Читать книгу English Language Learners and the New Standards - Margaret Heritage - Страница 8

CHAPTER 1

ELLs and the New Standards

Meeting the Goals of College and Career Readiness

Students who are English language learners (ELLs) represent close to 10 percent of the total student population in the United States and make up its most rapidly growing sector.¹ The number of students who are ELLs has grown from two million to five million since 1990, vastly outpacing the growth in the overall school population.² However, in general, academic outcomes for ELLs remain stubbornly low. For example, according to data on reading performance from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), in 2013, on a 0–500 scale, the achievement gap between non-ELL and ELL students was 38 points at the fourth-grade level and 45 points at the eighth-grade level. At both grade levels, the 2013 reading achievement gap was not measurably different from the gap in either 2011 or 1998, when NAEP first started collecting data on ELL students’ status.³ Equally worrying is the situation in mathematics: in 2013, on a scale of 0–500, the achievement gap between non-ELL and ELL students was 25 points at the fourth-grade level and 41 points at the eighth-grade level.⁴ At both grades, this achievement gap was broadly similar to the gap in 1996.⁵

Against this background of ELL performance, the most recent reform effort in American education is the introduction of college and career ready standards, which are intended to ensure that when students graduate from high school they will be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills essential for future success.⁶ College and career ready standards are a response to ongoing globalization and represent current societal expectations of the competencies U.S. students need to acquire to be productive citizens and effective contributors to a vibrant economy. No doubt the current college and career ready standards will undergo revisions and perhaps a major overhaul in the long term as the world continues to change and requirements for students need to adapt accordingly. Nonetheless, the current college and career ready standards represent some significant transformations about what students need to learn and how teachers need to teach, and they are likely to be in place for a considerable time to come. Examples of college and career ready standards include the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and corresponding standards and frameworks for English language development.⁷

An examination of college and career ready standards reveals their emphasis on extensive language use to engage in deep and transferable content learning and analytical practices. For example, in terms of analytical practices, the NGSS require students to ask questions, construct explanations, argue from evidence, and obtain, evaluate, and communicate information.⁸ The mathematics CCSS ask students to explain, conjecture, and justify in making sense of problems and solving them, and to construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.⁹ And among the ELA analytical practices are: engaging with complex texts; writing to inform, argue, and analyze; working collaboratively; and presenting ideas.¹⁰

The introduction of college and career ready standards by most states in the United States presents both a challenge and an opportunity for ELLs, who regularly must do “double the work”—acquire content knowledge and analytical practices at the same time as they are learning English as an additional language.¹¹ The challenge lies in the heightened demands of the standards in terms of content expectations and what students are required to do with language as they engage in content-area learning.¹² If ELL students have not been successful with prior standards, then it is highly likely that achieving more demanding ones will be challenging.

However, if the introduction of college and career ready standards represents a challenge for ELLs, it also presents an opportunity. College and career ready standards imply significant changes in educational practice, in which ELLs learn language and content simultaneously. This reformulation involves practice that is consistent with the view among second-language experts that when teachers construct powerful invitations to engage ELL students in language use in worthwhile disciplinary contexts, they can develop conceptual understandings, analytical practices, and dynamic language use in the domain, enabling them to succeed in school and beyond.¹³ An added advantage is that effective pedagogy for ELLs will be equally beneficial for native speakers of English who are not doing well academically because they speak a nonstandard variety of English, and have not been appropriately assisted to learn the academic and more formal uses of the language. This book is about the reformulation of practice to achieve these outcomes.

