remain unbiased.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 61
Limitations and Delimitations
At this point there, was still research being done with regards to implementation of the
CCSS and the close monitoring of reclassification in districts and schools (PPIC, 2014). This
data has not yet been released or completed and is beyond the control of the researcher.
Ethics
Ethical issues in observations can be seen as rehearsed behavior or during in-depth
interviews and can sometimes have residual effects (Merriam, 2009). Ethical dilemmas arise and
being prepared to address these issues ahead of time is part of the strategic planning process.
Interviewees were provided an explanation of the purpose of the research, methods to be used,
confidentiality and how the research was to be used before starting the study. Participant
confidentiality (Appendix D) informed participants early so they were knowledgeable of the
expectation and that all data gathered would be anonymous and used for improving practice in
schools not to damage ones reputation. The researcher kept a close faculty advisor for
communication if ethical issues surfaced so as to determine the best position one should take
during the research. The researcher also submitted the study proposal to the University of
Southern California’s IRB to protect the human rights of the participants. The researcher did not
encounter any ethical issues.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 62
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to explore the instructional strategies middle school ELA
and ELD teachers used to promote ELL proficiency. Additionally, the study examined the
influence ELL teachers have on acquisition of proficiency in SAE through specific strategies
designed for middle school students. The focus was on the beginner and early intermediate
stages of language development. Finally, the study included an examination of student work
samples in response to writing assignments designed to promote SAE proficiency within a three-
year middle school timeframe. In addition to presenting findings from students’ performance on
formative and summative assessments, this chapter also shares the findings from classroom
observations during which teachers provided instruction to promote second language acquisition.
Research Questions
Three questions guided this study:
1. 1. How do ELL teachers use ELA/ELD Standards to develop instructional strategies and
activities that promote proficiency in SAE at the Beginning and Early Intermediate stages
of language development?
2. How are formative or summative assessments used to inform instructional strategies and
to monitor ELL proficiency progress from one stage (Beginner and Early Intermediate) of
language development to the next?
3. What classroom practices do ELL teachers implement using students’ primary languages
to influence second language acquisition for ELLs during the Beginner and Early
Intermediate stages of language development?
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 63
Currently, all of the tenured teachers have an average of 10 to 15 years of ELL teaching
experience and have been at the selected school for more than 5 years. Although all of the
teachers had previous experience teaching ELLs in an ELD classroom, only three considered it
necessary to collaborate over designing instructional strategies aligned with state standards.
During interviews, Teacher 1 did not consider collaboration necessary while Teachers 2, 3 and 4
did share that it was influential for instructional practice.
ELA Teacher 1 has taught ELA and ELD classes for half of her teaching career. Teacher
1 meets with ELA and ELD staff a few times a year to collaborate and discuss best practices for
teaching ELLs in the mainstream classroom. However, she relied more on her past experiences
with using ELD classroom instructional strategies more than collaboration with other teachers
and more than she depends on the knowledge of her current ELL language level backgrounds.
ELA Teacher 2 has been teaching for ten years and has taught ELD classes for half of her
teaching career as well. Teacher 2 meets with ELA and ELD staff on a regular basis throughout
the school year and maintains a position as the ELA coach with whom she arranges collaboration
dates for the ELA department and communicates with the Language Assessment and
Development Resource Teacher (Teacher 4) consistently. She uses background knowledge of
students’ literacy strand struggles in part to develop individual instructional strategies for her
students. Her classroom practices influence a language connection between ELLs and parents as
well as ELA and ELD teachers throughout the school year.
ELA Teacher 3 has been teaching for 15 years and has never taught ELD classes but does
share in the regular ELA/ELD collaboration, as Teacher 4 is next door to his classroom. Teacher
3 similarly checks closely for the literacy strand struggles of his ELLs to determine the
instructional strategies necessary for each student.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 64
Teacher 4 has been an ELD teacher at this school for 15 years. She states she is
passionate about teaching ELLs and collaborates with ELA teachers by unit, which is roughly
once every 3 to 4 weeks. Although many of the students in the ELD classes are Spanish-
speakers, she does not use it often to promote second language acquisition. She does maintain
regular collaboration and discourse with all teachers at this site, as she is the only ELD teacher
responsible for all three grades
Table 4
Description of Participants
Teacher ELA/ELD
Grade Level
Gender Ethnicity Years of
ELL
Teaching
Experience
Education
Background
Primary
Language
Second
Language
N= Not
Proficient/
P=Proficient
1 ELA 6
th
Female White 20 Master’s in
Education,
BCLAD Credential
English German-N
2 ELA 7
th
Female Armenian 10 Master’s in
Education BCLAD
Credential
Armenian English-P
3 ELA 8
th
Male Black 15 Master’s in
Education,
BCLAD Credential
English NA
4 ELD 6
th
-8
th
Female Latina 15 Master’s in
Education,
BCLAD Credential
English Spanish-P
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 65
Table 5
ELA/ELD Collaboration/ELD Teaching Experience
Teacher Years of
Experience
teaching
ELD Classes
ELA/ELD Teacher
Collaboration
(Regular/Minimal)
Percentage of ELLs in
Teacher Classrooms
ELD/ELA Standard-Driven
Instructional Collaboration
1 10 Minimal 60%-ES
2 5 Regular 30%-ES
25%- ADV
X
3 0 Regular 40%-ES
15%- ADV
X
4 15 Regular 100%-ES X
(*Criteria: Regular: Mandated meetings and additional meetings called by the teacher; Minimal: Only attending
mandated meetings (i.e. departmental meetings, parent meetings etc.; ES= Early Stage ELLs and ADV= Advance
stage ELLs)
Results for Research Question One
Research Question One asked, “How do ELL teachers use ELA/ELD Standards to
develop instructional strategies and activities that promote proficiency in SAE at the early stages
of language development?”
The researcher used a semi-structured face-to-face interview to gather teachers’ responses
regarding how they align ELA or ELD standards to develop instruction and an observation
protocol for identifying how ELA or ELD standards are used to help develop instruction, and
students’ work samples to show how teachers promote SAE proficiency.
English Language Teachers Using ELA and ELD Standards
During interviews and observations, ELA and ELD teachers’ shared how they align
instruction with the standards. Interview question 9 asked teachers which standards (ELA or
ELD) are most difficult to implement and integrate into instruction for language development.
All teachers said citing evidence was the part of they found most challenging.
Table 6 displays the instructional standards used to present how ELA, ELD and CCSS
standards are aligned and these were acknowledged during interviews and observations. The
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 66
chart also shows a parallel of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade CCSS/ELA/ELD standards and the
ELD Language Domains. This chart represents how teachers aligned instructional standards to
match language domains for effective instruction.
Table 6
Matrix of ELA/ELD Standards Discussed (Interviews) and Posted (Observations)
Teacher CCSS ELA or ELD Standard and Objective
(Referenced during interviews)
ELD 4 Language
Domains: Reading,
Writing, Listening
and Speaking
(Seen during
observation)
1 6
th
grade Reading Standard 6.7: Reading information Text:
integrate information presented in different media or formats as
well as develop a coherent understanding of text.
Reading and
Speaking
2 7
th
grade Writing Standard 7.1: Write arguments to support
claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
Reading, Writing,
Listening, and
Speaking
3 8th grade Writing Standard 8.2: Provide a concluding statement
or section that follows from and supports the information or
explanation presented.
Reading, Writing,
Listening and
Speaking
4 ELD 6
th
/7
th
/8
th
Collaborative: Exchanging information and ideas
with others through oral collaborative discussions on a range of
social and academic topics
Corresponds with
ELA Standards:
6.1/7.1/8.1
6.3/7.3/8.3
Domains: Listening
and Speaking
Note: ELD Teacher uses the 21
st
Century: Thinking and Problem Solving objective to align with ELD Interpretive
Mode (for assessment) as all students are beginner and early intermediate ELLs
In the observation, Teacher 1 posted on her side board the ELA reading standard that
says, “Students will integrate information presented in different media formats as well as develop
a coherent understanding of text”. Teacher 2 and 3 both had “citing evidence” in quotes listed on
a sideboard under “student objective” as part of their classroom instructional standard or
objective. Although Teacher 4 focused on literacy and having ELL students think critically and
solve problems as they created public notices, she did mention in her interview “citing text
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 67
evidence during reading time was a great challenge for her ELL students. “This statement was
consistent with other teachers in that citing evidence was the most difficult part of standards to
align and meet the needs of ELLs. Teacher 4 did not state verbally that the public notice
assignment was a scaffolded assignment to help students meet the reading standard, but it was
implied since the assignment focused on students’ using what they learned and discussed during
classroom instruction. This assignment was meant to help students identify and meet the
teacher’s expectations and what was necessary for the completed public notice assignment. Ellis
(2008), pinpoints the concerns teachers have to identify which strategies are most effective in
addressing ELL language needs within a certain amount of time before entering and exiting to
the next grade level.
The researcher noticed teachers’ instructional standards either increased or decreased in
rigor throughout the stages of language development for ELA and in the use of language
domains for ELD. The teachers showed in observations what they felt was necessary to address
individual ELLs’ needs (Au, 1998) by grade, to cite evidence aligned with teaching to
instructional standards. Overall, teachers attempted to bridge gaps in language development by
scaffolding between stages of language development.
Research states that one of the most challenging language obstacles for middle school
ELLs is the use of content area vocabulary in reading, writing and speaking (Gomez & Madda,
2005). All of the teachers shared this language challenge in relation to what students were able to
do in citing evidence as they continued to address needs and promote proficiency.
During the observation, Teacher 1 started the class with pre-teaching the vocabulary of
the text and key words from the reading. She also handed out a small white board, markers and
erasers at the tables for students to write on. Students were asked to read the vocabulary words
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 68
and the definitions in the book. She also modeled this instruction as she explained what students
were to do. Teacher 1 used small group instruction to foster the coherent understanding of the
text during reading and challenged students to write out the vocabulary word and the definition
in the center of the board, and each student was to create a sentence using the word by definition.
She initially took the time to break down the word by prefix and definition as well as word
association with content vocabulary to help students understand as she explained and modeled
the lesson. Research states that ELL teachers should model and explicitly teach students as they
develop the use of their own background knowledge and language during the early stages of
language development (Krashen & Clara, 2005). Although 80% of the students were engaged,
students were still struggling with writing a sentence, citing evidence based on what they read as
the definition in the book and the explanation given by the teacher.
Although the teacher did a thorough job of explaining the word and definition, the
researcher noticed many students were lost after the breakdown and challenged to come up with
a sentence correctly using the word. Modeling how to cite evidence from the beginning to the
end of the language development process (Krashen & Clara, 2005 is more effective than just
having students create sentences from word association. Teacher 1 seemed to think that all
students in each group understood the word association and definition of the word and how to
use the word. Instead of having them take the word apart by prefix or noun, for example, and
defining it in sentences for them ahead of time, she expected students to create a sentence based
on what they were expected to learn. The teacher did not model sentences; she gave a book
definition and discussed the word in the sentence. She did not review the actual structure of the
sentence or examples of written sentence expectations. Based on research, the instructional
standards are to provide a way for teachers to emphasize the important role language domains
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 69
plays in language development for modern day classrooms (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012).
