Secondary Migrant and Language Minority Students: Focusing on

Academic Language and Literacy June 8, 2015

Jen Himmel jhimmel@cal.org

Session Objectives

Participants will be able identify characteristics and challenges in educating students from migrant and linguistically diverse backgrounds

Participants will be able to describe examples and the benefits of integrating content and language instruction to improve academic language and literacy outcomes for secondary migrant students

1

Migrant and Minority Language Students Differ According to…

Proficiency in first language literacy

Proficiency in second language literacy

Previous schooling

Entry

Refugee status

2

Types of Migrant-Background and Language Minority Students

Newcomer Students

Newcomer Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE)

Emergent bilinguals

Long-term language learners

3

An Essential Element for Academic Achievement for all Migrant Students…

Academic language and literacy development

4

Academic Language

Definition from ELPD Frameworks http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20BookletFinal%20for%20web.pdf

What is academic language? Registers: Distinguishable patterns of communication based

upon well-established language practices, such as the language used in subject-area classrooms. A “recognizable kind of language” particular to specific functions and situations: a well-known example is “sports announcer talk” (Ferguson, 1983).

Academic registers: Registers of language typically found in formal academic settings (e.g., primary or secondary schools).

5

Academic Language

Definition from ELPD Frameworks http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf

What is academic language? Language demands: The types of language embedded in

and therefore necessary to engage in disciplinary practices or performances.

Discipline-specific language: The language used, orally or in writing, to communicate ideas, concepts, and information or to engage in activities in particular subject areas (e.g., science).

6

Academic Literacy Orientations: Multimodal Literacy

7

Language Visuals Sound Gesture Action Space Math Equations Number

chants Using manip-ulatives

Math stations

Science Laboratory reports

Ringing a bell for clean up from labs

Wafting

Lab space vs. classroom space

Social Studies

Historical narratives; debates

Timelines

Raising hands to agree/ disagree

Group work vs. individual work

English language arts

Literary genres (poem vs. short story vs. novel)

Pictures from stories (backgroundforeground)

Shakes-pearean reading

Gestures to depict characters (e.g., money sign for wealthy person)

Acting out a play; charades

Word problems Models

(solar system, molecules)

Wearing goggles

Library area

“We the people” song (School House Rock)

Thumbs up/ down

Actions with a role play of an historical event

Wright. L. & Duguay, A.L. (2014) Developing Academic Literacy and Language in the Content Areas. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics

Academic Literacy Development

First language literacy

Grade level content

English literacy development (compared to other newcomers)

Literate (full schooling)

Yes Yes

Faster

Literate (partial schooling)

Yes No Average

Students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE)

No No Slower at first

8

Short, D.J. & Boyson, B. (2012) Helping Newcomers Students Succeed in Secondary Schools and Beyond. Washington, DC; Center for Applied Linguistics

Contextualizing the Academic Achievement Demands for SLIFE Students

Students with limited interrupted formal education

What makes education “formal” or “informal”?

9

Education of SLIFE Students: Learning Paradigms

Aspects of learning SLIFE Students US Schools

Conditions Immediate relevance Interdependence

Future relevance Independence

Processes Shared responsibility Oral transmission

Individual accountability Written word

Activities

Pragmatic tasks, repeated practice, modeling, feedback; immediate relevancy

Academic tasks: abstract, decontextualized

10

The difference in expectations from students and teachers can lead to cultural dissonance

DeCapua, A. & Marshall, H.W. (2011) Breaking New Ground: Teaching Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education in U.S. Secondary Schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Barriers to Improving Academic Language and Literacy Outcomes

Lack of common criteria for identifying ELs and tracking their academic performance

Lack of appropriate assessments

Inadequate teacher preparation

Lack of appropriate and flexible program models

Inadequate use of research-based instructional practices

11

Short, D.J. & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the Work: Challenges and Solutions to Acquiring Langue and Academic Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learns-- A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Identifying and Measuring Migrant Student Progress

Competing definitions of migrant student and language development services they should receive

Use of surrogate measures for identifying language minority students

Lack of collection and analysis of student achievement data on both language and content performance

Assessments only conducted in the first language

Use of multiple measures to ascertain literacy development

12

Appropriate and Flexible Programming Newcomer schools or school within a school

Program models that develop both L1 and L2 − Bilingual instruction − Dual language programs

Courses that specifically target the content and academic language development of emergent bilinguals − Content-based second language instruction − Sheltered instruction − Content and language integrated learning (CLIL)

Extended learning opportunities − Extended school year − After-school programs − Sumer programs − Credit recovery

Connections with families and social services

13

Teacher Preparation and Research-Based Instructional Practices

Integration of Content and Language Instruction

14

What is an Integrated Approach to Content and Language Instruction?