In this reformulation of practice, preparing ELL students to achieve the language and learning expectations of college and career ready standards is not the sole responsibility of a small cadre of language specialists teaching English-as-a-second-language (ESL) classes. For children entering school with little or no English, there is a pivotal role for ESL teachers to develop students’ initial English language, both social and academic, in deep, accelerated ways. However, once students have moved beyond the emergent level of proficiency in English, further development of the academic uses of language becomes the responsibility of every teacher.¹⁴ Also, teachers in math, ELA, and science cannot do all the heavy lifting. They need the support of their colleagues in other disciplines to engage ELLs in meaningful language use for discipline-specific purposes. For example, in art, students might be asked to justify their use of particular color or line forms; in physical education, students may have to explain or negotiate the rules of a game; and similarly in history/social studies, students could be asked to discuss evidence for certain claims they are making about the causes of the Civil War.¹⁵ And when teachers in other disciplines attend to ELL students’ language development, they will surely benefit the learning of their own subjects.

Assessment is an integral component of the reformulation of practice we propose. In this regard, we do not mean assessment through quizzes or other testlike events, but rather assessment that involves teachers in gathering evidence of both language and content learning while that learning is taking place, so that they can use the evidence to engage in contingent pedagogy. When pedagogy is contingent upon the students’ current learning status, the teacher is essentially meeting the student where he or she is at that moment in learning. In other words, the teacher is matching her pedagogy to the student’s immediate needs in order to move learning forward. When a teacher’s pedagogy is contingent, she is consistently working in and through each student’s zone of proximal development—the bandwidth of competence that currently exists and that, with assistance, learners can navigate to a more advanced state of understanding or skill.¹⁶

Assessment to support contingent pedagogy also enables student involvement in the assessment process, through peer and self-assessment. Providing opportunities for student involvement in assessment encourages student agency in learning, helping them develop desirable college and career ready skills such as responsibility, self-direction, self-monitoring, collaboration, and cooperation.

This book is about how all teachers can assist ELL students to successfully meet the rigorous demands of college and career ready standards by engaging them in the simultaneous learning of content, analytical practices, and language learning, supported by ongoing assessment and contingent pedagogy.

So far, we have referred to the population of students in U.S. schools who are learning English as an additional language with the single term ELL. In fact, ELL students are a very diverse group.¹⁷ In the section below, we consider the range of backgrounds that ELLs represent in our schools.

Who are ELLs?

Among the variables accounting for the diversity of ELLs in the United States are:

• Time in the United States. In some classrooms, students may be newly arrived in the United States, others may have spent more time in the United States, and still others will have been born and raised in the United States.

• Experience of formal schooling. Students who are new to the United States, even if they are beyond kindergarten age, may have variations in their experience of formal schooling in their country of prior residence; so too with migrant students living in the United States.

• Language status. Students may be monolingual, speaking only a language other than English; bilingual, speaking two languages other than English; emergent bilinguals, developing English as they continue to expand their competence in their already established first language; or they may be multilingual, speaking several languages other than English.

• Exposure to English. Because of their varying background circumstances, time in the United States, and time in school, students will have different levels of exposure to English.

• Ethnic heritage. Students may be members of different ethnic groups and, as such, represent differences in ancestry, culture, and, of course, language.

• Developmental differences. It is axiomatic that ELLs will not develop in their language or content learning at the same rate or the same pace or in the same way.

What this list tells us is that no two ELLs are the same. They bring to the classroom diverse experiences, interests, and languages. It follows then that a one-size-fits-all approach to supporting ELLs’ learning will not meet the needs of all students. While the goals for ELLs are equivalent to those for their English-proficient peers—reaching high standards set forth in the new standards—their pathways to attaining the standards may not be. ELL teachers are sensitive and responsive to who their students are, to the resources they bring to the classroom, and to how their students’ learning of content, analytical practices, and language is developing day-by-day in the classroom. Only this kind of sensitivity and responsiveness brings about the successful accomplishment of learning for ELLs in the nation’s classrooms.

Let us now turn to an example of a classroom where the teacher’s practice corresponds to the reformulation of pedagogy in which learning content, analytical practices, and language occur simultaneously. In this classroom, which includes a range of ELL students, assessment is integrated into ongoing teaching and learning.¹⁸

. . .