Furthermore, students need explicit learning opportunities to use SAE in reading, writing,
speaking and listening so that language development is effective during the early stages of ELL
education (Cummins, 2009). The researcher did not observe the teacher using these strategies.
Teacher 2 on the other hand, used the word “act” throughout instruction to keep students
on task. She stated in the interview,
Everything in my class, whether it’s taking a quiz or completing an assignment, the key
word is ‘act’! They have to be active learners. They cannot just sit there and expect to get
the information. They have to constantly be doing something (Tyler, 1983).
She shared that the more language skills (listening, reading, writing and speaking) ELLs
use at one time, the better they retain new knowledge. Here, the researcher saw repetition used
throughout stages of language development for students to meet proficiency expectations.
Teacher 2 had students step by step actively engaged in citing evidence from reading, from
listening and the ultimate product was in their writing. The speaking portion took place through
the short interruptions of having students explain their understanding during class discussion as
they moved along. Thus, the teacher used the ELD language domains to support the ELA and
ELD standards for increasing the use of SAE and language development. In the interview,
Teacher 2 said, “They need to see it, hear it, and do it.” Molle (2013) states that teachers who
create opportunities for students to parallel their language development with ongoing
instructional skills acquisition increase students’ proficiency. The teacher had students support
claims with clear reasoning as they read, listened, and wrote out their arguments during
classroom instruction.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 70
Teacher 3 used several resources for students to cite evidence based on reading pieces of
text. During the observation, students had their literature books out, a Chrome book in front of
them and were creating notes in small groups as the teacher played a video of the Gettysburg
Address. Students were expected to listen to the video while they followed along with the speech
in their literature books. Occasionally, Teacher 3 stopped the video to ask questions and
challenge students by having them explain a quote. Asking students the meaning (either from the
book or the video) of the quote as they shared in class discourse and having them cite evidence
verbally by speaking through the interpretation helped students fashion statements. Oliveira and
Hoffner (2009) agree with using visual aids, body language and technology to address language
needs and modify instruction for the ELLs in the mainstream classroom.
Teacher 3 also had students communicate what was important to them (citing evidence)
and why it was important to them as a way to support what was presented to them in a speech.
Finally, Teacher 3 mentioned in his interview that he has students give him feedback by asking
them to paraphrase a quote and make it their own verbally and in writing as a way to explain
their understanding. Teacher 3 students gave many examples of student-paraphrased quotes
produced during observations, after or during the class discussion of the speech. Although
research says middle school teachers find it difficult to use ELD standards or domains to support
ELA instruction for students proficiency progression (CA Dept. of Ed., 2013), the researcher did
notice students responding during observation to teacher expectations as they thought out loud or
answered with responses based on text they previously read. However, it was still unclear that all
four of the language domains were used to increase effective instruction for language
development to see if student comprehension improved their proficiency in reading, writing,
speaking and listening during the language learning task.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 71
Teacher 4 provided a similar experience to Teacher 3 in the class the researcher observed.
She allowed students to listen as she read out loud the expectations for creating Public Notices.
Although students were seated in their assigned workstations, the teacher had all students stop
and listen as she read out loud. She also encouraged students to come up with ideas of what they
think a Public Notice is or might look like in their own neighborhoods. Research says when
teachers give ELLs time to build language development opportunities inside the classroom, they
increase students’ understanding of applying academic language to academic tasks independently
and during collaboration (Schleppegell, 2003). These experiences help students retain the
language internally (Vygotsky, 1976). Some students blurted out answers and some raised their
hands as they participated in the class discussion. Students were expected to participate in the
class discussion as they looked at the public notice example displayed at the front of the
classroom. Overall, the teacher-student interaction made visible the exercise of internal language
development, showing that the teacher provided practicing opportunities for student’s language
development. The researcher witnessed that the teacher used the ELA instructional standard to
align with ELD Standards and language domains to increase the understanding during student
collaboration (Schleppegell, 2003).
This collaboration allowed students the time to consider where they may have seen public
notices in their neighborhoods or around their community. They had to use background
knowledge of what they knew and cite evidence based on what they understood to create the
public notices. Teacher 4 additionally stated, “What students pick up from reading out loud is
practice on their own time and they show out loud how to paraphrase.” Teacher 4 wanted to
elaborate on exercises she uses to help students learn how to cite evidence based on their own
background knowledge and not on her or the books knowledge. Meeting students where they are
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 72
is an instructional strategy she used to help ELL students learn how to cite text (instructional
challenge meets language need) and collaborate on their understanding before they were
expected to create a public notice of their own. The teacher had created a social context for
acquiring language and literacy that would become part of their inner speech when they have to
do this work independently (Lantolf, 1994; Vygotsky, 1976). Similar to the observation of
Teacher 3, it was unclear if students understood how to create a written public notice based on
what they read, heard or discussed during class discussion.
Summary
During the interview, observation and rubric analysis the researcher learned that Teacher
1 and 3 modeled, observed and communicated the expectation throughout instruction at every
stage of the assignment using 2 or 3 of the language domains at one time (L/S/R/W=Listening
Speaking, Reading and Writing) for the standard aligned instruction (Schleppegell, 2003). This
alignment shows how teachers can effectively use standards to promote proficiency in the
classroom during instruction and during assessment. ELA Teacher 1 seemed to align language
domains (speaking and reading) with the ELA 6
th
grade standards, but she also challenged
students to write and listen without modeling written sentences or providing opportunities for
students to hear explicit instruction on how to perform this language task. Although Teacher 3
supplied a mixture of resources (video presentation of the speech, reading speech in book,
listening to the speech and occasional interruptions to have students answer questions about the
speech) students used each language domain with a different resource, making the language task
physically interactive. Students seem to move back and forth between all of the resources as
though they were unsure of which source to use in the moment of the language task. Students did
not seem to meet the teacher’s expectation to match the use of each language domain for
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 73
understanding instruction as they produced conclusion statements. Although many ELLs find it
difficult to transition from one language to another (Hubbard & Carpenter, 2003), research
emphasize the merits of the teacher considering the ELL needs for additional time to practice
SAE along with language domains used during instruction (Cummins, 2007).
Teacher2 continuously walked around and went back to her laptop at the front of the
classroom as students created bubble maps on a Google Doc template. Research outlines the
importance of teachers’ making language connections with their students as they teach and not
just providing feedback on student work after the teaching and learning has already taken place
(Ellis, 2008). Teacher 2 continuously made language connections with her students throughout
the process and this connection also proved effective based on the student work samples
produced after the instruction. Teacher 2 had students create bubble maps, share in discussion
with their partners at their tables (3 students per table) and raise their hands if they had a question
or did not understand the next move to make during instruction.
Teacher 3 interrupted during the video to ask questions and evoke student responses as a
part of instruction to gage learning to see if students met the standard objective. Teacher 3 also
had students engaged during instruction as they took notes and responded to quotes and
rationales of their explanations of these quotes. Both Teachers 2 and 3, kept students actively
(L/S/R/W) engaged throughout the instruction and had students cite evidence based on what
students learned in the previously read text. Here teachers provided opportunities for ELLs to
practice reading skills such as texts to text (writing out their understanding with cited evidence
from previously read text) to make connections for academic (Columbo & Fontaine, 2009).
Citing evidence in each of the language domains made instruction effective, and maintaining
student engagement with minimal distractions increased language development (Hudley &
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 74
Mallison, 2011). Teacher 3 used so many resources that it was hard to determine students’
comprehension of the language task expectation. Additionally, the students’ samples did not
clarify whether students had an explicit understanding of the speech and task because the
statements could be open opinions where students used non-academic language or stated
conclusions that used minimal SAE. Teacher 2, on the other hand, seems to balance instruction
so that all four language domains were integrated to support one another. Her students’ samples
reflected clear reasoning and relevant evidence as well as utilization of language domains.
The researcher questioned whether teachers considered creating more assignments that
outline the patterns of language progression based on proficiency outcomes stated in the PLD
continuum, as this was not seen during observation although all teachers agreed to knowing of
and using the PLDs during interviews. Although this continuum is still fairly new, guidelines on
how to implement this continuum with the new introduction of CCSS for language teachers (CA
Dept. of Ed. 2013) are available. Furthermore, language teachers are still learning the new
features included for analyzing effective tools for activities, assessments and instructional
language development strategies for ELLs (CA Dept. of Ed. 2015). In observation the researcher
saw a combination of meeting the ELA Standard with building students language skills as they
used language domains. Teachers used a part of the ELD language domain to support language
skills to further their progress in developing proficiency.
Results for Research Question Two
Research Question Two asked, “How are formative or summative assessments used to
inform instructional strategies and to monitor ELL proficiency progress from one stage (beginner
and early intermediate) of language development to the next?”
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 75
The researcher used a semi-structured face-to-face interview to gather teachers’ responses
about how they used summative assessments and monitoring assessments to inform instructional
strategies. Data were also collected via observations to determine how the information provided
in the interviews is used during classroom assessment. Student samples also revealed the
evidence for teachers to assess ELLs’ progress in language proficiency development.
The California Department of Education (2013) uses CELDT as a summative assessment
to identify and determine ELL language levels by annually assessing their progress in acquiring
SAE. The result of this assessment helps teachers monitor students’ language development over
time and inform their practice by using formative assessments throughout language instruction
(Flores et al., 2009). Interview questions 1 and 2 asked teachers what types of assessments they
use to inform their instructional strategy design for ELL students and how they choose these
assessments. Teachers 2, 3 and 4replied by confirming that the CELDT is a way to guide
instruction and improve proficiency outcomes inside their classrooms. They also stated they used
different types of monitoring assessments when answering interview question 4 that asked
whether and how often they create formative and summative assessments for ELLs (Table 7).
Allison and Rehm (2011) state teachers must use a variety of assessments in planning
instruction to meet the needs of all students during the early language development stages.
Although the CELDT is aligned with English Language Proficiency Standards (CA Dept. of Ed.,
2013), teachers are required to create assessments and instruction to effectively facilitate
individual students’ ongoing language development (The Clute Institute, 2011). Additionally,
PPIC (2014) recommends school districts create reclassification standards to parallel the
summative assessments to improve outcomes so that summative and monitoring assessments are
more effective.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 76
Table 7
Matrix of Teachers Use of CELDT/Monitoring Assessments to Inform Practice
Teachers
Monitoring/Formative
Assessments
Used CELDT Results
To Inform Practice
1 M& W NA (not this year)
2 W A & P
3 D A
4 W A & P
*Note: Annually = A (once a year); Periodically = P (2 -3 x per year); Monthly = M; Weekly = W and Daily =
Daily.
Summative and Monitoring Assessments
Interview questions 5 and 6 ask teachers what they use to monitor ELL proficiency
progression, how often they repeat this practice and the assessment tool used to determine if the
student’s language needs are met between the beginning and early intermediate stages of
language development. All four teachers talked about common assessments and common
assessment practices. ELA teachers used common assessment practices such as color-coding or
highlighting pieces of text during reading or writing. Teachers use these practices both as a
measure of student progress and to identify whether language needs are being met. Teachers
assess students’ detailed coloring as a way to identify the different stages of language
progression during classroom instruction (Columbo & Fontaine, 2009). Students are expected to
highlight certain parts of the paragraph, main idea or topic sentences and key words. Teachers
mentioned this highlighting allows them to see where students are when reading, writing or
presenting orally. For example, teachers have students highlight the main idea of the paragraph
in yellow or highlight the topic sentence in green. The ELD teacher did not state that she uses
this strategy.