In PreK-12 educational settings in the United States, integrated content and language instruction is an approach to schooling used with bilingual and second language learners.

In Europe, it is “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language.” (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010)

It is task-based instruction that includes the assessment of knowledge, skills, and academic language within a particular content.

It is sometimes called sheltered instruction or CLIL.

15

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press. Sherris, A. (2008). Integrated Content and Language Instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Short, D. J. (2002). Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL Journal, 11, 18–24.

What Is Sheltered Instruction?

The goal is to make grade-level content standards and concepts accessible for ELs while they develop and improve their English language proficiency.

It is classroom tasks that foster language and content learning in integrated ways.

Teachers scaffold instruction to aid student comprehension of content topics and objectives by adjusting their speech and instructional tasks and by activating student background knowledge and experiences.

Evolution of Sheltered Instruction

Multiple efforts and approaches enacted over time to better provide English learners with access to core content concepts (language-driven vs content-driven)

Sheltered content instruction is the initial result of ESL and content area teacher collaboration to prevent the watering-down of grade-level content for English learners (Echevarria & Short, 2010)

Pedagogical models that employ principles of sheltered instruction, such as CALLA (Chamot & O’Malley, 1987, 1994) and SDAIE, emerged and laid some foundation for the SIOP Model

Why Should Teachers Shelter or Integrate Content and Language Instruction?

Assists language learners in developing fluency with all four language skills in the context of content concepts that they must acquire as outlined by curriculum standards (Gibbons, 2002).

Research and experience suggest that it is possible to integrate language and content instruction successfully, and that when teachers do, they have a positive impact on student learning.(Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis, 2011)

18

Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP Model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34 (3), 334-351. Gibbons, P. (2009). English Learners, Academic Literacy, and Thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Content Teacher, Language Teacher, or Both?

Content Teacher, Language Teacher, or Both?

Components of Sheltered Instruction

8 components −Lesson Preparation

−Content and language objectives −Building Background −Comprehensible Input −Strategies −Interaction −Practice/Application −Lesson Delivery −Review & Assessment

Echevarria, J., Short, D.E., Vogt, M. (2014) Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Content Objectives

Usually drawn from state standards

Verbs related to knowledge of the content area −E.g., identify, analyze, confirm, construct, graph,

justify, solve, measure, investigate, compare, contrast

Examples: −Students will be able to distinguish plant from

animal cells. −Students will be able to predict a story.

based on the book cover.

Language Objectives

Address the language needed to achieve the content objectives.

Verbs related to listening, speaking, reading, and writing. −E.g., read, write, listen, list, tell, discuss, label,

record, persuade, debate, compose, draft Examples:

−Students will be able to record the parts and functions of a plant cell.

−Students will be able to tell their story predictions to a partner and write prediction paragraphs.

Comprehensible Input Component

Features

Appropriate speech

Clearly explained academic tasks

Use of a variety of instructional techniques

Making content comprehensible

25

Taken with permission from Gosia Stoner, Manatee Public Schools, Florida

Interaction Component Features Frequent opportunities for interaction and

discussion between teacher/student and among students, which encourage elaborated responses about lesson concepts

Grouping configurations support language and content objectives of the lesson

Sufficient wait time for student responses consistently provided

Ample opportunities for students to clarify key concepts with aide, peer, or L1 text

Let’s Do the Math

Teachers talk 80% of the time.

Students talk 20% of the time.

In a one hour period, the teacher talks for 48 minutes and students (as the class) talk for 12 minutes.

If the teacher calls on 30 students one at a time in a one hour period, each student practices academic language for about 24 seconds.

Activities That Promote Interaction

Debates

Talking Chips

Think-Pair-Shares & variations

Jigsaws

Role Play

Inside-Outside Circle

Expo-Center/Gallery walks

To Summarize…

Profile of migrant-background and language minority students greatly varies

No “one size fits” all approach can work

Explicit language and literacy instruction differentiated based on L2 proficiency levels necessary for academic success

29

Thank you!

Questions?

Contact information:

Jennifer Himmel

jhimmel@cal.org

www.cal.org

30