Learning Science Content, Analytical Practices, and Language Together

The third-grade students, all from economically poor backgrounds, are mostly designated ELL and have varying levels of English language proficiency. Some students have very little English yet; others’ English is more developed; and still others are well on their way to becoming very competent English users. Some students are new to the United States, while others have been born to recent immigrant families. All the students who entered kindergarten at the school began as non-English speakers. Since kindergarten, the approach of all their teachers has been to develop content learning, analytical practices, and language simultaneously. As you will see, the rate of language growth for many students has been very fast.

Throughout this vignette, notice how language learning is not regarded as an individual endeavor, and how the students receive many invitations to engage with each other and their teacher to use and develop their English language skills through purposeful communicative activities in content-area learning. In a real sense the students are apprentices in learning language and content together. Apprenticeship involves learning target skills in a social context, a community of learners in this case. Apprentices also learn through modeling, with appropriate support when needed, and coaching, which we will see in the vignette.¹⁹

Notice, too, the participant structures that the teacher has established. Students are provided with many opportunities to engage in discourse and have been taught how to participate in the discourse practices of the classroom, listening carefully to their peers, building on each other’s ideas, and giving constructive feedback. The classroom is characterized by notions of joint responsibility for the learning of all students as well as the responsibility individuals have for their own learning.²⁰ In this classroom, students are supported to adopt the stance of generativity and autonomy. In other words, students are developing the skills to support their own learning by using independently what they have learned in the context of engaging with peers and the teacher within a well-structured classroom community.²¹

Notice also how the teacher supports her students’ language learning through specific pedagogical approaches. She very deliberately models the language she wishes her students to acquire; she provides formulaic expressions—chunks of language the ELLs learn as a unit that enable them to participate in interactions; and she offers prompts and feedback to support language and content learning.²²

And finally, pay attention to how the teacher engages in ongoing assessment of her students and helps them to undertake both peer and self-assessment.

Research Study on Desert Cactuses

The purpose of the students’ research study is to support the class’s science focus for the quarter and to contribute to the students’ developing understanding that organisms “have both internal and external structures that allow for growth, survival, behavior and reproduction.”²³ In addition to the science focus, their teacher, Ms. Cardenas, has identified several Common Core ELA standards that she wishes to address in this research project.²⁴ These include:

Key Ideas and Details

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.3.1: Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

Craft and Structure

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.3.5: Use text features and search tools (e.g., key words, sidebars, hyperlinks) to locate information relevant to a given topic efficiently.

Writing

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.7: Conduct short research projects that build knowledge about a topic.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.8: Recall information from experiences or gather information from print and digital sources; take brief notes on sources and sort evidence into provided categories.

Speaking and Listening

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.3.4: Report on a topic or text, tell a story, or recount an experience with appropriate facts and relevant, descriptive details, speaking clearly at an understandable pace.

Preparation

To begin the study, Ms. Cardenas takes her students on a field trip to a desert garden. The students make detailed observational drawings of cactuses in their sketchbooks. While they are drawing, Ms. Cardenas focuses their observation through questioning:

What do you notice?

What are some similarities and differences between the plants you see here and the plants we have at school?

Why do you think the plants have these particular features?

Through these questions, she is modeling the language that she would like students to use in the discussions they will have about cactuses.

After they have drawn several cactuses, the students gather together and in pairs share their observations and their theories about why the cactuses have the features they do. In this activity, they are engaged in analytical practices. The students use formulaic expressions they have learned in class in other contexts, such as “I noticed that . . . ,” “my prediction is that they have these features because . . . ,” and “what makes you say that?” Ms. Cardenas listens in on the conversations so that she can hear the kinds of questions they are asking each other, note the language they are using, and determine their level of background knowledge related to the function of the desert plants’ external structures. She will use this information to assist students in developing their ideas and language during their study.