Some teachers use the CELDT results as a reference periodically so that they can identify
the strands students struggle with most. Referring to students’ performance on the CELDT
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 77
enables teachers to implement effective language strategies (Flores et al., 2009).Although it is a
common practice among teachers to review CELDT scores at the beginning of the school year to
guide instruction, Teacher 1 did not familiarize herself with the CELDT scores at the beginning
of the current school year because she said she had only a few ELLs in her class. Even when
Teacher 1 inherited more ELLs, she relied more on her experience in teaching ELLs than on
current CELDT scores or results. Instead of reviewing her students’ scores and responses to
CELDT questions, she said during the interview that she uses monitoring assessments during the
4- to 5-week grading periods to assess language progress.
Teacher 2stated she familiarizes herself with CELDT scores annually and periodically
throughout the school year as a reference. This periodic review helps to keep her on track by
reminding her which literacy strands ELLs struggle with most as she implements language skills
instruction in each of the four language domains (Columbo & Fontaine, 2009). Teacher 2
mentioned that she logs progress, designs instruction accordingly and uses weekly monitoring
assessments. She also collaborates with the ELD instructor to create and review results from
assessments. Luster (2011) says that formative classroom assessments can positively influence
language development, and relying solely on summative assessments decreases effective
language development to (Abedi & Dietel, 2004).
Teacher 2 shared several ways to gain insight into how she increases the chances for
ELLs to improve language development instead of relying solely on the CELDT. During the
observation, Teacher 2 had students color code pieces of text while reading a story and discussed
with them the important topics of each character. Students connected the color with the key
vocabulary and sentences that identified traits in each character. Gomez and Madda (2005) state
that one of the most difficult challenges for ELLs in middle school is their use of content area
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 78
vocabulary in reading, writing and speaking. This explicit teaching of connecting key descriptive
words to specific character traits made students aware of how to use SAE in reading as they used
vocabulary in a classroom discussion about character traits highlighted in their reading.
Monitoring assessments like this displayed students’ understanding by writing out character
traits and gave the teacher an ongoing way to address language needs around vocabulary.
Although other teachers mentioned the use of the color-coding system as a way to measure
language development between stages, the researcher saw this in practice only while observing
Teacher 2.
Teacher 3 stated that he familiarizes himself with the CELDT scores at the beginning of
the year. He also uses this knowledge to create daily oral monitoring assessments. During the
interview, he said he uses informal oral assessments with his students such as asking students if
they read the text. He allows them to respond based on their understanding of what they read,
and calls this process “informal check-ins”, which are oral assessments used during classes. He
uses teacher-student think out loud exercises as an assessment. For example, Teacher 3asked
“Hey, do you know the man?” He said he may then say, “You know the man” while acting as if
he does not know and snapping his fingers to show students what he is thinking out loud. He said
he follows with, “What’s his name? What’s his name? Oh, yes, that’s right! Yes, him.” Teacher
3 considers this oral exercise a game as well as an assessment tool. He extends the conversation
by saying, “Ok, now tell me the difference between him and Charlie Abnon. How were they
different?” Some students responded enthusiastically. Even if some of them did not know the
answers, some of them helped others try to answer the questions. This is the informal check-in
Teacher 3 uses as part of the oral assessment for reading summaries in which students are
speaking orally and listening together to develop students’ thinking. This process progressively
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 79
challenged students’ comprehension levels and awareness and showed how the teacher used
ELD domains of reading, speaking, and listening. This was an ELA class in which most of the
students who responded were non-ELLs while only a small percent of the ELLs participated by
answering the teacher’s question. They were not active in the classroom discourse, and several of
them seemed to be left behind.
Another assessment Teacher 3 used was informal graded student work assigned for
homework or classwork. He also stated that using too much time for testing means he is losing
class time, and “I don’t have time for that. I just want to know that you got it.” The regular
monthly assessments used to check progress are generated from the book students are reading to
see if they met the lesson’s objective.
During observation, the researcher noticed Teacher 3 using informal check-in to promote
proficiency in a way that allowed students to share in their small groups as well as in a class
discussion about the Gettysburg Address. The speech was played over a speaker while students
read along in their books. The final product, which was a written response that was an informal
written check-in, included in the student sample section for Teacher 3. The students were told to
write what might be their own version of a conclusion to the Gettysburg Address.
Teacher 4 uses CELDT scores and results as a part of her planning and teaching practices
to create annual assessments, monitoring assessments and daily assessments. She shared that “of
my 77 students who are in the ELD 6
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
grade classes, around 50% are in the beginner
and early intermediate stages of language development based on their current CELDT scores.”
This statistic gave insight for understanding the ELL student population language stages at this
school. Teacher 4 relied mainly on the monitoring assessments on the computer, as it contains
questions similar to those on the CELDT. There was no evidence of her using teacher-made
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 80
assessments or commonly used assessment practices. She uses the computer-generated report as
evidence of language development stage.
All teachers had background knowledge regarding using the CELDT to inform
instruction and identified several ways they used monitoring assessments during classroom
instruction. Teachers shared a commonality in that they all created different assessments using
the ELD Framework of language domains. Additionally, Teachers 1, 2, and 4 said they use many
types of rubrics and argumentative essays for writing assessments while Teacher 3 uses a variety
of oral assessments. Teachers 1, 2 and 3created an accessible class page on the school-classroom
website that allows students to review in-class articles and take quizzes so teachers can monitor
reading progress and comprehension. Most of the monitoring assessments teachers use dare
quizzes, district quarterly assessments and in-class writing pieces, which are displayed in the
student samples for this study (Figures 1 through 4). Only Teacher 2, explicitly demonstrated
evidence-based practices.
Student Sample Responses for Written Assessments
Merriam, (2011) shares that documents are a data source suitable for triangulation and for
validating emerging findings. Here, the researcher uses student work samples to identify how
teachers assessed SAE. The early stage student work samples give a visual understanding of
differences during language development stages. Previous studies show that students lack
understanding of expected language use in performing academic instructional tasks. The
researchers in one study used student writing samples to help teachers identify how well students
decode the specific language teachers look for during writing (Aguirre-Munoz, et al, 2008), as it
is important that teachers be able to modify instruction and assessment. Therefore, student
writing samples serve as a means to monitor progress.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 81
Teacher 1’s beginner student work sample was a processing think sheet on which the
student used a think bubble to write what she thought the character Siddhartha was thinking at a
certain point in the story. This was a way for the teacher to know whether the student could refer
to text in the story as evidence. The beginner sample showed spelling and alphabetical errors,
such as using “b” instead of “d” and the use of the word “stuff” instead of stating evidence based
on the text. Using visual aids, body language and gestures as supplements before assessment and
during guided instruction gives stronger support for ELLs as they make language connections
(Oliveira & Shoffner, 2009). This visual representation of Siddhartha could have served as an aid
to help students make meaning from the text, but, in this case, the student did not seem to have
the skills or background knowledge to complete the task. She appears to have a limited
vocabulary and limited background knowledge to establish proficiency.
Figure 1. T1 Beginner and Early Intermediate Student Samples (left to right)
Additionally, the early intermediate student sample was a worksheet that assessed how
well students could respond by writing a caption. The top left section of the page, states that the
students needed to write a caption that summarizes each step along Siddhartha’s Path to
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 82
Enlightenment. The worksheet gives a visual of a path with different stops along the way that
match five parts of the story from the reading. Each stop requires students to cite evidence based
on what they read and understood.
Here, the teacher’s expectation was for students to show their understanding by
identifying key ideas and writing a summary response on their worksheets. Two of the responses
were more of a single word instead of a caption summary. This response showed that the student
did not completely understand how to cite evidence from the reading nor did the student satisfy
proficiency assessment expectations by writing out summary captions for each step along the
path. The captions were vague short fragmented sentences that did not show if s/he understood
Siddhartha’s path, how to use academic language to convey understanding or understood the
reading at all. Callison (2013) states that teachers are to chart and show the corresponding
connections between standards so students have a way to connect content with literacy domains
during the early stages of language development. In this assessment, the student did not show
language progression because s/he did not make a corresponding connection between what was
expected in the standard and expressing what s/he read.
Teacher 2’s beginner student sample was created during class time to show understanding
of the characters. This sample displays the student’s understanding of citing evidence based on
character traits and quotes from the story. Although students had the options to create a hardcopy
or a display in a Google Document, the beginner student sample was displayed in a hardcopy,
while the early intermediate student sample was a typed Google Document with an opening and
different citations from the text.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 83
Figure 2. T2 Beginner and Early Intermediate Student Samples (left to right)
Ransinski et al. (2008) states that teachers should detail specific awareness of how
students process words accurately and efficiently during writing exercises. Teacher 2 allowed
students to choose how to write and convey their understanding, which illuminated the language
development stage (through written assessment) for identifying proficiency progression. One
student chose to write in colored pencils as an informal way to convey understanding, and the
other chose to type. Both samples show a specific awareness for citing evidence in writing to
support claims regarding different characters in the story. The teacher gave students a way to
process words and depict their own understanding (Ransinski et al., 2008).Allowing students a
choice in demonstrating comprehension allows for effective proficiency measurement. The
assessment gave students a way to use their own knowledge to show comprehension.
Teacher 3’sbeginner and early intermediate student samples give the students’ own
perspective regarding concluding remarks to the speech as a way to cite evidence and present an
explanation to support their wording. The teacher had students create their own explanation as a
way to facilitate language development. Hudley and Mallison (2011) agree that language
instruction is more effective when teachers can facilitate it in a way that assesses language
development and makes the student aware of his/her progress. Here, students gave written
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 84
responses to show their thinking in a coherent response or concluding statement, and their
current progress after reading, hearing and listening to the speech. Teacher 3 facilitated language
development by assessing domain skill development in listening, reading, and writing.
Figure 3. T3 Beginner and Early Intermediate Student Samples (left to right)
Allison and Rehm (2007) listed cooperative learning as an instructional strategy and an
alternate form of assessment. Teacher 4’s allowed students time to create their ideas of what a
Public Notice would look like and the importance of its purpose outlined in their written
descriptions. Students also had to highlight some points that helped the readers to identify why it
would be considered public notification. By giving the readers (other students in the class) a way
to openly discuss why and what made their notices public and important, it allowed student
collaboration to go on while the teacher could observe and correct students in their language
development. The teacher used oral assessment first to familiarize students with written
assessment. Later she asked them to create a public notice based on the cooperative learning.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 85
Figure 4. T4 Beginner and Early Intermediate Student Samples.
Summary
While Teacher 1 and Teacher 3 used similar monitoring assessments, Teacher 2 and
Teacher 4 reflected on their ability to create monitoring assessments that focused not only on
language needs but also tailored these assessments to match the students’ learning style. Teacher
4 also considered facilitating the assessment in an oral interaction that made the monitoring
assessment immediate and not just after the students produced the results of their independent
interpretations (Ellis, 2008). This form of assessment helps to inform instructional practice and
differentiates assessment for improving language development. Garcia and DiCerbo (2000)
mention that ambiguous timeframes do not allow educators a clear way to measure progress.
