Research-Based Recommendations for Serving Adolescent Newcomers. Practical Guidelines for the Education of English Language Learners. Book 2 of 3.

FOREWORD The fundamental principles underlying the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 focus on high standards of learning and instruction with the goal of increasing academic achievement—reading and math in particular—within all identified subgroups in the K-12 population. One of these subgroups is the growing population of English Language Learners (ELLs). NCLB has increased awareness of the academic needs and achievement of ELLs as schools, districts, and states are held accountable for teaching English and content knowledge to this special and heterogeneous group of learners. However, ELLs present a unique set of challenges to educators because of the central role played by academic language proficiency in the acquisition and assessment of content-area knowledge. Educators have raised multiple questions about effective practices and programs to support the academic achievement of all ELLs, including questions about classroom instruction and targeted interventions in reading and math, the special needs of adolescent newcomers, and the inclusion of ELLs in large-scale assessments. While ELLs vary in their academic outcomes and many thrive in U.S. schools, there is indeed a significant proportion—whether or not formally designated Limited English Proficient (LEP) or English Language Learner (ELL) and thus receiving support services for language development—who struggle considerably in developing English proficiency and academic skills, as well as meeting grade-level standards. This document was written primarily with this latter group in mind, and, in particular, the group of ELLs who are adolescent newcomers. This group of ELLs has a relatively short period of time in which to simultaneously develop academic language skills and master grade-level content. This document provides evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, administrators, and teachers in middle and high schools who seek to make informed decisions about effectively serving adolescent newcomers. The U.S. Department of Education defines ELLs as national-origin-minority students who are limited-English-proficient. The ELL term is often preferred over Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) as it highlights accomplishments rather than deficits. As a group, ELLs represent one of the fastest-growing groups among the school-aged population in this nation. Estimates place the ELL population at over 9.9 million students, with roughly 5.5 million students classified as Limited English Proficient by virtue of their participation in Title III assessments of English language proficiency. The ELL school-aged population has grown by more than 169 percent from 1979 to 2003 1 , and speaks over 400 different languages, with Spanish being the most common (i.e., spoken by 70 percent of ELLs). …

[1]  W. Nagy,et al.  Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. , 1993 .

[2]  Esther Geva,et al.  The Reading Crisis: Why Poor Children Fall Behind. , 1993 .

[3]  William E. Nagy,et al.  Spanish-English Bilingual Students' Use of Cognates in English Reading , 1993 .

[4]  C. Snow,et al.  Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy , 2004 .

[5]  Averil Coxhead.  A New Academic Word List , 2000 .

[6]  Elfrieda H. Hiebert,et al.  Teaching and learning vocabulary : bringing research to practice , 2005 .

[7]  D. Langenberg.  Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction , 2000 .

[8]  B. Rogoff.  Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context , 1990 .

[9]  Deborah J. Short,et al.  School Reform and Standards-Based Education: A Model for English-Language Learners , 2006 .

[10]  Susan M. Watts,et al.  Vocabulary Instruction during Reading Lessons in six Classrooms , 1995 .

[11]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[12]  María S. Carlo,et al.  Bilingual phonological awareness: Multilevel construct validation among Spanish-speaking kindergarteners in transitional bilingual education classrooms , 2006 .

[13]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  The Effects and Uses of Diverse Vocabulary Instructional Techniques , 1987 .

[14]  Shoshana Blum-Kulka,et al.  Introduction: The Potential of Peer Talk , 2004 .

[15]  Rebecca Constantino,et al.  Newcomer schools: First impressions , 1993 .

[16]  Wai-King Tsang,et al.  Comparing the Effects of Reading and Writing on Writing Performance. , 1996 .

[17]  Sima Sengupta,et al.  An Investigation into the Effects of Revision Strategy Instruction on L2 Secondary School Learners. , 2000 .

[18]  Deborah J. Short,et al.  Making content comprehensible for English language learners : the SIOP model , 2000 .

[19]  William E. Nagy,et al.  Teaching Word Meanings , 2005 .

[20]  W. Nagy,et al.  Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. , 2006 .

[21]  Esther Geva,et al.  Second-Language Oral Proficiency and Second-Language Literacy. , 2006 .

[22]  Esther Geva,et al.  Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children , 2000, Annals of dyslexia.

[23]  Msl Swanborn,et al.  Incidental Word Learning While Reading: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[24]  Sandra R. Robinson,et al.  Bringing words to life , 1989 .

[25]  Keiko Koda,et al.  Development of Literacy. , 2006 .

[26]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies for Students with Learning Disabilities Who Use English as a Second Language , 1996, The Elementary School Journal.

[27]  Michael J. Kieffer,et al.  Breaking Down Words to Build Meaning: Morphology, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension in the Urban Classroom , 2007 .

[28]  Joan P. Sebastian,et al.  Vocabulary Development , 1937, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[29]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. , 2005, Psychological bulletin.

[30]  Karen K. Wixson.  Vocabulary instruction and children's comprehension of basal stories. , 1986 .

[31]  Usha Kishore,et al.  Nation , 2006 .

[32]  Sheila W. Valencia,et al.  Below the Bar: Profiles of Students who Fail State Reading Assessments , 2002 .

[33]  Jose Salvador Hernandez,et al.  Assisted Performance in Reading Comprehension Strategies with Non-English Proficient Students. , 1991 .

[34]  Donna Christian,et al.  Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence , 2006 .

[35]  J. Passel,et al.  The New Demography of America's Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. , 2005 .

[36]  C. Juel,et al.  Effects of Vocabulary Instruction on Reading Comprehension. , 1981 .

[37]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[38]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  How Many Words are There in Printed School English , 1984 .

[39]  Steve Graham,et al.  Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools. A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. , 2007 .

[40]  David Pedder.  Are small classes better? Understanding relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils' learning , 2006 .

[41]  R. Bangert-Drowns,et al.  The Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[42]  J. Folger.  Project STAR and Class Size Policy. , 1989 .

[43]  R. Fukkink,et al.  Effects of Instruction in Deriving Word Meaning from Context: A Meta-Analysis , 1998 .