Developing questions

Back in the classroom with their drawings, the students respond to Ms. Cardenas’s question, Based on your observations, what would you like to know or are unsure of about desert plants? Each child writes his or her question on a large sentence strip, and then all the students share their questions, in turn, with their classmates. As a whole class, they then discuss all twenty-eight of the questions they created and begin categorizing them according to the focus of the question, or, as one student said, “by what the question is asking.” During this process, the students agree and disagree about where different questions belong. Below is an excerpt from the students’ discussion as they consider the questions:

“Why some cactuses have hair on them?” and “Why cactus has [sic] sticks and not leaf?”—They want to know about how cactus is on the outside.

Even though “Why can cactuses survive with less water than plants here at school?” is a question about cactus, it is different from the first two questions because it is asking not so much about how a cactus looks, but about what it needs to survive.

I disagree because the hairs on a cactus and the reason they don’t have leaves might be because that [sic] they don’t get enough water.

I see what you are saying, but since we don’t know that for sure, I think it goes in a different category.

Notice the variations in English proficiency represented in these examples. There are some grammatical errors, which Ms. Cardenas does not correct on the spot. She wants her students to feel confident in using English at whatever level they have acquired, realizing that in order to learn English her students need to use it. She pays attention to the grammatical errors (e.g., “Why cactus has [sic] sticks and not leaf”), and in subsequent interactions with this student—and other students who make the same errors—she models the correct use of the grammatical structure (“Why do cactuses have . . . ?”) and prompts students to incorporate this language in her interactions with them.

Categorizing questions

At this point, Ms. Cardenas introduces three category questions: inch, foot, and yard, shown in the classroom chart (figure 1.1), and engages the students in a discussion about what makes them different from each other. As a whole class they discuss the question categories (inch, foot, yard) and decide that their first research question will be a yard question, Why do cactuses have spines?

FIGURE 1.1 Question category chart

The students revisit their initial sketches, and, engaging in analytical practice, they write predictions about why they think cactuses have spines. Figure 1.2 shows an example of one student’s prediction on a sticky note, which he places on his drawing in his sketchbook.

After they have written their individual predictions, they meet in pairs to share and discuss each person’s response. These paired discussions give Ms. Cardenas the chance to listen to their language and ascertain what evidence they used to support their thinking about the prediction. After participating in the discussion, some students revise their ideas and note their revisions on a sticky note in their sketchbooks. Figure 1.3 shows one student’s revised thinking.

FIGURE 1.2 Student’s prediction

Research and synthesis

To begin their research, the students read a variety of text passages about desert plants that Ms. Cardenas has carefully chosen from a range of sources. In prior lessons, students have learned about the structure of informational text and how to use certain features such as headings, subheadings, and illustrations. They have also learned how to identify key details in a text. Ms. Cardenas has modeled how to highlight key information related to a specific question and to make notes from the highlighted text, and she has conducted think-alouds about what to do with “tricky” words or a “tricky” part of the text.

FIGURE 1.3 Student revision

Ms. Cardenas has taught her students to read “with the question in mind,” and to support this process, she has provided them with a set of questions:

Does this fact from the text help answer my question?

What about this fact helps answer my question?

How do I know?

What words and sentences in the text help me think that?

During the time that children are reading, highlighting their text, and making notes, Ms. Cardenas has brief individual conferences with each student. The purpose of the conferences is to assess how well the students are capturing relevant information through their highlighting and note taking, and to take account of the words and phrases they are finding new or challenging. At the end of each conference, she provides the student with feedback that helps him or her improve his or her reading and information-gathering strategies. Here is an example of the feedback Ms. Cardenas gives to one student:

I see you have gathered plenty of valuable information about desert cactuses. I’m wondering if all this information is necessary to help answer the question, Why do cactuses have spines? What do you think?

And to another student:

Can I suggest that as you continue to gather information, you take a moment to revisit the question and ask yourself, does this help answer the question? If it doesn’t, maybe you can organize your notes by highlighting these facts in a different color, so you know where to find other information about cactuses. Maybe this will help organize your information and keep you focused on the research question. What do you think?

As they collect the information relevant to their question, the students regularly discuss their findings with a partner, compare notes, and provide each other with feedback. As we have seen, feedback is something the teacher models as a routine practice with students. Below is some of the feedback excerpted from the students’ conversations during their peer-assessment sessions:

Nico: I like how you are using key words when taking notes and not copying from your reading.