However, tailored effective instruction and assessments seem to help address needs and increase
proficiency. Teachers 2 and 4 create an explicit assessment tool by identifying the students’
learning styles and making multiple types of assessments accessible.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 86
Seemingly, when teachers differentiate instruction, language development takes place
more rapidly (Molle, 2013, Genzuk, 2012). When instruction is connected to the assessment and
stage, progress is demonstrated more clearly. The assessment is used repeatedly as the student
progresses and helps illuminate remaining weaknesses. The researcher noticed that Teacher 2’s
students seem to be able to identify language in text readily. For example, in Teacher 2’searly
stage beginner sample, the student underlined the adjectives that described the characters, which
signified to the teacher that the student understood how to use adjectives. This gave the teacher a
way to monitor the language progression based on what she established during instruction and on
what she stated during the interview: “tailored assessments and highlighting text”. Although
Teacher 2 did not use PLDs, her assessment practice was clear and explicit for developing the
learner.
Results for Research Question Three
Research Question Three asked, “What classroom practices do ELL Teachers implement
using students’ primary languages to influence second language acquisition for ELLs during the
beginner and early intermediate stages of language development?” The researcher used a semi-
structured face-to-face interview to gather teachers’ responses regarding what they used as
classroom practices for implementing and influencing second language acquisition, and an
observation to determine how these classroom practices were illustrated in the classroom.
Classroom Practices
Interview questions 9 and 10 ask teachers which classroom practices are most effective in
promoting second language acquisition during the early stages of language development. ELA
Teacher 1 indicated that, as the ELD program calls for, she spent a lot of time helping students
develop SAE. For instance, she said, “They need a lot of practice saying a word, then rephrasing
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 87
it in a sentence and then hearing someone else say it.” She spoke about the power of having
students work in small groups to share their knowledge about a particular word and its meaning.
In small groups, everyone can contribute towards understanding. She emphasized the
importance of students’ learning to use words in sentences together. Allison and Rehm (2011)
state that, when interactive classrooms allow ELLs time to practice with peers, they develop SAE
much more quickly.
Additionally, these interactive classrooms should include time for open unscripted
discussion and communication about the content (Allison & Rehm, 2011). Although Teacher 1
mentioned student primary languages as a helpful influence, students did not use primary
languages during the researcher’s observation. Teacher 1 said she worked with students to speak
in full sentences using new academic vocabulary instead of having students give one-word
answers. She also said she has them practice listening to one another’s sentences and repeating
the meaning back to the speaker in their own words. Then, the students ask the speaker whether
their paraphrased sentence means the same thing as the original sentence. To further emphasize
the importance of full sentences, she requires them to state the full sentences to the teacher.
Following practice with sentences, she has them put sentences together into paragraphs. She
presents them with a paragraph that has blanks in it, and the students have to fill in blanks with
the appropriate words.
During observation, Teacher 1 allowed students to get into small groups to review the
content vocabulary with her. Afterwards, students sat in small groups at their tables. With a small
white board and marker at each table, students were to choose and write a vocabulary word and
draw a big lowercase “t” in the center, giving the board four sections. Students first had to define
the vocabulary word using their books, and each student had to write the word within a complete
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 88
sentence in one of the board’s four sections. Collectively, students shared in examples and
discussed the definition. Many tried to complete the exercise within the time allotted, but only a
few groups seemed to understand how to use the word or make a complete sentence. The
research says educators who provide opportunities to speak and listen in addition to reading and
writing develop the learner more effectively (Cummins, 2007). Although Teacher 1 provided the
opportunity to speak and listen together, the researcher did not see the teacher-student interaction
for reading and writing. The teacher initially reviewed vocabulary with the students but did not
have students read or write practice sentences with her before she asked students to do this in
their groups.
In the interview, Teacher 2mentioned, “I think phonics, and reading skills are classroom
practices that are most effective in promoting second language acquisition …I think first they
have to read”. She explained that she noticed ELLs do not do well in other classes, not because
they do not know math or science, but because of the heavy amount of reading that is required.
In math class, she says, “If there is a word problem and an ELL is struggling, it’s a barrier and so
I see time and time again that reading is their barrier.” She mentioned seeing this in other
subjects like history, science, and math. She recommended that “the earliest classroom practice is
to tackle phonics; the decoding process and their comprehending and just working from there.”
Rasinski et al. (2008) agree that a part of effective teaching is to authentically demonstrate the
decoding process as background knowledge so that students accurately process language tasks.
Beck and McKeown (2001) state the most valuable language practices for ELLs are to consider
read-aloud activities where students not only listen to academic text but also talk about the text
with the teacher. Teacher and student interaction helps the student make meaning of text with the
teacher instead of independently or in a peer group exercise.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 89
During the observation, Teacher 2 had frequent one-on-one time with students. She
walked around the classroom and monitored active engagement. As students completed the test,
she saw their scores on her computer. Once she reviewed scores while simultaneously walking
around, she gave students feedback and reminded them of the importance of reading the entire
questions on the test before answering. Although this seemed to be the teacher’s daily practice,
the exercise did not build onto students’ primary languages. The exercise did allow students
individual practice time with her.
In interviews with Teachers 3 and 4, both mentioned the importance of small group
instruction. Teacher 3 shared that “teachers have to have strong classroom management to
facilitate small group instruction and involve students with higher level questioning in a way that
allows the students to talk.” Teacher 4 stressed the importance of “allowing time for students to
actually spend time talking with each other, interacting with each other, sharing with each other
and writing and listening to each other and not just pretending”. During the observation, Teacher
4 had three small group stations in which students sit every day. Teacher 4 announced at the
beginning class when they would be discussing something openly or together.
During the observation, Teacher 3 had students create a conclusion online while he used
his laptop to monitor their progress and walked around at various times. Teacher 4 gave students
time to work in small group stations to complete an online assessment, work with her one-on-one
or read independently. When teachers model the use of primary language with literacy
development, they create a social environment in which students can construct meaning together
as they use both their primary and their emerging language (Heath, 1991). Although none of the
teachers explicitly used the students’ primary languages, they did create a social environment
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 90
where students were allowed to construct meaning together one-on-one and independently while
in small groups.
ELA Teachers 1, 2 and 3described classroom practices and how they can be effective for
developing second language acquisition. They mentioned integrating more than one subject at a
time, repetitious assessment activities and reinforcing the use of language skills. Teacher 4 also
initiated repeating language exercises during observations. She gave students a way to
familiarize themselves with the academic language before assessments in their workstations.
These classroom practices influenced the use of SAE during learning. Teacher 2 also stated that
the use of primary languages to support second language acquisition is something she does
occasionally. However, none used students’ primary languages during observations. Teacher’s
continually integrated different subjects. ELA Teachers 1, 2 and 3 stated they used science or
history articles in English class to have students color code text for assessing their
comprehension during reading and writing. During observation, teachers used this practice to
analyze language development in writing and reading for different subjects. Teachers repeated
the process with activities to make sure students understood the concept of sentence structure and
how to explicitly use the standardized academic language and the new knowledge for science,
history and English.
ELD Teacher 4 stated that she creates quiz practices as a pre-test before having students
take the actual quizzes on the computer. She then puts the pre-test in the student folders for
review so that they see her response beforehand taking the quizzes on line. She repeats this
process until they get a passing pre-test score and will only then allow them to take the formative
assessment online. SDAIE instructional strategies used by ELD teachers to build language
learners’ familiarity and understanding regarding use of SAE content during language exercises
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 91
is necessary for early stages of language development (Genzuk, 2011). Although Teacher 4 did
not specify how she could integrate content across subjects, she did mention she integrates
language domains by using listening, speaking, reading and writing together. She exercises all
four domains at one time to have students learn the language task or activity more efficiently
instead of using primary languages.
During observation, the researcher witnessed Teacher 4 reading along with students for
the definition of public notices, having students listen to her read the definition out loud again
and having students write the definition on paper. She also called on some to share their
statement of what a public notice could be. Au (1998) finds a teacher can use his/her creative
instincts to match unique language needs with scaffold learning exercises to produce more
effective and meaningful skill development. The teacher combined the language domains of
listening, speaking, reading and writing to creatively address language needs and to identify
student participation. The researcher was not sure students were clear about the language task
they were to perform in having to share comprehension independently. At the end of the class
discussion, many students gave a complete paraphrase of their understanding of a public notice.
The challenge seemed to be the limited time students had to think openly about public notices in
discussion. Although many seemed to understand the concept through paraphrasing, many
responses were similar and not unique. Many students copied one another’s paraphrase or
slightly changed it with a word or two. However, the teacher overlooked this challenge and
continued with the lesson without addressing the lack of individual proficiency.
Summary
The classroom practices teachers mentioned were skills students used as connection with
the use of academic language using language skills increases familiarity with academic language.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 92
Teachers had students practice language skills and assessed and monitored progress consistently
and integrated content to introduce new knowledge along with current background knowledge to
bridge gaps in language development. The researcher found that assessing students throughout
the learning process, creating opportunities for students to practice using language skills and
monitoring that progress helps teachers identify he students’ weak areas or specific needs.
Students color-coding pieces of texts correctly deepens student comprehension; however, some
students only had limited familiarity with academic language structure in text and not a clear
understanding of how SAE is used. Many students could openly speak and listen, but, once they
were asked to independently write or read text and share their understanding, they scored low on
monitoring assessments. Very few students responded with unique answers. The verbal exercises
helped students communicate in general, but the researcher did not see the written results of
assessments to prove individual proficiency progression.
The comments students made as they discussed openly did not address individual
language needs nor provide evidence of proficiency. At the same time, teachers equipped
students with language skills, but not thinking skills, in a way that allowed students time to
practice academic language on their own instead of just in their independent reading and writing.
Beck and McKeown (2001) state that, even when students have pictures and open conversations
or dialogue during class discussions, they rely on the pictures to make meaning instead of
constructing meaning from the text. Teachers have to allow students time to develop their unique
background knowledge instead of moving students on without explicitly identifying their
comprehension of text. For example, in writing, the language skill is assessed but the parts of
language the students are highlighting are not. This was not corrected immediately. Students
were highlighting key words they thought were important, yet the words were not actually key
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 93
words. Students highlighting words during the use of the language skill means that the teacher
assumes the students already understand which key words to look for during language
development exercises, however, it was clear in the exercise (during observation) that the
students did not highlight keywords in the text. This oversight means teachers have to monitor
activity to ensure progression and not just usage of a language skill. Otherwise, students could be
practicing the language skill without learning the actual meaning in the structure of the
sentences, which is important for language development and proficiency progression.
Primary Language Use
Interview questions asked teachers if they use students’ primary languages as part of
influencing language development in the early stages and, if they do, how they do so. Teacher 1
and 3 shared that the use of primary languages is very influential for second language
acquisition. Although Teacher 1 is not proficient languages other than English, she stated that
she believes newcomers really need to have that bilingual program for the first year. Over the
years, she has had many ELLs from many countries come into her classroom, and they did not
speak a word of English. She stated,
I didn’t speak a word of their language but, if they had the skills in their primary
language, especially in middle school, it translated, and some of them were my best
students, picking up faster than all the rest of them. I’d say 87% of the ELLs here are
LTELs, meaning it’s really not that language is their problem. It’s behavior, or they don’t
have those skills that they needed to begin with. They need those explicitly taught to
them.”
