Nevin SpinosaADSUP 717

LITERATURE REVIEW

The English Language Learner in our Classrooms

In classrooms across America, teachers must be increasingly aware of the diverse

backgrounds of their students. Currently, about 14% of our student population in the

United States is bilingual. It is predicted that this will increase to 25% within the next 12

years (Hoffert, 2009). These students, with their very exclusive and specific needs, are the

most rapidly growing group in our schools and they are, “overrepresented in the group of

students who struggle academically,” (Chinn, Echevarria, Ratleff, & Richards-Tutor, 2011).

It has become clear that teachers must be much more equipped than before to differentiate

to these unique learners, while many, unfortunately, are not adequately trained in this

particular area (Hoffert, 2009).

Assimilating Into American Culture

When faced with English Language Learners who have just recently come to the

United States, a classroom teacher must be swiftly aware of the cultural differences that

may be drastically affecting the student. Although it may be taken for granted that math

can cross boundaries and is similar across different languages, native English-speaking

teachers may not recognize the changes in atmosphere that can drastically affect these

students. Granting students the permission to complete classroom tasks in their original

language can allow them to grasp mathematical concepts before tackling the challenge of a

new language simultaneously (Jao, 2012). Allowing students to work in cooperative

learning groups can similarly ease tension while building academic language through peer

conversations and exposure. Developing language arts skills in reading and writing while

Nevin SpinosaADSUP 717

having discussions in mathematics gives students opportunities to target the objectives

specified within the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (Jao,

2012).

Advanced ELLs

While language accommodations and cooperative learning groups should be

implemented for students very new to an English-speaking classroom, further

considerations must be made for students that have clearly adapted to American culture

and the English language. These students are communicating orally, developing

friendships, and seem comfortable in their current environment, yet they may still be

struggling with deeper comprehension levels when faced with reading and writing in

different content areas (Chinn, Echevarria, Ratleff, & Richards-Tutor, 2011). “Focusing

solely on technical vocabulary associated with math is not enough,” (Roberts, 2009). For

these students, tasks and test items should be translated into simplified language without

simplifying the mathematical concepts being addressed. Students respond more positively

towards these items and English Language Learners (ELLs) are more successful with

simpler wording, especially those who are at the lowest levels of English proficiency (Abedi

& Lord, 2001). In addition to the use of other strategies, reducing complexity of the

language used, without altering the mathematical concepts being addressed, can, “make the

concepts more accessible and comprehensible,” (Genzuk, 2011).

Other strategies can help limited English proficient learners in the mathematics

classroom as well (Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012). Creating tasks and test items that

include various forms of representation that will assist students in digesting the

Nevin SpinosaADSUP 717

mathematical content is important. Illustrations can help students visualize the question

being asked. Graphs, charts, and tables can allow students to focus on important content

and deconstruct wordy problems (Jao, 2012). Providing, “a word bank when asking

students to write,” can be extremely powerful in guiding students to further develop their

use of academic language and content specific vocabulary. To further develop their writing

skills, a math journal can be used to communicate students’ thought processes while it also,

“provides a portfolio of their language and mathematics improvement,” (Hoffert, 2009).

This tool can be an excellent way for students to see their own progress and for teachers to

see where students have grown and how they can further develop.

Differentiation That Works

The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) is, “an approach for teaching

content curriculum to students learning through a new language,” that has been proven to

result in higher levels of student achievement. The “eight components of the SIOP Model of

Instruction,” are as follows: lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible

input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review/assessment

(Chinn, Echevarria, Ratleff, & Richards-Tutor, 2011

A specific element of lesson preparation within the Sheltered Instruction approach,

is that teachers identify, “language and content objectives,” for the ELL students in their

classrooms to assist them in their development of the language while simultaneously

learning the necessary grade-appropriate content. Specifically in the mathematics

classroom, a math journal can be a tremendous resource for targeting language objectives

for particular students. The other techniques discovered in the literature, implementing

Nevin SpinosaADSUP 717

cooperative learning groups (the “interaction” component), simplifying language (the

“comprehensible input” component), and scaffolding through the use of multiple

representation forms (the “strategies” component), all fall under the successful umbrella of

the SIOP model (Chinn, Echevarria, Ratleff, & Richards-Tutor, 2011).

Many of these methods are naturally used in the English Language Arts classroom,

but should be frequently tied into lessons in the other content areas. Margaret Bouchard

(2005) points out that, “since every teacher is ultimately a teacher of language – whether it

is the language of biology, history, math, or art – the content classroom provides numerous

opportunities for teachers to expand the language skills of all learners, including ELLs.”

Infusing the teaching of language within all subject areas throughout the school day is vital

to the success of these students.

While teachers who have received professional development in the implementation

of Sheltered Instruction integrate more components of this acknowledged approach, and

therefore see more significant levels of student achievement on language proficiency

assessments (Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012; Chinn, Echevarria, Ratleff, & Richards-

Tutor, 2011), the regular implementation of these researched strategies by teachers who

have not been formally trained can only result in positive gains for all students in the

classroom, especially those with limited English proficiency.

Nevin SpinosaADSUP 717

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abedi, J. & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. AppliedMeasurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234.

Bouchard, M. (2005). Comprehension strategies for English language learners. New York,NY: Scholastic Inc.

Chinn, V. P., Echevarria, J., Ratleff, P.A. & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Did they get it? The roleof fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6),425-434.

Genzuk, M. (2011). Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) for languageminority students. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research Digital PaperSeries. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research, University of SouthernCalifornia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/DigitalPapers/SDAIE_Genzuk.pdf.

Hoffert, S. B. (2009). Mathematics: the universal language? Mathematics Teacher, 103(2),130-139.

Jao, L. (2012). The multicultural mathematics classroom. Multicultural Education, 19(3),2-10.

Roberts, S. A. (2009). Supporting English language learners’ development of mathematicalliteracy. Democracy & Education, 18(3), 29-36.

Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in Englishlanguage learners through sheltered instruction, TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334-361.