Eva: Are the notes you take from the highlighted sections of your reading passage?

Diego: You can highlight everywhere information so you know where it is from. This help you organize.

Notice in this feedback the precise language that students use. Ms. Cardenas is very deliberate in her language choices, and the students have been exposed to this language when Ms. Cardenas models reading and note taking. Now the students are incorporating the language they have heard into their own usage.

Once the students think they have sufficient information, they begin the process of synthesizing it. Individually, they sort through their notes, reviewing their information with the same questions that guided their note taking. Then, in pairs, they combine their information, and on large poster paper, they jot down their findings. As they do this, Ms. Cardenas circulates among the pairs to see how well they are synthesizing and combining their notes. Here is another opportunity for her to provide feedback to help the students improve their work.

Product and presentation

When the students have completed all their research, the final phase of the study begins. In small groups, the children make large cactus sculptures that represent what they have learned as a result of their research. Using an organizer Ms. Cardenas has provided, the students begin their work together by translating their notes into a blueprint for their sculpture, deciding what key features of the cactus they wish to represent. Developing the blueprint involves a great deal of discussion among the students. Next, from their blueprint and using a wide range of materials—found objects and recyclables that Ms. Cardenas has provided—they work together over the course of several days to create their sculpture.

It is noteworthy that Ms. Cardenas very carefully selects the composition of all the groups in the classroom, from partner work for peer assessment and feedback to the small groups creating their sculptures. She wants to make sure that there is a range of English language proficiency represented in the groups so that students whose English language is not as developed as others’ have a chance to hear more proficient models.

When creating their sculptures, the students use language for a variety of purposes: referring back to the information on their blueprint, justifying why they want the sculpture to develop in certain ways, negotiating the materials they use, and making suggestions about how to improve their sculpture. Ms. Cardenas uses these discussions as opportunities to listen in and scaffold students’ language use.²⁵ For example, “I see you have labeled the spines on your sculpture. I wonder why this cactus has these spines—what is their function? Can you help me understand the function in your sculpture?” and “You have used very descriptive words to help me understand the texture of the cactus—thick and waxy—why would a cactus have a thick, waxy skin? Can you help me understand that better?” When the sculptures are developed to the students’ satisfaction, some of the groups decide to put explanatory written labels on certain features of their cactuses in response to Ms. Cardenas’s feedback and their peers’ assessment. Below are examples of two different groups’ labels:

Group 1: Areole

An important part of protecting the cactus.

Big leaves to absorb water would and lose to [sic] much water.

Areole

Are almost round but always hold the spines.

Group 2: Thick waxy coating

The thick waxy coating holds all the water.

Stem

The stem holds water for hot days ahead

Spine

The spines protect the Teddy Bear Cactus from other animals snacking on it and they also give it shade.

The culminating part of the research project is students’ oral presentations about the sculptures. To assist the students in structuring their oral presentations, Ms. Cardenas provides an outline and reviews what is expected of both the presenters and the audience. The students work in their small groups on their presentations. During this time, Ms. Cardenas moves from group to group, noting their sentence structures, vocabulary use, and the clarity of their explanations. She uses the information she gains from these observations to provide on-the-spot feedback to students. For example, she asked one group to think about the clarity of their explanations and to pay attention specifically to connecting their ideas. She also uses the information to decide on any subsequent minilessons she wants to conduct with the whole class to strengthen students’ language use; for instance, a follow-up on the use of causal connectors (e.g., because, consequently, for this reason) to strengthen the connectedness of their discourse.