Au (1998) says that balanced literacy occurs when the teacher can relate to a student’s
background language and use it as a foundation to advance progress. Proficiency may increase
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 94
within the given timeframe so that ELLs reclassify and develop effective skills as they move
onto the next grade or next stage. Although Teacher 1 did not speak a second language, she was
well aware of the influence it has in language development.
Teacher 2 shared what she did in past teaching experiences to use a student’s primary
language to influence second language acquisition. She identified several times when she had to
use her primary language to support second language acquisition. She said, “I think it’s really
important, I think it’s huge! Having a connection with the students so they can be successful at
every stage seemed to be important to the language development outcome per individual student.
Sentence fragment! ”Teacher 2 mentioned the challenges she faced because she did not want to
completely stop using the primary language. For example, she said a phrase in the student’s
primary language and then in English, or had the student in groups with bilingual students
communicating together, doing a lot of back and forth between languages. The student was also
in her ELD class and teaching him vocabulary phonic skills was wise, and “it’s like teaching a
first grader how to read and then trying to have them introduced to a new language all while
having the ELL blending into a regular class.”
In this study, ELA and ELD teachers did not use the primary languages to support SAE,
even though research states that language development increases more rapidly with this type of
support. These teachers emphasized using reading, writing, listening and speaking domain
exercises to help build and strengthen ELL language skills, and not just the support of using the
primary language by itself. Teacher 2 expressed the advantages of communicating more
effectively and the disadvantages of transitioning between two languages for practicing SAE
daily while in the academic setting. Callahan et al.(2003) say that education without a minimal
knowledge background of speaking, reading, listening or writing in SAE or primary language
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 95
makes literacy development challenging, even with specialized instruction (Hudley & Mallison,
2011). Although Teacher 2did not currently use students’ primary language in her classroom,
research makes the point that ELLs must also have the language skills in that primary language
as they transition to SAE (Hubbard & Carpenter, 2003).Teachers 3 and 4 mentioned they did not
use primary languages frequently. Both said they, instead, reinforce English. Hubbard and
Carpenter (2003) mention that using primary languages in writing develops ELLs more rapidly,
but these teachers did not regard that as a concern or concur that it was effective.
During observations, teachers did not use primary languages. Instead, teachers used more
universal language and modeled skills and expectations throughout their. The researcher saw
teachers use body language more often during instruction: facial gestures, pointing, and making
eye contact. They also used repetitive verbal commands like “Go” to let students know they
could to proceed with the assignment.
Summary
Interview question 7 asked teachers have if they took any classes that promote
implementation of primary languages during instruction. Teachers answered they did not have
any formal training and that, overall, the use of primary languages, while effective for some, may
not be effective in the mainstream classroom (Hubbard & Carpenter, 2003). Primary languages
were not influential in the classroom. Furthermore, teachers seemed to promote English-only
classrooms.
Conclusion
This chapter provided analysis of data obtained through a case study at a middle school in
Southern California. The data served to answer the research questions and outlined several major
findings that can be highlighted based on triangulation of interview responses, observations and
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 96
student samples. Two major findings emerged. First, all four teachers are challenged with
outlining specific instructional strategies and assessments that combine ELA and ELD standards
to promote SAE. Additionally, they struggle with utilizing primary language. Analyzing both
instructional strategies and assessments revealed a need to align instruction with assessment
(Luster, 2011).
Although research shares that developed academic language skills can transfer from one
language to the next (Cummins, 2000), the four teachers found it an ongoing challenge to
transition their students between early stage deficiency in home languages to low level
proficiency skills in SAE (Menken, 2009). SAE language development skills and opportunities
to use them were seen in Teacher 2’s classroom most. Teacher 2 included using all four language
domains at once to create effective instructional strategy and monitoring assessments.
Conversely, Teachers 1 and 3 created some meaningful instruction and assessments that included
some of the domains or one or two language parts of a domain at a time. Additionally, ELD
Teacher 4 included many opportunities for ELLs to develop their proficiency despite not using
all four language domains not being used at one time. She used each part of the domain
separately, making proficiency progression limited or stagnant. When two or more domains were
combined instead of using two or three independently, instruction and assessments seemed to be
more effective.
This chapter reviewed the findings, analysis and interpretation of the data. The data
provided evidence to answer the three research questions. Chapter Five presents a summary of
the study, implication for practice, limitations, recommendations for future research and
concluding remarks.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 97
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The section that follows presents a summary and analysis of findings based on the
problem stated in Chapter One. As stated in Chapter One, the problem is some ELL students who
start kindergarten in America and have no interruption in their schooling still do not achieve
proficiency by high school (Rueda, 2011). The policies and structures operating within the K-12
timeframe, which are not always based in research and evidence, plus inadequate language
instruction, contribute to this lack of achievement (Flores et al., 2009). The study examined
instruction and assessment provided for ELLs to gain proficiency within the middle school
timeframe. The researcher used prior research in the literature review in Chapter Two as a lens
through which to interpret the data collected regarding ELA and ELD instructional practices
used by teachers for promoting ELL proficiency. Interviews, observations and document analysis
of student samples, outlined in the research design in Chapter Three detail how these data tools
were used to gather data to help answer the research questions. Results were discussed in
Chapter Four. In Chapter Five, the researcher provides a summary of the implications for
practice, limitations, recommendations for future research and a conclusion.
Methodology
The study used a qualitative design to make meaning in context for ELL teachers’
decisions to use certain strategies in teaching ELLs. This study’s analysis of ELD and ELA
teaching in a middle school in Southern California provided information toward answering the
research questions intended to examine teachers’ use of instructional strategies and assessments
to have an impact on ELL proficiency development. The researcher used coded transcribed
interviews, observation data and student work sample analysis to identify major findings. Social
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 98
Cultural Theory and Balanced Literacy theories were used as the conceptual framework to
interpret the data.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a discussion about major findings. These three
questions guided the study:
1. How do ELL teachers use ELA/ELD Standards to develop instructional strategies and
activities that promote proficiency in SAE at the Beginning and Early Intermediate stages
of language development?
1. How are formative or summative assessments used to inform instructional strategies and
to monitor ELL proficiency progress from one stage (Beginner and Early Intermediate) of
language development to the next?
1. What classroom practices do ELL teachers implement using students’ primary languages
to influence second language acquisition for ELLs during the Beginner and Early
Intermediate stages of language development?
Discussion of Findings
The study established key relationships between students and teachers during instruction,
assessment and practice.
Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How do ELL teachers use ELA and ELD Standards to
develop instructional strategies and activities that promote proficiency in SAE at the Beginning
and Early Intermediate stages of language development?” Results showed the work and
classroom participation of Teacher 2’s students demonstrated the clearest evidence of meeting
ELA Standard 7.1 that includes citing evidence as part of the ELA standard, which all of the four
middle school teachers in this study addressed. Teacher 2 used instructional strategies that
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 99
integrated listening, speaking, reading, and writing to scaffold students toward meeting ELA
Standard 7.1 which called for students to write arguments to support claims with clear reasons
and relevant evidence. The teachers operated within the framework of the ELD (Torlakson,
2013) which calls for instruction that includes all four language domains of speaking, listening,
reading and writing to support students in meeting ELA standards.
All the teachers involved reading, writing, speaking and listening in some manner to help
students meet the ELA standard of citing evidence. Teachers 1, 3, and 4 used the four ELD
language domains, but not in an integrated manner. Teacher 2 used all four domains in an
integrated manner, and her strategies were consistent with the literature that states teachers who
support students’ proficiency in a specific ELA standard with activities that involve speaking,
listening, and writing provide ELLs the most effective language-learning and language-use
opportunities. Repeated experiences involving reading, writing, listening, and speaking through
stages of language development make available to ELL students the explicit learning
opportunities to acquire a second language (Cummins, 2009).
Teacher 2 specifically provided learning experiences using all four language domains
described in the ELD standards to enhance students’ opportunities to meet ELA 7th grade
standards. Teachers 1, 3 and 4 acknowledged and used some of the language domains in
conjunction with standards but did not effectively strategize their use to promote ELLs’
development in SAE. Teacher 3 had students engage in activities using multiple resources to
meet the ELA standards, but, after using these resources to help students meet the ELA standard
of citing evidence, many of the students did not demonstrate that they understood the meaning of
the Gettysburg Address they listened to or that they made a connection to what they read in the
text. Several students give opinions, bud did not cite evidence from either of these sources. The
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 100
students seemed overwhelmed without the support of integrated activities around the four
language domains.
Of all four teachers, Teacher 2 created a balanced literacy and socially constructive
classroom. After having students both read and listen to the Gettysburg Address, she modeled
and then provided opportunities for language practice in all four domains. She provided
opportunities for open language practice during whole class discussion and with peers (speaking
and listening) and then allowed students to cite evidence in writing (Au, 1998; Byrnes & Wasik,
2009; Goldenberg, 2008; Heath 1991; Hoffner, 2009; Valencia & Wixon, 2013). She applied the
four ELD domains in practical situations in which students were active learners toward meeting
the single ELA standard of citing evidence.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How are formative and summative assessments
used to inform instructional strategies and to monitor ELL proficiency progress from one stage
(Beginner and Early Intermediate) of language development to the next?” Results show the
teachers in this study demonstrated that consistent use of formative and summative assessments
aligned with the ELA standards to promote ELLs’ language proficiency is a means for teachers
to identify the different stages of students’ language progression (Columbo & Fontaine, 2009).
They used common assessments to varying degrees.
Instead of relying on one type of assessment for all students, using a variety of
monitoring assessments for different learners provides a greater potential for identifying where a
student is at a given time toward meeting a specific ELA standard (Allison & Rehm, 2011; Ellis,
2008; The Clute Institute, 2011;). ELA and ELD teacher collaboration about ELL summative
and formative assessments increases instructional strategies tailored for aligning instruction and
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 101
assessment in the middle school classroom (Allison &Rehm, 2007; Almaquer, 2005). All three
of the ELA teachers mentioned at least one Common Assessment Practice (CAP) during
interviews but only ELA Teacher 2’s use of CAPs to inform instruction could be clearly
identified during the observation. During observations, her students used highlighters to
highlight text and color code the different sections of writing pieces that conformed to her
instructions to build their language development. Additionally, analysis of Teacher 2’s student
work documents made apparent the role of the CAP and how it is effectively used during stages
of language development to identify language progression. Although ELA Teachers 1 and 3
mentioned their awareness of the CAP, its use was not seen during observations or in student
work samples. The teachers used alternate assessments such as oral and informal checks during
the observations to monitor ELL language development; however, these assessments did not
identify specific areas of individual ELLs’ progress in their language development.