The students spend three class periods on their presentations, and when the day of the presentations arrives, the groups take turns in showing their sculpture and talking about their findings. As each group finishes, the rest of the students have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions, which prompt the presenters to explain their ideas further, and to provide feedback about what the presenters did well and what they could do to improve. The students’ feedback is guided by the expectations they discussed at the outset of the presentation work. Similarly, because Ms. Cardenas also provided the students with clear expectations about the role of the audience, the presenters provide feedback to the audience as well. Some of the presenters’ feedback includes: “I liked how your clarifying question made me think more about the function; the audience respect our ideas; I noticed that Sophia was listening with her mind and her heart” (listening with both mind and heart is the term Ms. Cardenas uses to help the students understand the importance of listening to understand and listening with respect).

After all groups have presented their work, students reflect on and revise any of their prior work. One student heard the word foragers in one of the presentations and made a connection to a previous observation he had recorded in his sketchbook about the cactus. He found the relevant sticky note in his sketchbook, put a line through his original selection, animals, and replaced it with the more precise word foragers (see figure 1.4).

FIGURE 1.4 Student revision

FIGURE 1.5 Student invitation

The morning after the presentations, the students set up their classroom like a gallery and invite visitors from other classes to view their exhibition, learn about desert cactuses, and provide feedback. Some groups write invitations to give feedback and leave them next to the sculptures. One of the student invitations is pictured in figure 1.5. All the students in Ms. Cardenas’s class are very proud of their work.

. . .

Supporting ELLs’ Development of Content, Analytical Practices, and Language

As we noted earlier, Ms. Cardenas’s classroom exemplifies effective pedagogy that supports language learning situated in content-area learning. Importantly, while there is variation in the levels of English proficiency in her class, no matter what level of English the students have attained, Ms. Cardenas does not prioritize low-level language skills over opportunities for the students to actively communicate about their ideas. Nor does Ms. Cardenas drill her students in structures and vocabulary in isolation, centered on ensuring correctness and fluency in their language use. Instead, her students are involved in language learning that is focused on comprehension and communication in the context of worthwhile activity designed to advance their learning toward meeting both ELA and science standards.

It is evident in the vignette that Ms. Cardenas has also created routines, norms, and structures in her classroom that permit students to be participants in a community of practice.²⁶ The expectation that everyone can and will participate in learning together is clearly established. Through the range of participant structures Ms. Cardenas provides—from pairs to small groups to the whole class—her students are invited to contribute to each other’s learning. Students know that whatever level of English they have acquired will not be ridiculed by their teacher or peers. They also know that when they express their ideas and understanding, there will be no negative responses but only constructive feedback. Every day Ms. Cardenas models careful attentive listening to what her students say and shows respect for the ideas they share and for their levels of English proficiency. The attitudes, values, and behaviors that Ms. Cardenas models exert a powerful influence on the students’ interactions and relationships with each other.²⁷

The community of practice that Ms. Cardenas and her students have fashioned together is participant oriented, with structures and expectations in place that permit ELL students, in particular, to develop the identities of confident, committed, and capable language learners.²⁸ A community of practice is needed for the pedagogical and assessment practices we propose, and we shall return to it in subsequent chapters.

ASSESMENT

During the course of the students’ research study, Ms. Cardenas continuously gathers information about students’ learning through her observations and interactions with students and from examining their work products. This process enables her pedagogical responses, including her feedback, to be contingent upon students’ current level of content and language learning. Of course, the school uses the results of other assessments, including periodic benchmarks and annual assessments of English language proficiency and of college and career ready standards for a range of decision-making purposes, from curricular modifications to professional learning opportunities, but what matters most to Ms. Cardenas in her daily instructional practice is the emphasis in her school on assessment integrated into ongoing teaching and learning.

Ms. Cardenas also involves students in the assessment process, structuring opportunities for self-assessment, for example, by providing review questions as students collect information related to their investigations. In addition, students are invited to engage in peer assessment, providing feedback to each other that helps them reflect on their work. Recall the various opportunities structured into the work sessions, such as when the students provided feedback to each other on the notes they had taken from their reading, or after the presentations of their findings with the sculptures. As we saw, Ms. Cardenas models feedback to the students through her own feedback to them. The students’ ability to provide feedback has been developed through her minilessons on how to give feedback and through her offering students formulaic language expressions (e.g., could you explain, I respectfully disagree, have you thought about) that the students incorporate to ensure that the feedback is constructive. She recognizes that developing students’ skills in giving and receiving feedback is an ongoing process, and she constantly monitors the students’ feedback, offering guidance to individuals and small groups when necessary.