Teacher 2 used collaboration and background knowledge from the ELL assessments for
differentiating instruction for individual students. She used the newly identified language stage
demonstrated in the most recent assessment so that the language progressions were defined
clearly to modify instructional practices. The ELD teacher (Teacher 4) used computerized
reports of ELLs’ summative and formative assessments instead of using assessments similar to
CAPs in the ELA classrooms. She relied heavily on computer analysis of students’ scores on
assessments done in class. She used this information as well as the CELDT to inform
instructional practice and infused alternate forms of informal assessments that identified
language progression, which were later reviewed by teacher and student. Although Teacher 4
stated during her interview that pre-tests were used as part of charting language progress, she did
not identify whether they were useful as a measure to increase or decrease the rigor of the
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 102
computer-generated tests, especially since ELD classrooms rely heavily on ELD programs and
summative testing for ELL language progression. She did not reveal whether these assessments
were effective in helping teachers monitor students’ stages of language development in ways that
informed instruction.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “What classroom practices do ELL Teachers
implement using students’ primary languages to influence second language acquisition for ELLs
during the Beginner and Early Intermediate stages of language development?” Results showed
teachers in this study made limited use of primary languages to support second language
development and, instead, created English-only classrooms in contrast to established research
findings calling for the use of students’ primary languages to influence second language
acquisition (Callahan et al, 2003; Ortiz-Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010).
For the most part, teachers used English-only practices such as teacher-student
interactions and student-student interactions in English to influence second language acquisition
rather than allowing use of students’ primary language (Cummins, 2008; Allison &Rehm, 2011).
Teachers used repetition by integrating language development activities as students learned
subject specific content (Menken, 2009). Many of the teachers were aware of the impact primary
languages have on second language acquisition. They stated this awareness in their interviews,
but there was limited primary language use to facilitate second language development during
instruction. Teachers collectively seemed to promote English-only practices and encouraged
peer tutoring and class discussions in their classrooms. Teachers were focused on employing
interactions in SAE in student conversations or in one-on-one conversations between the student
and the teacher, even if students’ English was slang, or the school’s cultural language (a
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 103
combination of Spanglish and African American Vernacular English). Teachers monitored
students’ language use in the classroom but had minimal ways to help them transition from their
home language to SAE as part of the classroom practice. During instruction, teachers did not
always demonstrate an effort to understand the content of what students said. They seemed more
interested in students using SAE correctly rather than in trying to understand how to use the
language students’ brought to the classroom initially to support curriculum content learning for
early stages of proficiency in SAE.
Implications for Practice
This study’s findings are consistent with research that found instruction is effective when
teachers incorporate the four language domains’ skills into their instructional strategies to
promote ELLs’ language development as students simultaneously learn curriculum content.
Additionally, this instructional strategy helps to forward ELL students’ thinking in SAE as they
transition between languages and build language skills for using SAE (Cummins, 2008).
Although, ELA Teachers 1, 3 and ELD Teacher 4 had 10 years of ELD teaching experience
(Table 5), ELA Teacher 2, had only 5 years ELD teaching experience and was more effective at
integrating language domains with different content subjects. For example, she used history
articles and had students identify key ideas and vocabulary during language exercises with
highlighting as students read, listened, discussed and wrote out their commentary as part of the
language exercise. The impact of this instruction was evident in her students’ samples. In Figure
2, the beginner student sample shows underlined keywords of character traits that demonstrated
the student understood how to describe character and cite evidence as part of his/her language
development process. Even though teachers 1 and 4 had access to ELD teaching experience, it is
apparent that specific and ongoing teacher training, as well as teacher collaboration, is necessary
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 104
to increase and identify how to effectively use all four language domains in conjunction with
other content area subjects. Teacher 2 seemed to use her five years of ELD teaching experience
more effectively for language development than the teachers with ten years teaching experience
as ELD Instructors. A school wide series of mandatory professional development could be a
consideration for training teachers in how to use all four-language domains across contents with
predictors or indicators for language stage development timeframes.
Teachers need continual training in how to build language skills as well as promote
language development across content areas to increase ELL language development progress
within a timeframe that enables ELLs to be proficient in SAE before they graduate from high
school (Byrnes &Wasik, 2009; Cummins, 2009, Hudley & Mallison, 2011). The necessary
language skill training consists of teachers using all four language domains (reading, writing,
listening and speaking) as a foundation for ELLs to exercise language tasks simultaneously so
that students connect the academic language and skill more readily. It should also consist of
helping teachers build on student’s primary language to acquire SAE.
Teachers can use the PLDs as a community of teachers who are learning from one
another to analyze language stage development as part of their ongoing professional
development. Using the accountability measure of sharing and collaboratively analyzing student
work samples can enhance teachers’ knowledge of stages of language development and provide
clarity about where and when language development takes place. This identification would give
teachers a collection of samples to start monitoring language instructional practices and creating
effective common assessments to use within a defined timeframe. Research identifies effective
teacher collaboration, tailored instruction and alternate forms of assessment as necessary to
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 105
address an array of ELL challenges and needs (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Byrnes & Wasik, 2009;
Buxton, et., al 2013; Cummins, 2007; Goldenberg, 2008;).
Recommendations for future research
Today, language teachers continue to want to understand the best practices for
developing ELLs to become proficient within the early stages of language development. Future
research might include analysis of a larger sample size of ELL teachers who face a variety of
early-stage language challenges in their ELL classrooms. This study identified how ELLs
responded to standards-aligned instruction and to formative and summative assessments. Future
research could review how teachers plan instruction based on the summative and formative
assessments created. Research should also consider observing instruction that clearly aligns state
standards to match language development practices and application of ELD standards during
classroom instruction. Additionally, ELD language domains and increasing accountability
measures should be scheduled by administration and department heads (Content Leaders) to
identify best times for school-wide training to practice these language development
opportunities.
Teacher training should be mandatory at least quarterly: before school starts, after the
first semester ends and sometime during middle of second semester. Teachers can review
CELDT scores at the beginning of the school year and have an opening discourse for how to
address those students who are in the lowest rank as well as promote the growth of students in
the higher ranks. After first semester ends, teachers could identify where ELLs are and how
language progressions differ between stages for individual ELLs across subjects. Teachers can,
then, work collaboratively to design in structure based on these data. By the middle of the second
semester, teachers will have discourse to prepare and use for the upcoming school year along
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 106
with noting individual weaknesses and strengths identified among ELLs. Technology affords
educators a way to electronically implement soft accountability measures such as blogs, emails,
Twitter, school-wide databases with drop-down menus, and accessible teacher pages (similar to
the student pages that are created for student to use) for data collection of previously stated
recommendation. Technology also provides means for keeping records and generating reports.
Although PLDs are outlined in the ELD framework to be utilized by language teachers,
the teachers in this study did not use them to analyze student work. No examples of how to use
these descriptors surfaced during observations. The researcher considered the newness of the
proficiency measure as an early implementation by Department of Education (California
Department of Ed., 2013). However, for the future, PLDs could possibly be a part of teacher
training to improve language development stage readiness for ELLs.
Limitations
The researcher selected the pool of participants based on convenience and the
accessibility of the participants. Time constraints did not allow for interviewing or observing a
larger group of teachers. Also based on time constraints and convenience, the researcher
analyzed a small number of student work samples to find evidence of the impact of the
instruction they experienced. Multiple variables could have influenced their writing, including
their background knowledge before instruction and the various levels of SAE knowledge within
the groups of students.
Delimitations
The generalizability of this study is limited by the small number of teachers studied and
the short period of time over which data were collected. The researcher observed the teachers
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 107
over a period of two weeks. The researcher also held only one interview with each of the
teachers who were observed.
Conclusion
Menken (2009) shares that language practices have to become classroom practices that
extend the ELLs’ thinking in their own language capacity, as they do not use the target language
the same as non-ELLs and need specific language practices to address their specific language
needs in addition to the general classroom practices. Some of the most effective instruction
builds on the language students bring into the classroom and calls for the consistent practice of
tailored language skills to increase language opportunities inside as well as outside the classroom
(Cummins, 2008; Hudley & Mallison, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978).
This research offers insight into ways educators can implement effective language
components (language skills, tools, assessment measures, and monitoring assessments) to
address ELL challenges and language needs within a more defined timeframe. Statistics
demonstrating the rising number of ELLs who are not acquiring Standardized Academic
Language Proficiency (SALP) necessitates that K-12 educators be prepared and effective for
producing ELL proficiency results (Goldenberg, 2008; Heath, 1991; Menken 2009; Rueda, 2011;
Smagorinsky, 2013).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 108
References
Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the no child left behind act for English-language
learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 782.
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). (CRESST) Assessment accommodations for
English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of
Educational Research, 74(1), 1-28.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001001
Afitska, O. (2014). Use of formative assessment, self- and peer-assessment in the classrooms:
Some insights from recent language testing and assessment (LTA) research. I-Manager's
Journal on English Language Teaching, 4(1), 29-39. Retrieved from
Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., & Boscardin, C. (2008). Opportunity to learn and English learner
achievement: Is increased content exposure beneficial? Journal of Latinos and Education,
7(3), 186-205.
Allison, B. N., & Rehm, M. L. (2007). Effective Teaching Strategies for Middle School Learners
in Multicultural, Multilingual Classrooms. Middle School Journal (J1), 39(2), 12-18.
Allison, B. N., & Rehm, M. L. (2011). English language learners: Effective teaching strategies,
practices for FCS teachers. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 103(1), 22.
Almaquer, I. (2005). Effects of Dyad Reading Instruction on the Reading Achievement of
Hispanic Third-Grade English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal. Fall 2005;
29, 3; ProQuest Research Library p. 59.
Anthony, A. R. B. (2008). Output Strategies for English-‐Language Learners: Theory to Practice.
The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 472-482.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 109
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J.J. & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority
disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of Students with
Diverse Backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research. Vol 40: 33
Ball, C., & Gettinger, M. (2009). Monitoring children's growth in early literacy skills: effects of
feedback on performance and classroom environments. Education and treatment of
children, 32(2), 189-212.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud
experiences for young children. The reading teacher, 10-20.
Bogdan, & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and
methods. Boston: Pearson.Buxton, C. A., Allexsaht-snider, M., Suriel, R., Kayumova, S.,
Choi, Y., Bouton, B., & Baker, M. (2013). Using educative assessments to support science
teaching for middle school English-language learners. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 24(2), 347-366.doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s10972-012-
9329-5
Byrnes, J. P., &Wasik, B. A., (2009). Language and literacy development: What educators need to
know. New York, the Guilford Press. 2000.
California Department of Education Reports (2008-2014). California Department of Education
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp)
Callahan, R., Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., &Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2003). English learners in
California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(36), 1-54.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 110
Callison, D. (2013). Inquiry Curricular Concepts: CCSS for Secondary Level English Language
Arts Literacy. School Library Monthly.2013; 29, 4; Proquest.
CELDT, (2013). CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Tom Torlakson, State
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Clark, K. (2009). The Case for Structured English Immersion. Supporting English Language
Learners, 66(7), 42-46.
Coburn, C.E., Pearson, P.D., &Woulfin, S. (2011). Reading policy in the era of accountability. In
M. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research, Vol. IV (pp. 561–593). New York, NY. Routledge.
Coleman, D. & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised Publishers' Criteria for the Common Core
Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3-12.Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Coleman, R. and Goldberg, C. (2012). The Common Core Challenge for ELLs. National
Association of Secondary School Principals. Principal Leadership 2012.
Colombo, M., & Fontaine, P. (2009). Building vocabulary and fostering comprehension
strategies for English language learners: The power of academic conversations in social
studies. New England Reading Association Journal, 45(1), 46.
CRESST Report -Herman, J., & Linn, R. (2013). On the Road to Assessing Deeper Learning:
The Status of Smarter Balanced and PARCC Assessment Consortia. CRESST Report 823.
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Crosnoe, R., & Turley, R. N. L. (2011). K-12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 129-152.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 111
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In
Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 487-499). Springer US.
Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-‐language Classroom: Pedagogical
Considerations. TESOL quarterly, 43(2), 317-321.
DelliCarpini, M. (2009). Enhancing cooperative learning in TESOL teacher education. ELT
journal, 63(1), 42-50.
DiCerbo (2000) Access and Engagement: Program Design and Instructional Approaches for
Immigrant students in Secondary Schools. National Association of Secondary School
Principals. NASSP Bulletin; Nov 2000; 84, 619; ProQuest pg. 101.
Dixon, L. Q. (2011). Singaporean kindergartners' phonological awareness and English writing
skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 98-108.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-
210,256.
Elfers, A. M., & Stritikus, T. (2014). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers'
work with English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 305.
ELL Information Center Fact Sheet Series (2010).
Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. University of Auckland,
New Zealand CAL Digest. December 2008
Emeldi, M. (2012). How the California Common Core State Standards Support ELD: Supporting
English Learners during ELA and Literacy in History/Social Sciences & Science and
Technical Subjects Instruction. (Power Point Presentation).
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 112
Flores, E., Painter, G. Harlow-Nash, Z. and Pachon, H. (2009). Que Pasa? Are English Language
Learning Students Remaining in English Learning Classes Too Long? Policy Brief. TRPI
(The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute)
Foulger, T. S., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2007). Enhancing the writing development of English
language learners: Teacher perceptions of common technology in project-based learning.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 109-124.
Forte, E., edCount, L. L. C., Perie, M., &Paek, P. (2014). Exploring the Relationships between
English Language Proficiency Assessments and English Language Arts Assessments.
Center for Assessment, U.S. Department of Education.
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2003). Helping middle and high school age English
language learners achieve academic success. NABE Journal of Research and Practice,
1(1), 110-122.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to Teachers of English
Language Learners: A Survey of California Teachers' Challenges, Experiences, and
Professional Development Needs. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE (NJ1).
Garcia, G. N., & DiCerbo, P. A. (2000). Lessons From Research: What Is the Length of Time
it Takes Limited English Proficient Students to Acquire English and Succeed in an All-
English Classroom? (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Garcia, E. E., & Curry-Rodriguez, J. (2000). The education of limited English proficient
students in California schools: An assessment of the influence of proposition 227 in
selected districts and schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1), 15-35.
García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English Language Learners to
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 113
Emergent Bilinguals. Equity Matters. Research Review No. 1. Campaign for
Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.
García, S., & Ortiz, A. (2008). A framework for culturally and linguistically responsive
design of response-to-intervention models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse
Exceptional Learners, 11(1), 24-41.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725
Genzuk, M. (2011). Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) for
language minority students. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research
Occasional Paper Series.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners. American Educator.
Gomez, K., & Madda, C. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for ELL Latino students in the middle
school science classroom. Voices from the Middle, 13(1), 42-47.
Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered Instruction: Best Practices for ELLs in the Mainstream.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44, 165.
Hawkins, M. R. (2004). Researching English language and literacy development in schools.
Educational Researcher, 33(3), 14-25.
Hayes, K., Rueda, R., & Chilton, S. (2009). Scaffolding language, literacy, and academic content
in English and Spanish: The linguistic highway from Mesoamerica to southern
California. English Teaching, 8(2), 137.
Hasson, D. J. (2006). Bilingual language use in Hispanic young adults: Did elementary bilingual
programs help? Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 45-57, 59-64, 237.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 114
Heath, S. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr,
M. Kamil, R. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research, (Vol. 3,
pp. 3-25). White Plains, New York: Longman.
Hubbard, R. & Carpenter, M. (2003). World beneath the words: Writing workshop with Second
Language Learners. Language Arts. Proquest Research Library.
Hudley, A. H. &Mallison, C., (2011). Understanding English Language Variation in U.S.
Schools. New York. Teachers College Press.
Jang, E. E., Dunlop, M., Wagner, M., Kim, Y., &Gu, Z. (2013). Elementary school ELLs'
reading skill profiles using cognitive diagnosis modeling: Roles of length of residence
and home language environment. Language Learning, 63(3), 400-
436.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12016
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners in the Content Areas Review of
Educational Research. December 2008, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 1010–1038 DOI:
10.3102/0034654308325580 © 2008 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
Jespen, C., Alth, S. (2005) English Learners in California Schools. Public Policy Institute of
California. San Francisco, CA.
Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N. K., Rivera, M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Accommodations for English
Language Learners Taking Large-Scale. Review of Educational Research; Sep 2009; 79, 3;
ProQuest Research Library
Kim, J. and Herman, J. (2010). CRESST Report 779; When to exit ELL students: Monitoring
success and failure in mainstream classrooms after ELLs Reclassification. Graduate
School of Education & Information Sciences UCLA
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 115
King, J. (2011) Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An action agenda for higher
education. American Council of Education.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Laura Méndez Barletta. (2006). English language learners who
struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2),
108-28.
Krashen, S., & Clara, L. B. (2005). The ameliorating effects of high socioeconomic status: A
secondary analysis. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 185-196,229,231.
Laija-Rodríguez, W., Ochoa, S. , H., Parker, R., (2006) The Cross-linguistic Role of Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency. Bilingual Research Journal; Spring 2006; 30, 1;
ProQuest Research Library pg. 87.
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introduction to the
special issue. Modern Language Journal, 418-420.
Lee, S. J. (2012).New talk about ELL students. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 66-69.
Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). "It's not my job": K-12 teacher attitudes toward students'
heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453-477.
Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational
Researcher, 32(7), 3-13.
Luster, J. (2011). A new protocol for teaching English language learners in middle and
secondary schools. Journal of International Education Research, 7(4), 65.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). SAGE
Publication Inc.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation.
JOSSEY-BASS Publication
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 116
Macswan, J., &Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability:
Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teachers
College Record, 108(11), 2304-2328.
Menken, K. (2009). NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND ITS EFFECTS ON LANGUAGE
POLICY. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 103-
117.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090096
Molle, D. (2013). Facilitating professional development for teachers of English language
learners. Teaching and teacher education, 29, 197-207.
NAEP (2002). Report: Improving measures of ELLs.
Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., &Manis, F. R. (2012). Development of reading skills from K-3 in
Spanish-speaking English language learners following three programs of instruction.
Reading and Writing, 25(2), 537-567. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9285-4
National Clearing House Bilingual Education, Report (2000)
National Education Association (NEA) Report, (2008).
National Policy Institute, Report (2010).
NCRESST Report (2010)
Migration Policy Institute, (2010)
Oliveira, L. and Shoffner, M. (2009). Addressing the Needs of English Language Learners in an
English Education Methods Course. English Education. National Council of Teachers of
English.
Olson, C. & Land, R. (2008). Taking a Reading/Writing Intervention for Secondary English
Language Learners on the Road: Lessons Learned from the Pathway Project. Research in
the Teaching of English. Volume 42, Number 3, February 2008.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 117
Ortiz, F. W., & Sumaryono, K. L. (2010). Success with Ells. English Journal, 99(6), 93.
Paredes, S. M. (2000). How proposition 227 influences the language dynamics of a first- and
second-grade mathematics lesson. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1), 179-198.
Parrish, T. B., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., et al. (2006). Effects
of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K–12:
Findings from a 5-year evaluation (Final report for AB 56and AB 1116, submitted to the
California Department of Education). Palo Alto, CA.
Payán, R. M., & Nettles, M. T. (2008). Current state of English-language learners in the US K-12
student population. Retrieved on April,27, 2010.
PBS. (2001). The bilingual education controversy. “Time Line" Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/bilingual_timeline1.html
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), (2014).Reclassification of English Learner Students
in California Laura E. Hill, Margaret Weston, and Joseph M. Hayes with research support
from David Ezekiel and Belen Chavez.
Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a
national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 258-
288.
Rance-Roney, J. (2009). Best Practices for Adolescent ELLs. Educational leadership, 66(7),
32-37.
Rasinski, T., Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, W. D. (2008). Two essential ingredients: Phonics and
fluency getting to know each other. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 257-260.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three Dimensions of
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 118
Schleppegell, A. (2003). Grammar for writing: Academic language and the ELD Standards.
University of California, Davis.
Slama, R. B. (2014). Investigating Whether and When English Learners Are Reclassified Into
Mainstream Classrooms in the United States A Discrete-Time Survival Analysis. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 220-252.
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What Does Vygotsky Provide for the 21st -Century Language Arts
Teacher? Language Arts, Volume 90 Number 3, January 2013.
Sperling, M. and Freedman, S. (2001). Research on writing. In V. Richardson (Eds.) Handbook
of Research on Teaching).American Educational Research Association: Washington, D.C.
Sung, H., Padilla, A. M., & Silva, D. M. (2006). Foreign language education, academic
performance, and socioeconomic status: A study of California schools. Foreign Language
Annals, 39(1), 115-130.
Tomas Rivera Policy Institute USC (2010). TRPI study finds academic benefits for ELLs who
transition into mainstream classrooms. (2010, Jan 25). The Hispanic Outlook in Higher
Education, 20, 30. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/219238147?accountid=14749
Tyler, R. (1983). On Educational Evaluation: A Conversation with Ralph Tyler. Educational
Leadership.
Ullucci, K., & Spencer, J. (2009). Unraveling the myths of accountability: A case study of the
California high school exit exam. The Urban Review, 41(2), 161-
173.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11256-008-0105-y
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 119
U.S. department of education releases school-level assessment data in reading and math for all
schools for 2008-09 to 2010-11. (2013). Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch,
Inc.
Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). Suggestions and cautions for implementing the
reading standards. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 181-185.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 120
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
TEACHER
NAME________________________________________________________________
TIME__________________________
LOCATION____________________________
General
Background
Information:
In
this
section
we
would
like
to
know
a
little
about
you
in
order
to
see
what
Language
teachers
consider
important
about
language
development
in
ELLs
during
the
early
stages?
1. How
many
years
have
you
been
teaching
ELLs?
2. In
the
last
five
years,
how
have
you
seen
ELL
instruction
increase
or
decrease
proficiency
among
ELLs?
3. Are
you
familiar
with
the
CELDT?
And
how
it
is
given
to
reclassify
ELLs?
(Explain
your
knowledge
of
this
assessment).
4.
Do
you
speak
a
language
other
than
English?
If
you
speak
another
language
was
it
required
in
school
or
elsewhere?
(During
your
K-‐12
experience)
5. Are
there
other
annual
assessments,
besides
CELDT,
for
ELLs
that
you
use
to
assess
proficiency
outcomes
and
improve
instruction?
6. What
is
your
primary
language
and
what
is
the
primary
language
of
your
classroom?
7. How
many
ELLs
do
you
have
in
your
ELA
classroom?