Ms. Cardenas has developed her skills in pedagogy and formative assessment through continuous professional learning opportunities with her colleagues and regular feedback from the principal about her actual classroom practice. Her own experience has accustomed her to professional evaluation—including actionable peer and administrator feedback—that is formative in nature. Moreover, she is used to engaging with her peers in pedagogical planning, including implementing assessment to guide teaching and learning. These support structures and processes have been built into the professional fabric of the school by a committed administrator who understands the value of joint planning for language and content learning with integrated assessment, and who is encouraged and supported to do so by district instructional leaders. This support stands in contrast to many teachers’ experiences, as we will discuss in chapter 6. Ms. Cardenas considers herself very fortunate to work and learn in a school and district that have this orientation, and to have access to the professional learning opportunities that are available to her.

Overview of the Chapters

In the chapters that follow, we address in detail the changes in pedagogy that ELL teachers need to make to achieve the aspirations of college and career ready standards with their students. These practices are brought to life through vignettes of real teachers’ actual classroom practice so that we can see what the practices entail and what knowledge and skills teachers need to accomplish them. We also consider the theoretical perspectives that have historically influenced teachers’ approach to ELL students, and present newer conceptions of teaching and learning for ELLs, grounded in contemporary theory that underpins the practices we describe. Because assessment in its many forms informs pedagogy and many other decisions related to ELLs, we devote two chapters to assessment. In the final chapter, we evaluate the impact and potential of policy on ELLs’ learning.

Chapter 2

In this chapter we focus on the reformulation of practice that embraces the simultaneous development of ELLs’ content knowledge and language proficiency. The chapter begins with a discussion of the language-related shifts in instruction that stem from the standards and from recent developments in theory. These shifts are illustrated through detailed examples of classroom practice, showing how the task of successfully educating ELLs for deeper learning in an era of college and career ready standards can be accomplished.

Chapter 3

Most teachers think of themselves as practitioners rather than theoreticians, but nearly all teachers’ practice is guided by theory, whether consciously or not. This chapter discusses theories that have traditionally shaped teachers’ pedagogical practices for ELLs, and describes their benefits and limitations. The chapter brings us up to date about recent developments in second-language acquisition that challenge deep-seated assumptions of language teaching, and that ground the idea of reformulated practice to support ELLs in meeting college and career ready standards described in the previous chapter.

Chapter 4

Continuing the theme of the reformulation of practices, this chapter addresses assessment integrated into instruction—formative assessment. Through examples of practice, we show how teachers can collect evidence of language and content learning through classroom talk and other means, engage in contingent pedagogy based on the evidence obtained, and involve students in assessment through self- and peer assessment, all in the service of simultaneously learning content, analytical practices, and language.

Chapter 5

Beyond immediate teaching and learning in the classroom, educators use assessments to make a range of decisions about ELLs. Beginning with a discussion of how students enter and exit the status of ELL, this chapter focuses on assessments that have a significant impact on ELLs and elaborates on the caution that educators need to take when using the assessments. The chapter also presents some innovations in assessment for ELLs that have the potential to mitigate some of the problems discussed in the chapter with respect to assessing ELL students.

Chapter 6

The final chapter considers the role that policy plays in the education of ELLs. It suggests ways in which educators can both respond to and influence policy to meet the goals of the college and career ready standards for ELLs. The chapter also describes how educators can inform policies that support a learning culture for ELLs and their teachers.

We end this introductory chapter with a quote from Alexei Leontiev, a Russian psychologist who worked with Vygotsky. This quote represents a motif for the book—one that we hope will provide inspiration and guidance for our readers: our goal is to help the child “become what he is not yet.”²⁹