(ELA
Teacher)
8. How
many
ELLs
do
you
have
in
your
ELD
classroom
and
what
are
the
language
stages
of
these
ELLs?
(ELD
Teacher).
9. Do
you
know
which
students
are
Beginner
ELLs
and
Early
Intermediate?
Also
do
you
know
their
backgrounds
and
how
long
they
have
been
in
their
current
stage?
10. How
do
you
include
background
knowledge
of
your
students
to
inform
your
instructional
strategies?
RQ
#1)
Assessments:
How
are
formative
assessments
(i.e.
CELDT)
used
to
inform
instructional
strategies
and
to
monitor
ELL
proficiency
progression
from
one
stage
of
language
development
(Beginning
and
Early
Intermediate)
to
the
next?
1. What
types
of
assessments
are
used
to
inform
your
instructional
strategy
design
for
ELL
students?
2. How
do
you
choose
these
assessments?
3. How
long
have
these
assessments
been
used
and
which
ones
are
most
effective
in
providing
the
information
you
need
to
provide
appropriate
instruction
for
the
ELL
students
in
your
class?
4. Do
you
create
formative
and
summative
assessments
for
your
ELLs
and
how
often?
5. What
do
you
use
to
monitor
ELL
proficiency
progress
after
summative
and
formative
assessments
have
been
taken?
and
how
often
do
you
repeat
this
practice?
6. What
assessment
tool
is
used
to
determine
if
the
student’s
language
needs
are
being
met
between
the
Beginning
and
Early
Intermediate
stages
of
language
development?
7.
At
what
grade
do
ELLs
usually
reach
Beginner
or
Early
Intermediate
stages
and
how
are
they
assessed
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 121
pre
and
post
this
stage
for
monitoring
their
proficiency
level
ongoing?
8.
Do
assessments
in
the
beginner
stages
differ
from
assessments
in
the
early
intermediate
stage?
How?
9.
How
often
do
you
monitor
proficiency
progression
during
each
stage
of
language
development
based
on
assessments?
10.
Can
you
describe
three
instructional
strategies
you
currently
use
in
your
classroom
that
promote
proficiency
development
for
Beginner
and
Early
Intermediate
ELLs
during
instruction
time?
Describe.
RQ
#2)
ELA
and
ELD
Standards:
How
are
English
Language
Teachers
using
ELA
and
ELD
Standards
to
develop
instructional
strategies
and
activities
that
promote
proficiency
in
SAE
at
the
early
stages
(Beginning
and
Early
Intermediate)
of
language
development?
1. How
would
you
define
promoting
early
stage
proficiency
in
the
classroom
and
what
does
that
look
like?
2. Can
you
give
me
an
example
of
how
you
use
ELA
standards
to
develop
your
instructional
plan
for
an
activity
that
promotes
proficiency
during
the
early
stages
(beginner
or
Early
Intermediate)?
3. How
often
do
you
combine
the
ELA
and
ELD
standards
to
promote
proficiency?
Is
this
effective?
4. How
often
do
you
collaborate
with
the
ELA
(or
ELD)
teacher
to
discuss
effective
instructional
practices
for
language
development?
5. Is
there
any
formal
training
to
support
strategy
design
between
ELA
and
ELD
teachers
here
at
this
school
site?
How
often
do
you
meet?
6. Is
there
a
departmental
meeting
(teachers
meeting)
to
strategize
how
to
create
best
practices
for
classroom
instruction
alignment
to
promote
proficiency?
How
often
does
this
happen?
7. What
are
some
effective
activities
(and
what
should
they
look
like)
used
during
the
early
stages
of
language
development?
How
often
do
you
use
them
during
instruction?
8. What
do
you
use
as
a
measuring
tool
for
creating
the
proficiency
assignment
as
you
implement
instruction
strategy
outcome
and
determine
if
it
was
effective?
What
is
the
method
you
use?
9. Which
standards
(ELA
or
ELD)
do
you
find
most
difficult
to
implement
and
integrate
into
instruction
for
proficiency
language
development?
10.
What
is
the
timeframe
in
which
many
ELLs
reclassify
at
the
beginner
stage
and
early
intermediate
stage
of
language
development?
(i.e.
after
2
years,
2
months
etc.
ELLs
reclassify?)
RQ
#3)
Implementation
of
Classroom
Practices:
What
classroom
practices
do
ELL
teachers
implement
using
students
primary
languages
to
influence
second
language
acquisition
for
ELLs
during
the
early
stages
(Beginner
and
Early
Intermediate)
of
language
development?
1. Have
you
participated
in
staff
development
or
training
related
to
bilingual
education?
Do
you
use
Primary
Languages
as
part
of
influencing
language
development
in
the
early
stages?
2. How
do
you
regularly
influence
second
language
acquisition?
3. Are
there
ELLs
in
your
class
who
do
not
speak
any
English,
making
it
hard
for
you
to
teach
them?
What
do
you
do
in
this
situation?
4. Do
you
use
an
ELLs
primary
language
to
support
learning
SAE?
How?
Or
Why
not?
5. Do
you
find
the
use
of
primary
languages
increase/decrease
language
development
during
the
early
stages
of
language
development?
6. How
often
do
Primary
Languages
show
up
during
classroom
instructional
time?
How
do
you
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 122
communicate
with
students
who
speak
minimal
English?
7. Have
you
taken
any
classes
that
promote
the
implementation
of
primary
languages
during
classroom
instruction
time?
8. How
important
do
you
think
it
is
to
connect
with
a
student’s
primary
language
to
support
second
language
acquisition?
9. Which
classroom
practices
are
most
effective
in
promoting
second
language
acquisition
during
the
early
stages
of
language
development?
10.
What
classroom
practices
can
be
described
as
effective
for
developing
second
language
acquisition
during
the
early
stages
of
language
development?
Please
describe
at
least
one.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 123
Appendix B
Observation Protocol (Modified)
Observation
Protocol
Name
of
Observer
Date
Time
School
Grade/Level
Study
Brief
Summary
of
Observation
Physical
Space
Description
Diagram
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 124
Participants
Teacher
• ethnicity
• languages
spoken
Students
• #
English
leaners
• #
English-‐proficient
• ethnic
distribution
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 125
Instructional
Strategies
Teacher
_____
lesson
plan
_____
icons/visuals
clues
_____
sentence
frames
_____
realia
_____
labels
_____
leveled
questions
_____
culturally
relevant
materials
_____
reduce
idiomatic
expressions
_____
explicit
vocabulary
development
_____
graphic
organizers
_____
total
physical
response
_____
cognitive
dictionary
_____
word
lists
_____
grouping
strategies
• heterogeneous
• homogeneous
_____
provide
opportunities
for
oral
conversation
Student
_____
responds
in
multiple
ways
• oral
• physical
• written
_____
classroom
participation
• one-‐on-‐one
• small
group
• whole
group
Teacher
–
Student
_____
think
aloud
_____
modeling
_____
one-‐on-‐one
_____
small
group
_____
repeat
student
response
_____
utilize
student’s
first
language
_____
wait
time
_____
facial
expressions
_____
gestures
_____
preview
academic
content
prior
to
lesson
Researcher
Reflections
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 126
Methods
• problems
• future
research
• rapport
with
subjects
Analysis
• themes
• new
learning
• connections
• additional
ideas
Feelings
• biases
• language
• cultural
background
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 127
Appendix C
Teacher Confidentiality Agreement
March, 2015
Dear Teacher,
I am a doctoral candidate at University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, California and
have received permission from your superintendent and building principal to conduct research
for my doctoral dissertation in your district.
As a part of my research I am interviewing and observing Middle School ELD/ELA teachers.
Through a clear and comprehensive criteria process, you have been selected to participate in an
interview. This interview will be approximately 60 minutes to complete and gather as much
insight as possible.
The purpose of the study is to examine factors that support the ELA/ELD progression of
Early-stage (Beginner and Early Intermediate) English Language Learner proficiency language
development between 6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
grade. Composite groups of teachers (3 ELA and 1 ELD)
from 4 classrooms who have populations greater than or equal to 35 Percent ELLs will be
contrasted in this study to determine collaboration and instructional integration of state standards
for practices and that are employed to teach English Language Learners. No individual schools
will be identified and no teachers from a particular school will be identified in the report of the
study. Participation is completely voluntary. No risk is expected as a result of participating in the
study. No individual school will be identified in any report and all responses will be confidential
and anonymous. You and/or your school will not be compared to any other school in this study.
Teachers are being asked to volunteer to participate in the study to grasp an understanding for
ELL proficiency language development over a three-year timeframe.
Prior to deciding to volunteer for the study, please review the procedures involved:
• Participation in the study will require approximately 60 minutes of your time during interviews
and 45 minute for each observation (each teacher will participate in allowing the researcher to
observe classroom instructional practices for 2 sessions @45 minutes per session).
Each invited participant will be compensated for their time with classroom supplies or gift cards
in appreciation of your time. If you are interested in being a participant in this study please sign
and date below.
Name and Date (Print) Signature
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 128
Appendix D
Document Analysis Rubric Modified
Document Analysis Rubric Modified CA ELD and ELA Standards (California Department of
Education, 2013)
Figure 1. Instructional Rubric for Writing Assignments and Activities of English Language
Learners
INSTRUCTIONAL PROFICIENCY STRATEGIES 129
Collaborative
Interpretive
Productive
Gradation
of
Quality
1
=
Early
Stage
(Beginner
or
Early
Intermediate
)
Emerging
Level
2=
Early
Stage
(Beginner
or
Early
Intermediate
)
Emerging
Exit
3=Early
Stage
(Beginner
or
Early
Intermediate
)
Expanding
Level
4
=Early
Stage
(Beginner
or
Early
Intermediate
)
Expanding
Exit
5
=Early
Stage
(Beginner
or
Early
Intermediate
)
Bridging
Level
6
=Early
Stage
(Beginner
or
Early
Intermediate
)
Bridging
Exit
Student
Work
Sample
1
Student
Work
Sample
2
Student
Work
Sample
3
Student
Work
Sample
4
Sample
Joe’s
Student
Work
Beginner/4
Collaborative
Expanding
Exit
Student
sample
reflects
that
student
is
able
to
express
some
personal
needs
and
simple
conversations
through
the
writing
activity
given
by
teacher.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study
PDF
Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study
PDF
Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners
PDF
The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis
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
Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners
PDF
Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language
PDF
Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
The degree to which the use of sheltered instructional strategies in classrooms impact student access to common core content as a consequence of professional development
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers
PDF
Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis
PDF
Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction
PDF
Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
Asset Metadata
Creator
Harris, Yulonn M.
(author)
Core Title
Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/03/2015
Defense Date
07/27/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
common assessments,English language learners,instructional strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,proficiency
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rousseau, Sylvia (
committee chair
), Ott, Maria (
committee member
), Robles, Darline (
committee member
)
Creator Email
yulonn.harris@usc.edu,yulonnharris@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-173885
Unique identifier
UC11274621
Identifier
etd-HarrisYulo-3869.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-173885 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-HarrisYulo-3869.pdf
Dmrecord
173885
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Harris, Yulonn M.
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
Tags
common assessments
English language learners
instructional strategies
proficiency